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

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Dating and Sex for Bipeds would make an awesome title, IMHO.

I'll start a thread... I'll try to dig up my "dating don'ts" thread for inspiration.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

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.

Note that I originally used the word "boundaries" and you argued with that. Now you're claiming that you weren't talking about "boundaries", you were talking about "objections" or "resistance".

Objection and resistance are what people use to mark and reinforce their boundaries. An objection shows you where the boundary is; resistance is pushing back when you try to cross it.

I am coming to the conclusion that you are a piece of crap, and also pretty stupid.

An objection can be a sign of interest, though. It all depends on how the objection is stated. "I can't leave my friends," spoken in a polite but curt and matter-of-fact manner is unequivocally: "fuck off". "Oooh, I dunno...I really shouldn't leave my friends," spoken while maintaing eye contact, a coy smile, and an oozing "..." at the end is an unequivocal "sell me!"

I don't enjoy those sorts of games so I generally ignore the body language and act on the words alone, but I'd be lying if I said that hasn't been met with disappointment rather than relief on more than one occasion.

A silver tongue is a sought after trait by some people. I think there may be a danger here of generalizing both about individuals who seek that trait through those means, and about courtship in general.

If the "objection" is, "I was just wanting to hang out with my friends tonight" and the response is, "oh, okay...well guess I'll have to find something else to do with the 30 gallons of Lime Jello I've got chilling at my apartment right now," I think that's a wholly distinct level of class and respect from "oh well you're friends are stupid and if you weren't also, you'd be hanging out with me."

Thing is, P.U.A. as a self applied label is far more the latter than the former (and more than a little more emphasizing the PU over the A). Negging, etc, is not artistry, it's douchery. The ability to play along with coyness is it's own stimulation and very much less results oriented. The ability to distinguish between an invitation to dance and a mandate to fuck off is the hallmark of an engaged biped versus an obsessed monkey.

EDIT: The important part of above is this, there needs to be an overt invitation to "talk me into it", otherwise you are disregarding someone's wishes. That's a dick move at best. Much, much worse at worst. Making a lifestyle and a pattern of behavior of this sort of thing, just sort of increases the chances you're going to find yourself wandering through the latter.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they really want. 

Drunk club girls, at least.

I know what i can offer better than they can and that's all i do, offer me and a good time.

Thing is, even if you're prime-stud-stallion #1, if you cross a line between playful and manipulative you run a very real risk of talking a person into a situation which they will regret.

It's all well and good if you're engaging with another salesperson who expects, and indeed demands that of you, but confirmation bias is a nasty bitch to invite to a game of "is it rapey"?

My advice, keep that shit off the dangerous ground of courtship ritual, and put it on a poker table where it's fun, profit, and you can be absolutely sure that everyone is a willing participant.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.

I have read the article.  I keep all of this in mind when i approach people.  Part of getting to know people is determining how safe they are.

When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%

^^Obviously true statement.  What does this mean to me?  It means that i get to know people and make them feel comfortable with me.  This is where the discussion about boundaries comes into play.  When you meet someone you set up impromptu barriers or have a set of barriers already in place for strangers.  Obviously you have different boundaries for strangers than you do close acquaintances or lovers.  People sometimes need time to feel safe on their own, you can also show them.  This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered.  A dog standing there, or a dog nuzzling your leg... if you choose to pet the latter and he bites you.  I guess you made a poor judgement and you will have paid for it.  Showing you are not scary is person or dangerous is easy.  It doesn't happen when you act like the guys the author cited.  This is THE primary barrier between living creatures. There's nothing wrong with defeating this by demonstrating you are not a threat.  I always afford the person the opportunity to see that i am not a danger and likewise I don't want to be bit by someone who feels like they have been backed into a corner.

Then you need to seriously change up your fucking nomenclature, dude.

Setting out to "defeat" someone's boundaries makes you a fucking threat. Communication is only possible between equals, and if it's not on the fucking table that there is "boundary defeating" going on than there is no equal footing, no meaningful communication, only manipulation. There is no other word for it...and like it or not, manipulation smells very, very rapey.

[LMNO]

NLDM, you appear to be transporting yourself on a proper two-wheeled vehicle.

The "talk me into it" is extremely tricky, however, and can very quickly turn to "no" if you don't hit the right notes, so don't push it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

NLDM, you appear to be transporting yourself on a proper two-wheeled vehicle.

The "talk me into it" is extremely tricky, however, and can very quickly turn to "no" if you don't hit the right notes, so don't push it.

"Okay, so tonight isn't good.  Can I meet you at <insert local coffee shop> on Monday after work, instead?"

This will, in a non-threatening and/or douchebag way, establish exactly what is and is not going on in the situation.

And who knows?  You might get to meet someone when you're both sober.  Worse things have happened.

[LMNO]

SO MANY MOTORCYCLES!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree with all of this stuff... its really quite excellent. Perhaps its my advanced age or incredible innocence, but when I heard "Pick Up Artist" I had always envisioned someone like Don Juan... some guy that could make girls swoon and knew just the right buttons to engage them, interest them, get them all hot and bothered and the bed them. I had no idea it was "Be an annoying, perhaps slightly threatening douchebag and wear them down."

I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK? I mean, you could claim it was an ego thing... but where is the "I" in that "I am so pathetic and annoying, women will fuck me to get me to leave"? It seems more to me like the behavior of someone with some serious emotional problems, or a complete lack of respect for anyone, including themselves.

