On May 27 2014 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I think some of the problems with a lot of PUA type stuff is
1. A lot of it comes from a pretty misogynistic place. 2. It encourages guys to 'play a role' rather than just improve themselves or find someone who appreciates who they are. 3. It furthers psychological misgivings about courting that are apparently destructive to individuals and society at large.
To be fair not all of it comes from this angle, but more than enough to besmirch the entirety of the subject to the general public.
If someone is trying to 'hook up' with 'lots of' chicks without the intention of pursuing a relationship of value, the guy is pretty much a creep.
Women mostly depend on their looks while for men, it's less about look and more about personality, character, and wealth. Women has the tools of makeup & high heels while most guys will depend heavily on their personality and character to attract someone 'better.' PUA is a guy's makeup. PUA helps guy improve their personality and character. A theme with PUA is to always be better. People might start off not being smooth and confident, but through training and A LOT of practice, naturally they will. It's not fake as they are training to to be who they are in the future.
I really dislike when people say just be yourself and hope you find a match. Why bother trying at all? Why not just be a vegatable then wait for that perfect someone to appear? It's a fantasy dream brought on by media to sell stuff to people who are still dreaming without putting in the effort.
There is nothing creepy about a guy who wants to have sex with a lot of women. Nor is it wrong if a women wants to do the same. Beautiful people have that option by birth. Sex does not need a commitment. It's a mutual understanding by both parties. Only puritan values think otherwise.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
I think that it's a little of both. Sure, you can read up on theory as much as possible, but practice makes perfect. And emulation/repetition is a great form of practice, even if, in the case of dating, the need to repeat can be painful. Your first few relationships probably will not end well, so you learn from those experiences, e.g., what did I do wrong that this girl didn't like me? Maybe you two just didn't have enough in common to form a lasting bond, or maybe you were overly clingy/detached, etc. Hindsight is (sometimes) 20/20, or closer to it, so you need to have to go out and learn from your experiences. Advice from others can be extremely helpful, but it won't stand up to real-life experience.
The whole "Pickup Artist" idea is a bit erroneous, I think. On one hand, it makes sense: what can I do to make myself stand out and seem desirable--but only if you understand how to capitalize on this initial advantage and actually be an attractive person. You can be "yourself" and still take advantage of techniques to make yourself more desirable without putting up a false front. Train yourself to be confident, present yourself well, and your other traits will be more effective.
I'm not exactly familiar with the PUA community, so I don't speak from experience here, but it seems like they're more focused on short-term relationships, that is, attracting a girl for a sexual relationship without regards to actually keeping her, which does require actually "being" the person you're trying to portray yourself as.
Again I'm not saying to get scammed by PUA bootcamps because there are some guys can't get girls for shit but just tries to steal people's money. I personally didn't pay a dime beside electricity bills, internet fee, and the purchase of a laptop in order to learn the right mindset from the PUA community. The general idea of self improvement by PUA shouldn't be called "pathetic". Even for the fake PUA guys that just want to steal money, those guys paying for them is finding comfort and is an act of trying to cure themselves.
Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
Again I'm not saying to get scammed by PUA bootcamps because there are some guys can't get girls for shit but just tries to steal people's money. I personally didn't pay a dime beside electricity bills, internet fee, and the purchase of a laptop in order to learn the right mindset from the PUA community. The general idea of self improvement by PUA shouldn't be called "pathetic". Even for the fake PUA guys that just want to steal money, those guys paying for them is finding comfort and is an act of trying to cure themselves.
Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
Oh no, I wasn't specifically targeting this incident but rather for other people who want to lash out of the world because of their unsuccessful attempt with women to try bettering themselves through any possible means.
Coppermantis + [X]Ken_D gets the gist of it.
And PUA yeah is mostly for short term gains but however those techniques learned from the materials can definitely help you in long term relationship as well. The ability to be spontaneous, fun, making her laugh, having good habits, and getting what you want can directly translate that to become a boyfriend that her girlfriends will be jealous of and to make even better husbands that isn't boring.
But at that point, its all about what is the man looking for.
And there are actually several incident where even if you want to continue relationship with a girl that you've "picked up", the girl won't necessarily agree to that xD. They say that they don't want to have emotional attachment. And there have also been cases where guys who said that they wanted long term relationship in the initial conversation to a girl end up backfiring because all she wants is to have a short fling with the guy but since he wanted to actual date, she was no longer interested. lol
On May 27 2014 12:37 corpuscle wrote: Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
PUA requires a lot of effort on the person to actively learn. It's like joining basketball training camp and halfassing it then sucking and blaming the basketball training. Learning PUA is unlike learning things at school. You can't just memorize then regurgitate it and get good grades. Your test is real life and you will fail a lot. You'll feel embarrassed or sometimes hurt, but if you can go through it and put in the required effort, you'll be better off as you become mentally stronger.
