The PUA community - Page 138

On May 13 2012 05:02 bonedriven wrote:
I was watching Radiohead's live performance on youtube and suddenly got this question:

If you do a survey to all the women in the world that are not fans of radiohead, ask them if they have a chance to have sex with thom yorke or a handsome body builder, which one would they choose (No offence to RH fans, I myself is a big fan of RH). I think it's obvious that most would choose the super handsome body builder.

If you can be a person like thom yorke, or you can easily be a body builder (hopefully you are not extremely ugly), which would you like to be?

On May 13 2012 05:46 Xiphos wrote:


Generally if you have a pretty face, you don't need to have a solid body. Those who forgo for that muscular build are compensating for that fact.

On May 12 2012 16:40 SeXyBaCk wrote:
So what you're saying is there really is something called sense of humour? People really have it? Sheesh, I would have never known. Sigh. I wasn't aware I was posting to a bunch of autistic little boys here.

On May 12 2012 16:40 SeXyBaCk wrote:
My point was that if you're comfortable enough in your own skin and possess apt social skills you needn't worry about what to answer to some playful question. You just play along. Whatever, it's really not important.

On May 12 2012 16:40 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Yes, I do see how my answer completely misses the point in regard to build orders, then again I wasn't aware I was discussing a video game. I guess I got a little confuddled there eh? ... on the other hand... I don't think comparing social interaction to a video game really works. Why? Well, being good at video games and being a social butterfly is rather mutually exclusive. So come again? What does this have to do with starcraft build orders? Is what you're saying I can't be an attractive guy without going through your little neg-push-pull-attraction-qualify-seduction routine? Maybe that is what you're saying, in which case all I have for you is a *facepalm*. n any case I think you need to load up another map and start over explaining your point, but try to do it without mentioning build orders this time.

On May 12 2012 16:40 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Look, what I was saying was... don't get caught up over details of a single conversation. By the time you have time to analyse it, it's long gone, let it go. Go out, have fun, do exciting stuff, be someone, do what Squat does, go to comedy classes if you really lack any sense of humour, that's actually doing something right? Analysing tidbits of a conversation in real time or hindsight is simply neurotic. What's more it's UNMANLY. Real men don't worry about shittests. In PUA terms "that's beta behaviour". Learn to let stuff go. It's a fragment in time, you're a great guy, she's flirting with you, proceed. There's no right or wrong answer. If you're sweating over this the problem is you don't have enough experience in human interactions, if this is the case, don't sit at home tryng to think of an answer, go out and be around people. You can't learn to communicate without communicating.

On May 12 2012 16:40 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Then again, if you're desperate for tail I suppose you have do what you have to do to get laid right? That's not what I'm about though. What's making you cry bullshit moralist blabla here is your own conscience bemoaning your lack of backbone, not my comments. Try and come to terms with that. I hope you enjoyed the quotes, feel free to quote me liberally in future.

On May 13 2012 06:32 Mango Chicken wrote:


Ohh, one at a time ladies!

On May 13 2012 10:22 Xiphos wrote:


Woah, who the fuck is that?

On May 13 2012 10:31 Mango Chicken wrote:


Look at the post I quoted - was taking the piss out of the fact that the guy was saying that if you have a pretty face like Thom Yorke you wouldn't need a solid body.

On May 13 2012 10:36 Xiphos wrote:


That's the guy? I thought he would be much better looking.

On May 13 2012 08:05 sunprince wrote:
Well, duh. The problem is, not everyone is comfortable in their own skin and possesses apt social skills. Y'know, like the guy who was asking for help? The TL;Dr for all your posts can basically be summed up as "be yourself", which is completely worthless for someone who needs help.

On May 13 2012 08:05 sunprince wrote:
Are you really incapable of understanding analogies? Let me explain this in case you really are just slow or have trouble with English. You're telling people not to worry about shit tests because thinking too hard about it will trip them up, and that they should instead just do whatever they feel like. That's shitty advice. Yes, it's possible that thinking too hard about something might trip up a beginner, but the whole point of trying to improve is to study and practice until you become the person who naturally handles them correctly. Sure, maybe you're at the point where doing whatever you want works, but beginners need concrete advice like build orders, not to be told they should do whatever.

Is the concept of reflecting and learning really that alien to you?

On May 13 2012 08:05 sunprince wrote:
All you've done in this thread is try to show off how much better you are than others, while I've been trying to help people improve themselves. It's pretty obvious who the insecure guy without a backbone is.

On May 12 2012 21:23 SeXyBaCk wrote:
We can agree on that engaging in any social activity will make you more social. We've all had that experience when we didn't feel like going to ski/tennis camp, our parents told us we were going and that's that, in the end we had a blast and made lots of new friends. So sure, going out to nightclubs, even if the sole purpose is to sarge, will make you more sociable. I question whether PUA is the best way for antisocial, lonely guys to find happiness, indeed. It's akin to fixing something that's dysfunctional with sticky tape. Core emotional issues about not feeling loved, not feeling attractive, issues with your parents, emotional aloofness, sexual anxiety, needyness, passsive aggression etc etc etc aren't going to get fixed by taking someone home from a bar. You're just postponing a breakdown and covering up your problems. Finally you might meet someone you like and said feelings might even be reciprocated. Are you then going to unload all your emotional garbage on the person you care for, who fell for you because they thought you were cool and settled and so smooth the evening you met? That's shitty. Salvage your own emotional health before it messes up someone else's just because they liked you. That is the mature way to do it.

