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

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

As a matter of fact, the guys I've known who were most successful with women (in the sense of getting almost whoever they wanted) weren't anything approaching PUA's, and they loved women. I mean, they enjoyed female company and listened when women talked. They looked out for women. Poly as hell, but they loved every one of them.

[Pope Lecherous]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

[Juana]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.

At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.

HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)

THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.

THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Let's try it from this angle, shall we?

Non-rapey, non-proto-rapey guy goes about his normal business. He hopes to get laid but does not employ "techniques". Talks casually to everybody about whatever is going on. Some of these people are women. Some of these women seem to be sending signals that YES THEY WOULDN'T MIND FUCKING THIS GUY. Guy asks for phone numbers and often gets them. If he doesn't, NO HARM DONE HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. Guy calls a few days later. Hangs out, talks. Kissing and stuff at some point and then "Hey you want to mess around?" or something of that nature. By then, it usually happens. If not, NO HARM DONE, HE DIDN'T FUCK THEM. And guess what? He doesn't stop talking to them if he can't get his dick wet after all (or if he does), BECAUSE HE SAW THEM AS PEOPLE TO BEGIN WITH.

Is not a "billionaire astronaut". Has not misrepresented his job or income.

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". Might have LOTS of girlfriends, if that's what he's into, if not, he has no problem getting a regular girlfriend. Being "great with women" requires actually LIKING them. We can tell.

DOES NOT EMPLOY CREEPY PROTO-RAPEY PUA TECHNIQUES.

Yea.  What's wrong with that?  This can happen in the course of one night as well without forcing someone out of their comfort zone.  If you took two guys who were roughly equivalent financially and in the looks department, but one of them couldn't hold his own in the conversation and the other had the eye of all the women and the respect of the dudes as well does this make him a bad guy?  Of course not.  If he could accomplish this easily in most social situations does this make him wrong? It's a skill he has.  That's why i brought up the levels of mastery.

I don't know if you were asking a question or 

Having good social skills is not the same thing as buying into the pick-up artist MO. Why do you keep trying to equate them?

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Nigel: has way more patience than I do.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag. You may not want to believe that because you find that pushing past the boundaries a woman sets with you has succeeded for you in the sense of getting you laid, but any issues there are yours, not hers. In fact, the opposite is true; if you succeed in pushing past a woman's boundaries and it results in a relationship, you are 100% guaranteed to be in a relationship with someone who has boundary issues, because people who enter relationships with people who trample their boundaries are people with problems.

A woman with a healthy sense of self and boundaries is observing closely to see whether her boundaries are being respected. If they are not respected, she will move on quickly. The PUA curriculum labels these women "no fun" or declares that they "have issues". This assessment, again, is incorrect.

I strongly suspect that you are parroting some PUA psychobabble you've picked up somewhere along the line. It's bullshit, and it will eventually cause you problems if it isn't already.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel: has way more patience than I do.

I'm not so much spelling it out for him, but for other readers of this thread who might be in danger of drinking the PUA kool-aid.

[Pope Lecherous]

You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.

What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns.  Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears.  Who decides what is legitimate?  Ultimately she will (in my world).  It's the same as what's happening right now.  You are trying to make me understand what you think is true.  With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true.  If they don't see it that way, fine.  That doesn't make you wrong or me wrong.

You may not want to believe that because you find that pushing past the boundaries a woman sets with you has succeeded for you in the sense of getting you laid, but any issues there are yours, not hers. In fact, the opposite is true; if you succeed in pushing past a woman's boundaries and it results in a relationship, you are 100% guaranteed to be in a relationship with someone who has boundary issues, because people who enter relationships with people who trample their boundaries are people with problems.

A woman with a healthy sense of self and boundaries is observing closely to see whether her boundaries are being respected. If they are not respected, she will move on quickly. The PUA curriculum labels these women "no fun" or declares that they "have issues". This assessment, again, is incorrect.

I posted earlier that her having issues is only one reason she may not be interested.  She may simply not be interested in me or what i have to offer.  I'm fine with that.  If she has a reason, that's cool.  If she has decided against it as some sort of policy, that's kind of dumb to me in the sense that it's unnecessary because i'm not trying to fuck her over but the rule may serve her/protect her well, and that's cool.

I strongly suspect that you are parroting some PUA psychobabble you've picked up somewhere along the line. It's bullshit, and it will eventually cause you problems if it isn't already.

I'm not.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Nigel: has way more patience than I do.

I'm not so much spelling it out for him, but for other readers of this thread who might be in danger of drinking the PUA kool-aid.

Good move.

I tend to think of PD in terms of the more active members, who don't seem to need this. Sometimes I forget the others.

Anyway, he IS good "example material". 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.

