Stop letting woman use you

[Ulax]

35 minutes ago, Emerald said:

We'll often use arguments that we don't even believe in to protect the paradigms we're attached to.

I'm glad you're able to admit that  

[Emerald]

42 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Emerald cheers. To be clear I do not disagree with you, this is more questions surrounding your model. I think subjective access and empirical generalisability are two different things

I note you use the phrase "tactics" - but what if you replaced that with "expertise".

One could easily phrase it in another way to be more palatable to women. So instead of "he used tactics to increase attraction" it becomes "he used expertise to increase attraction".

Because eventually, using methods and frames for attraction, the aim would be to accumulate enough wisdom for expertise to be reached via the frame "training wheels". And the purpose of applying the tactics would be to reach expertise. The frame / method being discarded later.

Relative the dichotomy you mentioned of "subjective access' versus "empirical generalizability"...

It's not that I'm saying that empirical generalizability itself is an issue. I'm just arguing for a more holistic and helpful empirical generalizability than what men currently have access to... which requires receptivity to how women actually experience attractions.

Ultimately, empirical generalizability is the perspective that men have to work within, with regard to the female perspective on dating and attraction. And that isn't a problem in and of itself.

The issue is that, a lot about the reality of the subjective female experience is getting lost in translation relative to the current popular models of empirical generalizability... as it over-indexes on short-term results. But it misses the fact that these paradigms in themselves create a ceiling that will make it MUCH more difficult in the long-run for these men.

So, men operating through empirical generalizability is par for the course.

And the current models of empirical generalizability often have tactics that are effective towards very specific measurable ends... but might backfire in the long term in other ways that are profoundly detrimental to the man in ways that he's not aware of, simply because of his lack of experience with the subjective experience with womanhood and really understanding what it's like to be a woman who's very attracted to a man.

Also, the current models of empirical generalizability tend to get related to as a panacea understanding of women. That causes men who follow them and find comfort in them to hyper-attach to them... to the exclusion of the perspective of "How do women actually experience this subjectively?"

And this is when those models act more like a security blanket that blocks out deeper truths that are more conducive to understand and have genuine connection with women over the long run. 

Honestly, if a man is so attached to these paradigms, he's not going to be able to really see and understand the woman he's with as a whole person because his cup is already too full with he knowledge of the "empirical generalizability" model that's he's using to maximize short-term success and minimize risk.

Also, understanding the real subjective experiences of female attraction from a variety of women (and being genuinely receptive to these perspective) will also minimize feelings of alienation and shame, which is a major part of what causes connection with women to be scary and intimidating, in the first place.

Right now, the practical paradigms end up ramping up the pressure and fear even more, because female attraction has been framed in a way within these empirical generalizability models in a way that's hyper-objective and operationalizable (as that's what gives the greatest level of leverage)... but it ultimately frames women's sexuality as something that feels alien and cold to them.

So, it's really about developing a more holistic model of female sexuality that's based in the actual truth of the matter, even if that truth reveals something less certain or practically leveragable. And that requires a man to realize, "My paradigm on female sexuality was built for my comfort to minimize my vulnerabilities and to maximize my leverage in the situation. And while there are some effective practical parts of this paradigm that give me short-term measurable results, that doesn't mean that the paradigm is accurate or that the paradigm gives me a panacea understanding of women."

So, it's more about getting them to recognize the limitations of these practical paradigms in general... and to say, "These practical paradigms will likely backfire on you in the long-run, if you don't understand how high-discernment women are actually experiencing these practical tactics."

So, I would say... you can't develop true expertise about attracting women until you have a more holistic understanding of where your practical paradigms begin and end.

Edited 21 hours ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

48 minutes ago, Olaf said:

@Emerald I have never heard the term non-white person before, either black or dark skin, but non-white sounds a bit off I don't know, maybe its me

It's common in left-leaning political circles. 

[Emerald]

33 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I'm glad you're able to admit that  

Any human, including myself, can fall into logical fallacies when faced with cognitive dissonance.

The solution is non-defensive self-honesty and willingness to engage with the nuances of the opposing argument.

So, I'm not shaming you for using logical fallacies. But I am pointing it out.

Can you recognize that these statements are defenses that reflect a lack of openness to engagement with opposing perspectives?

