Better Asian Man Is An Unethical Wet Pussy

[winnovation]

Like most people here, if I need advice re: guys, I try to obtain advice from both sides. I'm friends with mostly guys and they give me great advice. Even if I disagree with them, they still give me a nice perspective that I don't necessarily see all the time.

Originally Posted by King4aDay
And also, why are there no women formally associated as instructors or
guest speakers or somehing like? You must admit, it just seems a given
that actual women be involved in teaching men how to be better with
women. (Y'know, because the're WOMEN they probably know a little
something about women) Why are there no women again?

PUAs getting advice on real women who will give them real practical advice? Not likely. They pick and choose only women who will agree with their ways. God forbid, they actually get intelligent advice that disagree with their objectification methodology and tell them to stop being selfish egocentrics. This is why most of them cannot retain real relationships for long. If you get to know the hardcore PUAs, most of them are pretty empty inside. Most of them have low self-esteem inside and are egotistical on the outside and think only of themselves. Hmmm...I wonder why they are so cyclically dissatisfied.... The cyclically unhappy 'teaching' others how to be cyclically unhappy.

[ninajoy]

Originally Posted by jaehwan

Getting a female instructor would imply valuing her as a human being with useful things to say and consider. It would imply that she's something beyond just an HB10 or whatever rating they put on how she looks. I'm not sure if that's against the BAM code of ethics, but it seems to be very much against the BAM code of practice.

with seduction you can't value on your victim, it reduces your detachment from them and undermines your seducing them. so wouldn't a code of ethics become an oxymoron when pertaining to seduction? seduction itself isn't ethical. its a method of manipulation that i would assume most people wouldn't do to people they care about or respect. creating a false sense of security, using the victims insecurities against them or creating insecurity to use against them, creating tension by sending mixed signals of interest to lure their interest, etc etc... these are not conducive to having a healthy relationship/friendship with people (male or female) but it is conducive to exerting power over someone else.

if you follow a code of ethics in regards to interaction with other people, then you can't see them as objects, victims, prey, or anything else that implies less worth than you. i know its just preaching to the choir at this point, but if you want to get advice on the opposite sex...then you need to ask members of the opposite sex that know you well. as others have already said, if i'm flummoxed about a guy then i ask my guy and girl friends (straight & gay) to get a balanced viewpoint. if i want to know how to talk to a guy i'm crushing on, i ask for advice from guys. if my guy friends need advice about a girl, they ask me. but if they need advice or tips on sleeping with as many women as possible...they don't ask me...they talk to other guys. they have a problem with asking me how to get into a girl's pants and not feel bad.

a caveat, if you don't have friends of the opposite sex to get advice from, then maybe thats your problem? afterall, you don't need to value women as people or have female friends to sleep around, but if you want a girlfriend then having friends that are girls is a step toward that.

[King4aDay]

Originally Posted by ninajoy

with seduction you can't value on your victim, it reduces your detachment from them and undermines your seducing them. so wouldn't a code of ethics become an oxymoron when pertaining to seduction? seduction itself isn't ethical. its a method of manipulation that i would assume most people wouldn't do to people they care about or respect.

I believe that PUAthink employs a very minimal standard for defining "ethical
behavior" in the first place. As I see it, there are graduated thresholds for the
building of an ethical standard .

1) Clearly Unethical Behavior – To harm another against their will, and
without their consent, for your own personal gain.
Examples: Rape, assault, robbery, molestation, harrassment.

2) Quasi Ethical Behavior – To harm another having gained the
consent of the individual to be harmed, for your own personal gain.
Example: Selling someone an ARM home loan even though you know
that it will certainly bankrupt them. If they're stupid enouh to consent, then
they deserve whatever happens to them.

3) Highly Ethical Behavior – To refuse to harm another, regardless
of their willingness to be harmed, and in spite of the promise of
personal gain.
Example: The bartender who "cuts off" a drunk patron who is demanding
more drinks. Or, the plastic surgeon who refuses to perform a risky
operation, even thought the patient requests it and he will be well paid
for his work.

--------------------
It seems that PUA ethics fall squarely under definition Number 2.

As long as you don't actually forceably rape someone, then you're OK.
Any amount of psychological manipulation, applied pressure, or stretching
of the truth, is allowable as long as you can gain nominal consent for what
you want to do to her.

In short, you put your own interests first, and then go about finding any
possible means to gain her consent for the achievement your desires.
YOU DON"T REALLY CARE ABOUT HER WELL BEING, all you need is her O.K.

The fact that you do this without actual violence is then called "ethical"

[winnovation]

Originally posted by King4aDay: It seems that PUA ethics fall squarely under definition Number 2. (Quasi-Ethical)

As long as you don't actually forceably rape someone, then you're OK.
Any amount of psychological manipulation, applied pressure, or stretching
of the truth, is allowable as long as you can gain nominal consent for what
you want to do to her.

