"All is fair in Love [and War], or is it?"

[Chou Toshio]

(Hint: Yes it is edit: To an extent . . . >___> ; )

And then, his trumpeting of the "Venusian Arts". I think the ridiculousness of the idea of a step-by-step process for "seduction" speaks for itself.

First off I'd like to say that I am not starting this thread to re-start the discussion on male/female roles in society. I'll leave that can of worms for someone else. This is just to pick specifically about the discussion of seduction, attraction, "playing the game", as this really is a subject in and of itself.

Now, both men and women do a lot of things to appeal to the interest of the other gender. This can range from anything from following fashion, using certain colognes/perfumes (or men's body wash) to picking up sex techniques.

If you look at the huge volume of sales of woman's magazines (and their content) I am sure you will find that no lack of information on how to attract and appease men. I can't be the only guy who has, in a number of encounters, had a girl actually admit that [insert action here] she did to me over the course of a date, was something she read in a woman's magazine. I'm sure I wasn't the only elementary schooler whose eyes widened should he happen to accidentally read one of the sexual title headings on a cosmo magazine while waiting with his parents in the supermarket checkout line.

Likewise, that "other article" did mention the growing (Pick Up Artist) PUA culture-- men (even American men!) are also becoming more and more savvy as to how to groom themselves-- from the hair to dress up and cologne, to the small talk and seduction.

Now unfortunately this discussion does arise from the fact that there seems to be an overall negative view of the so-called "Venusian Arts," illustrated by the quote above. However, I find any negativity directed towards Venusian Arts preposterous, and am personally standing up to defend the right of both genders to use them to attract the opposite gender.


Perhaps one of the overlying reasons there is a negative view of the quoted "Venusian Arts" is because of its relationship to Pick Up Artist culture.

The most disappointing thing about this though, is the unfortunate name "Pick Up Artist," which incurs people's scorn with some dirty image of males somehow swindling women. Let's take a step back though and look at what these men really are:

Fundamentally, they're guys trying to attract woman into consensual sexual or romantic relations.

As long we're not talking about someone trying to deal drugs or swindle money, a practitioner of "game" is fundamentally just the above-- a male looking to attract women. I fail to see where the problem is.

While each man has his own romantic/sexual agendas, the same could be said about every woman. Everyone is looking to fill their own agenda (in one or multiple partners), and so part of the "market" is to look out for your own agenda while trying to pursuade and/or compromise in order to get what you want out of your relationships. Frankly speaking, losing site of, or being unable to bargain into your own interests is your fault, and not "wrong-doing" on either partner.

Sure, there are lots of guys out there looking to get laid. But, as long as we're being honest with ourselves, there are more than enough women looking to do the same (and others still looking to use men for money). I personally don't see any of the above as foul play.

For both men and women, if you're in the game, getting hurt or getting tricked is a real risk, and there is nothing but your own abilities to "evaluate people" that you can blame-- if you can't deal with the risk, don't play the game.

Take the most typical "game" setting. You are at a bar/party/club with guys (or girls) looking to "open" (approach) particular "sets" (groups of people) and "close" (succeed) with their "targets" (target guy/girl).

If you are in that setting, you should be aware that you will deal with complete strangers (guys or girls, straight, bi or gay) and be aware of the dangers-- you wouldn't leave your drink unattended there would you?

If you are someone who cannot deal with the dangers, by all means don't go. If you want to meet guys or girls, there are much safer ways to do so-- have someone introduce a friend, or even use one of the many internet dating services. Some laugh, but others are actually living the happily ever after dream thanks to online match-makers. Every facet of life where you get involved with people has its own level/levels of risk that one must safeguard himself against.

The point I'm getting at is that in romance, you have to protect yourself and your own interests-- but the only ones to "blame" are those who cannot do this. It is natural that people will all be "playing" to achieve their own interests-- just like in business or any facet of life really. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.


Now really, the Venusian Arts themselves are not evil-- what is or isn't evil is people's intentions.

I actually really like the comparison to Martial Arts. Martial Arts are the art of violence, techniques designed specifically to harm, disable or destroy the human body. As an advanced student/practitioner of Judo, Jujitsu and Wrestling with some knowledge of boxing/kick boxing, I can say-- I know how to suffocate an opponent or break his arm. As I walk on a daily basis, the vast majority of people walking around me would be powerless to stop me if I chose to beat the living shit out of them.

Does that make Martial Arts evil? Should learning them or practicing them be banned? Of course not-- there is nothing inherently evil in the technique. Having the knowledge/ability is not wrong. Only human intent can be wrong, the decision to use the technique for violence outside self-defense or regulated competition.

While Martial Arts can be used to destroy innocent people, used for its best purpose-- it can also be used to protect innocent people.


Venusian arts are pretty much the same. They can be as evil or as good as the person using them. The user of the arts can be as good or bad for a particular woman/man being targeted as far as he/she can protect his/her own interests.


Has anyone ever seen the movie Hitch? You have got to see the scene where Will Smith stands up at the speed dating event and says, "This is what's wrong about love-- there are so many great guys in the world, but women will never know because they never even give them a chance."