Edited 20 hours ago by Emerald

[Ulax]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Can you recognize that these statements are defenses that reflect a lack of openness to engagement with opposing perspectives?

I'm flattered my recognition means so much to you .  But let's take it slow

[Joshe]

You don't have to trick them, lol. 

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Hmmm, this discussion seems to be presenting a distinction between authenticity and competence.

I can see that simply being genuine doesn't automatically make the way you express yourself socially effective. You can authentically express insecurity, neediness, avoidance, poor boundaries, or social cluelessness. A la @Olaf's angle.

But I also agree with the argument that consciously learning a skill doesn't necessarily mean you're being fake. A beginner musician might consciously think about technique; an expert eventually embodies it and no longer experiences it as technique.

 

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Hmmm, this discussion seems to be presenting a distinction between authenticity and competence.

Maybe it's more that authenticity is a prerequisite for competence in this domain. To dispense with it is a shortcut that you'll pay for later. The Mexican proverb "the lazy man works twice as hard" comes to mind. But it's not just authenticity. It's integrity and mutual respect for women. 

I've not been able to figure out how to articulate my intuitions on this topic but I'll try. It has to do with treating women like humans, not marks to manage or trick with cheap tricks and mind games. Yes, my approach would be slower, because you would be at the mercy of reality for a while and women don't just drop their pants for you, but you would maintain your integrity and be a healthier human in the long run. 

If you consider how much effort some guys are putting into game/pickup, it's like 100x the effort that would be required if you just did things naturally, and this way, you don't have to corrupt yourself. So, it's far less work, far healthier in terms of being regulated and learning to not be desperate/needy (because over time, you stop fighting reality), and in the end, you'll be able to find women without running game on them. Enduring that initial period is the work, not 1000 approaches. Like Emerald mentioned, yeah, the 1000 approaches will work better initially, but the big cost is you never develop in a healthy manner because you've spent years treating women like marks instead of humans. That's the jist, I think.

Also, you have to consider the cost of adopting the pickup paradigm for many years. It will stunt your growth, and potentially prevent you from ever becoming the man you'd like to be, because you took the shortcut and dispensed with your integrity and treated women like dumb marks that you run tricks on. This comes at a very high cost, and the bill comes due. You can get girls without it, you just have to be patient and learn how while maintaining your integrity and being a decent person.

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

But I also agree with the argument that consciously learning a skill doesn't necessarily mean you're being fake. A beginner musician might consciously think about technique; an expert eventually embodies it and no longer experiences it as technique.

A few have mentioned "this is just a stage people go through / it's a normal/necessary part of finding your way". 

To me, this seems so obvious of what learning is that it doesn't need to be mentioned. Which is why I chuckled "lol" earlier after I mentioned that that's how learning works. Because it's as if a few people think this is lost on those of us shining a light on a different way.

What moves people up from the stage below? Most often, stumbling or coming across a new way and exploring it, seeing the validity in it, contemplating it, and trying it on and shedding the inferior ways of the thinking/being from the previous stage. And that's the point of a self-development forum - for members to share ideas regarding learning/development.

So I'm just confused by "it's a necessary part of development", because of course is it. And of course, there is always another stage, which is what we're pointing at. 

Sorry if I'm reopening the Ni-Ni loop, lol. You don't have to respond if you think it's going to spiral. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Joshe

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Also, you have to consider the cost of adopting the pickup paradigm for many years. It will stunt your growth, and potentially prevent you from ever becoming the man you'd like to be, because you took the shortcut and dispensed with your integrity and treated women like dumb marks that you run tricks on. This comes at a very high cost, and the bill comes due. You can get girls without it, you just have to be patient and learn how while maintaining your integrity and being a decent person.

This is mostly what I'm pointing at.

Learning things through these frameworks can create fast results in the short term. 

But these frameworks also create an invisible ceiling for men's growth that gets capped at the lowest common denominator of what low-discernment women are willing to sleep with.

And they will eventually have to do some heavy duty paradigmatic and identity deconstruction to break through that ceiling... if they ever do. 

The reality is that they may never even sense that ceiling, simply because they went from "Not getting results" to "Getting results".

