Hatred of PUAs? Why?

Recommended Videos

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
Aelinsaar said:
Let me see if I have this right...

-It's easier for women to find someone for sex than it is for guys
-Men want to have sex more.
-Women don't have a "physical need" for sex, like men.
-Women go weeks without masturbating, compared to men.
-It's hard for MOST men to seduce women.

That's... a LOT that I think most men and women wouldn't agree with. I'm sure that there are plenty of boys and girls who believe that, and doubtless some very shy and lonely adults, but mostly that would appear to be views you've developed based on...

...What exactly?

3 ex-girlfriends and about a dozen one-night stands. :p Also I never said women don't have a 'physical need', but rather that they lack the physical urge that necessitates release in whatever shape or form. I dated women who loved sex but never masturbated and who were also oblivious to the fact how much men desired them(not just physical but also emotional, espescially emotional). Not their fault ofcourse, but it made me more observant about our differences in perception.

Like I said, it takes much more 'triggers' to get women in the mood than men. Because the immediate urge is a lot less there needs to be some kind of emotional and psychological stimulation as well, which is what a lot of men don't understand b/c we don't experience it that way. This difference in perception is why this PUA-crap is so popular, b/c it attempts to 'demistify' women in a way guys understand.

One can say that's totally crap, but like I said if such a little thing helps some guys to be more confident around women, than that's better than sitting at home fuming on the internet.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
thaluikhain said:
stroopwafel said:
So, PUA is like this 'controversial' dating advice right? Other than the mass potential for scamming desperate guys from their money I don't see anything wrong with it.
Well, apart from the controversy being that PUAs preach behaviour that is manipulative or outright abusive. To the extent that noted PUA lecturer got deported from Australia and not allowed into the UK either. IIRC, he was big on going to Japan and walking the streets, grabbing random women and pushing their heads into his crotch or somesuch.
Yeah, I read about that a while ago as well. Obviously that guy is a total piece of shit who deserves a good slapping. But ofcourse there are more pathetic excuses for a man like those who beat and/or abuse their wife and never even heard of the term 'PUA'. From what I understand the douchebag you mentioned is mostly just a scammer trying to put up an act for gullible morons to give him money.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,646
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Ah, ok then.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised myself at why the hatred towards them is so intense. Not that they don't deserve it, but they seem little different from lots of people who've not adopted the PUA label but do much the same thing. Maybe they are more blatant?
I agree. Like wingmen, etc. Personally I just think it's kind of pathetic. Then again, I'm not really big into the whole vanilla penetration stuff and I know plenty of guys that aren't big into penetration. More whips, pvc, leather, humiliation, hooks, electrodes, wax, and more. Totally normal guys on the surface until you see their bedroom. Assuming they live with their partner(s).

Personally it seems like a waste of time to have sex with someone you don't feel, at least at the time, that you want to get to know them. The brain is the biggest sex organ in the body. If you can't stimulate that then you're not going to be very interesting company in bed. It's kind of pathetic if all you have is two-bit psychology tricks that tend to only work on a few individuals lacking self-esteem, or drugged to incapacitation.

It's almost like they're a disease that aggravates a pre-existing condition.

Most of the people I sleep with? Well, guys or girls they're interesting people. Their brains are sexy. If they have a way of comporting themselves in a manner that is mentally stimulating, then they'll be physically enticing. That doesn't mean they need to be brainy, or some obvious professional. They just need to have ... how to say it? Like an interesting brain. They know how to engage.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
Aelinsaar said:
Now don't make me set you on a cup of coffee and leave you for hungry Dutch. ;)

By all means, you get the coffee and I'll treat you to the most delicious cake you ever tasted. All in good company ofcourse. ;)
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
I find it pretty telling that many of the people that believe that PUA tactics work also believe in things like the "friendzone". Such a concept indicates to me a dissatisfaction with having female friends, as if an attractive female wanting to be friends with the guy is somehow a bad thing??? But the thing is, the easiest way to get laid is by having... female friends! And frequent interaction with them too. It also means that the guy has a better understanding of how women may behave differently to men (on average), and empathy is pretty much one of the most essential things for a relationship. Hell, even a one-night-stand would be made infinitely better if the guy actually gave a shit about the woman (and vice versa).

