Leo Gura PUA

[Derek White]

24 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

What you are vouching for does not work in the real world and it is a gateway towards possibly being abused by the other party. 

I am not vouching for having no needs or expectations. Sigh

You need to make an appealing offer. If you straight face say these, no one will come close to you. That’s vomiting and doesn’t work in real life.

You can still have clear boundaries, it about how you communicate and enforce them.

It the difference between going up to her and saying “I wanna fuck you” and making it clear you’re in the mood through other means.

Edit: I wanna make a further point about authenticity. We are so far removed from authenticity we don’t even know what our real desires are.

Women say they are not wearing to impress people but the reality is they have internalized so much inauthenticity. If they were honest most won’t wear high heels or lipstick, they would wear what's comfortable and act comfortably.

They do this because they want others to recognize their worth, so they can get something in return. In other words manipulating other’s perception to get something from them. They deny it because their not conscious they are doing it. That is what men and women do. Relationships in a nutshell. Tadaa!

Edited January 30, 2020 by Derek White

[Derek White]

@Keyhole sigh because you don’t understand what I wrote.

So much judgement because of a sigh. Sigh.

[Derek White]

@Keyhole I mean you’re the one who called me arrogant and interpreted my sigh in such a negative way. I never called you any names...

was just trying to share my opinion. 

[Galyna]

@Derek White @Keyhole Guys stop it, please. We are talking about PUA here. Do not take it personally. We are not in a real world, and sometimes online communication has a lot of challenges. I am sure in reality you would perceive each other differently. Nobody is right or wrong. There is a room for any opinion. You do not know each other and pushing each other's boundaries. Anyway, the person you are dealing with now is not a real person, it is just a projection of your mind and biases, let's remember this. Wrap up and let's continue the topic.

[whoareyou]

For those of you here who are opposing PUA and only believe in "relationships", and only sex in "relationships", imo  you are very delusional.

A relationship begins only after sex! (unless if you are asexual). Like LEO said, after you bang a few times, then a relationship can be formed.

In order to get to that point, mean who are incompetent, need to learn how to attract and bang women, and after they get that part handled, they need to work on relationship skills.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Pickup techniques - it all depends on the level of consciousness of a person applying them. 

The women will never be able to understand how hard it can be for struggling guys out there.

[Meetjoeblack]

1 hour ago, Galyna said:

It is a like a burning potential: to me, and I suppose I have a bit romantic vision of it, relations like this make you a better person, you become closer to your core being, closer to God, you grow, you mature, you learn, you develop, you learn how to compromise, how to listen, how to sacrifice your ego for the sake of the loved one. You put the interest of other above your own agenda. You can let go and still love a person even if he stopped loving you back or chose to be with another woman. To me it is when you love the person more than your own ego!!!! 

Respect ?! 

I think you can do all that solo. Ideally, You can with a partner. More often times, LTR is neediness, ego, clinging, and pathetic. 

There's a passage in Eckys book about the phrase "I love you " twice. There's a less common variant. He argued it portrays how rare love is. 

I don't agree with mainstream jargon about open communication nonsense. 

One of the most savage elements of pickup is ego decimation in the form of acknowledgement of female mate choice. The necessity of pickup if at baseline, a man doesn't fall into female mate choice. There's a ruthless element. A man can stomp his feet or play male feminist or he can step up. He can go to the gym. He can looks max. He can learn game and eventually become the sort of man women want to sleep with. 

There's a lot of fear mongering and male feminist virtue signaling on the topic of game or pickup. Rather than approach, actually charm a woman, pretend to be a alliance. Its inability to approach. Jordan Peterson called these men weasels. 

I couldn't agree more. 

Have you experienced the sort of LTR status you speak of? Good on you pursing the following. The culture seems to tell women to deny their femininity,  fertility, and any desire for a family. 

More often then not, I saw more chasing career, doesn't want a LTR especially when young, ig ass pics, attention seeking behavior, flaunting sex rather than virtue.  The Emily Hartridge story comes to mind. 

There's nothing more destructive then our degenerate culture. 

I was listening to Peterson on sacrifice. Its profound. One of the biggest lies society tells women is you can have it all. There's no sacrifice. Tell that to Emily hartridge killed age 35 on a ebike on route to a fertility clinic. 

