Books with life-changing qualities

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Mr Tea., feminism obviously is a whole bunch of different things, but I was responding to the assumption in thread that this nebulous force was somehow responsible for the ills of modern man. It's an assumption that crops up a lot in these discussions, y'know "modern man=NEUTERED BY FEMINAZIS" and I think it's a fallacious load of reactionary bollocks.

Agreed, totally, but comelately said men were confused about how they should act, which is not quite the same thing as being "neutered". On the whole I think sex has probably got better for both men and women since feminism.

And if some men don't know what to do because they're stuck in the past and have a lot of daft outdated sexist ideas, it is of course good that they're confused, because if they weren't it would mean nothing had changed in any substantial way.
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
Agreed, totally, but comelately said men were confused about how they should act, which is not quite the same thing as being "neutered". On the whole I think sex has probably got better for both men and women since feminism.

And if some men don't know what to do because they're stuck in the past and have a lot of daft outdated sexist ideas, it is of course good that they're confused, because if they weren't it would mean nothing had changed in any substantial way.

Yeah, I was aware he didn't say that, I suppose I was parodying the kind of discussion/"critiques" of feminism that I've seen elsewhere. Pre-emptively really, in case wasisface started trotting them out. I agree with you also that sex has probably changed for the better with the advent of feminism. I"m puzzled by any claim to the contrary. If you just focus on one issue - say, reproductive rights - it's pretty clear to me that feminist campaigning has improved the situation immeasurably for both men and women.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Clearer articulation of what I wanted to say earlier.

Clearly there are respect issues within the community, are they really any different to the ones you find everywhere else? Most relationships are not that healthy and a lot of sex is driven by esteem issues and maniplulation.
.

Even if I accepted that as true (which I don't) why then work with a "system" that seems to reproduce the worst aspects of bad relationships rather than something that transcends them?
 

comelately

Wild Horses
Yes they are - the issues are a lot more "intense" as the sole focus is on women as objects to be manipulated so you can fuck them.

Where and if that actually is the case, then yes the issues are more intense. But you're basically putting the worst spin on a pretty ridiculous stereotype.

I could say that "most relationships" at least have the aspiration to something healthy - relationships which are driven by manipulation by definition fall outside this category. category.

Again, massive strawman. Bad apples. Neil Strauss is a bad apple. If you actually read the book, you'll get some idea exactly how not good Mystery is at manipulating people.

I hate discussions about "men's role in the world which transfer male disatifactions and inadequacy back onto women and feminism. IMO, feminims is a boon for men, because it increases the status, respect and political consciousness of our partners. How is that not a good thing?

I absolutely agree on the last part. But the community always seemed moe focused on self-improvement than moaning. I learnt how to help women to squirt and have extended orgasms because of 'the community' and gave quite a few of both.

Golly it's strange that women don't want to get involved in that dialogue. I wonder why ever not?

There are women involved to a point. It's a work in progress. Women know about "The Game" - If 'nice, sweet' guys learn to 'push the initial buttons', most of them are cool with that. What's wrong with that exactly?
 
Last edited:

DannyL

Wild Horses
But you're basically putting the worst spin on a pretty ridiculous stereotype.

But this spin is pretty much caused by my reading about the book - I haven't read it, because I found what I read pretty appalling. Can you explain to me how this stuff is not true? Surely to "manipulate women into fucking you" this is the whole promise and premise of the rules and strategy that Strauss follows?
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
I'd forgotten - the only time I'd got any closer to this sort of thing was reading a website about it, a forum where guys were comparing notes and strategies. It was quite a while ago now, so I can't remember where it was but it precisely conformed the my stereotypes - sexist jerks hunting for trophy sex. If this is not the case, tell me how it is.

There was a review of Strauss's book in one of the UK Broadsheets where it said "This is the story of a love affair... the love affair is of course between the men". This was very much my impression on reading this site - they seemed to be trying to screw women as much to impress each other/ego than for any inherent pleasure in the act, or relating to a women.
 
Last edited:

swears

preppy-kei
Look, if you're not as cool and handsome as Fred Durst, then you're never going to sleep with all these women, book or no book.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
Even if I accepted that as true (which I don't) why then work with a "system" that seems to reproduce the worst aspects of bad relationships rather than something that transcends them?

