EPThttp://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-12751.html
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-7183.html
The PUA community - Page 139
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
ScienceRob
United States382 Posts
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-12751.html http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-7183.html | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 14 2012 16:42 ScienceRob wrote: I've personally never had any issues with getting women or sex (I think my confidence must be the key) so I haven't really even encountered or heard of this PUA community. This being said, the responses and opinion I found just now in the following thread leads me to believe this community is worthless: You're not making any sense. Care to elaborate? On May 14 2012 16:42 ScienceRob wrote: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-12751.html OP of that thread is right. He just left out the other part: men are weak too. Most people, regardless of their gender, are weak. The fact that most men are betas just wasn't the topic at hand. On May 14 2012 16:42 ScienceRob wrote: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-7183.html The video accurately shows the double standards relating to violence between men and women. | ||
|
squattincassanova
United States650 Posts
The only thing is, all your points apply to certain people with certain skills at certain time points. There is no ONE be all end all advice for everyone. For a newbie, advice might be to talk more and ask less questions. For a guy who likes to blab on and on like me, the advice might be to shut the fuck up and to ask more questions about the girl. Why are we arguing the same shit? Stop theorizing and go out. And whoever said I don't analyze my set is retarded. Just because I work out and go to improv comedy shows, doesn't mean I'm blindly approaching sets. I'm always trying random stuff and analyzing all my sets. Oh, I'm still angry, I could have pulled in Vegas this weekend but I forgot where my car was. Parked on the Wynn side of the garage coming out of XS but took the girl to the Encore side of the garage and the girls left after we spent 15 minutes looking for my car. FML..... logistical fail.... | ||
|
SeXyBaCk
Switzerland174 Posts
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. Yes I was generalising, it's practically impossible to do so when discussion an area of life that affects practically all adult humanity. The whole dating advice industry is based around "one size fits all" blanket concepts and statements (many of which of course contradict each other, and while criticising those I have to result to generalisations myself. The point I was trying to make in regard to attraction was that women periodically assess and are cognitively far more aware of attraction than us men are. I too value personality, but I don't really have an understanding of a woman's personality until I've been with her for a while, gone home, slept on it, let the impression sink in and consider how she fits into my life from this point forward. Women (in general) have more social real-time awareness. I was not saying women always gauge your potential as marriage material or as a provider and protector. Yes women have one night stands, or meaningless relationships. Have you asked the women they've been with about their one-night-stands or meaningless flings? The answer you will get is, oh it just was an alcohol induced accident and there wasn't any attraction, or the attraction was purely physical, in either case women are far more aware of attraction than men are. They were in the moment aware of the level of attraction. And for that reason in order to be attractive to women on a broader scale you have to have something in your locker, you actually have to work on making yourself attractive. This will yield far more results than focusing on communication and conversational topics. I appreciate you finding me entirely too pious Wombat. I am after all a man of God. For all of you saying the points i've raised won't help a beginner diddly-squat, fair enough, I wouldn't know a thing about instructing men on how to exactly improve their social skills. Not my job, hell, I put people to sleep for a living. My sole intention was to raise a little awareness and scepticism about all the available stuff that is out there and outline what might be a more balanced, healthy and realistic way to live live. As for the Roosh V community... whenever I looked in it was nearly exclusively putrid. If anyone is getting laid in that community then they are mercy or rebound lays, ONS to forget. Let's have a look at the "women are weak "author ...he's so detached from being an emotional being he doesn't even enjoy anything remotely feminine. I doubt he enjoys having sex at all, he just feels he needs to get laid as much as possible, must be what real men strive for after all right? Because this douche cannot open up and make any sort of emotional connection with a woman they in return don't make him feel like a man. Damaged goods. Oh and Sunprince, again.. there are endless opportunities to demonstrate your willpower and strength in character in every day life to the people around you. These so called shit-tests only come up when she suspects you're a weakling and it's started to bug the hell out of her and she needs confirmation to either wear the pants herself or up and leave. If you suspect you're a push over...read no more mister nice guy to identify yourself and maybe see a shrink to figure out why you are the way you are. That is how you address a problem not with "here's a slide of shit-test questions and appropriate answers". That's just more bending yourself over backwards to please and submit to what ultimately you think she wants and needs. Also, the topic of dominance feels so misconstrued in PUA. Not one woman i've been with in my life (all western women mind) have wanted me to be dominant over them. They just wanted me to be strong. Possible that the majority of women prefer men to be more dominant in the bedroom but that is just that, the bedroom. Everywhere else my women wanted a guy who can lead and make up his mind and take iniative, at the same time, the guy shouldn't be threatened or undermined by her taking the lead. Where dominance and assertive communication indeed helps is getting people to do things they're undecided upon. But I wonder if that is a technique you want to make use of when it comes to your intimate relations. As a result of course you will attract weak women who don't feel they're worth being with someone they feel completely equal to. | ||