What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns.  Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears.  Who decides what is legitimate?  Ultimately she will (in my world).  It's the same as what's happening right now.  You are trying to make me understand what you think is true.  With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true.

"Shown" how? By continuing to talk shit?

[Pope Lecherous]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.

At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.

HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)

THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.

THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.

It's Pope Lecherous.

Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman.  I don't endorse deceit.  I don't endorse hurting others.  I don't endorse using techniques that employ either.  Be outraged. 

[Pope Lecherous]

You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.

What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns.  Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears.  Who decides what is legitimate?  Ultimately she will (in my world).  It's the same as what's happening right now.  You are trying to make me understand what you think is true.  With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true.

"Shown" how? By continuing to talk shit?

I don't tell shit.  What is it that you think i believe that you have a problem with? This should be funny.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You are incorrect. Bypassing/ignoring someone's objections is inherently disrespectful, and is always a red flag.

What i'm talking about is addressing and/or alleviating concerns.  Not bypassing/ignoring legitimate fears.  Who decides what is legitimate?  Ultimately she will (in my world).  It's the same as what's happening right now.  You are trying to make me understand what you think is true.  With women, they can be shown that what you have to offer is good and true.  If they don't see it that way, fine.  That doesn't make you wrong or me wrong.

You may not want to believe that because you find that pushing past the boundaries a woman sets with you has succeeded for you in the sense of getting you laid, but any issues there are yours, not hers. In fact, the opposite is true; if you succeed in pushing past a woman's boundaries and it results in a relationship, you are 100% guaranteed to be in a relationship with someone who has boundary issues, because people who enter relationships with people who trample their boundaries are people with problems.

A woman with a healthy sense of self and boundaries is observing closely to see whether her boundaries are being respected. If they are not respected, she will move on quickly. The PUA curriculum labels these women "no fun" or declares that they "have issues". This assessment, again, is incorrect.

I posted earlier that her having issues is only one reason she may not be interested.  She may simply not be interested in me or what i have to offer.  I'm fine with that.  If she has a reason, that's cool.  If she has decided against it as some sort of policy, that's kind of dumb to me in the sense that it's unnecessary because i'm not trying to fuck her over but the rule may serve her/protect her well, and that's cool.

I strongly suspect that you are parroting some PUA psychobabble you've picked up somewhere along the line. It's bullshit, and it will eventually cause you problems if it isn't already.

I'm not.

You're moving the goalposts, and saying you didn't say what you said. I am talking about pushing past/ignoring boundaries being disrespectful and a red flag. Do you disagree with that, or not?

You can't talk someone into being attracted to you, nor can you talk down their objections to having sex at any given moment without disrespecting their wishes. That, for me, is an automatic disqualifier. You might decide that's because I "have issues", but frankly, it's because anyone who is pushy with my boundaries is most likely going to be a huge pain in the ass who will ultimately irritate the fuck out of me, and I don't want to deal with some high-maintenance asshole who thinks he can override me. So, I nip it in the bud and move on to the next candidate. He can sour grapes rationalize it any way he wants; I don't care.

In fact, the next guy who disqualifies himself by being pushy, I'm going to just tell him flat out that's the reason he doesn't have a chance with me, on the off chance it'll make him think... although, I am pretty sure it won't.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I also want to point out that ignoring/pushing past a woman's objections is already, in itself, an implication of violence. By doing so, a man is sending the clear message that what she wants doesn't count.

Everything you've posted in this thread is awesome.  I do not however, find the above statement to be always true.  A woman may object to getting hurt or the idea she has of what you want from her (to take advantage of her somehow).  This can be addressed by being forthcoming and genuine, demonstrating your character and intentions.  Of course, if she can't trust or is afraid, there may be deeper issues that need to be addressed.  At this point i think your statement becomes true. 

As bad as it may sound to you, at this point i'm often encouraged to move on... not because she has chosen to "not give it up" but because as great a person as she may be, i'm not interested in becoming someone's father or shrink.  Perhaps i'll take her number and if she resolves her issues she might once again be a candidate, otherwise "it was nice to meet you" or "let's just be friends" if i'm so inclined.

Shut up. Seriously. Go re-read the thread and take a second to listen.

At this point I'm utterly disgusted too.

HEY "BLACKFOOT" (What's with that SN, Cherohonkey?)

THE REASON WOMEN DON'T WANT YOUR LITTLE WEEWEE ISN'T THAT THEY NEED A FATHER OR A SHRINK.

THE REASON IS THAT IT HAS YOU ON THE OTHER END OF IT.

It's Pope Lecherous.

Insult if you like, i don't know if you've read my other posts, i don't know if you think a man can or can't develop skill to become attractive to and attract a woman.  I don't endorse deceit.  I don't endorse hurting others.  I don't endorse using techniques that employ either.  Be outraged.