There are so many guys out there, especially in this generation, who possess outstanding kindness, intelligence and compassion-- all the traits woman think they are (and actually are) hoping for in a partner. Unfortunately many of these guys have no idea how to get past the initial social BS. There are so many missed chances because people don't know how to talk heart-to-heart.

Used for their very best purposes, Venusian arts can break down these walls, help people to get to the point where they can really know each other, and have a greater chance at finding happiness. As a guy who ultimately, is looking for that particular special girl to whom I can devote myself, I still believe the fundamental lessons of Venusian arts are invaluable knowledge-- and I'm not trying to trick anyone, just trying to show the real "me."

Pick Up Arts, as a very first requirement, preach self-value, self-confidence, courage, and a willingness to actually get off your ass and actually do something about the problem.

All of this is fantastic.

Whether or not you agree with running set "routines" or "opening sets just for practice" or what have you, you cannot help but admire the spirit to actually try. It's 1000 times better than a nice guy who twiddles his fingers too scared to try. No woman wants a guy like that anyway. Not truly.

For those who simply cannot accept Venusian arts as a concept, I'd suggest trying to read Neil Strauss' "The Game,"-- it's a fantastic book about a whole lot more than its simple title suggests. Try to read it with an open mind.


As for guys who are in that "clueless" condition mentioned above-- I REALLY suggest you read it. Clueless girls too, as a lot of it is transferrable. The thing is that this stuff works.

From a personal standpoint, despite not thinking myself particularly popular, I would still fall in the category Neil would call a "natural," with natural ability to attract woman. Even being a natural though, while I haven't had any contact with the PUA community outside reading Neil's book (which is an autobiography, not an actual PUA technique text), the book totally changed my outlook and attitude about it.

I read it on the flight over to London for study abroad-- and a week and a half after I reached London I had a girlfriend. While we eventually had a teary parting when I left London, it was and is still one of the most memorable and meaningful relationships of my life.

That is what Venusian arts is truly about.

Opening discussion here!

 

[Hipmonlee]

I am willing to allow this topic so long as we stop using the term "Venusian arts". How about "how to pick up chicks".

Have a nice day.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I am willing to not use the term if someone has a better term for what I am trying to define:

"Techniques [by either gender towards either gender] used for attraction"

Since there are lots of techniques used by woman to attract men. The opposite should be under the same ethical scrutiny (it just isn't).

Also a lot of said "techniques" developed by either side are transferrable to homosexual relationships (lesbians, learn from woman's mags, and gay guys, PUA theory certainly welcomes you). I can attest this because in "opening sets" I have more than once inadvertently "closed" (attracted) male attention.

It often has more to do with "human relations" than it does with laws of male/female interaction (and a lot of "technique" is surprisingly similar to marketing/interview technique).

 

[Ancien Régime]

Chou, I find pickup artistry disgusting and repulsive, for many reasons.

The fundamental problem with "game" is that it's a technique - no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it, there is an element of deception of using "game" to attract a woman, because you're attempting to appeal to what you think will attract her, rather than making an honest presentation of yourself and your personality.

Fundamentally, they're guys trying to attract woman into consensual sexual or romantic relations.

But this does not tell the whole story - lots of men try to do this, but the problem is the means employed.

Let's consult Wikipedia for a bit of background information on these means.

Routines and gambits are developed to stimulate attraction switches often combined with techniques derived from neuro-linguistic programming.[

Essentially, "game" does not engage women as unique, interesting individuals that one would get to know, become close with, and eventually start a relationship with - it takes the view that if you just push the right psychological buttons, you can make her attracted to you - regardless of whether you're a scumbag, a womanizer, or an all-around douche.

The concept of "picking up chicks" is flawed in that it reduces the relation between the sexes into a cold, calculated game of "can the guy manipulate the girl's emotions and get her to like him before she catches on to it"? Ultimately, while that may work to get you a one-night stand, I seriously doubt that "pick-up artistry" can be the basis for a successful long-term relationship, because these techniques generate attraction not on the basis of real interpersonal interactions, companionship, shared values and the like, but on how well you can subvert a woman's free will and make you do what you want.

Ultimately, "game" is dehumanizing, for both men and women, because it is fundamentally based on manipulation, and is fundamentally based on the idea of women as conquest, not as relationship partners.

Does that make Martial Arts evil? Should learning them or practicing them be banned? Of course not-- there is nothing inherently evil in the technique. Having the knowledge/ability is not wrong. Only human intent can be wrong, the decision to use the technique for violence outside self-defense or regulated competition.

Forgot to address this, because this is where your argument collapses in a heap.

Martial Arts are protective only when used against a hostile attacker who is trying to harm or kill you. Therefore, to make the PUA analogy applicable, then you must present women as a hostile entity. Since the concept of women as a class being hostile to men is ridiculous, then there is nothing that justifies the use of manipulation techniques to get what you want from them.

 

[Objection]

I didn't see much wrong with the idea of using techniques to pick up women until I saw what those techniques were. Lo and behold, there is a website dedicated to the Venusian/pick-up arts. Let's see what it says ...

The power of the IOD (indicator of disinterest) - the compliance test sort of makes sense and "overuse is bad" definitely does, but the notion of the IOD does not:

You just want to disqualify yourself as a potential suitor ... By using the IOD after your IOI, you don’t come off as a guy trying to hit on her. Instead you indicate that she is cute, and that she is over-reacting towards you; which makes it look like she wants to be with you more then you want to be with her.

