~ archived since 2018 ~

why people mock PUAs, and the unintentional game of disinterested men: dual realities.

[deleted]

June 29, 2014

0 upvotes

/r/seduction

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	why people mock PUAs, and the unintentional game of disinterested men: dual realities.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	8
Date	June 29, 2014 2:14 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/seduction
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/29d517/why_people_mock_puas_and_the_unintentional_game/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/seduction/why-people-mock-puas-and-the-unintentional-game-of.1372807 https://theredarchive.com/post/1372807

Comments

[–]gaia_scienzia 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with a couple things.

"When they see PUAs like us making an effort to actually create attraction they go apeshit bc of the implications: if it takes this much game to get a woman attracted, and he used no game, then she's not w him bc she's attracted. That is the hidden offense of the PUA. So mock the PUAs "these guys have to use tricks bc women aren't NATURALLY attracted to them" but he ought to be saying this about himself."

'Creating attraction' has got to be the central fallacy/conundrum of PUA. It is like gravity in physics, the one fact which threatens to bring down the entire structure. Look closely at it and you are in danger of having an insight which can destroy the entire paradigm.

My view is that no one ever created attraction which didn't exist before. Guys forced themselves into interactions which they otherwise would never have had, and so they saw results they otherwise never would have seen -- this still does not imply that any attraction was actually created. Like energy, I am very skeptical of the idea that attraction could be created or destroyed. Unfortunately I can't convert anybody easily with a wall of text, or at least, I dont want to.

You can prove the idea with yourself. Talk to half the girls using PUA methods -- the other half without. Observe the negative results: Notice how many you approach with PUA methods will not be into it? Many. What sophistication of technique do you need, since we are in the business of 'creating' attraction, what technique did you fail to do which would have created attraction where none existed before.

With the non-gamed half of the girls, observe the positive results: many (or some) will be in to you right off the approach, sans gaming. These will also be women who are relatively easy to get to know and possibly eventually sleep with. Isn't it interesting how 'creating' attraction didn't work in the one instance, and proved unnecessary in the other instance?

Yes, it all points back to the notion being total self-conceit. Imagine a woman who wasnt your type at all physically, trying to 'create attraction' by throwing herself at you. shivers. And the analogy is 1-to-1.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]puaCurveBall 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]puaCurveBall 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]puaCurveBall 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gaia_scienzia 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So clearly we're of different opinions, and maybe there's no need to resolve it. But I will respond to what you've said.

"If men's looks were all women responded to, then the same would apply to men who are gaming her. But it has been proven time and time again that looks are not all a woman responds to and the right opener can spark attraction, this isnt theory, its experimentally proven, tried and tested."

Actually it was never proven, because attraction is not something that can be objectively measured. The phrase "all that women respond to" gives this concept quite a wide range. Women, being social creatures, will tend to respond to anything in their social surroundings. They 'respond to' any aspect of the social world they can readily observe. What you are inferring, and what I dont agree with, is that 'responding to' in some way correlates to deeply felt physical/sexual/psychological attraction, which is not true.

In my opinion, the gamer is tricking himself. Women are polite creatures, for one, and their sexuality is wide-ranging in terms of flirtatiousness, innuendo, and being happy about getting flattered. This is very different than the connection needed to actually mate with someone -- politeness, flattery and 'curiosity' are not replacements for attraction. As a PUA, one is able to trigger responses which indicate flirtation, flattery, politeness, and polite curiosity -- but if you were in fact able to 'create attraction' where it didnt exist, then PUA would be very powerful indeed. And in fact, my observation leads me to believe that it is not.

'Female choice' is not a gameable mechanism: there is no hack to overcome the genuine arousal of female desire. And female desire is not such a superficial thing that it can be created via magic tricks and interesting one-liners, or even scripted interactions of any kind.

"In the cases of PUA methods NOT working like you mentioned, its not bc PU doesnt suceed more than non PU, its bc there was a flaw in the application."

I get it. You have a model of attraction that you think fits the world. I will say this much: you are destined for an amazing sex life if this is true. If what you say is true, PUA is really, really, really awesome stuff. I'm not sure that thats the case, but ok, each his own and all that.