This is Not the Boogle Memorial Dating Advice/Tips Thread, No

Grubber788 wrote:

I am reading The Game.

I'd keep that under your hat if I were you. The Game has a perception of reducing women to a "system", and nobody appreciates the implication that they're predictable or that their feelings are a game. I've spoken to some women who've read it and intensely dislike it, so be warned.

I've not read it myself, but I have a passing familiarity with PUA stuff and I find it... icky. The language of PUA is pretty horrible and IMO somewhat demeaning (I closed on the HB7 and then sarged my kino on an HB8.5), but I do often wonder if Strauss in particular actually has good intentions and has created a masterpiece aimed at douchebags who think that women can be "gamed". Reel 'em in with tales of bedding anything that moves and once they're listening, actually give decent advice like "stop giving a damn about whether you're gonna get laid tonight" and "don't get hung up on any one woman who's not interested - move on".

Also, don't neg. Preying on people's insecurities so they feel they have something to prove is a dick move. And do you really want your relationships to be built on manipulation?

Hmm, sounds ugly and controversial. I better read this

Sacre Bleu! Rational analysis of The Game! I'm glad I held my pick up artist techniques back that one time.

On the reg though, The Game itself isn't a work of evil. It's all about how you interpret and apply the ideas the book is describing. Reading about something and deciding it sounds like a deuche move and then making an effort never to do that again is just as useful as trying to implement more positive tactics.

Of course a lot of the material in The Game is insulting. It suggests people can systematically be manipulated against their will, emphasis on women (though early on they establish it can work just as easily on other men), and people are going to be repulsed by the notion that they are so easily toyed with.

I don't think reading it is something to hide, though. My brother actually recently went on a date, and while I don't think the manner in which he brought it up was a good idea (to him one of the top rules is don't pay on a first date, etc.). This resulted in him speaking with a woman that wants to basically be a sex therapist and being honest with her about how he used it in his past and how it works. He was surprised to find her curious, engaged and asking questions. Her comparison was my brother being a historian and being fascinated by war. Is war a horrible thing? Of course. Was it still fascinating? Yes.

What will the long term be with that for him? I dunno, but she wasn't repulsed and they continued to hang out after, so the date didn't end immediately.

I have no problem keeping The Game on my bookshelf. Any woman worth dating is going to at least ask me why I have it before passing judgment, something I expect of anyone I would bring into my home and would start looking over my bookshelf. I would be glad to describe how I think it is a fascinating story, and in particular how it points out that these guys mastered the art of scoring but still fail at relationships.

I understand the hesitation. I don't like the idea of someone getting the wrong idea. But I've read through the book three times because it is a good book. I have no interest in trying any of the stuff in there, partly because I have enough trouble liking myself to put that much effort into being someone else.

ccesarano wrote:

I have no problem keeping The Game on my bookshelf. Any woman worth dating is going to at least ask me why I have it before passing judgment, something I expect of anyone I would bring into my home and would start looking over my bookshelf. I would be glad to describe how I think it is a fascinating story, and in particular how it points out that these guys mastered the art of scoring but still fail at relationships.

Congratulations! You are now admitted to the small pool of friends I'm willing to fix up with other people

Huzzah?

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/hateread.jpg)

@Floomi, you really should read it. You're right about the PUA scene, but you are wrong about The Game. It's like not reading a history of WW2 because you don't like Hitler.

Floomi wrote:

Also, don't neg. Preying on people's insecurities so they feel they have something to prove is a dick move. And do you really want your relationships to be built on manipulation?

I think doing it with the express intention of preying on someone's insecurities is pretty sleazy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of well-intentioned teasing. If it displays a fun and light-hearted attitude and sets you apart from the guys lining up to kiss her ass because she won the Genetic Hotness Lottery, where's the harm? If you're setting out to systematically dismantle her self-esteem, then sure. Sleazy. But I don't think it has to be taken to that extreme.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

@Floomi, you really should read it. You're right about the PUA scene, but you are wrong about The Game. It's like not reading a history of WW2 because you don't like Hitler.

That's not a bad analogy, but the one I've been using is that if I really had issues with applying systems to large segments of the population, I wouldn't be in marketing.

Plus, we're still just animals with biological impulses. Even Nobel laureates and world leaders still have an urge to do the dirty.

hbi2k wrote:
Floomi wrote:

Also, don't neg. Preying on people's insecurities so they feel they have something to prove is a dick move. And do you really want your relationships to be built on manipulation?

I think doing it with the express intention of preying on someone's insecurities is pretty sleazy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of well-intentioned teasing. If it displays a fun and light-hearted attitude and sets you apart from the guys lining up to kiss her ass because she won the Genetic Hotness Lottery, where's the harm? If you're setting out to systematically dismantle her self-esteem, then sure. Sleazy. But I don't think it has to be taken to that extreme.