You are correct. I used to read some of the "FRs" and "LRs" that were on the forum. A lot of them were about women NOT consenting, and then they'd try try try again. Fail. Try again. Fail. And then some of the women would end up 'giving in' or just leave the apt after the PUAs many failed attempts. If a girl says no, you don't simply change the topic, and TRY TRY TRY again! That's disrespectful and selfish. And these are coming from instructors...leading by 'ethical' example of course. But most of these PUAs don't think about the women due to their blind selfish motivations. They simply ask each other what they can do better next time around to score.

[Senkeh]

Originally Posted by King4aDay

I believe that PUAthink employs a very minimal standard for defining "ethical
behavior" in the first place. As I see it, there are graduated thresholds for the
building of an ethical standard .

1) Clearly Unethical Behavior – To harm another against their will, and
without their consent, for your own personal gain.
Examples: Rape, assault, robbery, molestation, harrassment.

2) Quasi Ethical Behavior – To harm another having gained the
consent of the individual to be harmed, for your own personal gain.
Example: Selling someone an ARM home loan even though you know
that it will certainly bankrupt them. If they're stupid enouh to consent, then
they deserve whatever happens to them.

3) Highly Ethical Behavior – To refuse to harm another, regardless
of their willingness to be harmed, and in spite of the promise of
personal gain.
Example: The bartender who "cuts off" a drunk patron who is demanding
more drinks. Or, the plastic surgeon who refuses to perform a risky
operation, even thought the patient requests it and he will be well paid
for his work.

--------------------
It seems that PUA ethics fall squarely under definition Number 2.

As long as you don't actually forceably rape someone, then you're OK.
Any amount of psychological manipulation, applied pressure, or stretching
of the truth, is allowable as long as you can gain nominal consent for what
you want to do to her.

In short, you put your own interests first, and then go about finding any
possible means to gain her consent for the achievement your desires.
YOU DON"T REALLY CARE ABOUT HER WELL BEING, all you need is her O.K.

The fact that you do this without actual violence is then called "ethical"

Excellently stated. In the PUA world, it seems that everything is about redefining. Women are redefined. Ethics are redefined. Relationships are redefined. And the new definition often comes at the woman's expense.

[nightshade]

Originally Posted by Senkeh

Excellently stated. In the PUA world, it seems that everything is about redefining. Women are redefined. Ethics are redefined. Relationships are redefined. And the new definition often comes at the woman's expense.

I hadn't thought about it this way--but it's true.

An aside: The first step in approaching women shouldn't be "What do I think women want?" It should be "Am I OK in my own company?" If the answer to this question is no, then what needs to change?

And really, a person needs to want to change for himself or herself. There is no point in changing for other people.

[Senkeh]

Originally Posted by nightshade

An aside: The first step in approaching women shouldn't be "What do I think women want?"

And it sure as hell shouldn't be, "What do I want her to want? And how can I persuade her?"

[tokyolovestory]

Originally Posted by winnovation

You are correct. I used to read some of the "FRs" and "LRs" that were on the forum. A lot of them were about women NOT consenting, and then they'd try try try again. Fail. Try again. Fail. And then some of the women would end up 'giving in' or just leave the apt after the PUAs many failed attempts. If a girl says no, you don't simply change the topic, and TRY TRY TRY again! That's disrespectful and selfish. And these are coming from instructors...leading by 'ethical' example of course. But most of these PUAs don't think about the women due to their blind selfish motivations. They simply ask each other what they can do better next time around to score.

That just made me absolutely sick to my stomach.

[OctaVentiConPanna]

Originally Posted by King4aDay

And also, why are there no women formally associated as instructors or
guest speakers or somehing like? You must admit, it just seems a given
that actual women be involved in teaching men how to be better with
women. (Y'know, because the're WOMEN they probably know a little
something about women) Why are there no women again?

That is in fact, false. Roxana is an instructor and Jeffy's last girlfriend was an instructor as well and there are others.

http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/in...ors.asp#roxana

[King4aDay]

Originally Posted by OctaVentiConPanna

That is in fact, false. Roxana is an instructor and Jeffy's last girlfriend was an instructor as well and there are others.

http://www.realsocialdynamics.com/in...ors.asp#roxana

You're quite right, I didn't qualify my statement. But please allow me to do
so now. I do not know every PUA establishment in the world and therefore I
cannot be sure that there are absolutely NO female PUAs instructing
anywhere on the face of the earth. My statement was too broad. You have
pointed out one practicing and one ex instructor, as I take it?

Tell me, I would be interested in speaking with both the practicing
instructor and the ex instructor... Jeffy's last girlfriend. Call it a project of
personal interest. Do you think either one would be interested in a
dialogue? Or if neither of them is available, perhaps you might do nicely?
You seem well informed on the inner sanctum of PUA, what do you say?