Excuse me while I vomit.- Trigger Warning for Rape and Rape Culture.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I would like to change the definition of the term. 

Why?

I don't have a particular reason.  Do you have any good alternatives?

I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.

I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.

There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?

To me Single and Looking doesn't equal "Looking for a sexual conquest" as much as "looking for a potential companion".

PUA (rapey or Don Juany) seem focused on the bag 'em and tag 'em mindset.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

PUA (rapey or Don Juany) seem focused on the bag 'em and tag 'em mindset.

And that is the irredeemable root cause of the problem.

Humans are not deer.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I would like to change the definition of the term. 

Why?

I don't have a particular reason.  Do you have any good alternatives?

I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.

I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.

There already is a label. "Single and looking". Or did someone go and change up the everything on me again?

That's more of a status than a label, I think.

1. Unconscious Incompetence
2. Conscious Incompetence
3. Conscious Competence
4. Unconscious Competence

What are you talking about?

skill levels. levels of mastery for any given skill.

Viewing looking for a companion, etc, as a skill implies that it is a regular activity.

At best, that is an empty lifestyle.

And there is no need for skill.  Be yourself.  Be pleasant.  Show some interest in the other person.

That's really all there is to it.

[Placid Dingo]

LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)

I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.

Rat made some good points about deception.

There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.

In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.

What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'

Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.

Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?


Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is a difficult and interesting thread to me.
I think desexualizing the teen (mostly but not only male) culture would do wonders for reducing rape and it's damage.
The whole "you're not a real man if you've never had sex" or "sex is more important than enjoying each other's company" ideas that insecure gits ram into each others heads day after day cannot be healthy.

Let's fix the problem by ADDING MORE REPRESSION!

[Freeky]

LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)

I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.

Rat made some good points about deception.

There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.

In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.

What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'

Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.

Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?

Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.

I beg your pardon? "Millionaire astronauts?" So if I'm reading you right, women only want to sleep with men who are rich and have stupidly unattainable jobs, so guys have to lie to get them into bed, and it's a woman's fault if she OS stupid enough to believe whatever retarded ducking lie pops out of his fucking mouth, and it isn't the Guy's fault he has to lie because uppity fucking broads refuse to sleep with normal dudes because they're snooty and have a high opinion of themselves.

You wanna try again, Cochise? You fucking prick.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.

We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that.  Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving.  If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.

He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone.  Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.

That's not PUA, of course.  He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on.  He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:  Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.

But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.

Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.

Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.

It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.

I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.

I think you are confusing the individuals with the culture. PUA philosophy and culture are conducive to rape. People who self-identify as PUA are people who support a philosophy and culture which is proto-rapist; the philosophy behind it is the cesspool from which rape arises.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

IS there a difference between the following victims:

Victim A was robbed at gunpoint and forced to empty their bank account.
Victim B wanted to make some fast money on investments and handed a wad of cash over to Bernie Madoff.

Bernie manipulated Victim B, giving them what they wanted, and ripped them off with their consent. The other thief used a gun and forced the person.

Is manipulation for sex, rape?

Let me expand that, is manipulating a situation by 'giving a person what they want' (emotionally/psychologically) in order to get into their pants, rape? Manipulation is a tool almost everyone uses, consciously or unconsciously, to get what they want. Is that rapey?

On the one hand, I might say yes, rape drugs subvert the free will of the individual, alcohol induced 'passed the fuck out' subverts the free will of the individual. NLP and/or other psychologically manipulative trickery subvert the free will of the individual.

On the other hand, maybe no... giving a person some date rape drug that knocks them the fuck out, is one thing. Trying to convince someone, or manipulate someone into wanting to get laid seems like something else. Dehumanizing, yes. Shitty, yes. But rapey? I dunno. Can a person's free will really be subverted through some hokey psych 101?

I suppose one important question would be how the woman feels. If she's drugged and fucked, I think we can all agree she's going to feel horrible, violated and well,  raped. If someone convinces her that a one night stand is just what she needs (and if she enjoys it and has a good time physically), then maybe she won't feel violated or raped... maybe she'll feel like she had a good romp. On the other hand, maybe she'll feel manipulated thinking about it later. So it may boil down to that 'later' feeling. Was the manipulation so great that she will feel violated, or was the manipulation just enough that she chose to make a bad decision? (and does bad decision = rape?)