Yes, Strauss states that the point of negging isn't designed to break down the girl's self-esteem, but to show her something new. It demonstrates a certain fearlessness on the part of the man to go up to a beautiful lady and during their conversation say that she accidentally spit on him. You aren't really supposed to neg girls who haven't been told their entire lives that they are 10's. At that point, you're going after her self-esteem, which accomplishes nothing. I don't think any self-respecting PUA (ha!) would advice that because being a dick is sure fire way to not get laid (if that's your goal--sometimes it's just a phone number or a segway into a conversation. It doesn't have to be sex).

Yes. The official Word of Floomi is that teasing is absolutely fine and good, as long as the target can take it.

I'll admit I've got most of my impression of the PUA community from reddit rather than having read The Game (I flicked through it guiltily in a bookshop once, hoping no-one would see me), so you're welcome to dismiss me as uninformed or looking at the wrong group for a representative sample.

I've just realised that I could spend a long time explaining all the problems I have with The Game and PUA in general - it makes me super uncomfortable in lots of ways - but I think I'm just going to shut up instead of spending my time arguing on the internet

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with most of the PUA scene, it's deeply repulsive. And The Game doesn't hide this fact or glorify it. That's the point of the defenders of the book. It's a well written work about something that is potentially destructive, yet still has good lessons for normal people.

Grubber788 wrote:

Yes, Strauss states that the point of negging isn't designed to break down the girl's self-esteem, but to show her something new. It demonstrates a certain fearlessness on the part of the man to go up to a beautiful lady and during their conversation say that she accidentally spit on him. You aren't really supposed to neg girls who haven't been told their entire lives that they are 10's. At that point, you're going after her self-esteem, which accomplishes nothing. I don't think any self-respecting PUA (ha!) would advice that because being a dick is sure fire way to not get laid (if that's your goal--sometimes it's just a phone number or a segway into a conversation. It doesn't have to be sex).

Yeah, read a bit further into the scene itself and you'll see a lot of negging really is about breaking down self esteem. I totally understand why people are uncomfortable with The Game and repelled by the pick up scene. There's a lot of bad stuff.

And if you notice, the people in that book that get the most deep into the scene are the ones whose minds are already adjusted to things like systems. PUA culture is, in some ways, social programming. There are vocabulary words for everything and it relies on you to memorize strategies and methods like a machine. Your brain starts doing function calls when certain conditions are met, and Neil himself even notes that you'll start doing stuff without thinking about it. It becomes natural.

Which again ties into the message of "these guys still suck at relationships". They are viewing social interaction like one might view chemistry or programming. Yet even though people aren't as special as they'd all like to think, there's still more going on in there than The Game suggests. So while the whole PUA culture is great for getting one night stands, you still have to be a good person to get a long-term girlfriend.

What DanB notes above, with the "dress nicely, shave, etc." and confidence stuff, is teaching someone to be much more assertive and to get noticed. This is the valuable advice to take away. Don't try to convince a girl to like you, but show her that you are someone worth liking.

Which boils down to what a lot of the advice given in here is.

The downside to asking a girl out via email is how irritating your run of the mill spam becomes.

ccoates wrote:

The downside to asking a girl out via email is how irritating your run of the mill spam becomes.

Maybe you should stop asking out Nigerian heiresses?

The Juggler section in The Game was definitely my favorite part so far. I love the way that guy writes.

ccesarano wrote:

Which boils down to what a lot of the advice given in here is.

The thing you don't get here, which the PUA scene is actually pretty good for, is you get a group of people that will take you out and physically make you interact with people and give helpful critiques. Talking can only ever take you a short distance, at some point you just have to go over there and make a fool of yourself (repeatedly)

I think I've said all this before in this thread but here goes;

I read The Game some years ago and I went pretty far down the PUA rabbit hole. I would say that as a whole the entire "project" is deeply and needlessly constructed in the most misogynistic way it possibly could be short of vocally hating and physically attacking women. Ok, it's not actually quite that bad but a lot of it is pretty repulsive. Having said all that there is actually a lot of good advice in there but it's couched in really rather offensive terms.

Negging is without doubt the best example of everything that is wrong about the whole scene. And it's where the mental construct of what is taught/conceptualised and the reality of what happens in operation have their biggest disjunction. The PUA scene is utterly fixated on self-esteem, not surprising as it is notionally teaching people with a self confessed lack of social skills how to interact with people (principally women). And this spills in to everything. So negging is about self-esteem and is roundly taught as something to raise your "social standing" at the expense of someone else's self-esteem. It's a really poisonous mind set and encourages really unhealthy ways of thinking about and relating to others. So that's the poisonous, destructive, woman-hating mental construct side of it.