But in the beginning, she doesn't want to be with you as she doesn't even know you. So, if it looks like she wants to be with you more than you want to be with her, then it looks like you don't want to be with her. This contradicts the notion of getting the girl - you want to be with her. Similarly, isn't the aim to be considered a potential suitor? Disqualifying yourself as a potential suitor, which is what is suggested here, directly contradicts that goal. The only exception is if the IODs are completely honest, since (I assume) you're not just trying to get a girl, but are trying to get the right girl, which is where the next link comes in:

Getting to know her - this is a critical step, no denying that, and it involves asking questions about her to make it seem like you're interested (contradicting the idea of the IOD). However, it seems that when asking questions, you're supposed to make some random guess before asking. If the point of the questions is to get to know the girl, why are you supposed to guess and (almost certainly) get it wrong? The only reason someone asks a non-rhetorical question is to find out the answer, so pretending to have an idea of the answer seems rather pompous (not a good characteristic) and contradicts the point of asking. Are you trying to know about the girl or just trying to see if your assumptions about her are right? There is a difference: the former involves knowing more.

The example of the DHV story wasn't good either, unless the rule of "Do not mention (ex-)girlfriends" is a lie. However, I won't write the entire DHV technique off just yet.

On the other hand, this bit:

Don’t worry about saying you totally agree or totally disagree. She doesn’t want anyone who is “Okay” or "Against" EVERYTHING she does. Just make sure you find some commonalities.

does not raise any issues. Unless you genuinely are "Okay" or "Against" everything. If it's the latter, that's surely a sign that you need to get out of there. If it's the former, then the quoted principle goes against the idea of honesty, and in a conflict between the two, I would have to pick honesty - lying just once automatically means that anything you say could potentially be a lie, thereby making you untrustworthy, which is bad. Plus, the risk of getting found out and the resulting backlash ought to be very big de-motivators.

Using qualification to DHV (demonstrate higher value) - this is one technique I almost can't fault. As long as the stories are true and relevant to the girl's interests, she should have no problems with listening to one or maybe two of them in one sitting. More than that, however, and you cross the line over into vanity, which is something that ought not to be displayed as it is hardly a desirable trait. Aren't you supposed to show that you give a shit about the girl? Talking about you, you, you does exactly the opposite. Plus, there was this sentence at the end:

Even if she doesn’t ask, you can simply say “Yeah that reminds me of the time” and tell your story anyway.

If she doesn't ask, logical assumption is, she doesn't want to know. Logical course of action is, don't tell. How the quoted part can be right I do not know.

I'd better stop before I get carried away.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Chou, I find pickup artistry disgusting and repulsive, for many reasons.

The fundamental problem with "game" is that it's a technique - no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it, there is an element of deception of using "game" to attract a woman, because you're attempting to appeal to what you think will attract her, rather than making an honest presentation of yourself and your personality.

There is a similar element of deception in all forms of human interaction.

Even with friends, one wants to present oneself as amiable, cool-- generally fun to be around. You're not about to bitch about every little thing your friends do, or about everything bad going on in your life, even if you want to. "Human tact" is dishonest.

The fact of the matter is that attraction is never built by complete honesty. Complete honesty would be this: "Hi, my name is Toshio, I think you're cute and want a date. By the way, I'm kind, very smart, funny, and athletic. Let's go out."

I can tell you the above is not conducive to forming relationships, let alone attraction. "Game" is such a terrific word for it, because that's what "the relationship market" is really.

Essentially, "game" does not engage women as unique, interesting individuals that one would get to know, become close with, and eventually start a relationship with - it takes the view that if you just push the right psychological buttons, you can make her attracted to you - regardless of whether you're a scumbag, a womanizer, or an all-around douche.

Do you know this girl when you approach her? Do you know anything about her interests, personality, strengths, weaknesses, dreams desires?

Do you yet have any reason (information) on which to find her attractive "as a person" other than her physical appearance? No, you don't-- and yet if you stopped there and didn't try to engage her, the human species would cease to exist as then no male would ever be justified in engaging a female.

The point is that you have to "open" with something-- it might as well be something that actually works, and can be used to get to know her on a personal basis.

The concept of "picking up chicks" is flawed in that it reduces the relation between the sexes into a cold, calculated game of "can the guy manipulate the girl's emotions and get her to like him before she catches on to it"? Ultimately, while that may work to get you a one-night stand, I seriously doubt that "pick-up artistry" can be the basis for a successful long-term relationship, because these techniques generate attraction not on the basis of real interpersonal interactions, companionship, shared values and the like, but on how well you can subvert a woman's free will and make you do what you want.

Ultimately, "game" is dehumanizing, for both men and women, because it is fundamentally based on manipulation, and is fundamentally based on the idea of women as conquest, not as relationship partners.

Oh please-- do you have any experience with social interaction? Interviewing? Marketing? Sales? If you did, you would find how ridiculous the above is.

When you sell yourself in an interview or you sell a product for a company or try to persuade any sort of decision from another person, you are using game.

When engaging in any of the above activities, you need poise, professionalism, confidence, and a planned discourse. If you aren't, there is no way you could come across as anything but laughable or pathetic.