The 'boundary defeating' comment a few posts back was what made me decide to post this... what the hell? You don't need to defeat someone, they aren't the enemy. You just treat them like a human being and once they get to know you, they can decide if they want to go from red alert to yellow... or to red hot

Even when I experimented with the swinging crowd, it wasn't about wearing anyone down or making someone feel like the were expected to perform like a trained bare bear. It wasn't about making long term serious connections, but there was at least some kind of equal connection happening first.

[Freeky]

I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?

Two things:

1. The PUA techniques do work on some women.  The emotional manipulation bits, I mean.  These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex). 

2. PUA don't think like that.  They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them.  They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are.  They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like.  A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?

Two things:

1. The PUA techniques do work on some women.  The emotional manipulation bits, I mean.  These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex). 

2. PUA don't think like that.  They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them.  They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are.  They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like.  A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.

I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.

Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's not going to read it, Pixie. He's not open to information that might conflict with the behavior and techniques he has already concluded are acceptable.

I have read the article.  I keep all of this in mind when i approach people.  Part of getting to know people is determining how safe they are.

When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%

^^Obviously true statement.  What does this mean to me?  It means that i get to know people and make them feel comfortable with me.  This is where the discussion about boundaries comes into play.  When you meet someone you set up impromptu barriers or have a set of barriers already in place for strangers.  Obviously you have different boundaries for strangers than you do close acquaintances or lovers.  People sometimes need time to feel safe on their own, you can also show them.  This is the equivalent being wary of petting some random dog you've never encountered.  A dog standing there, or a dog nuzzling your leg... if you choose to pet the latter and he bites you.  I guess you made a poor judgement and you will have paid for it.  Showing you are not scary is person or dangerous is easy.  It doesn't happen when you act like the guys the author cited.  This is THE primary barrier between living creatures. There's nothing wrong with defeating this by demonstrating you are not a threat.  I always afford the person the opportunity to see that i am not a danger and likewise I don't want to be bit by someone who feels like they have been backed into a corner.

Then you need to seriously change up your fucking nomenclature, dude.

Setting out to "defeat" someone's boundaries makes you a fucking threat. Communication is only possible between equals, and if it's not on the fucking table that there is "boundary defeating" going on than there is no equal footing, no meaningful communication, only manipulation. There is no other word for it...and like it or not, manipulation smells very, very rapey.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!

[Freeky]

I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?

Two things:

1. The PUA techniques do work on some women.  The emotional manipulation bits, I mean.  These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex). 

2. PUA don't think like that.  They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them.  They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are.  They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like.  A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.

I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.

Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.

Must be a regional thing.

I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty.  I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Because apparently you are the Great and Wise Blackfoot, and you know better than other people what's good for them, and what they really want. 

Drunk club girls, at least.

I know what i can offer better than they can and that's all i do, offer me and a good time.

Thing is, even if you're prime-stud-stallion #1, if you cross a line between playful and manipulative you run a very real risk of talking a person into a situation which they will regret.

It's all well and good if you're engaging with another salesperson who expects, and indeed demands that of you, but confirmation bias is a nasty bitch to invite to a game of "is it rapey"?

My advice, keep that shit off the dangerous ground of courtship ritual, and put it on a poker table where it's fun, profit, and you can be absolutely sure that everyone is a willing participant.

And THIS.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?

Two things:

1. The PUA techniques do work on some women.  The emotional manipulation bits, I mean.  These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex). 

2. PUA don't think like that.  They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them.  They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are.  They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like.  A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.

I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.

Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.

Must be a regional thing.

I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty.  I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit.

Part of me would like to troll some MRA's and PUA forums but I'm pretty sure that they would both squick me out too hard to waste bandwidth on them.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I just don't get it. I could see being a 'ladies man' if it was because lots of girls wanted you, there's a huge ego burnishing value there... but whats the value of being so insistent (aka lame and pathetic) that they eventually give up and say OK?

Two things:

1. The PUA techniques do work on some women.  The emotional manipulation bits, I mean.  These women are insecure in the first place, and the negging and so on makes them want to prove to themselves and the guys who do it as worthy of positive attention (sex). 

2. PUA don't think like that.  They base success and failure on how well they can make a woman sleep with them.  They don't see it as pathetic and rapey, they see it like, like the more often they can make a woman sleep with them, the sharper and more honed their skills are, and the more successful and desirable they are.  They don't see it in terms of "Hey, this woman doesn't want to sleep with me, I'll wear her down," it's way more a game, it seems like.  A game, I'll add, that disqualifies women who these techniques do not and will not work on from playing.

I get that...I mean at a surface level I get that. But, really, deep down, they have to realize that they're choads. I haven't met a choad yet that doesn't, somewhere deep in their soul, know that they are a choad. They may have a lot of issues that help them ignore/cover it, but they still recognize it at some level.

Ugh, after reading all of this I think I feel sorry for girls that are insecure enough to fall for PUA and for PUA's that are so broken they find some sort of pseudo fulfillment in that kind of behavior.

Must be a regional thing.

I'm not entirely sure that some PUA know or are capable of knowing what they do is shitty.  I don't know if you remember when we trolled Manhood101, but the dude there, some guy with a variant of purple in his name, was totally sure that this is how men are supposed to treat women, and that it was 100% okay to do that shit.

Part of me would like to troll some MRA's and PUA forums but I'm pretty sure that they would both squick me out too hard to waste bandwidth on them.

Yeah, OKC was bad enough, I couldn't even hang there disguised as a stereotypical ditzy blond in the body of a McFries-chomping teabagger.
They were stalking THAT.