But the reality of negging turns out to be little more than having the self-confidence to tease a complete stranger and having the social skills to do so in a way that is fun and not socially awkward for anyone. Now that's a hard thing to do if you have little social skills but it always struck me that you could directly teach that bit and leave all the the mental baggage about attacking someone else's self-esteem behind.

Another thing I think that is often seldom articulated clearly in the PUA scene is an understanding about "what is attractive" or more correctly what they are actually teaching. Which I think if you step back the entire thing that is being taught is Confidence, and specifically being confident and social situations and displaying that to others. I think all of this "negging is about destroying their self-esteem", learn this or that routine, are almost completely mental crutches. Poisonous mental crutches. But if you can do some routine that makes it look like you are a fun and confident person then you don't have to worry in the moment about having no confidence or self-esteem.

So I really do think that have the wrong take home lessons around a lot of things that are taught. You could teach that it's social confidence, that's it ok to be appropriately (sexually) forward, that it's good to shave and wear nice clothing, all sorts, without teaching the misogynist crap that they do include.

I've also been to a couple of Wayne Elise (Juggler in The Game) seminars. His take on all this is a lot closer to what I've just said, he's against routines, against negging and so forth.

Take all of that for what you will.

Grubber788 wrote:

The Juggler section in The Game was definitely my favorite part so far. I love the way that guy writes.

Yeah I think his outlook is pretty much in line with "being a normal, adult human being who isn't a wild douche"

ccesarano wrote:

And if you notice, the people in that book that get the most deep into the scene are the ones whose minds are already adjusted to things like systems. PUA culture is, in some ways, social programming. There are vocabulary words for everything and it relies on you to memorize strategies and methods like a machine. Your brain starts doing function calls when certain conditions are met, and Neil himself even notes that you'll start doing stuff without thinking about it. It becomes natural.

Which again ties into the message of "these guys still suck at relationships". They are viewing social interaction like one might view chemistry or programming.

One of the things I've heard from women is that guys don't pick up on signals that are blindingly obvious to women. Which makes me think of Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who has gone on to have extraordinary professional success. From what I've read about her/from her, she views social interaction like one might view chemistry of programming: she uses conscious strategies where neurotypicals would use intuition.

I wonder if it's just that for a lot of people, romantic social interaction is not intuitive, and it happens that most of those people are men. In which case, maybe it makes sense to substitute mechanical thinking for an intuitive capability that's just not very strong.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I wonder if it's just that for a lot of people, romantic social interaction is not intuitive, and it happens that most of those people are men. In which case, maybe it makes sense to substitute mechanical thinking for an intuitive capability that's just not very strong.

Pffftt, I'm not wrong, women are wrong.

I've never met a woman who understands the "bro nod."

That's as intuitive as it gets!

Grubber788 wrote:

I've never met a woman who understands the "bro nod."

That's as intuitive as it gets!

CheezePavilion wrote:

I wonder if it's just that for a lot of people, romantic social interaction is not intuitive, and it happens that most of those people are men.

I think it's basically this but I don't think men are less intuitive than women, men's 'iniability' around this is just more "visible" as our culture expects them to just "know" how to woo and to be the instigator.

I don't find it surprising that it's not intuitive to many people, our culture is literally full of unhelpful models about how romance or relationship work that actually bear little relationship to reality.

Grubber788 wrote:

I've never met a woman who understands the "bro nod."

That's as intuitive as it gets!

Sup?

This game-talk leaves me a little astonished. In a world without the Internet, I suppose it'd be worth sharpening initial-contact social skills. "I observe that you, too, consume alcohol in a social setting."

As for negging...

IMAGE(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pickup_artist.png)

I found Models: Attract Women Through Honesty is a pretty good read that takes a lot of lessons from the PUA movement while dropping most of the misogyny.

hbi2k wrote:

I found Models: Attract Women Through Honesty is a pretty good read that takes a lot of lessons from the PUA movement while dropping most of the misogyny.

Is it safe to assume you could provide a recommended reading list as to this sort of stuff?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

As for negging...

This does actually remind me, much as I might seem like some PUA apologist there are indeed plenty (probably most) people teaching and learning (and internalising) things like negging as of bolstering your self confidence at the expense of other's self-esteem. And weird lessons like it's the negging itself that is attractive. All the bad things you might have read or thought about negging are absolutely out there and happening and I don't think there is any way to construct a defence of that stuff. But, as I say, I think they are absolutely fundamentally and completely missing the point.

I feel like I may have laid the groundwork for this thread way back when with my breakup blues threads about a particular ex-girlfriend. I've never noticed it till now, but while the original may have been created by Boogle, I think I should be created as a precursor or inspiriation to this and all future threads. Just saying.

DanB wrote:

Lets not forget this amusing "How Not To Fail At Life" strip that came out of 4chan, I do not endorse or support this message. This strip is a toy do not attempt to actually use in real life.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/How...

That just forwards to the funny junk home page.