Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Orbyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 980

10 Dec 2009, 3:53 am

AutisticMalcontent wrote:
Orbyss wrote:
Here, let me try to verbalize the concepts more clearly. For truly successful...

...long term relationships: Be yourself by learning who you are. As you do that, learn to expand and 'evolve' your personality in a constructive manner; branch out, experience, learn to interact in a natural, healthy, effective way. For relationships with family, friends and partners, learn to love by giving and focusing outside yourself and your own desires. Not all of this is easy, especially for people with ASDs.

Also, "friends first" can really work. I have a sneaking suspicion many relationships fail because people are trying to get something for themselves by searching out these specific interactions. "I have to get with someone, I have to have a relationship, I have to get married...[etc.]" In my opinion, that's a recipe for disaster. As friends, you can be yourself. If yourself isn't what they're looking for, there's is absolutely no reason why you should try to fake anything else to get it to work because it will only prolong the inevitable.

...casual sex partners: Become a pick-up artist. Learn the moves. You don't have to be yourself to hold together a one night-stand or repeated encounters with a casual sex partner. Rote behaviours can probably get you there just as well as the 'usual NT' way of intuitive social logic. It's just a game at that point.


I agree with your logic on long term relationships and also with the casual sex partners descriptions.

However, what if you use the tactics of a pick up artist to impress women, however not to bed them? This is exactly what I plan to do, to use the tactics of a pick up artist to attract (and manipulate to a certain extent) a woman that I personally find attractive.

The whole premise of picking up a girl (according to the Mystery Method, which I'm reading) is a simple formula: Attract --> Build Comfort --> Seduce. Within those 3 phases are a series of tips and things to look out for. The last stage, Seduce, is the only one that involves anything of a sexual nature. So if you eliminate that, you have Attract --> Build Comfort, the equivalent of a friendship. Except you have control of the situation, you know more than the average guy. You know why attractive women brush off guys, you know why nice guys fail, you know how to break down a girl's defenses and make her value you over the average bub she is used to rejecting. Knowledge is power :wink:

Does it involve manipulation? Of course it does. Deviant? Absolutely. Is it being untrue to yourself? Yes. However, if being true to yourself means getting rejected all the time, it would be better to do something different. I'm not a nymphomaniac, and my goal isn't to bed women. My goal is to meet a girl that I'm attracted to, and get to know her and bypass all the stupidity that comes from internalized arrogance and social prejudices concerning dating (for example, people thinking they are better than one another solely based on their physical appearance, or it being socially taboo for someone who has perceived low social value to date someone who is high up on the social ladder).

I now believe that not all attractive women are b*****s, and that if you properly get past their defenses, they will prove to be humane than malicious. Yes, sooner or later, you're going to have to be yourself again, but I'm fairly certain that if you've broken down her defenses and allowed her to trust you, I don't think she will have anything to fear from you and will be romantically attracted to you for who you are, that is if you're a nice, gentleman. I've heard that the Mystery Method is very successful and that a lot of guys have benefited from it, so I know that it works. I only need to put it into practice.


Using logic is one way to learn, so I can't frown upon that. I'm confused as to what sort of woman you're attracted to, or hoping to attract. I know for a fact those sort of PUA tactics don't work on me, and if anything they drive me away much quicker than a guy just being honest. That's the one major flaw I see in all of those logic-based PUA books (I've seen them--my best guy friend owns 'The Game,' as well) is that they overlook, or don't put enough (or any) emphasis on honesty. For practicing moves and playing fun social games they're absolutely ace. But as I said, in the long run, I can only see very probable eventual failure.

With this it's down to personal tastes, goals and perspective. I'm not sure what it is you're looking for, so I can only assume this may be the best way for you to move forward. Good luck, in any case. :D



AutisticMalcontent
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 459

12 Dec 2009, 8:38 pm

Orbyss wrote:
AutisticMalcontent wrote:
Orbyss wrote:
Here, let me try to verbalize the concepts more clearly. For truly successful...

...long term relationships: Be yourself by learning who you are. As you do that, learn to expand and 'evolve' your personality in a constructive manner; branch out, experience, learn to interact in a natural, healthy, effective way. For relationships with family, friends and partners, learn to love by giving and focusing outside yourself and your own desires. Not all of this is easy, especially for people with ASDs.

Also, "friends first" can really work. I have a sneaking suspicion many relationships fail because people are trying to get something for themselves by searching out these specific interactions. "I have to get with someone, I have to have a relationship, I have to get married...[etc.]" In my opinion, that's a recipe for disaster. As friends, you can be yourself. If yourself isn't what they're looking for, there's is absolutely no reason why you should try to fake anything else to get it to work because it will only prolong the inevitable.

...casual sex partners: Become a pick-up artist. Learn the moves. You don't have to be yourself to hold together a one night-stand or repeated encounters with a casual sex partner. Rote behaviours can probably get you there just as well as the 'usual NT' way of intuitive social logic. It's just a game at that point.


I agree with your logic on long term relationships and also with the casual sex partners descriptions.

However, what if you use the tactics of a pick up artist to impress women, however not to bed them? This is exactly what I plan to do, to use the tactics of a pick up artist to attract (and manipulate to a certain extent) a woman that I personally find attractive.