You know how I have a girlfriend? Because I'm actually nice to people. And not the fedora version of "nice" either, I genuinely care about people. I have never had to use even the slightest bit of coercion, and I'm a super awkward individual that has an appearance that doesn't exactly scream "mainstream appeal".

stroopwafel said:
Getting back to the point its hard for many to most men to 'seduce' women.
Why does seduction necessarily have to be a part of the process? What's wrong with finding someone that just "clicks" with you and letting a sexual relationship develop naturally?
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
I find it pretty telling that many of the people that believe that PUA tactics work also believe in things like the "friendzone". Such a concept indicates to me a dissatisfaction with having female friends, as if an attractive female wanting to be friends with the guy is somehow a bad thing??? But the thing is, the easiest way to get laid is by having... female friends! And frequent interaction with them too. It also means that the guy has a better understanding of how women may behave differently to men (on average), and empathy is pretty much one of the most essential things for a relationship. Hell, even a one-night-stand would be made infinitely better if the guy actually gave a shit about the woman (and vice versa).

You know how I have a girlfriend? Because I'm actually nice to people. And not the fedora version of "nice" either, I genuinely care about people. I have never had to use even the slightest bit of coercion, and I'm a super awkward individual that has an appearance that doesn't exactly scream "mainstream appeal".

stroopwafel said:
Getting back to the point its hard for many to most men to 'seduce' women.
Why does seduction necessarily have to be a part of the process? What's wrong with finding someone that just "clicks" with you and letting a sexual relationship develop naturally?
C'mon, you and I both know that's not how the concept of the friendzone works. It's not about having female friends as a dissatisfaction, it's mostly just putting a word to caring about someone that doesn't care about you to the same degree. It used to just be called the zone, but that wasn't acceptable for a variety of reasons(including the people that normally make stinks about words), and so the friend part was added. And don't be silly and assume it's only guys that are a part of that. Just as most of the people in here assume that all PUAs/people that take PUA classes are guys. Really close-minded thought process there.

Personally I've never really had it happen to me, but I apparently did put a buddy of mine there unconsciously. And that's honestly what most of it is, unconsciously locking yourself off from someone as a romantic partner, and using it, it's more a rage against life and putting a word to being overly shy/afraid of rejection in most cases. We've got alot of people that just don't interact in the same way nowadays, the internet's made it easier(or worsened the problem depending on how you look at it), but there's always been hermits and outcasts.

And believe it or not, most PUA starters are about at the very least, feigning empathy and learning tells. You feign something enough, and chances are you'll actually get it for real. Honestly can't see much wrong with PUAs beyond how some of them are like the douche everyone likes bringing up because he's probably one of the only ones they actually know about(imagine that). Some people they may harm, but I really can't have too much sympathy for the people that frequent most of the places PUAs go to, because it's normally where people go to hook up in the first place for the most part and hooking up is sorta what they learn to do.

You wanna know how I got a girlfriend? Because we've known each other since we were kids and screwed around together until we realized we liked each other as more than friends, and I can tell you honestly, I'm not the most polite guy, I'm nice because sometimes it's easier and gets me through what I need to do faster, but most of the time, I just drop it and just try not to bother anyone in a way that inconveniences me. So being nice honestly doesn't help or hinder alot of the time. It's a nice enough thought, but it's not really good advice to just say "be nice", because that's how the fedora nice joke you just spouted and the friendzone being looked so down upon came about, a bunch of people telling others to just "be nice" and they'll get someone that cares about them the same way. And life is not that easy or straight-forward.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,156
0
0
Boy did you hit a wasp nest with that one OP.