Again, respect!

If the following is your path and what resonates, DOUBLE DOWN. Pursue the following fearlessly and be unrelenting. Uncompromised. 

[Meetjoeblack]

30 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

For those of you here who are opposing PUA and only believe in "relationships", and only sex in "relationships", imo  you are very delusional.

A relationship begins only after sex! (unless if you are asexual). Like LEO said, after you bang a few times, then a relationship can be formed.

In order to get to that point, mean who are incompetent, need to learn how to attract and bang women, and after they get that part handled, they need to work on relationship skills.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Pickup techniques - it all depends on the level of consciousness of a person applying them. 

The women will never be able to understand how hard it can be for struggling guys out there.

+1

The moralizing is hilarious. Clearly, they don't approach. 

OLD is cucked. 

Again, there's no escaping genuine desire or lack thereof. 

Sex isn't negotiable. Its not a transaction unless its a trip to the redlight district. 

Its hilarious hearing about married men needing to negotiate sex with their wife lol.  Its absurd as is the idea of monogamy. As a bachelor, not in the mood means next set. 

I don't mean someone has cancer or got sick. Conveniently, if Drakes having a after party, people's mood changes real fast. 

I wager, Dicaprio doesn't hear "i'm not in the mood." Why? Because a train of stunners 18-24 are willing to claw the eyes out of everyone to get to him. 

[Meetjoeblack]

2 hours ago, Galyna said:

Yep, yep, yep. I agree with this. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with it. Sometimes guys need to be sneaky to hide this truth from women, because we, women, want to condition sex with various obligations. 

Its annoying lol. Obviously, higher ambitions then being Chads booty call is to be expected. I can't argue with that. 

There's a pickup notion about 3dates. If its not sexual, if its not esculating, ABORT. Its her choice who she sleeps with the same way, its my choice to get a willing partner. Interestingly enough, it can sometimes turn things around by seeding dread. Loss. 

Again, there's no escaping genuine desire. The same time with one girl can be spent on a series of girls. More time towards the best return on investment (ROI). 

Say I approach 100 girls. I pull 1. We hookup. That's shitty amount of output required for what can be bad sex (star fish). There's a ridiculous amount of time involved. There's no guarantee. 

I have had night's where I am throwing everything and the kitchen sink but nothing. Other times, I am on fire running through the bar with the flamethrower. I am going home with someone. Its not even a question. There's other times where its a lot of output and then it takes. 

I don't ever be sneaky. I just be vague and aloof. One thing I don't believe in I'd LMR DESTROYERS. I just leave. I'm not cuddling. I'm not gay. I am not interested in hearing problems. I want in. If its not sexual, I am out. 

[Galyna]

43 minutes ago, Meetjoeblack said:

Respect ?! 

I think you can do all that solo. Ideally, You can with a partner. More often times, LTR is neediness, ego, clinging, and pathetic. 

There's a passage in Eckys book about the phrase "I love you " twice. There's a less common variant. He argued it portrays how rare love is. 

I don't agree with mainstream jargon about open communication nonsense. 

One of the most savage elements of pickup is ego decimation in the form of acknowledgement of female mate choice. The necessity of pickup if at baseline, a man doesn't fall into female mate choice. There's a ruthless element. A man can stomp his feet or play male feminist or he can step up. He can go to the gym. He can looks max. He can learn game and eventually become the sort of man women want to sleep with. 

There's a lot of fear mongering and male feminist virtue signaling on the topic of game or pickup. Rather than approach, actually charm a woman, pretend to be a alliance. Its inability to approach. Jordan Peterson called these men weasels. 

I couldn't agree more. 

Have you experienced the sort of LTR status you speak of? Good on you pursing the following. The culture seems to tell women to deny their femininity,  fertility, and any desire for a family. 

More often then not, I saw more chasing career, doesn't want a LTR especially when young, ig ass pics, attention seeking behavior, flaunting sex rather than virtue.  The Emily Hartridge story comes to mind. 

There's nothing more destructive then our degenerate culture. 