For people who "are naturals," sure you can go in and just "be yourself."

For the vast majority of people, this doesn't work. If you are preparing for an interview or a sales pitch or a girl approach and you want to be poised and "smooth," it needs to be rehearsed. You need to have a plan, and it has to be practiced to the point that it is natural.


Bottom line: How can you be so naively idealistic when humans are not ideal?

Humans are imperfect, and acknowledging the real rules of human communication and interaction is essential to getting anywhere with humans. You are de-humanizing the situation by failing to acknowledge the way people actually are.

It may be true that the techniques involved highly devalue uniqueness of the target, and are basically geared towards "women" in general-- but the fact of the matter is people are all more similar than dissimilar, and you have no way of knowing the target before hand except that "she is a woman." Use what you know I say.

If anything, PUA are the ones being honest, both with themselves and about what human nature really is.


Also if you are going to make a statement it should be at least be based on facts. "I seriously doubt that "pick-up artistry" can be the basis for a successful long-term relationship" sounds ridiculous in the face of the real number of (previously) hopeless men (and women) who are now happily married because of the PUA community.

Then there is the simple fact that not all men and women are even seeking lasting long-term relationships. There are lots of people on both sides just looking to fling-- and there's nothing "evil" about that.

To me, it looks like you are the one generalizing people without knowing them, dehumanizing them. People who learn PUA technique are real men, each with their own reasons for being there, their own goals with women, and their own decisions on how to employ the technique.


I will also take the freedom to assume that you are also disgusted by women who use technique to seduce men?

In any case, if this truly disgusts you than the reality of the vast majority of people on this planet must disgust you. I personally am one who admires humanity's "real" nature, even though it sometimes leads to "evil deeds."

Forgot to address this, because this is where your argument collapses in a heap.

Martial Arts are protective only when used against a hostile attacker who is trying to harm or kill you. Therefore, to make the PUA analogy applicable, then you must present women as a hostile entity. Since the concept of women as a class being hostile to men is ridiculous, then there is nothing that justifies the use of manipulation techniques to get what you want from them.

My analogy (because that is all that is) is not about hostility. My analogy is about the evilness/goodness of "knowledge"

There is nothing evil about knowing how female attraction works. There is nothing evil about knowing about human psychology. There is nothing evil about knowing how to throw a woman into endless orgasms.

Making the knowledge available is mere freedom of speech is it not? There are any number of means to implement the technique, and should go hand and hand with the goals of the person using it.

The knowledge only creates as much evil or good as the person using it.

That is all that I am paralleling with the martial arts, but I could apply it to anything.


Knowing standards of accounting is not good or evil, but people are. You can use your knowledge for proper financial compliance (good) or you can use it to abuse the system and get around laws (evil).

I can use martial arts to bully people, or I can use them to protect myself and others.

I can use romance technique to make a harem (made completely of consensual partners mind you), or I can use it to get past barriers and get to know a woman I could fall in love with.

The choice is yours. The good and evil is yours to do. The knowledge itself, is blameless, it is merely information, merely fact.




@Objection-- Hey, the shit works. Remember, a lot of this stuff is being used naturally by someone out there, hence the term "naturals".

I and many other men who happen to read over PUA techniques, will probably find at least a few conversational habits/techniques that they used naturally. PUAs have simply objectively recorded the exact technique and its affects on women in general. The point is that even if for some they are "learned behaviors," often enough, these are behaviors that are natural to humans as a whole. We're just not aware of it.

Example:

You just want to disqualify yourself as a potential suitor ... By using the IOD after your IOI, you don’t come off as a guy trying to hit on her. Instead you indicate that she is cute, and that she is over-reacting towards you; which makes it look like she wants to be with you more then you want to be with her.

For me, this has always been a natural reaction to meeting a girl of interest, even before reading this. Not that I always did it, but I sometimes did, even before ever hearing about this stuff. For many other men too, this is probably a natural behavior-- and it works.




Here is one thing that you will learn in sales/interview training that Neil also highlights in his book (and I'm summarizing, not quoting):

"Personality is individual, you are you-- but behavior is learnable, and controlled. It is natural for humans (and many other living beings) to exhibit learnable behavior that rewards. The learnable behavior becomes your natural behavior."

 

[Jackal]

Used for their very best purposes, Venusian arts can break down these walls, help people to get to the point where they can really know each other, and have a greater chance at finding happiness. As a guy who ultimately, is looking for that particular special girl to whom I can devote myself, I still believe the fundamental lessons of Venusian arts are invaluable knowledge-- and I'm not trying to trick anyone, just trying to show the real "me."

You hit the nail completely on the head here. Pickup artistry does involve games and it does take the "uniqueness" out of the target woman. However, this is only at the very initial stages, and where Ancien Regime's whole argument falls.

You can use "game" however you want to use it, for good or "evil" in this context, depending on your personality. Yes, there are plenty of womanizing guys with great game who have one night stands, and that is unavoidable. However, there are also people like me (and presumably you Chou based on that post) who will employ these same tactics initially on a girl, potentially even hook up with her drunk at the bar or take her back home, but the fact of the matter is that is as far as it goes. If you choose to pursue it further, then all of a sudden you become human again and she starts judging you based on who you are.