What PUA are realistically is instruction course womanizers, where others had to go out and cut their teeth on trial and error these guys take a seminar where the information is compiled.
Why do people hate them so much? God the list of reasons is just endless, but the core of it is people are afraid of sex, and someone methodically openly practising how to get more sex is just the most heinous social criminal you can be.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
Aelinsaar said:
stroopwafel said:
Aelinsaar said:
Now don't make me set you on a cup of coffee and leave you for hungry Dutch. ;)

By all means, you get the coffee and I'll treat you to the most delicious cake you ever tasted. All in good company ofcourse. ;)
Of course! So, are you Dutch, or just a fan of stroopwafels?
Heheh both. ;)

I grew up with a Dutch friend, and his mother used actually make them... so good. I've been buying them ever since to have with coffee.
Yeah, they are so nice with coffee! That's pretty cool your friend's mom made them herself. I buy them in a store and they are good, but nothing beats homemade! Though I imagine if you live abroad in due time you start to miss some of your native cuisine. I bought caramel waffles elsewhere but just..not the same. :p
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
Aelinsaar said:
Redryhno said:
DizzyChuggernaut said:
I find it pretty telling that many of the people that believe that PUA tactics work also believe in things like the "friendzone". Such a concept indicates to me a dissatisfaction with having female friends, as if an attractive female wanting to be friends with the guy is somehow a bad thing??? But the thing is, the easiest way to get laid is by having... female friends! And frequent interaction with them too. It also means that the guy has a better understanding of how women may behave differently to men (on average), and empathy is pretty much one of the most essential things for a relationship. Hell, even a one-night-stand would be made infinitely better if the guy actually gave a shit about the woman (and vice versa).

You know how I have a girlfriend? Because I'm actually nice to people. And not the fedora version of "nice" either, I genuinely care about people. I have never had to use even the slightest bit of coercion, and I'm a super awkward individual that has an appearance that doesn't exactly scream "mainstream appeal".

stroopwafel said:
Getting back to the point its hard for many to most men to 'seduce' women.
Why does seduction necessarily have to be a part of the process? What's wrong with finding someone that just "clicks" with you and letting a sexual relationship develop naturally?
C'mon, you and I both know that's not how the concept of the friendzone works. It's not about having female friends as a dissatisfaction, it's mostly just putting a word to caring about someone that doesn't care about you to the same degree.
Basically it's just the perspective of a creep/stalker from the perspective of the creep/stalker. I've never actually seen anyone "friendzoned" who was actually anyone's FRIEND. Usually they try to use that as an excuse to hang around, or do shit in the hope of somehow making her feel in debt; Or him... this shit isn't just male->female.

@Stroopwafel: I hear you, one of the many great food traditions that have come over from your neck of the woods.
Did....did you really just ignore everything else in that post and come up with your own definition of what I was saying? I said there's more to it than that and much like PUA, people refuse to do research into something beyond what they're told or even talk with their friends about it. Because believe it or not, if you have gay or friends of the opposite sex, there's probably at least one that only hung around because they liked you as a potential partner and not just as a buddy. But you are somewhat right, it's not a male-specific mindset/thing/etc., and I'd wish people would actually stop thinking that guys are the sole root of alot of the world's problems.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
20,140
4,507
118
stroopwafel said:
Yeah, I read about that a while ago as well. Obviously that guy is a total piece of shit who deserves a good slapping. But ofcourse there are more pathetic excuses for a man like those who beat and/or abuse their wife and never even heard of the term 'PUA'.
Sure, and when one of them becomes a prominent spokesman for an organisation, that organisation will hopefully be condemned sd well.

Unless he's a famous entertainer, of course.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Redryhno said:
C'mon, you and I both know that's not how the concept of the friendzone works. It's not about having female friends as a dissatisfaction, it's mostly just putting a word to caring about someone that doesn't care about you to the same degree.
There's a term for that, "unrequited love". It sucks but you have to deal with it. The word "friendzone" places blame on the man/woman that didn't reciprocate their feelings, which is messed up. If you really wanted to work for a company that you didn't qualify for or weren't currently hiring, and they decided not to hire you or even arrange an interview for you, you have not been "unemploymentzoned". Instead of endlessly dwelling on the fact that you couldn't get that particular job, you should move on.