I was listening to Peterson on sacrifice. Its profound. One of the biggest lies society tells women is you can have it all. There's no sacrifice. Tell that to Emily hartridge killed age 35 on a ebike on route to a fertility clinic. 

Again, respect!

If the following is your path and what resonates, DOUBLE DOWN. Pursue the following fearlessly and be unrelenting. Uncompromised. 

Thank you for your comment.

“I think you can do all that solo.” You need a partner to test your own boundaries. I can tell you all day long that I am a super woman and might think of myself this way, but in relations I would behave differently. You need another person to provoke you, let’s put it this way. I can not do it alone. You need someone to be there to mirror you, to tell you about your own bs. I absolutely need someone to challenge me and to be very direct with me, to help me to improve and learn. Only through another person I can understand myself better. Solitude will not show you anything. You returned home angry and provoke a fight. What would be my reaction? Would I say: “Honey, let’s talk” or start fighting back? See, what I mean?

“Have you experienced the sort of LTR status you speak of?” – again, this is super hard to evaluate myself, I have biases and blind spots. I am in the LTR right now, eight years of marriage, I am not perfect, I am still learning, we have a lot to work on as a couple, but in general my husband is a very good guy. We have a child together. I hope from all my heart it will last, if not, he always will be the dearest person for me, a father of my child. If one day we need to go through a separation, I hope that we’ll be mature enough to go through it with respect and compassion.

“The culture seems to tell women to deny their femininity, fertility, and any desire for a family.” I am from different culture, family is a big thing there. The whole entire survival is based upon family ties.   

“There's nothing more destructive then our degenerate culture.” I wonder what made you say this? How old are you?

Edited January 31, 2020 by Galyna

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Isn't love transcendental? Isn't love the opposite of survival and selfishness? To me, love is built on top of survival.

Love is everything. So... what are you complaining about?

I'm kidding (sorta). I know what you mean.

Yes, of course it's possible to build loving relationships. But in order to do that you must first fully understand how deep survival goes. People often jump into things calling it "love" when really it's survival masquerading as love. Of course survival too is love. But that's not what you want. You want something higher. We can get to something higher, but we need to start with a solid foundation first.

3 hours ago, Galyna said:

Leo, please make a video about this. I have been asking you about this video for almost five years I've been following you. 

I really would appreciate it because I want to know your opinion about Conscious Relations.

Yes, such a video will definitely come.

So many videos, so little time.

3 hours ago, Derek White said:

@Leo Gura Why do you use words like Devilry, Love, and God? This causes so much confusion in people. I feel if you used more technical words people would be less confused.

Those are technical words.

All words are relative. You gotta learn how they are used within a certain paradigm.

Of course things are confusing to the ego-mind. That's the whole challenge of this work. It takes years to un-con-fuse things.

Is it really so hard to understand what a devil is? Or what love is? Or what God is? These things can be explained to a child.

[Galyna]

@Meetjoeblack I feel you, my dear.Otherwise, what to do when you want sex with your entire being and cant get it but maybe with a prostitute. I am not being a sarcastic. I mean it. I feel for men since it is hard to control sexual drive. Also I think it is unfair. I absolutely agree with you and I do not want my son, when he is old enough, to get married with a first girl he will be sleeping with. I want him to find a decent woman, to have experience first, to try. I have a lot of guy friends and this is my advice to them: to sleep around, have fun and have sex. Today I quoted Leo's PUA comment to my guy friend. Men are monogamous by nature, we have to accept it. 

 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Galyna

[remember]

7 hours ago, whoareyou said:

For those of you here who are opposing PUA and only believe in "relationships", and only sex in "relationships", imo  you are very delusional.

A relationship begins only after sex! (unless if you are asexual). Like LEO said, after you bang a few times, then a relationship can be formed.

In order to get to that point, mean who are incompetent, need to learn how to attract and bang women, and after they get that part handled, they need to work on relationship skills.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Pickup techniques - it all depends on the level of consciousness of a person applying them. 

The women will never be able to understand how hard it can be for struggling guys out there.

yep and then wonder why women refuse to play crash test dummies for the ego.

did you ever wonder who exactly ejaculates in your mind?

Edited January 31, 2020 by remember

[Leo Gura]

Both sides need to keep in mind that their POV is self-biased and obscured by survival needs.

Don't be blaming the other.

[Emerald]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Match is part of the process.

Of course not every woman will be a match with every man. That's all sorted out in the field.

It's not like if a guy has game he can attract/sleep with 100% of women. About 33% of women will love him, 33% of women will hate him, and 33% of women will be indifferent.

There's always an element of luck and personalities need to match up. That's why he chats with 10 women, 3 get attracted, 1 comes home.

A highly attractive man is actually more polarizing. Some women will absolutely hate him. But those who like him will LOVE him.

You also have to keep in mind that not all guys with game are the same. Each guys attracts a specific subset of female personality types. Because game is expressed differently through different personality types. Game is not a specific type of guy, it's general principles of attractiveness which are incarnated uniquely by each guy, attracting different kinds of women. For example, humor is going to vary from guy to guy. Guys can have very different senses and styles of humor. But learning the general principles of humor will help every guy, no matter what his style of humor is. And all girls love some style of humor. Humor can be dry, witty, intellectual, sexual, subdued, bold, sarcastic, self-deprecating, dark, physical, nerdy, etc.

I don't think you really gleaned the main aspect of what I was saying. 

I'm saying that the thing that makes a man attractive is not contingent upon "game". In fact, in my 17 years of experience of being approached, learning game is usually a disruptor to the natural personality and has a fake flavor to it. Women who are attuned to their intuition can sense it in men. Mind you it's better than being totally anti-social and sexual repression, so do whatever works. But don't think that just because it works for you, that it's what women actually like.

It really is a disruptor to a man's natural energy, as they get so attached to the techniques and knowledge that they forget to be a person... which is what women are actually attracted to. 

And I can sense a lot of insecurity underneath both "game" and even personal development in general . So, I find game and approach to be off-putting. If I sense it's too easy to get a man (and most men are incredibly easy to get), then I know it's not special for him and that he approaches everyone and that I'm interchangeable to him. And thus, it is a sign of instability and often worse.

Also, because I view sex as a form of communication, I want a man who actually specifically wants to communicate something specific to me... not just someone who has nothing to say to me but just wants to speak. And just hearing someone speak with nothing to say is a turn off.

So, I automatically (like most women who are in touch with their emotional and sexual needs) screen it out, and focus toward men I'm familiar with that I am around frequently. And that's the most ideal scenario from a woman's perspective. Approach and game is very lukewarm in terms of pleasure and emotional enjoyment. It takes at least a few weeks (usually months) of platonic interaction to develop an attraction intense enough to make me want to pair bond with someone. And that's the only way to get the heat up that high. It's a slow brew and needs time to ferment.

Now, if you broadly define game as general social skills that apply for everyone, then I would say that's not really game. But these are necessary to make friends easily and form relationships more easily. So, yes, a man will have to develop basic social skills to attract more women. But learning to be confident and cool and all those other things will attract simply the most average woman who is also unaware of her intuition. A woman who screens for objective qualities instead of connecting to her emotional center.

And as a numbers game, if women are interchangeable to you, that's fine. But I doubt you'll find very many who you can really be understood by and be intimate with. It would just be a stage to perform your sexuality on and have some brief enjoyable experiences. But it sounds like a lonely experience.

But game specifically refers to behaviors adopted by men to roll the dice at finding a mate. And 99.999% of the time I find these mating dances to be counter-productive and off-putting. And I know I'm not an odd bird in this.

And truly I believe game, in its best aspect, to be a placebo that just gives an otherwise insecure guy the courage to approach a woman in the first place... which would have yielded them results even without learning game.

It's like you give someone a cape and tell them they're a hero, and they believe it, so they're able to do heroic things. But the person actually had that in them all the time and didn't actually need the cape.

The problem only comes from when the guy never realizes the cape isn't real. And there are tons of "gurus" touting the efficacy of the cape. And "Don't believe women when they tell you the capes don't work. Women just don't realize the capes work." It really creates an airtight vacuum of misinformation about the female sexual experience.

And you have an entire generation of guys who are totally lost, insisting that your sexuality works other than how it does just because they've gotten results in getting laid... which would have happened anyway. On a personal level, it's frustrating. But on a collective level, it silences the voices of women actually communicating their needs and wants... just because some women will settle for game. So, it drives an intimacy barrier between men and women in their experience of sex and love, because the guy fundamentally doesn't understand but is certain in his own ignorance that he does because he heard it from some equally clueless "guru". 

So, that potential to attract a lot of women would have been there before any "game" was learned at all. And the reason why is simple. It's because most women are attracted to men. There is no need to filter oneself through all of these ideas and techniques. Just have your life in order, get some basic social skills, don't suppress your masculinity, make connections with people, open your heart, and be yourself.

From my perspective, I'm almost never attracted to the guys that would be deemed universally attractive. And it almost never happens when a guy has romantic intent of any kind on his sleeves. 

I'm mostly attracted to guys who just have a very particular way about them that resonates with me. And as long as they're being themselves, I'm going to feel that. But game, as I've noticed, is usually the opposite. It cuts men off from their natural masculine essence and teaches masculinity on the external level. And the counter-productivity of it is very palpable and obvious from the outside looking in.

 

[Galyna]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

It really is a disruptor to a man's natural energy, as they get so attached to the techniques and knowledge that they forget to be a person... which is what women are actually attracted to. 

There is a basic instinct that needs to be satisfied, I don't think that they think about it and take it so serious in the first place. Again, it is easy to extrapolate about it being a girl. When you are hungry, all you think is food. Are you trying to be logical about it? No. Because it is irrational. Same here. The first goal is to get laid, who cares about the consequences and what girl might care about. In a way it is stupid because men have to invent all the tricks to bang. Like my friend told me: "If I am honest about my intentions, I will never have sex." 

Men are silly animals. I know lots of women who could manipulate with sex to get what they want, even a wedding ring. 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

If I sense it's too easy to get a man (and most men are incredibly easy to get), then I know it's not special for him and that he approaches everyone and that I'm interchangeable to him. And thus, it is a sign of instability and often worse.

But we can not ultimately screen all men as potential hubbies on the first date. There is always an element of the game. He does not know you and you do not know him. Why on Earth he needs to treat you as something special? It is way too early on this stage. Of course he approaches everyone, so? Why taking it personally? If it meant to be, it meant to be.  Any man who approaches you needs time to open up this potential. You, yourself do not know the scenario of your unfolding relations. Nobody knows.

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

So, I automatically (like most women who are in touch with their emotional and sexual needs) screen it out, and focus toward men I'm familiar with that I am around frequently. And that's the most ideal scenario from a woman's perspective. Approach and game is very lukewarm in terms of pleasure and emotional enjoyment. It takes at least a few weeks (usually months) of platonic interaction to develop an attraction intense enough to make me want to pair bond with someone.

Me too. This is a very romantic scenario with a lot of expectations that might lead to a broken heart. I do not say that we should sleep with the first man we see on the date. But I suggest to be realistic about it and leave your expectations outside the bedroom. 

 

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

The problem only comes from when the guy never realizes the cape isn't real. And there are tons of "gurus" touting the efficacy of the cape. And "Don't believe women when they tell you the capes don't work. Women just don't realize the capes work." It really creates an airtight vacuum of misinformation about the female sexual experience.

These are all generic rules for the average user. Not everybody is highly developed, including women. So for low-conscious women the game night work. On every stage of your development there is a certain process you use to screen people for the qualities that are attractive to you. You are the woman, perhaps, that can see through the illusion and the guy needs to work harder to put you in bed. But I know you are married, just saying in general. 

 

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

There is no need to filter oneself through all of these ideas and techniques. Just have your life in order, get some basic social skills, don't suppress your masculinity, make connections with people, open your heart, and be yourself.

It is easier to say than to implement. You give also a generic advice now. Men have different backgrounds, cultures, history, families, upbringing, traumas, etc. I really like you, Emerald. But in this post let me disagree with you. It is a bit bias and I feel like something deep inside irritates you about this PU. 

 

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

But game, as I've noticed, is usually the opposite. It cuts men off from their natural masculine essence and teaches masculinity on the external level. And the counter-productivity of it is very palpable and obvious from the outside looking in.

You take it very serious. Man can approach you in any way he likes. If there is a real spark between you and him, a chemistry, all the knowledge and advice he learned from so called "gurus" will fly out in the window. Because men are alive people, they are not robots and every man has its own magical road to his heart. He just need to find the One. And during the journey they all need to f...ck!

Hope you will not be upset with my words.

Hugs. 

[Dumuzzi]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

I don't think you really gleaned the main aspect of what I was saying. 

I'm saying that the thing that makes a man attractive is not contingent upon "game". In fact, in my 17 years of experience of being approached, learning game is usually a disruptor to the natural personality and has a fake flavor to it. Women who are attuned to their intuition can sense it in men. Mind you it's better than being totally anti-social and sexual repression, so do whatever works. But don't think that just because it works for you, that it's what women actually like.

It really is a disruptor to a man's natural energy, as they get so attached to the techniques and knowledge that they forget to be a person... which is what women are actually attracted to. 

And I can sense a lot of insecurity underneath both "game" and even personal development in general . So, I find game and approach to be off-putting. If I sense it's too easy to get a man (and most men are incredibly easy to get), then I know it's not special for him and that he approaches everyone and that I'm interchangeable to him. And thus, it is a sign of instability and often worse.

Also, because I view sex as a form of communication, I want a man who actually specifically wants to communicate something specific to me... not just someone who has nothing to say to me but just wants to speak. And just hearing someone speak with nothing to say is a turn off.

So, I automatically (like most women who are in touch with their emotional and sexual needs) screen it out, and focus toward men I'm familiar with that I am around frequently. And that's the most ideal scenario from a woman's perspective. Approach and game is very lukewarm in terms of pleasure and emotional enjoyment. It takes at least a few weeks (usually months) of platonic interaction to develop an attraction intense enough to make me want to pair bond with someone. And that's the only way to get the heat up that high. It's a slow brew and needs time to ferment.

Now, if you broadly define game as general social skills that apply for everyone, then I would say that's not really game. But these are necessary to make friends easily and form relationships more easily. So, yes, a man will have to develop basic social skills to attract more women. But learning to be confident and cool and all those other things will attract simply the most average woman who is also unaware of her intuition. A woman who screens for objective qualities instead of connecting to her emotional center.

And as a numbers game, if women are interchangeable to you, that's fine. But I doubt you'll find very many who you can really be understood by and be intimate with. It would just be a stage to perform your sexuality on and have some brief enjoyable experiences. But it sounds like a lonely experience.

But game specifically refers to behaviors adopted by men to roll the dice at finding a mate. And 99.999% of the time I find these mating dances to be counter-productive and off-putting. And I know I'm not an odd bird in this.

And truly I believe game, in its best aspect, to be a placebo that just gives an otherwise insecure guy the courage to approach a woman in the first place... which would have yielded them results even without learning game.

It's like you give someone a cape and tell them they're a hero, and they believe it, so they're able to do heroic things. But the person actually had that in them all the time and didn't actually need the cape.

The problem only comes from when the guy never realizes the cape isn't real. And there are tons of "gurus" touting the efficacy of the cape. And "Don't believe women when they tell you the capes don't work. Women just don't realize the capes work." It really creates an airtight vacuum of misinformation about the female sexual experience.

And you have an entire generation of guys who are totally lost, insisting that your sexuality works other than how it does just because they've gotten results in getting laid... which would have happened anyway. On a personal level, it's frustrating. But on a collective level, it silences the voices of women actually communicating their needs and wants... just because some women will settle for game. So, it drives an intimacy barrier between men and women in their experience of sex and love, because the guy fundamentally doesn't understand but is certain in his own ignorance that he does because he heard it from some equally clueless "guru". 

So, that potential to attract a lot of women would have been there before any "game" was learned at all. And the reason why is simple. It's because most women are attracted to men. There is no need to filter oneself through all of these ideas and techniques. Just have your life in order, get some basic social skills, don't suppress your masculinity, make connections with people, open your heart, and be yourself.

From my perspective, I'm almost never attracted to the guys that would be deemed universally attractive. And it almost never happens when a guy has romantic intent of any kind on his sleeves. 

I'm mostly attracted to guys who just have a very particular way about them that resonates with me. And as long as they're being themselves, I'm going to feel that. But game, as I've noticed, is usually the opposite. It cuts men off from their natural masculine essence and teaches masculinity on the external level. And the counter-productivity of it is very palpable and obvious from the outside looking in.

 

Those are very wise words and they really resonate with me.

I view attraction as primarily being about vibrational compatibility and an exchange of energy. I realise that the most successful pick-up strategy is to approach absolutely everyone in the hope that one of your targets will bite and I have plenty of friends who employ it with much success, nevertheless, to me, it is incredibly off-putting and cringe-worthy. I have a feeling that most of these men, who are into pick-up are mildly autistic and have no concept of what a higher-level connection to another human being entails. It is about the divine masculine wanting to unite with the divine feminine and both sides must have their spiritual and emotional balance established, before this can work. The pull of Love and Attraction is visceral, because it is a primal, base energy of the universe (Shiva and Shakti).

That being said, the example of Russell Brand was quoted earlier and he to me is the prime example who had to get that out of his system, overcome his drug, alcohol and sex addiction to be able to form a true bond with members of the opposite sex and move on to a higher level spiritually. He stated that all his addictions were a result of a giant spiritual hole in his soul, which he was trying to fill with fleeting distractions, but ultimately, he only became happy and fulfilled when he found the real thing, union with the divine, through yoga and meditation.

[Galyna]

34 minutes ago, Dumuzzi said:

I view attraction as primarily being about vibrational compatibility and an exchange of energy. 

Guys, let's be realistic. A generic person (19 year old male, European or American), outside of this forum, who does not do practices, meditation, watch videos of advaita teachers, read books won't think with all these categories. All they do nowadays is watch porn, masturbate, play video games and binge drink, in a good scenario. In a worst case scenario there are a lot of drugs, traffic violations, crimes, prostitutes, night clubs, friends and weed. Go and preach this to an average student. See what he will tell you. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Galyna

[Dumuzzi]

@Galyna Just because most people aren't aware of it, does not make it untrue. I have no desire to preach, only to state the truth, irrespective of how many will listen. That is all you can do, state the truth as you see it, even if you are in a minority of one, the Truth is still the Truth.

[Galyna]

@Dumuzzi Fair enough. I am just saying that there is a need ( demand for sex) and there is a product to satisfy this need (PU). Of course people will market it in the most devilish way possible. It is effective, efficient and it works. 

Emerald and you have a kernel of truth in your statements, however, our society is not on that level to practice high-conscious sex and intimacy, or even relationships. No young man will spend enough time to research and understand how it works. They want to have sex here and now. 

[Farnaby]

9 minutes ago, Galyna said:

Guys, let's be realistic. A generic person (19 year old male, European or American), outside of this forum, who does not do practices, meditation, watch videos of advaita teachers, read books won't think with all these categories. All they do nowadays is watch porn, masturbate, play video games and binge drink, in a good scenario. In a worst case scenario there are a lot of drugs, traffic violations, crimes, prostitutes, night clubs, friends and weed. Go and preach this to an average student. See what he will tell you. 

Since I started being interested in girls, I always found pick up techniques intuitively cringy, dishonest, inauthentic. I won't say that I haven't been jealous of guys who used them and got laid more often than me, and I've been tempted to apply the same techniques, but they never felt right for me. 

So you're probably right about preaching about the divine masculine and feminine being something most teenagers would make fun of and I wouldn't use that approach if I was giving some kind of sex education. 

However, I can't help but agree with those who say pick up feels phony and this inauthenticity is easily spotted. I prefer to be with a woman who likes me how I am (although I'm aware that we're constantly changing), rather than having sex with 10 women who were attracted by some techniques. 

I understand that there is probably another kind of game that focuses on authenticity, not repressing your masculine side, etc., and that kind of advice I would definitely subscribe. We aren't born with social skills and if we are on the extreme introversion side of the spectrum, we may have to work on our fears (if that introversion is caused by them) if we want to be able to date someone. That's just natural growth IMO, no need to copy some technique that worked for some guys. 

It actually reminds me of an episode of the series "Sex Education" where one of the guys gets obsessed with masturbating a girl using the proper technique. You can surely anticipate that this kind of approach doesn't work, because it feels rehearsed and unnatural.