After the initial encounter, you have 2 options. Continue the "game" facade or become the real you. The former will often result in a repeated hookup, but it is the latter that I always go with and it is the winner. You show the girl that you are capable of "game" and being an alpha male in a dog eat dog society by winning her over, and you also develop her having a physical attraction with you to the point where she definitely considers you as a hookup prospect rather than a friend.

Once you have established this physical connection (and never before or else you are fucked all you nice guys out there) then you nail them with your actual personality, and when you have all those good traits women are looking for, you will win her over because she sees you as a man capable of holding his own in the world of "game" but also as dream guy every girl hopes for. At that point you are probably looking at your next girlfriend. (it is at this point still important to not seem too interested though or else she will wonder why you seem so into it cause it would seem you could do better, many girls just dont have confidence). It is also important to still sometimes do asshole shit cause when women get comfortable they get bored and when they get bored bad stuff starts happening.

But yeah the moral of the story is the "initial attraction" part is so key for most girls, cause 1) its nigh impossible to jump from the "friend zone" that your stereotypical awesome guy gets thrown into cause he doesn't have game and 2) having game allows you to meet an exponentially higher amount of girls (as you get better at it) and gives you more chance to actually show your personality to a wide variety of girls, thus increasing the chances of you actually finding a girl who suits you, cause any girl worth your time is throwing up the exact same facade of game while still looking for that great guy. cause I know I would be too bored with a girl who didn't at least meddle with "game".

And game doesn't even have to apply to bars/clubs/drinking or anything, it is often just every day life. Just having the confidence to go up to that cute girl that is in your math lecture if you see her around campus and knowing the right things to say and how to present yourself is essential. You can't just hit her with your "awesome personality" at that point, first you have to get on her radar as a relevant guy. There are obviously plenty of girls who none of this applies to at all, but they generally aren't attractive, and I am just being straight up lol.

EDIT: I just read up on that link Objection posted, that site is right about almost everything. wow.

 

[Objection]

@Objection-- Hey, the shit works.

Despite the lack of a logically sound explanation as to why it works, plus the contradictions I highlighted earlier, this shit somehow works? It is this lack of a logically sound explanation that makes me doubt the success rates of these techniques, and no amount of evidence can change that as, for all I know, the guys trying these techniques and succeeding are either already really attractive or just damn lucky. Not to mention bringing in the element of deception - deception is what makes people untrustworthy and untrustworthiness is a bad thing, yet not only is deception apparently a good thing, but it should take precedence over honesty? I forget who said this, but it is a very good quote: "If you don't like me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best."

 

[ivar]

i can't say that i know much about game other than negs, which i find utterly hilarious and i always do, but not as a pick up strategy. i've been negging since i was like 8--who would have thought that I was a pick-up savant? so the basic principle is to insult the girl in order to maintain some sort of control over her as she tries to impress you? how is this a healthy thing to do? i mean, i do it because i'm kind of an asshole, but i at least recognize that i shouldn't do it.

personally, i feel i can circumvent the traditional game and just present my good traits. smart, good-looking, suave, good body, funny and cool: if it's obvious that you have these characteristics, women WILL want you. even if you don't know sets and close and escalation or whatever. if you're comfortable it just comes easy; not only that, but you don't feel pressure to pull anything off. if i were playing game i would soooo anxious: did i mess up my neg? did i show too much interest? did i effectively show social status? it's just way too much to think and worry about when attraction is supposed to be fun. and plus im lazy; it seems like way too much work.

 

[Lanturn314]

A female's perspective

Not to mention bringing in the element of deception - deception is what makes people untrustworthy and untrustworthiness is a bad thing, yet not only is deception apparently a good thing, but it should take precedence over honesty?

Since I'm a girl, maybe I can provide some insight. Jackal actually seems to have it right. I like it when a guy has the confidence to approach me, and at that initial approach, I don't want him to tell his whole life story. There's nothing inherently dishonest about not revealing everything at first, and if he outright lies to me about something important initially and I find out about it later (assuming I care enough to do so), it's over. But it's always good to have that initial air of mystery that gets us thinking "OMG does he like me? Do I like him? Maybe... I hope he talks to me again so I can figure this out!" And being overenthusiastic just makes you seem desperate. Of course, on some guys, it can be kind of cute, but in general, it just makes you look like a loser.

Then, on each subsequent encounter, if the guy is thinking about making me his future girlfriend, he should slowly reveal his sweet and adorable characteristics upon each encounter (it should be gradual because it leaves us wanting to know more about you; the mysterious thing can be really hot). But as the others have said, that first encounter is what sets up the physical attraction that's kind of essential for getting into a relationship instead of a friendship. Now, it's still possible to go from being the best guy friend to being the boyfriend, and I know a few people who are now dating previous best friends of the opposite sex, but this approach takes a long time, and half the time it doesn't work out because the attraction isn't necessarily mutual, and thus this strategy is not recommended if you want immediate results. These relationships tend to be the most stable and long-lasting, though, so if you have a crush on your best female friend, don't fret, because it could happen.