The "friendzone" idea is an "all-or-nothing" one, because being declined a romantic relationship and being offered friendship is seen as the ultimate failure. Often said "rejected" people will stop being as friendly as they were now that the possibility of a relationship is gone, which indicates a lack of care and respect for the individual they fawned over in the first place.

And don't be silly and assume it's only guys that are a part of that. Just as most of the people in here assume that all PUAs/people that take PUA classes are guys. Really close-minded thought process there.
I'm sorry that I specifically used one combination of genders in my example, I thought it'd be pretty obvious to anyone that "being friendzoned" is not unique to one gender or another. I will say though, that it's often boys that complain the loudest about it. Probably because society does pressure men into "making the first move".

And believe it or not, most PUA starters are about at the very least, feigning empathy and learning tells. You feign something enough, and chances are you'll actually get it for real. Honestly can't see much wrong with PUAs beyond how some of them are like the douche everyone likes bringing up because he's probably one of the only ones they actually know about(imagine that). Some people they may harm, but I really can't have too much sympathy for the people that frequent most of the places PUAs go to, because it's normally where people go to hook up in the first place for the most part and hooking up is sorta what they learn to do.
The problem I have with PUAs is that what they're doing is essentially the same as street solicitation. You find a "potential customer" in public that you'd like to "sell" to, and coerce them into buying your product. Only PUAs can be even worse as they might even wander into stalker territory, ignoring rejection and instead calling it "being hard-to-get". Why not encourage learning basic social etiquette rather than trying to learn how to coerce someone?

You wanna know how I got a girlfriend? Because we've known each other since we were kids and screwed around together until we realized we liked each other as more than friends, and I can tell you honestly, I'm not the most polite guy, I'm nice because sometimes it's easier and gets me through what I need to do faster, but most of the time, I just drop it and just try not to bother anyone in a way that inconveniences me. So being nice honestly doesn't help or hinder alot of the time. It's a nice enough thought, but it's not really good advice to just say "be nice", because that's how the fedora nice joke you just spouted and the friendzone being looked so down upon came about, a bunch of people telling others to just "be nice" and they'll get someone that cares about them the same way. And life is not that easy or straight-forward.
"Being nice" means different things to different people. My idea of "being nice" is basic politeness and consideration, the kind that you'd expect others to offer to you. Being supportive of your friends, giving advice, that sorta thing. That's what I consider to be "being nice".

Many of the self-proclaimed "nice guys" that make up the fedora stereotype confuse "consideration" with "chivalry", or go to unreasonable lengths to show how much of a "gentleman" they are. The basic difference between the two is that the "correct" way of being nice is meant to benefit others, while the "nice guy" way of being nice is meant to benefit themselves. It can be hard to tell the difference, I understand that. But generally one should be nice to encourage a friendly environment and trust rather than to be the means to an end. This ties in to the "friendzone" thing, often people that have been "friendzoned" will stop treating the person they're interested in as well as they used to when they thought they had "a chance" with them, which indicates a lack of sincerity with the friendly gestures in the first place.

To clarify, it's not necessarily about being a goody-two-shoes that tries their best to make everyone happy, it's mostly about being the kind of person people would like to hang around with.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
There is a double standard (as with most things gender related) and I can't stand people who manipulate others for any reason. As an honest person, I am most comfortable around other honest people.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,737
0
0
Here's the thing.

I'm not against people who go around looking to "pick up a chick for a one-night-stand". However, the term "pick up artist" has significant negative connotations beyond that.

A lot of pick up artists do (And teach others to do) things like trying to subtly keep undermining their "mark"'s confidence with shit like Negging (which seem like compliments, but they're veiled insults), and just in general trying to get laid by reducing a woman's confidence rather than just relying on their own confidence to get a girl to sleep with them.