What would that be? A lot of people in the community are into reading David Deida "Way of the Superior Man" and stuff like that, there is interest in 'enlightened relationships' though ideas what constitutes such a relationship would no doubt differ. Find a 'pick-up' torrent site and it's full of yoga videos. But often we're talking about people who have not had a relationship, or maybe, like me at the time, they've been in a relationship for a while and don't necessarily want another one right away.

The thing about the book is that it's written from the POV of Neil Strauss. Neil Strauss is a complete douchebag and probably a massive liar. He apparently actually struggles to approach women and currently has a reputation for picking up where other 'mPUAS' have left off. He is your stereotype I guess. But look, he was a fucking press whore in LA - he's not a fair stereotype of anyone. Most of the characters in the book went on to have basically normal relationships, just not Neil.

Even though you will see some bizarre talk on forums, I think this is mostly bravado and an inability to find the right language to express things - I really think that it rarely truly represents the true feelings of the speaker. As others have suggested, the game has moved on and although there will always be silly guys with silly lines that pull silly girls, it's about a lot of other stuff now. There is broham/bromance obviously, nothing wrong with that.

What it comes down to, I suppose, is that one man's manipulation is another man's influence is another man's seducation is another man's suggestion is another man's coercion is another man's leading. Also, to what extent does awareness that one is playing a game entail a duty to not play it? What if the woman knows she is playing a game? What if she wants to play? What if she wants, in effect, to be manipulated?

To answer the bit about Strauss' strategy. The answer is you are right if you have 'manipulative material' to take you all the way through the 'M3 model' and you somehow actually do this. I just don't believe many people do this, or have done it. I think it's probably much more accurate and reflective to say that such an approach was used to get girls to give them a proper shot.

Just as a final point - just because some guy brags about a shag, doesn't mean he didn't enjoy it at the time or that he's not desperately hoping the girl replies to those two texts he sent because he actually really liked her.

Edit: I just realised I made a mistake in an earler post where I said Strauss couldn't actually manipulate people very well - I meant Mystery.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
What it comes down to, I suppose, is that one man's manipulation is another man's influence is another man's seducation is another man's suggestion is another man's coercion is another man's leading.

one man's mysogynistic bullshit is another man's creepy mindgames is another man's unwelcome pressure is another man's predatory tactics is another man's childish nonsense is another man's pitiful justifications for grotesque behavior.

Also, to what extent does awareness that one is playing a game entail a duty to not play it? What if the woman knows she is playing a game? What if she wants to play? What if she wants, in effect, to be manipulated?

I dunno, certainly, yunno, a basic respect for people you're trying to sleep with is probably a decent baseline to start from. what qualifies you, exactly, to decide that a woman "wants, in effect, to be manipulated"? she said no, but in effect she meant yes.

Just as a final point - just because some guy brags about a shag, doesn't mean he didn't enjoy it at the time or that he's not desperately hoping the girl replies to those two texts he sent because he actually really liked her.

no, it's just means there's like a 99% he's a jerk:rolleyes:. jesus christ, grow up...

& more generally - dude, are you for real? tho of course I was glad to hear of your prowess at "giving longer orgasms" & "teaching women to squirt". it's quite coincidental as I actually invented to a new form of orgasm where women shoot laser beams out of their eyes when they cum.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
she said no, but in effect she meant yes.

I agree that the book and this whole culture - the guy keeps saying 'community' which really makes me laugh, makes them sound like Rotarians or Scientologists or something - sounds a lot like an instruction manual in how to be a sleazy prick...but that's not (necessarily) the same thing as being a rapist. (Which, for one thing, presumably obviates the need for any kind of 'seduction' technique at all.)
 

Tentative Andy

I'm in the Meal Deal
Umm, would it be appropriate to mention here that my former tutor's new novel is based around this sort of thing?