The way the best guy friend turns into the boyfriend, though, is still through using "game" techniques, though (albeit modified since he already has known the girl for a long time), because really, this is the best way to get the idea of physical attraction into a girl's mind (or bring it out more if it was already there). It's not until you have established this that you can really feel safe in telling a girl that you like her unless she has already dropped numerous hints that she's also into you.

And, of course, this can just be used to pick up girls for one night stands, too. But that's also not evil, since there are a lot of girls who are open to this sort of thing nowadays. I'm not one of them, but I know a lot of them, and I have nothing against them. It is, after all, 2010.

 

[Ancien Régime]

There is a similar element of deception in all forms of human interaction.

Even with friends, one wants to present oneself as amiable, cool-- generally fun to be around. You're not about to bitch about every little thing your friends do, or about everything bad going on in your life, even if you want to. "Human tact" is dishonest.

But what if you aren't amiable, cool, fun to be around, etc?

The fact of the matter is that attraction is never built by complete honesty. Complete honesty would be this: "Hi, my name is Toshio, I think you're cute and want a date. By the way, I'm kind, very smart, funny, and athletic. Let's go out."

That's an exaggeration. An honest interpersonal contact would likely involve starting a conversation on a topic of interest, whether it's work related stuff, school, shared interests, or even the weather.

Oh please-- do you have any experience with social interaction? Interviewing? Marketing? Sales? If you did, you would find how ridiculous the above is.

When you sell yourself in an interview or you sell a product for a company or try to persuade any sort of decision from another person, you are using game.

When engaging in any of the above activities, you need poise, professionalism, confidence, and a planned discourse. If you aren't, there is no way you could come across as anything but laughable or pathetic.

For people who "are naturals," sure you can go in and just "be yourself."

For the vast majority of people, this doesn't work. If you are preparing for an interview or a sales pitch or a girl approach and you want to be poised and "smooth," it needs to be rehearsed. You need to have a plan, and it has to be practiced to the point that it is natural.

Actually, no, you don't need to "practice" these things to a great extent...if you already have the underlying substance to back it up. If you don't have the skills needed to do the job, all the poise, professionalism, confidence, and planning in the world won't get you the job (or if you do get the job, you'll suck at it). If your product sucks, your awesome sales pitch won't get you very far in the long run.

Now, you might suggest that game supplements "substance", rather than substitutes it...but I'd argue that a person of substance would neither need "game" nor would be inclined to use it.

Humans are imperfect, and acknowledging the real rules of human communication and interaction is essential to getting anywhere with humans. You are de-humanizing the situation by failing to acknowledge the way people actually are.

You're contending that the use of stimuli and emotional cues to alter human behavior is part of the normal rules of human communication. I'm not the one dehumanizing anyone.

It may be true that the techniques involved highly devalue uniqueness of the target, and are basically geared towards "women" in general-- but the fact of the matter is people are all more similar than dissimilar, and you have no way of knowing the target before hand except that "she is a woman." Use what you know I say.

This assumes that you're only walking up to total strangers in the hopes of starting relationships. Are you telling me that you know nothing about female coworkers or fellow students? Or mutual friends? Hell, if you meet a girl at the library reading a book, then you already know that she likes to read, and likes a certain type of book!

Also if you are going to make a statement it should be at least be based on facts. "I seriously doubt that "pick-up artistry" can be the basis for a successful long-term relationship" sounds ridiculous in the face of the real number of (previously) hopeless men (and women) who are now happily married because of the PUA community.

I suspect it is a real *low* number. I doubt that many women would be interested in an otherwise unappealing person using formulaic "pick-up" techniques to make them attracted to them.

Then there is the simple fact that not all men and women are even seeking lasting long-term relationships. There are lots of people on both sides just looking to fling-- and there's nothing "evil" about that.

Sure, PUA may be useful for flings. But beyond that, I don't see how it can be useful.

I will also take the freedom to assume that you are also disgusted by women who use technique to seduce men?

I find emotional manipulation to be disgusting.

My analogy (because that is all that is) is not about hostility. My analogy is about the evilness/goodness of "knowledge"

There is nothing evil about knowing how female attraction works. There is nothing evil about knowing about human psychology. There is nothing evil about knowing how to throw a woman into endless orgasms.

However, using human psychology in a manner designed to get another person to satisfy your wants is, if not evil, then certainly tasteless.

Ultimately, PUA attempts to cover up real deficiencies and character flaws (as well as simple lack of confidence) with fancy packaging, and unfortunately, there are a lot of guys who think PUA is the answer, when they either need to do real things to make themselves more attractive, or gain some confidence (which you don't need pre-fabricated "seduction techniques" to do). It's snake oil, it's fraudulent, and it does both sexes a disservice.

 

[ivar]

lanturn, i'm not sure you are referring to the same game. there is a difference between being playful and flirtatious and following pick-up artist techniques. the latter is formulaic, though both are games in some sense.

 

[Ancien Régime]

i
personally, i feel i can circumvent the traditional game and just present my good traits. smart, good-looking, suave, good body, funny and cool: if it's obvious that you have these characteristics, women WILL want you. even if you don't know sets and close and escalation or whatever. if you're comfortable it just comes easy;

Yeah, pretty much this; you don't need "techniques" to be attractive, and if you do, then you have much bigger underlying problems that you need to address.

 

[Eraddd]

Yeah, pretty much this; you don't need "techniques" to be attractive, and if you do, then you have much bigger underlying problems that you need to address.