Also, a lot of these kinds of people realize that it won't work on women with good levels of confidence, so they go after women who they find out have serious insecurities or are otherwise not at their A-Game in terms of self-esteem, and then they just bamboozle their way into getting laid, often causing tragic emotional damage to already emotionally damaged women.

Sooo...Because of those negative connotations which keep coming up all the time, I can't stand Pick Up Artists. It's also why Spike Spencer (I think his name is), opened up that dating seminar I attended last summer at a convention with "I am not a pick up artist. I am not going to teach you to get laid whenever you want. If that's what you're looking for, I can't help you. What I CAN teach you is how to become a better, more confident man, which will make you more attractive and a better person overall". I got some VERY good life advice out of that guy.

Anyway, on another note, reading some of these comments has confirmed to me that I'm a bit more on the asexual side of the spectrum. I don't have "crazy urges to have sex" as a man. Yeah, ok, it's hard to resist a bit of "personal time" when I'm waking up in the morning, but I don't have overpowering urges, nor do hot women have me salivating and losing my mind. So the argument that "Women just be wearing makeup to seduce men" thing just doesn't make sense to me, personally. *shrug* Well, whatever. That all sounds highly distracting anyway (And as someone with ADD, I have enough distractions already, thanks), so I don't feel like I'm missing out. Still, it explains why I seem to differ from the typical male stereotype a lot.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
DizzyChuggernaut said:
One problem, unrequited love is something slightly different. You say it doesn't place blame on the other in that form, but exactly how is someone knowingly not returning your love somehow not blaming them in another way? At least the "zone" can have some unconscious connotations in addition to blaming oneself to "staying as friends" with someone too long that you no longer can be seen as a romantic partner(though it could very much be the case that you weren't ever seen in any form as that to begin with).

and the solicitation bit, you are aware all they're doing is a slightly more aggressive form of dating folks do right? You put yourself out there, hope for the someone to take a piece of you home with you enough that they want to actually go out in public with you again, and bada bing, bada boom, you're dating! You can argue that they have some tendencies to not understand what to do when their toys don't work and such don't respond as well to that, but most of them also know that "playing hard to get" normally means "not worth the time it takes to get what I want".

Here's the thing though on being nice, yes it means different things to different people, and you telling those people to learn social etiquette is like...who was it that said "the poor should just work harder and get more money"? Because that's sorta the equivalence we're talking about, not everyone has the social etiquette or people that can teach them that, and you and I having it, it's easy to say "they just need to learn". But they don't, and giving non-advice like that doesn't really help at all. Because it's not just about being someone wants to hang around, it's you being comfortable while doing that as well.

captcha: how are you...Doing fine...thanks captcha, please get your cameras out of my bathroom please, nobody needs to see what me and my roommates do in there.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
The only way wearing make-up could be considered deceptive is if women told you they were not going to wear it and then did, and even then, who cares. That's kinda like saying that wearing contacts is deceiving you into believing that person can see, in both cases, it aint about you.

And PUA's are generally hated because they're pretty creepy. They internalise some pretty harmful ideas about women, relationships and sex. It's not good.
They see relationships, and even hookups as basically adversarial, which is not a good thing.
And cause a lot of them are skeevy.
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
First and foremost, because it doesn't work. At best, you will just embarrass yourself.

It is, usually, a guy who learns and uses methods to manipulate female psyche to achieve his goals (usually sex with said female).
Exactly what others have said. The "manipulation" part. It's creepy. Yes, I know how PUAs feel about the word "creep" and that's exactly why I chose it, because I think it needs to be said. You don't "manipulate" someone into sex, and if it actually does somehow work then the only reason it did is because she considered you interesting or attractive enough to see past the creepiness or (more likely) she's trashy . If you're trying to "manipulate" someone into sex it shows a clear lack of respect.

blackrave said:
What is make-up, fake nails/hair/eyelashes, push-up bras, shape improving lingerie, high heels, revealing clothes, etc., if NOT manipulation of male psyche.
Heaven forbid someone want to look nice because they enjoy looking nice and not for sex. No one has ever said men can't do the same thing, ie, improve their appearance to make themselves more sexually appealing (or, you know, because you want to look better for its own sake). Putting on make-up (for women) or going to the gym (for men) is a pretty far cry from fondling someone in order to break down her "token resistance".