No means no, anything other than Yes means no. It seems to be tricky territory, though, to say "Yes means no, if the guy convinced her that it was a good idea at the time".

Not defending PUA's, I figure they're con artists for sex, basically, which brings us back to the Madoff metaphor...

I'm going to give you a much more typical scenario:

You're out with a guy and have a few drinks, and then he walks you back to your apartment. You let him in "for a minute" even though you really need to go to bed, and you make out a little bit, and you say "I'm really tired, I need to go to sleep". He keeps kissing you, starts fondling you, and you keep protesting but he's just not listening and you start to freak out internally... if you make a scene, will he hurt you? You try saying no a few more times, but he's just that much more insistent, overriding your protests. Eventually you decide that it's probably easiest and safest to just let him fuck you so that he'll go away without hurting you.

PUA walks our fifteen minutes later, feeling smug about his conquest. He overrode your protests; he talked you into it, just like he was trained to do. He has a success story to share with the community.

How do you feel? Did you just get raped?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't know. At the very least you were manipulated by an asshole.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That always sounded like a good way to get a face full of drink to me.


A fair bit of what they do is legitimately emotionally abusive - negging for example. "Here, let me undermine your self confidence as a human being so I can score."
And then there's the forcing the kiss, which is sexual assault and leads to the idea that coercing women into sexual contact is totally okay.

Not to mention the doctrine that a PUA keeps on moving from woman to woman until he finds one these techniques works on, and the women it works on are women with self-esteem and boundary issues; damaged women who are continuing the cycle of their own damage by submitting to dehumanizing tactics.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

All you need to do is spell it out:  "Pick up artist".

There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing.  It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".

If you're out looking to get laid, fine.

How do you speak these two sentences in a row?  Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner.  Such people do exist.  Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.

And people choose to have sex with others for a variety of reasons.  Either healthy or not.  Having sex because you enjoy it and because you want to is probably among the healthiest reasons.  I'm concerned with how the woman leaves the affair.  No damage or better for it. That's what is ideal.  Furthermore, you can have sex with someone for all the right reasons and throw their identity into question causing them to ask hard questions of themselves.  Is this your fault if they have baggage they need to deal with before they can have healthy sexual relationships and you didn't realize it?  How you handle it is what it matters.

If you're out looking for a companion, great.  If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.

And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter.  And the methodology in the subculture is vile.

No one is talking about defending what you think a pickup artist is.  If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong.  A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.

Oh, are we playing the "redefining things in a way that differs from consensus in order to suit our idea of what the world should be if it were perfect" game?

[Placid Dingo]

And if you ask often enough, SOMEONE is eventually going to say yes, and you'll get your rocks off without having to be a shitneck about it.

We had this ugly little bastard at Ft Drum that would do exactly that.  Hit the bar, ask every girl in the place for some loving.  If the girl wasn't interested, he'd just move on to the next.

He never went home alone, and in fact usually left early with someone.  Being bold & forthright about things can pay off, as soon as you find someone that's there for the exact same reason you are there.

That's not PUA, of course.  He employed no "tricks". He would sit next to a girl, strike up a conversation, and then flat out ask if she wanted to go somewhere and get her nasty on.  He had learned, you see, that bit of knowledge that evades the PUA-tards:  Women like sex, too, and tricks are not required.

But PUA tards are not capable of seeing that, because they view women as conquests to attain, not human beings with the same drives as any other human being.

Actually that's incorrect. I read one of those "pick up guides" over a decade ago, and one of the first things it said was if you want to pick up women, you need to get out there, try often and not be afraid to fail often. There was even a story in it about a guy with pretty much that same "technique". The other thing it said was indeed that women like sex too, and everybody wants to have a good time. Soon after that it started with the fake psychology and bullshit stories and "tricks" and all that. I never really bought into those. But I dunno, I guess I'm just good at taking the right parts with a bucket of salt and sifting out the actual bits of good info (actually pretty easy: it's the parts you actually can believe) cause believe it or not, at the time it taught me a few useful things, mostly about confidence and basic social skills. Which is also why I kind of take offence to TEXAS FAIRIES saying earlier that all PUA-types are proto-rapists.