So, they may not sense the collateral damage to their attractiveness in the eyes of women... simply because they believe that it's this paradigm is the only thing actually making them attractive. (Plus, the paradigm is comforting... and letting go will be uncomfortable.)

And they won't perceive the loss of appreciation and admiration from high-discernment women... as the rejection happens silently in her mind when she feels the vibe of that paradigm on him.

They also won't perceive the levels of development that they could achieve if they hadn't attached to this paradigm in the first place. 

Instead, their level of development gets capped because they molded themselves into what they believed that women like... instead of being themselves.

So, it's sort of like, walking forward on a conveyor belt that's moving backwards. 

You feel like you're making progress because you are making steps. But the platform you're walking on is pulling you backwards in ways you don't notice.

And it's fine to use a few social strategies here and there, if they're still authentic.

The issue is the distorted worldview and identity that comes with those strategies... and how that creates so many blocks to genuine connection with women and personal growth.

[Joshe]

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And it's fine to use a few social strategies here and there, if they're still authentic.

Also, you'd form strategies naturally because you'd practice socializing and you'd get feedback about what worked and what didn't, and the calibration would happen naturally. You basically learn to be warm/likeable/charismatic via social feedback and that feedback changes you without you really having to practice anything.

I think the best thing guys could do is just work on their social skills without focusing on women at all, until they can carry on fun/interesting conversations with anyone next to them, when the stakes are low. And after competence there, it transfers over to women much more smoothly without having to bombard your nervous system with the sting of 20 rejections and 20 instances of approach anxiety.

It's like it gives you and trains in a frame of reference for how to be at ease socially, and that eventually makes interacting with women much easier. Maybe it's training the nervous system that humans are safe, and eventually that women are safe. And it's interesting because if you do that but then later adopt the predator-prey mindset again, all of a sudden, the anxiety comes flooding back in because you're afraid you're going to be found out. But if you're not doing anything where you have to fear being found out, there's nothing to worry about. I dabbled in pickup in my early 20s but was just so put off by it because of how it made me feel. I remember being at ease socially and having a good time, then an attractive girl would appear and I'd go into the pickup mindset and I remember just being all fucked up from that, so I stopped, which led to me realizing it was never even necessary. 

Imagine if guys would go out every Friday and Saturday and just work on social skills with the assignment to not think about wanting a girl or sex or anything like that, and their goal was to just have as many good interactions as possible and to connect with anyone. Seems like a good idea.

[something_else]

1 minute ago, Joshe said:

I think the best thing guys could do is just work on their social skills without focusing on women at all, until they can carry on fun/interesting conversations with anyone next to them, when the stakes are low. And after competence there, it transfers over to women much more smoothly without having to bombard your nervous system with the sting of 20 rejections and 20 instances of approach anxiety.

Exactly this. I think taking on pickup as a paradigm/identity is the problem, even if parts of it are useful.

By all means push yourself to talk to lots of women, but do it under the framework of improving social skills or pushing your boundaries instead of ‘pickup’.

As I said, that’s not to say there aren’t parts of the pickup framework that are useful on this journey, but the identity with the framework itself is the problem. It comes with so much baggage.

The men I’ve met who got laid the most would not describe themselves as PUAs. in fact they’d likely think that’s quite cringy. They’re just very sociable guys. They don’t think in terms of “approaches” or “sets” or “frame”. They think in terms of meeting new people, having fun, being playful, and confident. You can argue it’s just a difference of language, and to a degree it is, but that’s a bigger deal than it seems. Once you start using the lingo you start building an identity around it, and that’s where you lose authenticity which hamstrings you in the long run.

In general, identifying too much with any particular framework can become problem. The goal should be to build your own identity by taking bits and pieces from different frameworks without wholeheartedly adopting one as your entire personality.

[Spiral]

I think this whole thing is easy. Men generally try to be honorable and women generally try to be good people.

This is not the same thing and trying to be honorable with women gets you in trouble. Trying to force woman to be honorable is also going to cause massive issues. That’s where you get honor culture and oppression of women. The kind of thing you see in Afghanistan.

A man trying to be a good person(only) with his fellow man is likely going to find himself in trouble. Between men honor is where it is at. Why? Because men value respect more and are not particularly adverse to use violence. It’s a survival adaptation.