I agree that Rodger's mentality that he was already ideal hurt him. He tried PUA, but obviously didn't put in the required effort. Some guys have to put in more effort than others. We're all different socially and talent-wise. What's odd is that Rodgers in his elementary school days, he trained hard to improved himself at skateboarding and hacky sack to impress his peers. It worked. He stopped improving himself when he saw others were more naturally talented than him at skateboarding. When he saw obstacles to his goals, he just gave up and blame others.
On May 27 2014 12:37 corpuscle wrote: Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
PUA requires a lot of effort on the person to actively learn. It's like joining basketball training camp and halfassing it then sucking and blaming the basketball training. Learning PUA is unlike learning things at school. You can't just memorize then regurgitate it and get good grades. Your test is real life and you will fail a lot. You'll feel embarrassed or sometimes hurt, but if you can go through it and put in the required effort, you'll be better off as you become mentally stronger. .
Aye, this. You can't just assume that "I can do X thing and girls will be all over me." Wearing a nice suit, having money, or being an "alpha male" kind of person isn't going to fix underlying problems, such as, well, insanity. No PUA was ever going to fix this kid. He needed mental help--lots of it, and long ago.
I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Well, nobody knows if this is simply a correlation or if drugs are the actual cause.
It seems so. This paragraph is taken from the article I linked:
"It seems pretty clear that psychiatric drugs played a key role in this killer’s life. Considering this data about Rodgers and the fact that there are 22 drug regulatory agency warnings from five countries and the European Union on psychiatric drugs causing violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, mania and homicidal ideation, and lawmakers still don’t get it… they still think the problem lies in the tool used in the killings?"
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Damn, I only just realized the puahate.com forum was shut down over this. As much as I'd like to say that it's for the better because of the "special" kind of people a community like that attracts it's really awkward to see a community explode over this.
I can think of very few forums that I want to see shut down because one of their members committed a crime. That's just wrong considering I'm not aware of them trying to collectively make people go on killing sprees.
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
Mass shootings are only the most visible (because of media) aspect of gun violence in the US. In reality they make up about 1% of gun violence. Posting a list of mass shootings and saying look how many lives were lost might evoke emotions and make us mourn the dead but it doesn't help us figure anything out.
Well, nobody knows if this is simply a correlation or if drugs are the actual cause.
It seems so. This paragraph is taken from the article I linked:
"It seems pretty clear that psychiatric drugs played a key role in this killer’s life. Considering this data about Rodgers and the fact that there are 22 drug regulatory agency warnings from five countries and the European Union on psychiatric drugs causing violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, mania and homicidal ideation, and lawmakers still don’t get it… they still think the problem lies in the tool used in the killings?"
The point is that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
A mentally defective person will usually get treatment in the form of psychiatric drugs. Does that mean that the person becomes violent because he took the drugs or because he is mentally defective?
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
Mass shootings are only the most visible (because of media) aspect of gun violence in the US. In reality they make up about 1% of gun violence. Posting a list of mass shootings and saying look how many lives were lost might evoke emotions and make us mourn the dead but it doesn't help us figure anything out.
I'm just hoping to highlight that surely something is wrong, if the incident of firearm related homocides is that much higher (see link in my first post) in the US compared to other developed countries. My best guess at the reason why would be the accessibility of guns. But I've never lived in the US, perhaps there is another explanation, or a combination of factors. Love to hear your thoughts on this too.
The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
Guns per hundred people:
Homicide rate
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
The US citizens are basically trading safety for safety: The safety of having a gun to protect yourself vs. the safety of not having gun-related incidents.
The much bigger issue here is that someone that is under therapy and posts alarming stuff on the Internet is able to buy multiple weapons on his own.
I think that treatment of mental health and our criminal justice system is a bigger issue than gun control will ever be. While I support background and mental health checks in order to get a firearm license, no amount of gun control will fix the problem so long as we continue to misdiagnose or ignore serious mental issues and have a justice system that actually encourages recidivism rather than rehabilitation. As long as it continues to be profitable for private prison owners to spit out criminals who will just continue to do crime and get thrown back in jail, we're still going to have a problem with violent crime.
I'm actually more ashamed that this type of event triggers a 20+ page discussion about PUA and other things that pretty much are making me confirm that the majority of gamers are betas who are so pre-occupied with what women think about them and how they view them. Why are you guys even so adamant about discussing how to get women. Stop putting them on a pedestal.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9B52nXp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t6dOHLv.jpg)
