PUA Forum
https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/

interesting stuff from a Christian author
https://www.pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=70160		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  cutts [ Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:25 am ]
Post subject:  interesting stuff from a Christian author
http://donmilleris.com/2010/04/07/what- ... -from-men/
Author:  minsok [ Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree with what he says. It's all kind of standard. Women don't like needy boring guys? Really?
Author:  cutts [ Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
i just thought it was interesting because a lot of people view Christians as the sissy nice people. i for one know that you can still be a Christian and do what it takes to get a girl. i'm of course not trying to start a religious debate i just thought y'all would appreciate the information from an unexpected source.
Author:  minsok [ Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, it is surprising coming from a Christian author. It seems like you guys don't value masculinity. I'll never try gaming a devout Christian again, though. She was talking about marriage in the first week and she was trying to get me to give up sex and insisted that she wasn't trying to convert me (she just wanted me to have her values). Ridiculous. It's good to see there's another side to the coin anyway.
Author:  ktime70 [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
i just thought it was interesting because a lot of people view Christians as the sissy nice people. i for one know that you can still be a Christian and do what it takes to get a girl. i'm of course not trying to start a religious debate i just thought y'all would appreciate the information from an unexpected source.
Really? Christianity has a huge history of repressing women, and treating them as a commodity, having men as "the important" ones and women merely as the wives/girlfriends. that sort of attitude/teaching should make for some seriously successful pickup artists.
Author:  minsok [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:01 am ]
Post subject: 
All religions except wicca has that heritage. All cultures have a history of repressing women. If that makes for good PUA's, then all our ancestors were PUA's.
Author:  ktime70 [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
All religions except wicca has that heritage. All cultures have a history of repressing women. If that makes for good PUA's, then all our ancestors were PUA's.
well the species is still here without online forums to teach PU, so i would say, yes, yes they were.
Author:  minsok [ Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Being able to knock up the first girl that will have sex with you is not pick up. AFC's still have sex and reproduce, they just don't have as many options. According to your logic, all animals that haven't gone extinct are PUA's. Apparently pandas have no game.
Author:  ktime70 [ Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:04 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Being able to knock up the first girl that will have sex with you is not pick up. AFC's still have sex and reproduce, they just don't have as many options. According to your logic, all animals that haven't gone extinct are PUA's. Apparently pandas have no game.
Yep all species have PUA. the term "PUA" and the term "alpha male" can be interchanged easily.

where do you think our "nice guy" persona comes from? our supplicating to women? our fear of touching them? it's not genetic (those genes would not be selected for during evolution). it's social conditioning. we're raised by women to be "nice little boys". without the conditioning, going caveman would feel much more natural.
Author:  minsok [ Fri Jul 02, 2010 5:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Really. You think behavior that would cause ancient man to protect a pregnant woman and protect the child thereafter wouldn't be chosen by women? You think they'd only choose men that look menacing, like they'd rape them senseless and leave them for dead? You think "altruism" only exists in humans because women bred us that way? You think males won't protect their own genes? Most species also do not have alpha males. Look up the mating habits of chimps, which we are most closely related to, and lions, which we think are "alpha". Come back after you've cracked open a book or wikipedia at least.
Author:  ktime70 [ Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Really. You think behavior that would cause ancient man to protect a pregnant woman and protect the child thereafter wouldn't be chosen by women? You think they'd only choose men that look menacing, like they'd rape them senseless and leave them for dead? You think "altruism" only exists in humans because women bred us that way? You think males won't protect their own genes? Most species also do not have alpha males. Look up the mating habits of chimps, which we are most closely related to, and lions, which we think are "alpha". Come back after you've cracked open a book or wikipedia at least.
women don't select anything.

we don't select anything.

individual genes are "SELECTED" based on their profficiency in getting into the next generation. Try "the selfish gene" by Dawkins to get a handle on the true terminology. i'm not saying "women want to be raped and left for dead", i am saying, biologically, women find men who are dominant, and confident in taking what they want (alpha) more attractive, than men who act like their siblings (AFC)

therefore, no, genes that prevent you from "going caveman" on a girl would not survive in high numbers to the next generation. a genetic inability to score sex frequently would also be detrimental t

in most pre-modern society, altruism and kinship worked BECAUSE tribes banded together to protect their members, and raise their kids. a woman wouldn't have "selected" for a pansy (yes, pansy) for hope they'd have the balls to protect their offspring. they relied on the rest of the tribe, and/or family groups for that (because tribal/family groups are more likely to share the same DNA, therefore acting altruistically towards individuals with the same genes is beneficial for the genes in question). pair bonding and small family groups, instead of tribal communities, is a relatively new (on a genetic timeframe) concept for the human race.

but even if you were right. even if it was about "protection" of the next generation, wouldn't a high value, dominant male, who has more "sway" or respect from the surrounding tribe, who gets preference of the women, food etc, and who is not weak, snivelling, AFCish be more likely to SUCCESSFULLY secure a meal and protect the young?

if i'm wrong, why is it so many women, despite their education, or equal opportunities viewpoint, love rough, animalistic sex, and being dominated? because a mans ability to dominate SUGGESTS they are genetically strong. why else would rockstars/biker/thug types get plenty of women, even though the women CONCIENCELY know that they aren't sticking around to raise the baby.

i didn't say it was just women that repressed us. ruling factions also have plenty to gain from keeping *genetically* alpha men born into lower socio-economic circumstances repressed.

crack open wikipedia hey? well i'd have thought some of the more indepth works to be better, but be damned if i'm going to search through them to quote formally, but as per your suggestion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_male

Primates
Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges.

In certain highly social species such as the bonobo, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take his place.

Gorillas use intimidation to establish and maintain alpha position.

so which book should i crack open next?
Author:  minsok [ Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Well played sir, I'm not even going to try to pick apart any of your points (we've already had this drawn out discussion elsewhere). Enjoy your peace offering.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/