Just an anecdotal aside, I've tried this a few times, and all it's done is put me smack dab in the middle of friended zone. I'm not sure how it's suppose to work, but if you present yourself like that, girls tend to think you're more friend material as opposed to hook up/future relationship material.

 

[ivar]

Just an anecdotal aside, I've tried this a few times, and all it's done is put me smack dab in the middle of friended zone. I'm not sure how it's suppose to work, but if you present yourself like that, girls tend to think you're more friend material as opposed to hook up/future relationship material.

it's probably because you're not sexy. traits like intelligence, and humour are great, but they are all for naught if you can't be erotic/romantic/sexy. my point was that you don't need pick up artist techniques to be sexy. you don't even need to hit on her, if you're sexy enough. the fact is, it's obvious you think you are inept in the romantic department, so if you think you're inept, why should she think of you any differently?

 

[TaiCrunch]

^This. You can be using the best "techniques" in the world, but they won't help you at all if you don't have enough self-confidence (or at least know how to fake it).

I think "game" is really just a matter of personal preference. I don't like using it because when I do it comes out sounding scripted and insincere, and I end up making an ass our of myself. Personally I'd rather just improvise, but a lot of people I know don't work that way, so if it works for them then there really isn't any problem.

 

[Jackal]

For the record, I am not saying everyone should go to their room and rehearse "sets" or come up with a "stack" of DHVs or whatever, because while it probably will work, it just seems unnatural and not really worth your time. If you can just be natural you will be able to think up those things on the spot if you know what is a good thing to say and what isn't. The only thing that really needs to be predetermined is the very first thing you say, which is obviously the case in any instance of meeting someone new. "Hello, I am Jackal what's your name" just isn't that interesting, unless you are the most attractive guy in the world.

what that site does get spot on though are the stuff about IOI's and IOD's and falling into the trap of the "Interview". This is stuff you need to always consider, and I have been doing it subconsciously for a while (dont seem too interested, dont seem uninterested, don't as her questions that wont lead anywhere, seem mysterious). Also their run of blogs on phone etiquette is so brilliant that i even learned a thing or two from them.

 

[ivar]

actually, just saying "hi" is pretty great. then you start conversation. works for me.

the only thing i suggest is not to put your eggs in one basket: just because you approached a girl doesn't mean anything will or even should happen from it. you don't have to feign a lack of interest: it's more like keeping your options open, and looking for what pleases you, instead of whether or not you are playing the game adequately for her needs.

i guess doing the pick-up technique would work if you're deceitful enough and can show and hide interest appropriately, but it's a contrived way of trying to achieve a mind set--a shadow of the real thing.

 

[FlareBlitz]

Damn, from the thread title I thought this was going to be a discussion about the acceptability of torture/civilian collateral damage in wartime .___. I guess we're just focusing on the "love" part...

Okay. Let me preface this post by saying that quite a few people would have considered me a "pick up artist" in the recent past, although much like the OP, I don't find that terminology entirely correct, especially from the perspective of feminism. See, it strongly implies that women have no desire for casual sex and, even worse, that they are shallow and easily deceived by guys who "game" them through superficial qualities. In my experience, all that happens in the seduction process, from both genders, is the emphasis of one's positive, or appealing, qualities and the comparative de-emphasis of one's negative, or unappealing, qualities. This could, under certain definitions qualify as "deception"...but in that case, we have to start considering any sort of social interaction a form of deception. After all, if my Mormon logistics professor asks me "what did you do this weekend", I will probably not reply with "had lots of kinky pre-marital sex with my girlfriend". Even among friends, you would hesitate to be totally, completely honest; if a female friend asks you "hey what did you do last night", would you mention "oh, played video games" or "oh, masturbated to lesbian porn"? Hell, you could even go as far as to consider make-up and certain types of clothing a form of deception. I like redheads, so if a blond dyes her hair red, is that a form of deception?

The point I'm trying to make is that most, if not all, social interactions involve a buffer of white lies, and the often-touted deception practiced by males in situations involving the opposite sex usually falls under this category, and the often-ignored deception practiced by females in the same situation does as well.

That said, I personally draw some lines as far as my conduct goes, and I expect others (male and female) to follow similar guidelines. For one, I would not participate in or accept outright deception; if I ask a girl "do you have a boyfriend" and she does, I would not want her to lie. For another, individuals with excessive BAC should be off-limits. And so on, with a few other rules here and there. Therefore, I wouldn't go as far as to say that everything is acceptable, merely to say that within the context of casual sex, women are unnecessarily victimized and condescended to; a guy who "picks up" a woman to participate in consensual sex is not evil or manipulative or anything, as long as he does not do certain things that are of questionable morality.

tldr: Not "all" is fair in love (or war!) but some folks need to realize that women like getting laid too.

 

[cim]

I never really got why it had to be so complicated. There are ways to have casual sex and romantic encounters without being deceptive or manipulative. The easiest way is to just not try so hard!

If you're looking up techniques, you're putting far more time into this than you need to. Figure out the general rules and some tips and tricks and just work from there, seriously. There's a decent chance you're a legitimately interesting person on your own.