|
ScienceRob
United States382 Posts
On May 14 2012 16:57 sunprince wrote: You're not making any sense. Care to elaborate? OP of that thread is right. He just left out the other part: men are weak too. Most people, regardless of their gender, are weak. The fact that most men are betas just wasn't the topic at hand. The video accurately shows the double standards relating to violence between men and women. You're cherry picking. He did not say men were weak, nor did any response in that thread indicate that. The thrust of his argument was that women, not men, were weak. To suggest he also inferred that men were weak borders on idiocy. Regarding the video, I don't disagree with the video content, there is in fact a double standard. However, the responses following are what I take issue with. The idea that a man who desires equality with women(thus being a feminist) is any less of a man is ridiculous. Some idiots on that forum even went as far as saying that they would never interfer with someone publically beating another person. You can take that community and embrance it yourself, you have that right. I personally am glad I have never been the socially awkward one who needed a community to help me get laid, especially considered the tone I find among many of the posters. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23408 Posts
On May 14 2012 23:45 ScienceRob wrote: You're cherry picking. He did not say men were weak, nor did any response in that thread indicate that. The thrust of his argument was that women, not men, were weak. To suggest he also inferred that men were weak borders on idiocy. Regarding the video, I don't disagree with the video content, there is in fact a double standard. However, the responses following are what I take issue with. The idea that a man who desires equality with women(thus being a feminist) is any less of a man is ridiculous. Some idiots on that forum even went as far as saying that they would never interfer with someone publically beating another person. You can take that community and embrance it yourself, you have that right. I personally am glad I have never been the socially awkward one who needed a community to help me get laid, especially considered the tone I find among many of the posters. The RooshV community you guys linked to, fucking hell so many moronic posts in there. Blows my mind. | ||
|
squattincassanova
United States650 Posts
On May 14 2012 21:04 SeXyBaCk wrote: Yes I was generalising, it's practically impossible to do so when discussion an area of life that affects practically all adult humanity. The whole dating advice industry is based around "one size fits all" blanket concepts and statements (many of which of course contradict each other, and while criticising those I have to result to generalisations myself. Yup. If I flex my biceps and ask a girl if she wants to go to the "Gun Show", I come across as a conceited douche bag. But if a skinny or fat guy does the same thing, its fucking hilarious. More proof that advice is individual dependent. Tactics will not only vary depending on your skill level but also by how you look and how it fits with your overall persona. If you are a tiny mother fucker, you better be overly aggressive. But if you are a 7 feet tall buff black guy who looks like Kimbo Slice.... hardcore direct.... probably not a great idea. | ||
|
squattincassanova
United States650 Posts
*I hate bicyclists - they are assholes on the road *I hate engineers, dated one, they were too controlling *I hate guys who do drugs (I took Molly first time there this weekend) *You think you can just put your hands on my hips like that? I handled them semi okay but jesus fuck... damn Italian girls with their attitudes. Apparently this time of year, everyone in Vegas is from Vancouver BC. Left one. ![[image loading]](http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/129/d772ff26589d413799bb5789f6288b3c/l.jpg) | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 14 2012 23:45 ScienceRob wrote: You're cherry picking. He did not say men were weak, nor did any response in that thread indicate that. The thrust of his argument was that women, not men, were weak. To suggest he also inferred that men were weak borders on idiocy. Try rereading my post, including the part where I said he left that out. The point I'm making is that the seduction community considers most men weak too, even though that thread wasn't about that topic. There's a reason why the term for most men is Average Frustrated Chump or beta. On May 14 2012 23:45 ScienceRob wrote: Regarding the video, I don't disagree with the video content, there is in fact a double standard. However, the responses following are what I take issue with. The idea that a man who desires equality with women(thus being a feminist) is any less of a man is ridiculous. Some idiots on that forum even went as far as saying that they would never interfer with someone publically beating another person. Most people wouldn't interfere with a woman publicly beating a man. Never interfering with anyone at all, and leaving people to resolve their own disputes, is ideologically consistent, as would interfering with everyone. If that offends your White Knight sensibilities, then your'e the sexist one. On May 14 2012 23:45 ScienceRob wrote: You can take that community and embrance it yourself, you have that right. I personally am glad I have never been the socially awkward one who needed a community to help me get laid, especially considered the tone I find among many of the posters. I don't identify with RooshV. But if you don't need anything, why are you here? To reassure yourself of your supposed superiority? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 14 2012 21:04 SeXyBaCk wrote: are endless opportunities to demonstrate your willpower and strength in character in every day life to the people around you. These so called shit-tests only come up when she suspects you're a weakling and it's started to bug the hell out of her and she needs confirmation to either wear the pants herself or up and leave. If you suspect you're a push over...read no more mister nice guy to identify yourself and maybe see a shrink to figure out why you are the way you are. That is how you address a problem not with "here's a slide of shit-test questions and appropriate answers". That's just more bending yourself over backwards to please and submit to what ultimately you think she wants and needs. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Women shit test you more when they know you're strong, because they know you'll respond in a way that they enjoy. A shit test is no different from a woman squeezing your bicep: if she likes your biceps she'll probably do it more often in order to feel your strength. On May 14 2012 21:04 SeXyBaCk wrote: Also, the topic of dominance feels so misconstrued in PUA. Not one woman i've been with in my life (all western women mind) have wanted me to be dominant over them. They just wanted me to be strong. Possible that the majority of women prefer men to be more dominant in the bedroom but that is just that, the bedroom. Everywhere else my women wanted a guy who can lead and make up his mind and take iniative, at the same time, the guy shouldn't be threatened or undermined by her taking the lead. Where dominance and assertive communication indeed helps is getting people to do things they're undecided upon. There's a lot of empirical data that most women are hypergamous and prefer men who will lead them. Dominance is one way that you demonstrate that you have higher status, which her hind brain will interpret as attracive. The fact that the women you were with wanted a guy who can take the lead/initiative only reinforces the point that women prefer dominance. Maybe you don't actually know what the term dominance means in a social science context? You know very little and yet you make authoritative claims using anecdotal evidence. Try doing some research first. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 15 2012 07:20 sunprince wrote: Try rereading my post, including the part where I said he left that out. The point I'm making is that the seduction community considers most men weak too.... The post you guys are talking about wrote: Seems pretty unambiguous to me.[W]omen are weak creatures. They're weaker than men in nearly every way. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9226 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On May 15 2012 10:52 Jockmcplop wrote: its all so.... silly the concepts? no you are just plain closed-minded. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 15 2012 10:42 qrs wrote: Seems pretty unambiguous to me. My points stand. The seduction community generally considers both men and women to be weak, and this isn't contradicted by the fact that some consider women to be weaker than men. Also, that poster neglected to discuss the former, as I've already stated, but you could ask nearly any group of pick-up artists what they think of the average man and you'll find a rather dim view. Regardless, women on average being "weaker" than men is an ugly fact. Even if you disregard the biological effects of androgens, the most politically correct cultural determinists still acknowledge that women are socialized into "weaker" feminine gender roles while men are socialized into "stronger" masculine gender roles. Ignoring this biological/social reality would only lead to incredibly naive errors like handling an upset woman and an upset man in the same way. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14079 Posts
On May 15 2012 11:33 sunprince wrote: My points stand. The seduction community generally considers both men and women to be weak, and this isn't contradicted by the fact that some consider women to be weaker than men. Also, that poster neglected to discuss the former, as I've already stated, but you could ask nearly any group of pick-up artists what they think of the average man and you'll find a rather dim view. Regardless, women on average being "weaker" than men is an ugly fact. Even if you disregard the biological effects of androgens, the most politically correct cultural determinists still acknowledge that women are socialized into "weaker" feminine gender roles while men are socialized into "stronger" masculine gender roles. Ignoring this biological/social reality would only lead to incredibly naive errors like handling an upset woman and an upset man in the same way. Claiming that women are "weaker" than man is pretty retarded. Women are able to handle way much more emotional stress than men. Not to mention the fact that women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Those are ugly facts, unlike your "herpdurp women weak"-propaganda. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On May 15 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote: Claiming that women are "weaker" than man is pretty retarded. Women are able to handle way much more emotional stress than men. Not to mention the fact that women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Those are ugly facts, unlike your "herpdurp women weak"-propaganda. Huh, learned something new today. Got any specific source for that, love to back my argument on the matter with science. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 15 2012 12:13 r.Evo wrote: Women are able to handle way much more emotional stress than men. Not to mention the fact that women have a higher pain tolerance than men. You're either making shit up or have been brainwashed by the politically correct European social science community. Women having a higher pain tolerance is a scientifically debunked myth. Studies also suggest that women are more prone to emotional stress than men, and are much more susceptible to depression and anxiety disorders. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 14 2012 16:57 sunprince wrote: You're not making any sense. Care to elaborate? OP of that thread is right. He just left out the other part: men are weak too. Most people, regardless of their gender, are weak. The fact that most men are betas just wasn't the topic at hand. The video accurately shows the double standards relating to violence between men and women. On May 15 2012 11:33 sunprince wrote: Your posting is nice and literate, which gives you some credibility, but you'd give yourself even more credibility if you'd admit when you make a mistake instead of rationalizing and spinning things to make it look like you've been 100% consistent in what you've been saying all along. IF you'd been arguing that the views of this poster don't represent the views of the "seduction community" at large OR if you'd been saying all along that it's a legitimate position to hold that women are weaker than men, I'd have no problem with your words.My points stand. The seduction community generally considers both men and women to be weak, and this isn't contradicted by the fact that some consider women to be weaker than men. Also, that poster neglected to discuss the former, as I've already stated, but you could ask nearly any group of pick-up artists what they think of the average man and you'll find a rather dim view. Regardless, women on average being "weaker" than men is an ugly fact. Even if you disregard the biological effects of androgens, the most politically correct cultural determinists still acknowledge that women are socialized into "weaker" feminine gender roles while men are socialized into "stronger" masculine gender roles. Ignoring this biological/social reality would only lead to incredibly naive errors like handling an upset woman and an upset man in the same way. HOWEVER, you began by saying Most people, regardless of their gender, are weak. The fact that most men are betas just wasn't the topic at hand. [emphasis mine] The implication of those words, in context (yes, it's not stated explicitly) was that the poster of the rooshv thread would agree that most people are equally weak (and thus susceptible to manipulation). In reality, the entire point of the thread was that women are weaker than men and not the reverse. I admit that you didn't literally contradict yourself at any point. But if you believe that you can convince people that you've honestly been making the same point all along—I think you're fooling yourself more than anyone else. I shouldn't speak for other people, so I'll only speak for myself. I hope I don't offend you, and I don't actually know you, of course, so I admit that I might be wrong. With all that said: my impression of you from your last few posts in this thread is: very smooth, very disingenuous. Which is just about what I'd expect from a self-proclaimed "pickup artist". | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On May 15 2012 13:07 qrs wrote: HOWEVER, you began by saying The implication of those words, in context (yes, it's not stated explicitly) was that the poster of the rooshv thread would agree that most people are equally weak (and thus susceptible to manipulation). In reality, the entire point of the thread was that women are weaker than men and not the reverse. I admit that you didn't literally contradict yourself at any point. But if you believe that you can convince people that you've honestly been making the same point all along—I think you're fooling yourself more than anyone else. I'll concede that I deliberately provided a limited response, though you're mistaken as to the reasons why. My response to ScienceRob was deliberately crafted to elicit more information from him to provide a point of rhetorical attack, because it was readily apparent that he was one of the many self-righteous white knights who came into this thread just to insult the seduction community. The most obvious indication of this was my first sentence to him, which should appear somewhat deliberately dense relative to my apparent literacy. I do insist that that I've been internally consistent, but you're completely correct in noticing that I've provided misleading statements. On May 15 2012 13:07 qrs wrote: I hope I don't offend you, and I don't actually know you, of course, so I admit that I might be wrong. With all that said: my impression of you from your last few posts in this thread is: very smooth, very disingenuous. Very smooth and very disingenuous is precisely how I prefer to be when dealing with trolls. Compliment accepted. On May 15 2012 13:07 qrs wrote: Which is just about what I'd expect from a self-proclaimed "pickup artist". I've never claimed that title. If labels are really necessary, I merely self-identify as an experienced seducer. | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On May 15 2012 13:22 sunprince wrote: I stand corrected about your motivations. I thought you might have only glanced over the rooshv thread the first time, and missed the sentence that explicitly compared men to women. I don't agree with your rhetorical methods myself—I think communication is hard enough when someone tries to say exactly what he means, let alone when he feints as if a debate were some sort of verbal fencing match—but we needn't argue about that: it's pretty far from the thread's topic.I'll concede that I deliberately provided a limited response, though you're mistaken as to the reasons why. My response to ScienceRob was deliberately crafted to elicit more information from him to provide a point of rhetorical attack, because it was readily apparent that he was one of the many self-righteous white knights who came into this thread just to insult the seduction community. The most obvious indication of this was my first sentence to him, which should appear somewhat deliberately dense relative to my apparent literacy. I do insist that that I've been internally consistent, but you're completely correct in noticing that I've provided misleading statements. Internally consistent, externally misleading—sure, I won't deny you that. It's exactly what I accused you of, really, and why I think outsiders (including me) tend to regard the PUA community with suspicion.On May 15 2012 13:07 qrs wrote: Which is just about what I'd expect from a self-proclaimed "pickup artist". I've never claimed that title. | ||
| ||