41b7DizspPL._SL500_AA240_.jpg


*giant plug drops from ceiling*
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
That's really funny. Who said anything about no meaning yes? Laser beams? Grow up you say?

glad you enjoyed it mate. of course anyone feels the need to go on a message board & brag about his orgasm-giving prowess & his romps at exclusive sex clubs with hot foreigners is to be taken at face value.

your whole line is one vast, utterly creepy slippery slope, beginning with the premise of objectifying women as objects which are to be pursued & captured, rather than as people. I also find your references to a "community" to be laughable, or perhaps sad as it's merely another example of how meaningless the word "community" has become.

and you're goddamn right grow up. perhaps if more dudes in your "community" could act like adults they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of loathsome nonsense to engage with women.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I agree that the book and this whole culture - the guy keeps saying 'community' which really makes me laugh, makes them sound like Rotarians or Scientologists or something - sounds a lot like an instruction manual in how to be a sleazy prick...but that's not (necessarily) the same thing as being a rapist. (Which, for one thing, presumably obviates the need for any kind of 'seduction' technique at all.)

you're right but:

Being a sleazy prick, or in this case inculcating an entire culture of being a sleazy prick, is rather conducive to sexual assault or harassment or just to treating women like shite. That's not to say that everyone in this "community" is a predator - I'm sure there are indeed some guys in there with genuine social issues. Rather that any culture that dehumanizes people makes it easier to mistreat them & furthermore that this culture, with its emphasis on manipulation, on closing the deal & adding notches to your belt, is practically guaranteed to foster an environment where sexual assault, or at least shitty behavior, is more likely.

Also why should we have to suffer sleazy pricks without calling them out for what they are?
 

comelately

Wild Horses
glad you enjoyed it mate. of course anyone feels the need to go on a message board & brag about his orgasm-giving prowess & his romps at exclusive sex clubs with hot foreigners is to be taken at face value.

You assume it was bragging but I was simply making a point about self-improvement. If you want to think that I'm bullshitting then that's fine but most women will take 'he's really good in bed' over 'he defends the honour of womankind on messageboards'.

We got into the sex club because my ladyfriend's parents are members.

your whole line is one vast, utterly creepy slippery slope,

Argument by assertion, slippery slope metaphor completely clumsy and misleading in this context. Go fuck yourself basically.

The idea that *everyone else* is living in some kind of relationship Aqe of Aquarius is hilarious and the concept that 'pick-up artists' are somehow dragging the world down is massively overprivileging how people actually live and think in the world today. PUAs didn't invent nightclubs or celebrity culture - they just live in that world, some with a very low degree of alienation which to a certain extent even disturbs me. But I don't jump from a slightly icky feeling in the stomach to making all sorts of ridiculous assertions.

beginning with the premise of objectifying women as objects which are to be pursued & captured, rather than as people.

No. And fuck you. There's something much more complex going on, but you're cleary incapable of acting sensibly so what's the point?

I also find your references to a "community" to be laughable, or perhaps sad as it's merely another example of how meaningless the word "community" has become.

Or maybe if you keep using terms like 'creepy' and 'sad', you might feel better about yourself. Or not, as is actually more likely.

perhaps if more dudes in your "community" could act like adults they wouldn't need to resort to this sort of loathsome nonsense to engage with women.

I think that's largely what happens anyway, and that's the point.
 

comelately

Wild Horses
I'm sure there are indeed some guys in there with genuine social issues.

There are also guys who like pulling and thus choose to party with guys who are also quite focused on this aspect of clubbing. Is that a social issue? Or just a preference? When did you guys turn so conservative? Was Leicester Square full of shamanic dance spaces prior to 2003?

Not one of you would dare make similar comments about gay nightclubs.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
I think people are a bit confused rather than conservative. "We" (speechmarks to indicate we're not all coming from the same place) have only heard of the concept of "pick up artists" through an awareness of Strauss's book - and as you said yourself he's a douchebag and a liar. Most of us have no contact or awareness of the "pick-up community" - beyond me, I think (as I said, this thread reminded me that I'd read a discussion a few years ago that confirmed my preconceptions).

You're in effect saying, you're right in your assumptions (re. Strauss) but there is a "community" out there (which isn't named or linked to) that is in some sense "progressive", for want of a better word, or at least not full of arseholes like Strauss. Anything positive about this body of of techniques is referred to this community which none of us have seen. I'm not saying this isn't true, but I find it easier to believe in internet communities full of creepy sexist jerks due to well, shit always rolls downhill and it would seem to take a lot of energy to create something a bit more interesting.

I'll reply to your other points later.
 
Last edited:
Top