 

[Thund91]

I never really got why it had to be so complicated. There are ways to have casual sex and romantic encounters without being deceptive or manipulative. The easiest way is to just not try so hard!

If you're looking up techniques, you're putting far more time into this than you need to. Figure out the general rules and some tips and tricks and just work from there, seriously. There's a decent chance you're a legitimately interesting person on your own.

I just lost the game, thanks Chou.

This and what Flare said, basically. I'd actually like to hear more input from the girls on Smogon; this thread is all about guys approaching girls, when in this day and age there is a lot of the opposite.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I haven't read the rest of the responses yet (and I will), but just wanted to comment on this:

At that point you are probably looking at your next girlfriend. (it is at this point still important to not seem too interested though or else she will wonder why you seem so into it cause it would seem you could do better, many girls just dont have confidence).

OH GOD DAMMIT. I have fucked up this part so many times without even knowing about / noticing this issue. >___________> Shit! (the above point is a big part of what lost me my last girlfriend)

See guys, this is why knowledge matters. >_____________>

Fuck!!! >__>



edit: Ok, moving on.

Let me preface that from a personal standpoint, in terms of my own "game", I am probably somewhere around CiM, and both Flareblitz and Jackal probably have more knowledge than me. I have read Neil's book and combined with personal experience, have some understanding of the basic concepts, especially with regards to attitude/personality. For the most part, my natural personality is already (or has grown up into) pretty similar to what PUA describe as the ideal.

I don't practice openers. I don't go out of my way to practice or open sets, and I generally just go in winging it and "being myself." I'm lucky that I just so happen to have the confidence and personality to pull that off. I know I definitely could enjoy a lot more success by being more rehearsed and studied, but I'm happy/comfortable with my current degree of popularity with women, and feel my "game" skills are at the level they should be for my own goals for my own love life. In other words, I fall something into the "natural" category, and I'm "content" not having girls throwing themselves at me left and right and having a phone full of numbers to hook up with on the weekend for casual sex.


That said, not everyone is in the same boat.


There are guys who are not as good looking, smart, funny, or confident naturally. There are guys who would never find the balls to approach a girl untrained on their own accord.

However, that doesn't mean that the same guy couldn't make some girl completely happy if he had the chance. That doesn't mean he wouldn't be a completely fantastic boyfriend, husband or father. To assume so would be laughable. Are you really going to say they shouldn't gain the skills they would need to succeed??? That's cruel to say the least!

This is where Ancient Regime's notion of some "lack of content" on the part of men who can't be successful just by "being them selves" really falls apart. Women know what they want, but they rarely know it when they see it.

Going back to the marketing/sales analogy-- you can have the best content, the best skills, the best product, but it won't mean shit if you don't have good delivery and professionalism. Especially in this economy. >___>

If you don't think that what i have said above is true . . . >______>



@CIM-- I guess I'm not speaking out of my own frustration, but out of frustration in trying to help some of my guy friends (who imo, are fantastic, terrific men who I love to hang out with) who just can't seem to get it. >___>



edit 2: Ok, FlareBlitz is ultimately right. There is are some definite boundaries that should definitely be observed. For instance, I feel guilty even having a conversation with most high school girls, because they get "drawn in" even though I'm not even trying; there's just too much of a gap in social experience. Ultimately though, these rules are terribly hard to set in stone-- which is why everyone "in the game" (guys and girls) should follow their own moral compasses strictly, and also be very careful to protect themselves.

I altered the OP a bit to reflect.

 

[Objection]

Going back to the marketing/sales analogy-- you can have the best content, the best skills, the best product, but it won't mean shit if you don't have good delivery and professionalism. Especially in this economy. >___>

And you can have the best delivery and the best professionalism, but if your product, skills and content are all shit, you will at best be very slightly more successful. Not enough to make a real difference. I'm not sure whether your sales analogy can still stand after this. Which parts of product, skills and content are supposed to be the appearance part of a guy and which ones the personality part?

Even among friends, you would hesitate to be totally, completely honest; if a female friend asks you "hey what did you do last night", would you mention "oh, played video games" or "oh, masturbated to lesbian porn"?

Assuming the female friend is just that, what's wrong with saying you played video games?

 

[Chou Toshio]

Why are you just repeating regime's comment without reading what I actually said?

tl; dr version: No, if you read my post, you would get that I'm saying: There are terrific guys, kind, compassionate, intelligent, interesting (etc. etc), who would make terrific boyfriends/husbands, but who don't have the delivery and professionalism.

The point is to get both.



Are you honestly somehow seriously suggesting that guys who don't know how to talk to girls naturally are somehow lacking in personal substance as men? That's ridiculous. Am I being trolled here?

 

[Objection]

That's not what it looked like you were saying in that post. I read it and it looked like you were saying that delivery and professionalism were more important (as otherwise you would've followed up that sentence with what you said about needing both).

EDIT:

Are you honestly somehow seriously suggesting that guys who don't know how to talk to girls naturally are somehow lacking in personal substance as men? That's ridiculous. Am I being trolled here?

No, I'm saying what you claim to have been saying about needing both a good product and good delivery. I suspect that we are communicating in different ways.

EDIT2: I was looking at this post as you can tell by me quoting it in this post. Information that is key to understanding the meaning of that post should all be in that post.