So how about guys interacting with women? Try to be a good person, that most likely what she will do.

What does that mean in practice? If you don’t want to talk to her anymore, excuse yourself and leave. You don’t owe her the courtesy of staying in a conversation that doesn’t appeal to you. Is that perhaps slightly rude, probably. But that’s fine, you’re still a good person, she won’t kick your teeth out. This applies in general and woman will respect you for it, and like you more for it. 

Although don’t an ass of course, I think that goes without saying. Lastly in case people take this the wrong way, honor is mutual it’s not about you as a guy.  Where as trying to a good person is

[BlessedLion]

I haven't read this whole thread, but want to say that understanding and learning attraction skills is absolutely neccesary for men, this isn't some cute game or disney fantasy, this is nature and survival we are talking about. If men don't take this seriously they will end up in relationships where they get the short end of the stick (relationships are a negotiation whether people are aware of it or not), cheated on, or even worse cucked and raising a kid that isn't even theirs. 

 

Women simply cannot speak on this topic without massive bias. Their whole experience of dating, sex, and attraction is wildly different from mens, so this advice to "just be yourself" is frankly awful. I'm not saying totally turn your back on yourself and not be authentic, or be manipulative, but learning how to attract and be skillful with women while staying authentic is essential for men if you want power and optionality in the sexual marketplace. Because even if you take the route of "just be yourself" and land a solid, beautiful woman, you will cling to her like a crack head because you know you got lucky and if she leaves you, you don't have the skill to attract another woman like that, so you will be at the mercy of her negotiations and she can bend and twist you to her will because she will also sense your lack of bargaining power in the relationship. Whereas if you know that if she leaves you, you can easily go out and within a week or 2, have another quality beautiful woman around your arm, she will be a much more fair bargaining partner and you can put more beneficial agreements on the relationship. you will also get way less attitude, disrespect, and nagging.

[BlessedLion]

On 8/28/2026 at 4:48 AM, Olaf said:

So whatever she suggests, just say no, "lets do this!!!" No. "Lets go there!!" NO. "Lets kiss!!" NO. NO NO NO!! The only guy that has control is the one who can say no and only does things on his term

I don't see how this is her using you, also this just makes you sound like a tyranical over controlling partner. You can be equal with a woman and still be the leader in the relationship. To me leading has nothing to do with where you eat dinner, whether you kiss her or not, etc frankly if my woman was saying let's kiss i would happily do it that's super cute

[Olaf]

@BlessedLion yes and therefor the lack of your ability to get a different girl than her, will make you act in desperate ways, put her on a pedestal, which will make her disrespect you and use you, just like they use the guy at the bar to get a drink or some rich guy to buy her a nice trip to Italy in some great hotel.

My wingmen who was calling a 10 from a cold approach yesterday, she literally had Gucci bags etc. all in the background and she got gifted a luxurious hotel room as she was sent out of her home a few days prior or something. Probably some rich guy paid for her hotel and all the gifts she gets when she doesn't even have sex with these rich guys. Living life on easy mode by using the beta rich guys. Of course a 7 will not have the same ability as a 10 to just get stuff for free all the time, but she still will use a beta guy, maybe not a rich one. 

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, BlessedLion said:

Because even if you take the route of "just be yourself" and land a solid, beautiful woman, you will cling to her like a crack head because you know you got lucky and if she leaves you, you don't have the skill to attract another woman like that, so you will be at the mercy of her negotiations and she can bend and twist you to her will because she will also sense your lack of bargaining power in the relationship.

I think that’s normal if you’re just starting out getting girlfriends, but ideally those first few breakups would teach you how not to cling. If a girl wants to leave you, you just let her. If she doesn’t want to be with you, then you shouldn’t want to be with her. No bargaining should ever come to your mind. For me, I literally cannot want a relationship with someone who doesn’t want one with me. There would be zero trying to get her back. In fact, I accommodate and usher her out, and I’m not sitting in fear of what I’m going to do to get another girl, and I’m not even thinking about another girl because I have to process the breakup and move on with life. 

Your bargaining power in the relationship is that you will not bargain. She should always know your stance is that if she wants to leave, there’s the door. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe