NOTE: This page is in desperate need of revision and expansion. In the meantime, I suggest you use Rationalwiki’s Manosphere Glossary.
For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.
First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:
MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.
Ok, so what do those terms mean?
MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.
MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether. I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.
Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:
Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).
Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.
Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.
The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.
NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.
PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”
Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.
Aktivarum: Ok, at least not zero. Are any of those actual PUA:s qualified teaching in the field or are they just students?
Hahhahahhahahha,… Whoooew!
Damn! I needed that. Qualified? As in Certified by the PUA Council of America? Or do you prefer the European Commission on Referees (Making Sure the Men Playing, “The Game” are The Best, since 1996)?
Whose heksher do you prefer?
Becuase so far as I can tell, the only requirement for, “teaching” game has ever been that one has the self-aggrandisig condfidence to pen such epic works as, “How to succeed with women” and then the drive to get it published.
What’s funny about this whole thing is just how long it’s been known to be rediculous. Go find a copy of the film, “Fascination” to see porn making fun of it in 1980.
<i.PUA is based of results. Describing in intellectual way would mean – nothing.
So how is it taught? Because fools like you come in and tell us it’s about getting confidence. Then you go on about how women aren’t worth the men who chase them.
They failing to account for all the men who have success without “Game”, and not taking the failures of the men to be worth the time of the women they are chasing; you do this every time you discuss relationships… the women aren’t worth more than a fuck, etc.
So, if it can’t be discussed intellectually, how can it be taught?
Why doesn’t Roissy matter? As I hear it he gets lots of tail. He certainly seems to have a solid coterie of people who adhere to his ideas. So he’s a Teacher, not just some dude.
Wrong club, right? Not of the people whom you think to be a cool kid?
You base your opinion about peoples ability in one skill on how good they are on something completely unrelated?
If they can’t teach it, then why should I listen to them? And all the people I see explaining it are inept. When challenged on the core precepts they do what you do.. change the subject and pretend the logical conclusions of their arguments aren’t the logical conclusions (as with your proto-rapist lines of approach… BTW, I see you didn’t respond to my comment about how it’s not consent when someone gets naked into bed with you.
I’ll say it again. If one person joins another one in bed, and they are both nude, it’s not consent.).
But you are now pulling a “no true scotsman” fallacy. I’m supposed to prove to you that the PUAs I’ve known are, “real” PUAs. Otherwise you will dismiss them, and my experience, as being wannabes.
Which doesnt affect the argument at all – the point was the message given by PUAs themselves – not whether it was true or not.
Right, and that message is, “Fuck ’em, and forget ’em”.
But you say it’s really not. That the men who go to hear how to “pump and dump” are really looking for true love.
Actually it has nothing to do with PUA or me, its normal male behavior. Men have sex with more women than they have relationships with. Thus opinion on this is opinion on male gender in general. When “Male Studies” begin 2013 you can get this info in intellectually describing language.
Alll men… weren’t you making the point that one can’t be so broad with language? I think you were.
News flash, almost everyone has sex with more people than they have long-term relationships with. That’s not the issue. The issue is intent.
Game/PUA is about banging broads, not about finding a girlfriend.
Go ahead, show me the PUA articles about how to find “Ms. Right”, as opposed to the ones about how to find, “Ms. Right Now”.
These same guys probably don’t think women should date around to find the right guy for her though.
I think every other massive text block wall of words I read from these guys excoriates women for having any sex at all. The other one is about how it’s awful they won’t have sex with this particular guy right now.
I figured pretty much in there opinion the right guy is the first guy that asks her out because of course as public property women should be first come first serve regardless of her desires.
okay, now I has a sad.
Pecunium:
“Aktivarum: Care to respond to any of the long posts you suddenly stopped caring about (the one’s about consent being in the NO state as default, and how not acting on that assumption is proto-rapist behavior)?”
Sure! Write a summary of what you want answer to. As it is now posts are too long cause they are filled with things not related to the subjects (Feminism, EP and PUA). Often just pointless attacks on me which people by now should have realized will be ignored in favor of any relevant argument. Btw I do not write this in notepad. I write it in a blog comments editor.
“Non-sequitor. You are saying that because your guy has a Girlfriend, that means those who listen to him talk about how to get sex from women, even when they are resistant are actually there to find girlfriends/wives.”
Lots of PUA guys have/had girlfriends. Thats however not the point. The point is guys learning PUA can choose what they wanna use PUA for and this being what PUA says.
“That’s completely different from Steinem, thirty years ago, saying one thing, and then changing her mind.”
Steinem never gave women a choice in the matter. She gave herself choice in the matter. PUA doesnt work in that way.
“It’s not that I think every other person thinks the same (go ahead, show us where I said such a thing) so much as I think that people who are buying Peanut Butter Cups like to eat Peanut Butter Cups, and people who are buying tips on how to get no-strings sex, are looking for no-strings sex.”
Well PUA doesnt sell sex, PUA sell power and choice. Whether guys use this power and choice to get no-strings sex or relationship with a woman they normally would not get doesnt matter to PUA.
“What the fuck does this mean? “Most girls don’t qualify? I can’t make sense of this (more than I can’t make sense of lots of what you write)?”
Qualify means meeting standards.
It means the same thing as this:
“Qualify? Most? The fuck? Is there some exam, as for physicians, which approves women for relationships?”
Is there one approving men for sex? Clearly women do not wanna have sex with any guy. Clearly they dont wanna have sex with their guy friends. Clearly there is a standard regardless what we call it. Well guess what? guys have standards too. Only there is a clear gender difference. Guys have lower standards for sex and higher standards for investing in relationships – Girls dont.
“I’ll accept that most women won’t put up with the bullshit you seem to think is needed to make her worth you spending your, oh so precious, time on. Honestly, I think they are coming out ahead.”
As I have already told you, what they put effort in is their choice. If they choose to objectify themselves thats not my fault. Even feminists like Ariel Levy understood this.
“That’s what Gloria Steinem was telling women, forty years ago; which not half a dozen thoughts ago you were mocking her (and me) for.”
And then she did not follow her own advice. Feminists assuming that in PUA you can have a gf and still the message in PUA being dont have a gf being my point.
“Let’s break this down. Men are in relationships with the wrong women. Right. It’s not that people are in the wrong relationships with each other. It’s that the women aren’t right for the men.”
I talked about the mens reasons for being in relationships with the wrong woman. I did not talk about women cause most women dont need relationships for sexual or social needs.
“I’ll grant that you don’t, quite, seem to argue the women ought to change; for that you get half marks.”
The people arguing women ought to change are the feminists in media.
As I told earlier its womens choice what they want to put effort in. Logically women who do not get what they want should change cause it is good to put effort into what you want but that is completely up to the women themselves.
“That’s still a failing grade, because the completely clueless nature of the assumption that it’s all the woman’s fault in such a situation is a loss of full marks, and the oddity of blaming it all on “social and sexual needs” means that there’s no way the recovered marks can bring you past 50 percent.”
Yes that a falling grade considering benefit of women. However I talk about PUA and it is not for the benefit of women. Its for the benefit of guys.
“What book did I describe?”
You described a book with relationship advice. Without the skills to get the right woman the book cant give any advice resulting in anything but bad relationship.
“hunh!? To have a lasting relationship with a woman a guy has to have lots of casual sex?”
Yes! Cause the more women you can get the better chance you can get the one you want. If the guy can only get 10% women interested what if the dreamgirl who would be the best to marry is among the other 90% he cant get?
“Here I thought it was finding someone who shared enough of one’s worldview, and looked toward the same theories of living together; as well as making the neighbors think they need to work on their sex-lives more; because of all the happy noises and wall-pounding they keep hearing.”
Women are friends with lots of guys who share their worldview and theories. They do not wanna sleep with those guys. If the guy cant “get” the woman knowing she would be right for him doesnt really help does it?
“One strawman, and one lie. I want to address DV with jail-time, and a zero-tolerance of it in the social realm.”
Jailtime IS a kind of therapy. The idea of zero tolerance in social realm is a kind of collective psychotherapy. Neither of those methods work! USA have way harder prison system than Sweden. Does USA have less criminals? Not at all!
“Again, find the supporting evidence. Show a feminist here who supports staying in a bad relationship.”
Wrong question. I never said they support it. I said they make excuses for it. Meaning writing lots of theory on why women stay.
When a woman finds herself trapped in an abusive relationship there is a tendency to ask, “Why doesn’t she just leave?” If we ask that question, we are blaming the victim and not addressing the issue of stopping the violence.
No time replying your last points right now, get back to them…
Aktivarum is still at it? Dang.
“Jailtime IS a kind of therapy. The idea of zero tolerance in social realm is a kind of collective psychotherapy. Neither of those methods work! USA have way harder prison system than Sweden. Does USA have less criminals? Not at all!”
So much fail in such a small space.
Shouldn’t PUA mean you don’t have time to defend PUA in blog comments? If you’re just going to be boring I’d rather you fuck off.
Hey, I cry foul. That link he describes as Feminist is, um, more anti-feminist than anything else. They blame women for low wages, citing a study where fewer women negotiated for higher pay.
Which… well, there’s almost as much wrong with that as with Akky-troll’s ranting. Do I have to go into it? How women are punished for negotiating, socialized against negotiating? All that?
Yeahh. Not feminist at all. FEMALE.
@Howard, You must not have seen the fememo (feminist memo) from Gloria Steinem, in which she told us that feminists must not ever negotiate higher pay for themselves, because if women make as much money as men, feminists will lose their victim status (which we all know is what feminism is about). Of course, subsequently, Gloria Steinem negotiated higher pay for herself.
/sarcasm (which is all this troll deserves IMO)
AHAHAHA: Steinem never gave women a choice in the matter. She gave herself choice in the matter. PUA doesnt work in that way.
I suddenly imagine Gloria Steinem charging around locking women in the basement to keep them from marrying.
Dude, dude, troll, dude: Steinem as well as a number of second wave feminists DURING THE FUCKING 1970s criticized marriage as AN INSTITUTION and fought for women to have MORE CHOICES (so they could in fact, IF THEY WISHED, marry men, instead of having to marry men).
Things did change over the decades–and yeah, she got married.
Big whoop.
Nobody ever appointed STEINEM the feminist goddess (except maybe some media who tended to only want to take pictures of the skinniest, blondest, female back in the day), and she is ONE OF MANY feminists, many of whom critiqued the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE and legal systems around it (i.e. divorce laws).
If you cannot get your head out of your ass long enough to understand the different between criticitizing and fighting against oppressive laws and other systemic issues and making a personal choice for your own life, then I wish you’d stop trying to talk about feminists.
While flawed, second wave feminists/feminism accomplished things.
So far, tell me one thing PUA has accomplished for society at large? Getting more men laid, oh yeah, that’s a major noble social goal.
Fuck off troll.
Holy crap is this thread going to be confusing to anyone who comes by thinking they just want to read the glossary.
Aktivarum —
First, Pecunium and I are not the same person, please do try to reply to the right people, it helps with following your illogical “arguments”.
“Adam is not just any PUA he is a world class teacher of the art. The idea you cant have a girlfriend in the art yet still listen to people who do is stupid. Since you think PUA are stupid its no wonder you make this error. ”
When did I ever say you can’t have a girlfriend “in the art”? I said — “what Adam may or may not have in his personal life is irrelevant both to what PUA “teaches” (sells) and what Aktivarum said “most men” want (causal sex).” — Oh and I never said PUA is stupid, or that PUAs are stupid, or even that you’re stupid, I called you a peddler of fish because holy shit do you love red herrings.
“2. Your point depends on he being just like everyone else and not an elite-teacher. Most PUA:s simply do not accept the kind of hypocrisy evident in the american political left. Also in academics as the late Michael Focault supporting revolution Iran while being homosexual thus the society he supported he could not even visit.”
Michael Focault = non-sequitur, a red herring, more peddling of fish; I can’t afford to visit any of the countries that practice FGM, you’ve just decided that to support the people in those countries who are against FGM is hypocrisy because I can’t visit…this might be the least logical thing you’ve said so far, and wow is that impressive.
As for “elite-teachers” not being just like everyone else — what you are doing is a logical fallacy, not somehow “better than the liberal left” — our insistence that “elite-teachers” are in fact like everyone else is because they are. I called that a fallacy of composition for a damned reason, let me try explaining that fallacy (again):
Definition of fallacy of composition — one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole
Context — one PUA has a girlfriend, therefore PUA does not teach the pump and dump (which is almost certainly another fallacy as well btw, since what something teaches, and what it’s members do, are not the same thing, see that side convo about the pope)
Another example (yes I’m stealing wiki’s) — This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer.
Context — one PUA has (and thus presumably wants) a girlfriend, thus all PUAs want girlfriends
Not part of the fallacy but hilariously contradictory — “Guys in general dont want most women to stay after sex.” (here)
“Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.”
So are PUAs shittier than average at picking potential girlfriends, or did you just decide that 4 out of 5 guys want to have sex with people they don’t want relationships with? And that somehow PUA is the only solution to that?
“Since feminist superstar Gloria Steinem told thousands of girls not to have romance and marriage and then herself had romance and marriage I can see how this would be true in your group (assuming leftwing pc feminist theory people) However this doesnt mean every other person works the same way. ”
Please see above re: fallacy of composition, and note that Steinem (and likely Adam too) is not some superstar every feminist everywhere bows to (amusing how some non-feminists obsess with her when some feminists are feminists for years before knowing anything she said or did). Oh and you have an actual ad hominem there btw — “I won’t argue the point because you’re leftwing pc feminist theory people” — now do you get what an ad hominem is?
“No I am saying most guys want both sex and relationships and most girls do not qualitfy for the second – no more than girls think sex with most guys is something they want btw. PUA basically means guys dont have to be in relationship to have sex.”
So yes, you are saying PUA is the only solution to that…ever try making friends with people first to see if there’s any chance you’d actually get along as a couple? Or sex first then that issue? (you already said the latter, so don’t deny it [see here, and <a href="http://manboobz.com/wtf-is-a-mgtow-a-glossary/comment-page-3/#comment-162922"here for starters])
“You are missing the (PUA) point. Most guys are today due to social and sexual needs with the wrong woman (for them) from the start! No book in existance can give them a good relationship with their girlfriend. That ship has sailed! Such a book you describe would be pure bullshit for guys. For a guy to have a lasting and meaningful relationship with a woman he must have the CORRECT woman. To find her he needs to have romantic encounters with lots and lots of women and this is skills PUA teaches.
I believe the reason you dont get this is due to the popular thing today being the “Therapy crowd” who wanna adress bad relationships and domestic violence with crap like “sensitivity training” They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.”
And another non-sequitur! No, we’re saying you don’t have to objectify women to have casual sex. And I addressed the not leaving them issue days ago — “*sigh* again, you’re lumping decent advice (dump or don’t date people you don’t like) with asshole advice (refuse to go away until she’s forcibly insisting you must)” (here)
“You cant keep a woman you dont have sex with, and you cant find the right woman for you if you dont meet lots of women.”
Ooooh now you’re keeping your women? Most women don’t want to be kept women, they want a partner, not an owner. But since you utterly fail to understand how your wording implies objectification, let’s just move on to how you apparently cannot be friends with women because you aren’t having sex with them (hint, friends with benefits is a non-asshole solution to wanting more than one partner)
““Most them are about as intellectually capabable of describing The Art, as you are.”
PUA is based of results. Describing in intellectual way would mean – nothing. Reminds of what Thomas Sowell says in his book “Intellectuals & Society” ”
Artist here, though I usually go with art student since I fucking hope to keep finding stuff to learn, and *gasp* I could describe most art techniques a whole lot better than you’re describing “game”. Yep, it’s about results, but that still requires you to be able to describe how you got those results, in a manner that would allow others to get those results. (Eg that one over there is a tessellated golden rectangle, done in pencil and then sharpie, on white sketching paper, mounted on black paper, if I uploaded the template you could literally get exactly the same result from it [probably better, I hate working in ink])
“Is Roissy who we should listen to? Not David DeAngelo, not Juggler, not Adam, or any other of the people who actually matter?”
…You did it!!! We have a No True Scotsman! *cheers* Wtf makes Roissy not a PUA? Why should all PUAs not be given equal weight as to what PUA is? (See above re: fallacy of composition)
““I’ve been attributing it to the vapidity, and a vacuity of Game, but I’m open to the idea that I’ve been fooled by the aptitude to debate of those who write about it.”
You base your opinion about peoples ability in one skill on how good they are on something completely unrelated? Ever heard of the halo-effect? Same error.”
Unsurprisingly you’ve misrepresented Pecunium and the halo effect — the latter is actually a reverse of an ad hominem basically, we give more leeway to people like, and less leeway to people we don’t like. It’s also a cognitive bias, not a fallacy, meaning it’s just how the human brain works, nothing to be done about it besides recognizing that we all do it. And what Pecunium said was that people may fail to describe “game” well either because “game” itself is nothing but “vapidity, and a vacuity” (lacking substance, like ether, etc) or becausethe people describing it are lacking aptitude/idiots. See the or there? Those two have no bearing on each other.
“Actually it has nothing to do with PUA or me, its normal male behavior. Men have sex with more women than they have relationships with. Thus opinion on this is opinion on male gender in general. When “Male Studies” begin 2013 you can get this info in intellectually describing language.”
Yet a-fucking-gain — citation needed
“Sure! Write a summary of what you want answer to”
Um, he did, reread the post you’re replying to >.<
“Btw I do not write this in notepad. I write it in a blog comments editor.”
And that makes you special somehow? Another red herring from the fish peddler…
“Steinem never gave women a choice in the matter. She gave herself choice in the matter. PUA doesnt work in that way.”
By Jove wtf is THAT? Three tiny sentences and so much fail I can’t even begin to parse it, so let’s just go with — Steinem controls exactly one person, herself, anyone is free to ignore her, there’s no feminism cabal that’ll throw people out for not taking her advise (not 40 years ago, and certainly not now, see above about her)
“Guys have lower standards for sex and higher standards for investing in relationships – Girls dont.”
Says someone who’s made it clear he doesn’t want female friends, so where’s this opinion coming from? Citation needed
“Even feminists like Ariel Levy understood this.”
Someone revoke my feminism card, I have no idea who that is… (yeah I’ll google, but point stands)
“And then she did not follow her own advice.”
Well girls have cooties still then don’t then? I mean, if one cannot change one’s mind ever, you still think girls have cooties right?
“I did not talk about women cause most women dont need relationships for sexual or social needs.”
oooh so tell me, oh omniscient one, why do women get into relationships at all then?
“However I talk about PUA and it is not for the benefit of women. Its for the benefit of guys.”
Yeah feminists talk about the benefit of everyone. You know most of the people arguing with you are men right? Men who’d I imagine put approximately 50% thought into whether something benefits them, and the other 50% into whether it benefits other people (or at least doesn’t harm them, context dependent).
“You described a book with relationship advice.”
Really? Where? Citation needed
“Women are friends with lots of guys who share their worldview and theories. They do not wanna sleep with those guys.”
I’ll be sure to tell my friend with benefits that, should be laughter inducing. (And I’m serious here, this is going into email right now)
“USA have way harder prison system than Sweden. Does USA have less criminals? Not at all!”
Um…y’all treat all drug users as criminals? Because we do, and that’s not exactly relevant to DV, though it’s highly relevant to both “harder prison system” and “more criminals”. (Also, tautology, we put more people away thus we have more criminals, well not shit sherlock)
“Meaning writing lots of theory on why women stay.
When a woman finds herself trapped in an abusive relationship there is a tendency to ask, “Why doesn’t she just leave?” If we ask that question, we are blaming the victim and not addressing the issue of stopping the violence. ”
Wow…that’s not encouraging them to stay, that’s not blaming them for not getting out, and wtf you said was — “They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.” — no, feminists do not make up excuses “not to leave” they/we explain why some people “do not leave” — the assumption being they would if they thought they could and thus we need to address the reasons they don’t instead of just going “you didn’t leave the first time you got hit?!?!”
Pecunium — you missed how he’s dropped the whole bit about advertising and women’s magazines, and the men’s center (“Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission?” [here]) — is there a fallacy for “I’m just going to quietly drop everything I’m wrong about”?
“It’s not that I think every other person thinks the same (go ahead, show us where I said such a thing) so much as I think that people who are buying Peanut Butter Cups like to eat Peanut Butter Cups, and people who are buying tips on how to get no-strings sex, are looking for no-strings sex.”
It’s not even an NSA though, it’s some sort of “maybe we’ll date if you’re good enough in bed” — my former roommate does NSA often enough it was damned hilarious living with him, but it’s made clear it’s only a one time thing, no interest in continuing, want to have some fun? And I’ve no issue with that, I do have issue with the PUA (or at least this one’s) mindset of sex first, if good then maybe relationship. Versus friends first, if friendly maybe sex, if not hey I made a new friend!
“Which is it… sex withtout strings, or men in search of “twoo wuv”?”
I think he thinks it’s a magic combination of both made possible by pump and dumping until you find “the right girl” (or at least one that “qualifies”) — and then monogamy? Idfk… Basically I think you nailed it with “hunh!? To have a lasting relationship with a woman a guy has to have lots of casual sex?” Presumably she must want sex exactly as often as he does, or put out when he wants without complaint, or not nag him about wanting more sex than him…because monogamy (not that monogamy is inherently evil, I just don’t see the pump and dump type suddenly being okay with “maybe tomorrow I’ve got work to do”)
“Wrong club, right? Not of the people whom you think to be a cool kid?” — Not a true PUA and an NTS for the win!! XD (oh, you said that already, I’m leaving this line because I’m just that amused)
Howard — “Great. Now my head hurts.” — *offers virtual advil* you created an excellent paradox there, despite it being brain melting
Xtra — don’t think I’ve seen you around before, have a complimentary hard chair and SCENTED MOTHERFUCKING CANDLE, also — “okay, now I has a sad.” — have a cookie, I have brussels and they’re NOMS!
talacaris — come back! You were so much more fun that this one!
Shit, my lengthy reply went into mod. Anyways, popcorn anyone?
Aktivarum: Sure! Write a summary of what you want answer to.
All of it, with citations: no goalpost shifting, on topic, and without the logical errors.
Hop to it.
As it is now posts are too long cause they are filled with things not related to the subjects
Which is primarily because you keep moving the goalposts, introducing new topics (see above, the sudden inclusion of Gloria Steinem; by you), and engaging in logical fallacy.
Lots of PUA guys have/had girlfriends. Thats however not the point. The point is guys learning PUA can choose what they wanna use PUA for and this being what PUA says.
Nope, the point is you say PUA is for X, and we say it’s for Y.
Question: Where do you teach? Are you a qualified PUA? How many students have you got? What’s their batting average (I assume you have documentation, not just their word for it. Photos, sworn affadavits from the women the convinced to have sex with them)?
Steinem never gave women a choice in the matter. She gave herself choice in the matter. PUA doesnt work in that way.
She never gave women a choice in the matter? Did she pass laws? Did she go out and force women to have no romance? Hired a band of Amazons to drag them out of bed and away from the altars?
No. She said marriage, at the time was a bad idea. Things changed, marriage stopped being such a bad idea. It’s about tricking women, isolating them, making it harder for them to have their lack of consent be accepted (the whole, “make her say no, really really loud.. lots of times… you know, rapist shit).
PUA says men ought to neg women, trick them, and otherwise trick them into sex; then leave them for the next target. There is a difference.
“It’s not that I think every other person thinks the same (go ahead, show us where I said such a thing) so much as I think that people who are buying Peanut Butter Cups like to eat Peanut Butter Cups, and people who are buying tips on how to get no-strings sex, are looking for no-strings sex.”
Well PUA doesnt sell sex, PUA sell power and choice. Whether guys use this power and choice to get no-strings sex or relationship with a woman they normally would not get doesnt matter to PUA.
Non-responsive. Show me where I said the things you say were said. Show me where PUA isn’t about how to have sex.
It’s not about building a relationship, it’s about isolating a woman, so she has less ability to say no, and then “making her want sex”, she didn’t want before.
Is there one approving men for sex? Clearly women do not wanna have sex with any guy. Clearly they dont wanna have sex with their guy friends. Clearly there is a standard regardless what we call it. Well guess what? guys have standards too. Only there is a clear gender difference. Guys have lower standards for sex and higher standards for investing in relationships – Girls dont.
Citations needed. Women have lots of sex. They have sex with whom they want to have sex. That’s the way it should be. I know lots of women who have much less restrictive standards for whom they have sex with than I do.
For whatever reason the guys buying PUA theories haven’t figured out what women want. PUA isn’t offering to tell them how to make themselves more attractive to women, it’s promising to tell them the, “secrets” to “make any woman want you”. There is a substantive difference.
I talked about the mens reasons for being in relationships with the wrong woman. I did not talk about women cause most women dont need relationships for sexual or social needs.
You did? Where? Add that to the summary of things I’d like answered. You also need to cite that bullshit about women not needing relationships for sexual or social needs.
Yes that a falling grade considering benefit of women.
No. It’s a failing grade in logic. It’s also a failing grade in anthropology and empathy.
Yes! Cause the more women you can get the better chance you can get the one you want. If the guy can only get 10% women interested what if the dreamgirl who would be the best to marry is among the other 90% he cant get?
What if the dreamgirl I have isn’t as good as the next one? That’s the “prove a negative fallacy”. More to the point, you aren’t seeing how good they are at, “relationships”, you are seeing how good they are the first time they are in the sack. If that’s how you define, “relationship” it’s likely to have some hiccups when you discover she’s into quantum mechanics, or cultural anthropology, or (God Forbid), likes the Yankees.
Jailtime IS a kind of therapy. The idea of zero tolerance in social realm is a kind of collective psychotherapy. Neither of those methods work! USA have way harder prison system than Sweden. Does USA have less criminals? Not at all!
Ah… the fallacy of definition. Anything which is designed to stop DV=therapy. Therapy is bad (why? Who knows) You say that the pressure of social opprobrium is no good. that must be why being openly racist is something that’s still as common as when I was a lad. It’s why smoking is still de rigeur for men. It’s why people still have a three martini lunch. Because social pressures against it don’t do anything.
And you have said anything which addresses social problems = therapy.
Women are friends with lots of guys who share their worldview and theories. They do not wanna sleep with those guys. If the guy cant “get” the woman knowing she would be right for him doesnt really help does it?
That’s life. None of us is entitled to the sort of relationship we want. They are mutual. Sucks to have the person you want no want you. Move on. There are thousands of interesting women in almost everyone’s general area. One of them will be interesting.
I never said they support it. I said they make excuses for it. Meaning writing lots of theory on why women stay.
What you said was, They also makes up loads of excuses for women in bad relationships not to leave them.
Not they make justifications about why women don’t leave them (which is bullshit victim blaming on your part), but excuses “for”. When someone makes an excuse for, they are giving a reason to do/not do something. So you said they were giving women reasons not to leave.
Which isn’t the case. They are explaining why they don’t. It’s a critical difference, even if it’s too subtle for you grasp.
You described a book with relationship advice. Without the skills to get the right woman the book cant give any advice resulting in anything but bad relationship.
I see. Saying someone would be better served with a book talking about how to build a good relationship = a specific book. Ok laddy… which is this PUA text which gives men the good advice on the skills they need to get, “the right woman” as a candidate for a relationship? Because you keep saying this is what PUA is all about.
Cite me some texts on PUA Theory. Educate me. Teach me. Show me the error of my ways. Make it plain that what I have gained of PUA from the things other PUA has said is wrong.
Short version, Put your money where your mouth is.
Howard Bannister: Let me help… I’ll highlight the important part: So nice you can all gather here and pat each other on the back about how much smarter you are than stupid men.
And it’s true. I do seem to be smarter than stupid men. Not all men, just the one’s who are stupider than I am.
Pecunium: oh, whew! It turns out to be a statistics problem!
I also did hate those word-math problems.
Argenti, have I mentioned that I love you lately? Thumbs up on the time traveller persona. Also, in terms of rapeytroll, I read this…
“What in blazes are you talking about? I said I will decide whether I want to keep seering her and she will likewise decide whether or not she wants to keep dating me. In what way does that mean me owing her?”
And went “yikes”, since I initially read “seering” as “searing”, immediately following blazes, and thought “it’s not bad enough that he’s rapey, now he wants to cook his victims too?”.
Also, “keeping” a woman? Seriously, just get a goldfish. Or actually, maybe a pet rock is better suited to your ability to care for other living creatures.
Counting that as — Homunculus fallacy – where a “middle-man” is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.[31] — because I’m not printing another fallacy list (yes I am really keeping a list, we’ve already got the “proof the negative”)
And is his dropping topics — Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence — o.O?
Any argument against counting the Steinem bits as — Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[23] — given he’s declared her “what feminism is”? And also as — Genetic fallacy – where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.[57] — since that was 40 years ago?
Or against — Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality. — he literally said PUA is equal to how women do…something….because it’s equal… Has he managed a proper begging the question?
Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam) – supporting a conclusion because the arguer is wealthy (or refuting because the arguer is poor).[56] (Sometimes taken together with the appeal to poverty as a general appeal to the arguer’s financial situation.) — that bit about ev-psych and how rich men get sex?
He’s got — Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[20] — with basically everything he’s cited, sort of, since he refuses to acknowledge
the women he seeks are even individuals idk if this one counts.
Adding these to the list — Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner’s agenda. (If you dont agree with this then would you please explain how HER clearly putting more effort into her body than other things of value is my problem?)
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is. (like, 16+ times over by now)
Psychologist’s fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[39] (he specifically ignored the parts of a study which disproved his point)
He’s rounding out a nice list here, has he made any conditional statements that make enough sense to try parsing? (Would anyone like to play spot the formal fallacies? I’m much better with informal ones, I know this from an English Lit major, not philosophy and formal logic)
Should he manage to use every fallacy, can he please be entered into top troll?