But let's go a bit deeper into your reference to "the male psyche". Reason 2 I dislike PUAs is the idea that my weak male brain responds only to sexual urges. At its core, it's misandrist.

And feminine flirting methods aren't something people shun or hate.
PUAs aren't flirting, and there are no "flirting methods". Flirting is just something you do when you have some fun talking to someone of the opposite sex, not an active and calculated effort to manipulate someone into doing your bidding.

Other reasons:

Evolutionary psychology of the sort PUAs use is just bullshit. While evolutionary psychology is important in psychological research, it's for questions like "Why are some people genetically predisposed to have arachnophobia", not for saying things like "Women are worse at math because men did the hunting" or "Women don't like/need sex because men are the ones that need to spread their seed." There is no validity to these claims, they are pseudoscience of the most ridiculous kind.

Actually, I'm just going to generalize that to most if not all of it being bullshit. It doesn't work, and will never work.

It turns sex into a target or goal and puts it on a pedestal as something you need to be actively working towards, which is setting you up for massive disappointment. Sex isn't a goal, it's something that just happens between two people, sometimes when you're not even done with middle school and sometimes not until you're well into your 20s or even later. The more effort you spend trying to get it, the more you'll just end up beating yourself up for not having it yet and the more disappointed you'll be when you do start having sex and realize it's not the massively huge deal you worked it up to be in your mind.

The adversarial outlook on sex is just not a healthy way to be going through life.

Finally, some PUA authors have been known to target individuals with autism spectrum disorders when what such people really need is therapeutic intervention, which is just low. They're playing on how seriously depressed some people with ASDs become over their difficulties with having social lives, they're setting them up for further disappointment when these "techniques" inevitably fail. Also, because taken as literally as some people with ASDs take things many of these "techniques" are basically indistinguishable from sexual assault, it puts young people on the spectrum at risk of serious disciplinary penalties when their "target" decides to report the PUA's increasingly aggressive and insistent attempts to get into her pants, which will make learning how to function socially even more difficult.
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Feb 26, 2014
802
8
13
Country
Nederland
So your argument is: women are doing it too, therefore we can manipulate them as well. Uhuh? This is both an unsubstantiated generalisation as well as an ad hominem to quoque. There is no reason to assume that all women or even most women dress up and put on make-up with the specific intention of manipulating men and even if there was, women being manipulative doesn't justify anyone else being manipulative.

Furthermore, if you give people reasons to have sex with you, such as you looking pretty, it isn't manipulative. Just like a price-cut isn't a way of manipulating me into buying something, it's just a way of convincing me by making it a better deal. And again, that is even going with the assumption, that I don't buy into that women only or even mostly put on make-up to have a better chance of getting laid.

So yeah, nothing about this argument makes any sense at all.
 

StatusNil

New member
Oct 5, 2014
534
0
0
I can't help but find the whole moral panic about the PUAs a little bizarre, what with things like the Australian government refusing to grant entry to that one guy who was going there to market his masculine wiles (as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong) for example. More than slightly infantilizing towards adult women to take such measures to protect them, don't you think, and from what? Are these guys some kind of magicians? It's like something out of the 19th Century: "A notorious seducer at large, the Delicate Flower of Womanhood under the wickedest of threats!"

Sure, their shtick can get tawdry, but the difference to routine interactions is still a matter of degree. People are manipulative. We're better off acknowledging that.
 