I do understand that you don't care for any of the above, when all you want is to get laid. But there are plenty of ex PUA all over the net talking about their experiences, maybe you should look them up a little too. It's not all just rosy. You will find the majority of ex PUA felt they spent years trying to apply bandaid in order to heal a fracture and to no surprise they never quite felt okay or complete.

Yeah, improve your lifestyle over "studying material" and reading books, any day of the day for me. Who do I think will actually profit the most from PUA? Shy guys, who are otherwise settled and successful and just have a hard time walking up to a woman and striking up a conversation or tell their woman what it is they exactly want from them. Everyone else is better served trying to first figure out what their issues are, if any.

If you believe creepy is just an arbitrary line in my head you've most likely already crossed that line. A Woman's creep-detector is way more sensitive than a guys. Especially attractive women that dress to kill and are often approached. Their creep dectactors are honed.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-12370.html not creepy?

And I can tell you something else that is creepy, that german dude two posts above me.

Telling someone how to respond to a specific shit-test is not improving them. It's just deflecting them from dealing with their own insecurities and those of their date. And it is also just a couple of nerdy guys overanalysing an interaction that is in the past and has no or if any very little bearing on the future. Hence a waste of time. It's not relationship advice either. I appreciate my mindset is different to some of you, we're all different and that is positive in itself. The main point I've been trying to make all along is being good with women and being comfortable with how/who you are is down to mindset, attitude and actual experience. Any advice or guidance touching on those I endorse. I am SexyBack and I endorse this message.

On May 13 2012 10:43 FeUerFlieGe wrote:

He looked a little better when he was younger. I think that the fact he is Thom Yorke and he is the lead singer in one the greatest bands of the 90s and 00s is enough to get any woman interested no matter the looks.

On May 12 2012 18:16 SeXyBaCk wrote:
One final point... I feel that how the initial attraction works that women either feel or don't feel for you is often misunderstood by men. For us guys, the biggest attraction factor are undeniably the physical attributes of a female. After that it's "is she making herself available to me or not?".

For women, past the initial check they do of "appealing to the eye: yes/no", attraction to females is anticipation. What is this guy doing for me right now? Is he making me laugh have a good time? What is he going to do for me tonight? Show romantic interest, open up to me, keep me on my toes, make a good impression with my friends, want to take me somewhere else? And "what is he going to do for me/to me tomorrow, next week"? Women gauge potential, always. That is the core element of attraction to them, the potential they see in you. Women think way ahead of men beyond the moment they are in. Potential is what makes a woman decide if she want a guy or not.

On May 14 2012 06:09 bonedriven wrote:


That's for a serious relationship. If you ask them to have a one night stand, they'd go for a body builder.

On May 14 2012 06:15 Kojak21 wrote:


Not true. if the girl knew he was in a famous band im sure she would pick him instead. also depends if she likes the music haha

On May 14 2012 06:09 Wombat_NI wrote:

I don't really get why you're so disparaging about ALL PUA, when you come out with generalisations like this that read similarly to the Mystery Method's flawed use of evolutionary psychology.

Not all guys are as shallow as you make out. Of course looks are important, but for me I genuinely do value somebody's personality over and above that. I may be atypical in thinking this, as I tend to dislike most people I come across maybe I'm more discerning in this regard.

Women do not 'always' gauge potential, some girls are looking for a good time in the short term, be it a month-long fling or a one night-stand or whatever.

Annoyingly enough I agree with a ton of what you say, you just for my money say it in too pious a fashion.

For myself, I really only know of certain PUA theories anecdotally, via friends who have used it to great effect in their own lives. I personally dislike a lot of the routines, I fucking hate cold-approaching people and I think a lot of the scientific framework is mistaking correlation for causality.

However, there are useful things to be had from it, if you use things to augment your natural way of acting. For example I'm a very sarcastic, cynical type of person in my humour, so 'negging' dovetails neatly with that. And works, for me!

If nothing else, theories of attraction are interesting enough even if you don't intend to 'abuse' them to read up on them.

On May 13 2012 17:23 SeXyBaCk wrote:
What is indeed alien to me is the notion that a skill can be acquired through reading ebooks, taking e-courses and reading message boards. You want to learn to play tennis? Get ninendo tennis and then get your friends to tell you about it? No, you go out and play tennis, preferably with people that are better than you, sure pay for a coach if you want to, but main thing is you practice the actual skill. It's no different when it comes to social interactions. My life experience has taught me there's only so much instruction that is useful before I need to do something on my own, preferably under supervision. You think Obama learnt to publically speak like that off an e-course? But yeah, I'm giving shitty advice. I'm not telling him what to answer word for word.

On May 13 2012 17:23 SeXyBaCk wrote:
These so-called shit-test is actually women being insecure about your relationship to one another. If you are a straight-forward man that evokes trust and confidence in women you will find out you won't have to deal with these tricky little questions. So again, don't worry about the shit-tests, worry about how you become someone who evokes confidence and trust in women. How? Well for one, you don't talk bull. You do what you say. You say something, you mean it, you do it.

On May 13 2012 17:23 SeXyBaCk wrote:
You're too indoctrinated by all this PUA crap to see the wood for all the trees mate. You can't help someone live their life. You can only give them directions down a better path (there's more than one path). They have to want to go out and do the leg work. Telling someone how to respond to a specific shit-test is not improving them. It's just deflecting them from dealing with their own insecurities and those of their date. And it is also just a couple of nerdy guys overanalysing an interaction that is in the past and has no or if any very little bearing on the future. Hence a waste of time. It's not relationship advice either. I appreciate my mindset is different to some of you, we're all different and that is positive in itself. The main point I've been trying to make all along is being good with women and being comfortable with how/who you are is down to mindset, attitude and actual experience.