Cassandra — thank you *blush* — my lengthy comment in mod has a bit about “kept women” but I like yours better.
Another round of Spot That Fallacy!!
“If the guy can only get 10% women interested what if the dreamgirl who would be the best to marry is among the other 90% he cant get?” — but PUA will solve that —
Appeal to probability – assumes that because something is likely to happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.[2][3]
“Claiming EP say it doesnt matter what the man looks like is like claiming Womens magazines say hot women might as well dance and sound like chickens – What they actually say is when everything else is normal – a guy would gain more from power than from looks and a girl would gain more from looks than from power.”
(Please ignore all the non-chicken parts) — Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
That whole thing about rape = force ergo coercion cannot be rape? — Ambiguous middle term – a common ambiguity in syllogisms in which the middle term is equivocated[19]
“However regardless what you call it census in several countries show much larger correlation for sex and resources for guys than for women”
The part assuming rich men will get more sex (and ignoring other variables) — Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event’s taking place.[25]
The part assuming the ones who do get more sex get it because of their wealth — Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
Absolutely unregulated studies about who dates whom is not random chance, and really not merely correlation =/= causation. (Which he’s violated so many times I want a Greek chorus singing “correlation is not causation”) And ev-psych in general?
Historian’s fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[30] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
PUA will prevent “wasting time on the wrong girl”?
Prosecutor’s fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Most men want what PUAs want // “Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.” = thus 80% of men in general…
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[41]
His very first comment! — “PUA – Your descripition is not correct at all. To put it in simple easy-for-all terms PUA is the male equivalent of female lifestyle-magazines like Cosmopolitan and Plaza telling women how they can be hotter by giving false first impression and also telling women they have the right to increase sexual desirability by these tips. PUA does the exact same things however while male primary sex drive means looks indicating health female primary sex drive means behavior indicating social status. And no this does not mean “playing hard to get” It means not needing other peoples permission, having fun and giving value.”
Overwhelming exception – an accurate generalization that comes with qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume.[42] — we did all kind of agree with this right? “In terms of advice, women’s magazines mostly print bullshit that’s obviously wrong on many levels. Thus I will agree that “game” is the approximate male equivalent of that.” — That is, before he started hedging on what women’s magazines are, and how much better PUA is.
Has he tried pulling “I couldn’t get laid without PUA” and is that an appeal to fear or pity?
“‘Until very recently most women had to compete to be chosen by a man who would then support her financially. Only in the last 50 years have women had the opportunity, in large numbers to be wholly self-supporting.’
Yes, but the data on this were not created 50 years ago. The data we have are based on the women of today.”
Re: ev-psych — goalpost shifting! (I mean seriously, you’re defending ev-psych, the study of evolutionary psychology by saying it’s new? That’s at least goalpost shifting and possibly an appeal to novelty too [opinions on that?])
Also, the whole rape by coercion debate? Wtf I, and others, were saying was that PUA is inherently this fallacy — Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position[45] — the “argument” being “you should sleep with me”, in formal logic:
If x accepts P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is not true.
If the woman you are trying to game accepts any of it, then she has to give you are hard no or she’s consenting to continued gaming (and possibly sex)
Sex she doesn’t want is the “punishment” called rape (and continued conversation she doesn’t want is harassment)
Therefore game is invalid, or rather, rape-tastic.
Getting it yet?
Pecunium — “Very different focus. Or perhaps not… they both tell women they aren’t actually important without a man.”
Aktivarum — Actually, none of them said that. They say IF you already are dating a guy and want it to be exclusive this is what you can do. The rest was your subjective opinion regarding why they would say anything at all.
me — Ever actually read one? Because exclusivity almost never comes up, it’s all either pointless shit or how to be “perfect” so you won’t piss him off
Aktivarum — You dont really need to “read” a picture of lipstick colors or eyeliner-use. But you are correct the text is mostly pointless shit – entertainment – making people seeing the paid content – how to become beautiful – and btw what is on the magazine cover again?
That’s some sort of propositional fallacy, but I can’t sort out which because he pulls goalpost shifting and a red herring instead of answering.
“First feminists (like all political groups) are defined not what they say but what they DO. Second feminists are not defined what they are against, they are defined by what they promote.” — and that’s got to be a fallacy, but I can’t put my finger on which, I mean, it implies the pro-life movement cannot be defined as being against abortion, which um…obvious thing is obvious. Or can we just go “I promote not doing that”?
“I am not talking about rape, thats just your personal mis-interpretation failing to observe the difference between forced to sex you dont want – and being made to want sex (you do want). I never talked about forcing people – You did. You throw in words like force and rape – I dont!” — Did I get ad hominem’ed? Is he going for an appeal to spite that I’m misinterpreting him when he’s misinterpreting me so often and so consistently it has to be intentional?