Dizchu

...brutal
Sep 23, 2014
1,277
0
0
Redryhno said:
and the solicitation bit, you are aware all they're doing is a slightly more aggressive form of dating folks do right? You put yourself out there, hope for the someone to take a piece of you home with you enough that they want to actually go out in public with you again, and bada bing, bada boom, you're dating! You can argue that they have some tendencies to not understand what to do when their toys don't work and such don't respond as well to that, but most of them also know that "playing hard to get" normally means "not worth the time it takes to get what I want".
There's "putting yourself out there" and "getting up in someone's grill". If you frequent bars and clubs and end up chatting to attractive people, that's not the same as intruding on them and using coercive tactics to get them interested in you. And dating? Isn't dating usually an agreement? You agree to meet at location X at a specific date?

Here's the thing though on being nice, yes it means different things to different people, and you telling those people to learn social etiquette is like...who was it that said "the poor should just work harder and get more money"? Because that's sorta the equivalence we're talking about, not everyone has the social etiquette or people that can teach them that, and you and I having it, it's easy to say "they just need to learn". But they don't, and giving non-advice like that doesn't really help at all. Because it's not just about being someone wants to hang around, it's you being comfortable while doing that as well.
You learn social etiquette by interacting with different groups of people, listening to people when they express concerns about your actions and by doing some self-reflection. I was an asshole in high school, I was the same kind of desperate "nice guy" that we all mock. Then I went to uni, actually talked to people and hung out with them, had a fresh start. I can safely say that I am orders of magnitude better than I was five years ago. It's not easy for someone that's usually very reclusive, but I managed it.

If I was still the asshole I was when I was in school though? I doubt anyone would really like me and I'm glad that I improved as a person. This is the kind of self-reflection I see many "nice guys" lack, to them the problem is with everyone else. It's with those douchebag guys that all the popular girls fall for. But all of their experience with social interaction has come from films and TV shows, not real life. This is why they exhibit such clichéd chivalric attitudes, they literally think that women want a white knight.

Yeah I know, people are hard to read for some people (myself included). But the best way of learning how to interact with people is by interacting with people, not using pop culture as the guidebook. The same pop culture that brought us the term "friendzone" in the first place.

aegix drakan said:
Anyway, on another note, reading some of these comments has confirmed to me that I'm a bit more on the asexual side of the spectrum. I don't have "crazy urges to have sex" as a man. Yeah, ok, it's hard to resist a bit of "personal time" when I'm waking up in the morning, but I don't have overpowering urges, nor do hot women have me salivating and losing my mind.
You don't necessarily have to lean towards asexuality if that's the case. Society pressures men to be hypersexual and popularly, people believe that men have these ridiculously high sex drives (which women lack). It's the reason why people get so up in arms about female modesty (for an extreme example, see the enforcement of the niqāb in the Middle-East). In reality, everyone responds to sexual urges differently. The fact that people can get off without needing another person is pretty much a way to circumvent the biological urge to have sex. I wouldn't say you're unusual at all in that respect.
 

DevilWithaHalo

New member
Mar 22, 2011
625
0
0
bartholen said:
Point me to a video where a woman is actively harassing men, forcing herself on them, using their insecurities against them to make herself seem more appealing and then teaching other women how to do that as a positive thing and then get back to me.
Maybe not so much a video... but...
http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/it-happened-to-me-i-was-a-female-pick-up-artist
http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi/female-puas.html
http://www.seductionlist.com/category/pua-blog/women/ (heres a whole list)
http://femalepickupartist.blogspot.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2440031/Arden-Leigh-teaches-female-pick-artist.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/fPUA

I also typed in Female PUA and Female dating advice on youtube and got about a million hits.

It is specifically what you asked for? No. But then I'd be agreeing with your narrowly specific take on PUA's. Which I don't. You're assuming a great deal on intent on both the teacher, the student and their methods and intention. You might as well say all education is hookum because a single Christian Science teacher informs one class of students that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Everyone is going to have advice. Everyone is going to be slightly manipulative. It can be funny... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7PAYhmoKkA and it can be weird... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBtF3I7fDfU and some of it is pretty niche... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um23f8GcYSo

So yah. We all want to be good at the game. Some of us learn how to play it a little better. And none of us like to feel we've been cheated at it.