Since it's already established that guys who get out there and talk to a lot of women in a no-bullshit fashion, with the intent that sooner or later one will agree to sex, aren't PUA's, I'm not sure what you're "kind of taking offense" at.

It's not that tricky. The idea that all PUA types want to rape women is ridiculous.

I mean, there's a lot wrong with that culture. But to me it seems obviously hyperbolic to suggest all PUA types are would be rapists.

I think you are confusing the individuals with the culture. PUA philosophy and culture are conducive to rape. People who self-identify as PUA are people who support a philosophy and culture which is proto-rapist; the philosophy behind it is the cesspool from which rape arises.

Ok I can accept that depiction.

I'm not confusing them I'm drawing a distinction. I dint think men get into this stuff wanting to rape. I can accept what you say about the culture. But I'm saying I disagree that men get into it wanting to rape.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You don't seem to be grasping the nuance, here.  The two statements you quoted are not contradictory.  There is a difference in values between them.

I quoted the wrong sentences. But your point stands that there's nothing wrong with trying to get laid, but doing it for validation is not the best reason.

I am using the definition as currently used in society.  The definition used by the self-identified PUAs, such as the scumbag "Mystery".  In short, I am using the common definition of the word.  If you want to change the definition of the word to try to validate it, then there's really not much I can say.

I would like to change the definition of the term.  Otherwise, what would you call the kind of person i've been describing as the ideal kind of pickup artist?

Why? What is the benefit of that? The words mean what they mean. Why not just use another convenient word that already means what it means? Meanings may shift over time with culture shifts and consensus shifts, but it's not easy or likely to be something you can force. Sort of like I mentioned upthread; you can decide that "vagina" really means "armpit", but you're still going to get funny looks when you talk about vagina deodorant.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I would like to change the definition of the term. 

Why?

I don't have a particular reason.  Do you have any good alternatives?

I'm just wondering why a label is required for some person who's just out looking for a companion, etc.

I mean, when I was single, I was looking around, but I felt no need for a label like PUA.

I have a label for that. I call it "being single and available".

[Placid Dingo]

LMNO was pretty right but I'm talkIng about the men not the material. I only know what was said in The Game but I'm not familiar with anything since. The most unpleasant things I recall we're negging and basically sulking until she gives in and fucks you. Now, they're both pathetic but in a legal sense, I'm really really not convinced they're rape. I'm not about to try to say they're ethical though (they're not.)

I think most men who jump into it are guys who just want to know how to get laid and have no confidence or social skills. I think by far the majority want to be desired, not to force a woman into something she doesn't want.

Rat made some good points about deception.

There is a law in America I believe which outlines 'Rape by Deception.' I think specifically it refers to passing yourself off as another (real) person.

In Aus there was a test case "I'll have sex with you in you send me red roses (it was like, 100 or something). No roses, and pretty certain courts said no rape.

What do you think of the Assange case? Conscent IF a condom is worn followed by a rapid 'oops it magically fell off.'

Really, if every man who wasn't actually a wealthy playboy astronaught the morning after was a rapist, the rape statistics would be unfuckingimaginable.

Also are we all talking about Consent at a legal level? Or just in the common use of the word? Is there a difference?

Also as far as the 'skill' thing goes, I agree with Blackfoot just in that social skills are just that, 'skills.' Talking to people I don't intuitively click with (small town, have to do that a fair bit, can't just make friends with people like me cos they're pretty limited) so I've had to learn how to do the social thing.

I beg your pardon? "Millionaire astronauts?" So if I'm reading you right, women only want to sleep with men who are rich and have stupidly unattainable jobs, so guys have to lie to get them into bed, and it's a woman's fault if she OS stupid enough to believe whatever retarded ducking lie pops out of his fucking mouth, and it isn't the Guy's fault he has to lie because uppity fucking broads refuse to sleep with normal dudes because they're snooty and have a high opinion of themselves.

You wanna try again, Cochise? You fucking prick.

Youre NOT reading me right.

Millionaire astronauts was a flippant way of saying that if we called every man (or woman for that matter) who's misrepresented themselves to try to get laid, a rapists, we'd have nearly as many rapists as people. And a shallow definition of rape.

I made mention of it because there was a discussion about rape through deception and I was running through some thoughts on the topic.