Please, please, pull up PUA text and claim everything is true because one bit is, or give us some “middle ground” argument, or a claim of inevitability, or question our motives (did we have that one already?), or basically any actual argument that formal logic could apply to. I’d also like some anthropormism, cliches, guilt by association, “what words meant historically” and Nazis (please, Nazis, come on, you can manage to Godwin!) … ooh or would you like to provide an example how two wrongs make a right? Wearing make-up means you’re entitled to sex with her? I mean, you did call make-up coercion right? (You did, don’t deny it)
Also, basically every study you cited violated this one — Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data[61] — particularly that hilarious claim about genetic variation being because 50% of men are “genetic dead ends” because of women’s choices, when the study said absolutely fuck all about women’s choices (and didn’t imply that bit about “genetic dead ends” either, just that men are more likely to mate with distant relatives, thus resulting in less genetic variance)…variance is such a hard concept, I know, that’s why I already offered statistics explanations like 3 times now. (Not here, no, but I have, and that offer stands because for the love of all things holy correlation is not causation.)
To everyone playing along with Spot That Fallacy from home — yep, that’s the remaining list, excluding the formal fallacies he can’t qualify for because he just loves peddling fish so much. Should he knock off the red herrings long enough to make an actual argument, I’ll be ready! I am armed with a yellow sharpie and will highlight! (I’m also completely nuts btw, if that wasn’t obvious XD )
Oh, think he’ll now claim I can’t be taken seriously because I just said I’m nuts? Please do, I want a true ad hominem.
It’s kinda impressive that our new troll friend has managed to drag out this little farce of his this long. You’d think he wouldn’t have any ass left to hand back to him by now.
Oh, and Argenti? You’re amazing. You rock the hardest. 🙂
Dracula: It’s kinda impressive that our new troll friend has managed to drag out this little farce of his this long. You’d think he wouldn’t have any ass left to hand back to him by now.
As Iearnt in the Army… Ass grows back.
Argenti: Pecunium — you missed how he’s dropped the whole bit about advertising and women’s magazines, and the men’s center (“Do you have any idea how crazy its sounds telling me the problem with a MALE ONLY space was that women were not asked for permission?” [here]) — is there a fallacy for “I’m just going to quietly drop everything I’m wrong about”?
Not a fallacy, just poor argumentation. In a formal debate it becomes the “assent of silence”, i.e. by failing any attempt at refutation (even a passing promise to get to it later), one cedes the right to deny any counterclaim’s validity.
In this case it’s more of the argument by volume, which he marries to a complaint that the number of topics has gotten to be too many to address; even though he’s the one who introduces the new topics.
He breaks shit, and then complains that it doesn’t work, and blames it on us.
It’s not even an NSA though, it’s some sort of “maybe we’ll date if you’re good enough in bed” — my former roommate does NSA often enough it was damned hilarious living with him, but it’s made clear it’s only a one time thing, no interest in continuing, want to have some fun? And I’ve no issue with that, I do have issue with the PUA (or at least this one’s) mindset of sex first, if good then maybe relationship. Versus friends first, if friendly maybe sex, if not hey I made a new friend!
I’m in favor of, “interesting person, then sex”. I happen to tend to the (big shock), “That person looks attractive, let’s see if they are interesting, and chat them up” Then I’ll test the waters to see if I’m sexually attracted. After that I see if they are too. Then we have sex, or not. And see how it goes from there.
It works pretty well. I can’t say that I’ve had any long stretch of time when I wanted sex that I couldn’t find it. Not always the moment I wanted it. Nor even the week I wanted it, but never more than a couple of weeks; which really means a couple of weekends, so call it a week, at most, of testing the waters.
Which is why I think PUA is selling shit, and calling it cake.
Most men want what PUAs want // “Well known PUA-intructor David DeAngelo calculated about 80% of the guys he was teaching want a relationship – they just dont want it with any woman who they want to sleep with.” = thus 80% of men in general…
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[41]
Also the problem of motive. We have reason to question both this claimed statement of DeAngelo; since he has a product to sell, and no reason; at this point, to trust Aktivarum’s representation of the anecdote, since he too has a product to sell (The “it’s also about getting a relationship, not just the fucking” line he’s been peddling for several thousand words).
Has he tried pulling “I couldn’t get laid without PUA” and is that an appeal to fear or pity?
Not directly, though the implication is he’s been using Game to get laid, so we may make a reasonable inference. At which point it’s an appeal to authority; as well as a hasty generalisation: if he needs Game to get laid, so too much all men.
Thanks, in any case. I’ve not had so much fun in a bit, and without
this thread, I couldn’t have done it, ergo it’s manboobz which made it
possible.
+++++
Argenti: I have to say you deserve an Award:
For Tirelessly, Thoroughly, with citation, quotation, emendation and
refutation, taking the time and effort to dissect the specific claims,
and compare them to the informal logical fallacies; publishing the
results, in a clear and plain manner, that others would be able to
better spot, recognise and refute such failures of reasoning, and the
argumentitive arts.
Further, by this effort you have been an example to all who wish to
improve themselves in the art and practice of rhetoric.
Your effort, and your example are in the highest tradition of socratic
truth seekers and reflect great credit on yourself, the Commentariat
of Manboobz and the Community of Letters,
Therefore you are hereby awarded the Manboobz Medal of Merit, with
all the rights, privileges and honor appertaining thereunto,
Wherefore I set my hand
and seal, and name you as well, by virtue of this example of your
tireless determination and relentless purpose one of the Royal
Assassin