The whole premise of picking up a girl (according to the Mystery Method, which I'm reading) is a simple formula: Attract --> Build Comfort --> Seduce. Within those 3 phases are a series of tips and things to look out for. The last stage, Seduce, is the only one that involves anything of a sexual nature. So if you eliminate that, you have Attract --> Build Comfort, the equivalent of a friendship. Except you have control of the situation, you know more than the average guy. You know why attractive women brush off guys, you know why nice guys fail, you know how to break down a girl's defenses and make her value you over the average bub she is used to rejecting. Knowledge is power :wink:

Does it involve manipulation? Of course it does. Deviant? Absolutely. Is it being untrue to yourself? Yes. However, if being true to yourself means getting rejected all the time, it would be better to do something different. I'm not a nymphomaniac, and my goal isn't to bed women. My goal is to meet a girl that I'm attracted to, and get to know her and bypass all the stupidity that comes from internalized arrogance and social prejudices concerning dating (for example, people thinking they are better than one another solely based on their physical appearance, or it being socially taboo for someone who has perceived low social value to date someone who is high up on the social ladder).

I now believe that not all attractive women are b*****s, and that if you properly get past their defenses, they will prove to be humane than malicious. Yes, sooner or later, you're going to have to be yourself again, but I'm fairly certain that if you've broken down her defenses and allowed her to trust you, I don't think she will have anything to fear from you and will be romantically attracted to you for who you are, that is if you're a nice, gentleman. I've heard that the Mystery Method is very successful and that a lot of guys have benefited from it, so I know that it works. I only need to put it into practice.


Using logic is one way to learn, so I can't frown upon that. I'm confused as to what sort of woman you're attracted to, or hoping to attract. I know for a fact those sort of PUA tactics don't work on me, and if anything they drive me away much quicker than a guy just being honest. That's the one major flaw I see in all of those logic-based PUA books (I've seen them--my best guy friend owns 'The Game,' as well) is that they overlook, or don't put enough (or any) emphasis on honesty. For practicing moves and playing fun social games they're absolutely ace. But as I said, in the long run, I can only see very probable eventual failure.

With this it's down to personal tastes, goals and perspective. I'm not sure what it is you're looking for, so I can only assume this may be the best way for you to move forward. Good luck, in any case. :D


The kinds of women I'm trying to attract? I really don't know what kind of women I want to attract because my perception of attraction is all or nothing. I want beauty, intelligence, morality, kindness, maturity. Do such women exist with all those qualities? Probably not. Yes, yes, that is the number one problem, I'm way too particular, way too picky, etc and so forth. It is a common plight to all guys who have been single for a long time, they complain about being alone, but they really want the most beautiful girls they can find without starting from the bottom and working their way up.

As for "honesty", which you pointed out, I do agree that pickup artists don't put a great deal of emphasis on honesty. But honestly, if you're an introvert who is shy and naturally quiet around women, do you honestly think that by being "honest" and being yourself, that women will notice you at all? I must disagree.

Let's take me for example. If I were to be myself, I would always have a serious look on my face, and I would be very quiet and shy around women. If I had the misfortune of being attracted to one, I probably would act like a fool and try to impress her through showing off or whatnot. Either way no one is impressed. The girl isn't impressed with a guy who is not willing to open up to her, nor would she be impressed by a guy who is acting like a hardass to impress her.

The same probably would go for most guys as well. If a guy is shy and quiet around a girl and she tries talking to him, and he is reluctant talking about, she'll assume he is either arrogant or unfit for her romantically. What would be more preferable, for a guy to open up to you via a PUA tactic (that is if you didn't know all about the Venusian arts, seduction, and PUA tactics), or for him to merely be quiet and shy, not saying much to you? At least he stands a chance with the first, but most certainly not with the latter.

What is a little deception up front? If being yourself makes you shy and inaccessible, why not use the techniques that guys who pick up women use all the time? Like I said, it gives you a fighting chance that you otherwise would not have.

I think nice, shy guys should use pick up artist techniques, because otherwise they will become embittered and alone, claiming that women have rejected them and complaining about "nice guys vs. jerks" and whatnot, which is a common theme on this particular forum. I know, I've been there so much that it isn't even funny. However, if I can attract a girl via a pick up artist's method, it will be by far a GREATER thing I have done than spending my time alone, contemplating about "What ifs?" or "Why do women not like me?" And thank you for wishing me good luck, I most certainly will need it :lol: .



makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

12 Dec 2009, 11:19 pm

Quote:
I want beauty, intelligence, morality, kindness, maturity.


These are subjective and vague.

Define beauty, in what strikes you.
Define intelligence. Well read? Must it be chemistry or literature or electronics or astrophysics?
Define morals. Whose morals? I'm sure mine are different than yours; what really matter here?
Define kindness. Someone who volunteers for weeks at a time, or someone who shares their smile?
Define maturity. Is this someone who is conservative in dress? Or has less worldly desires? Or merely has more orbits completed?

You appear to be fixated on an unattainable 'avatar' of your preconceptions; until you have sufficient experience, it is hard to know what it really important.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


AutisticMalcontent
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 459

13 Dec 2009, 12:28 pm

makuranososhi wrote:
Quote:
I want beauty, intelligence, morality, kindness, maturity.


These are subjective and vague.

Define beauty, in what strikes you.
Define intelligence. Well read? Must it be chemistry or literature or electronics or astrophysics?
Define morals. Whose morals? I'm sure mine are different than yours; what really matter here?
Define kindness. Someone who volunteers for weeks at a time, or someone who shares their smile?
Define maturity. Is this someone who is conservative in dress? Or has less worldly desires? Or merely has more orbits completed?

You appear to be fixated on an unattainable 'avatar' of your preconceptions; until you have sufficient experience, it is hard to know what it really important.


M.


You're right, Alan Rickman, what I said was extremely ambiguous :P