Is manipulation real? is it even wrong in the first place?

[Average]

Hello gentlemen,

I've just been thinking about girls (as always) and was thinking about the way that Pickup artists are portrayed as "manipulating girls into sleeping with them". Normally I would write this off as society dribble drabble, however, I am intrigued by the prospect of what exactly qualifies as......"Manipulation"?

if you look at seduction then a lot of the times you won't go to bed like

Boy: ready?
Girl: of course
Boy: ok. We'll fuck in 3,2,1.....
Girl: ooooooooohhhhhhh

Usually its more of a dance in which you combat LMR. Even getting her to your room takes time as you relax with her and bond with her.

Anyway, society paints this as manipulation because you aren't constantly reminding her of your sexual/romantic feelings at every 3rd second. So if this really is what manipulation is then:

Is it really a bad thing?

We all have motives when speaking to people and if being straightforward/honest/truthful means being unsexilly, nonsuave, clumsily and uncharmingly telling her your intentions so it can be seen in its "true trueness" (I.e the truth but in a way that is not influenced by the mood) then is being manipulative just a negative synonym for GAME?

Is manipulation just a dirty trick to get us to not use GAME to its full extent? Think about how the process in game will be shortened and less sexied out of fear of being "manipulative".

Is doing things with a girl at a process of maximum efficiency in order to get what you want a bad thing? And if so.....why?

Any thoughts?

 

[Bboy100]

Ash,

You have to remember the roots of pickup artistry. It started with books like "The Game" by Neil Strauss and "The Mystery Method". Both of these encourage tactics which are inherently manipulative. Including but not limited to, blatantly lying to the women/making up stories about who and what you are to get them to sleep with you, using back handed compliments called "negs" to basically take advantage of women who have low self-esteem, encouraging men to blatantly hit on and take girls who are waay too drunk to make a decision about who she should or should not sleep with home, using practiced "routines" which are basically a practiced script of what to say and do around a women which usually has nothing to do with who you actually are in order to get her into bed with you.

So...I think all of this stuff is pretty much manipulation by definition. Which is where most of the Stigma comes from. Because Mystery actually had a TV show wherein he blatently teaches men these tactics. As a result, he got a lot of publicity and fame. He was and perhaps still is the image of PUAs in the eyes of the general public. Neil Strauss was just as bad. Most people who talk about "manipulative pickup artists" actually have no idea that sites like GirlsChase exist. They're still talking about this routine based "game" (which is effectively a very long and complex string of lies).

Moreover, there are still some companies today who still espouse the same bullshit. I don't know too much about them as I don't associate with them. But I had a few friends who did a lot of RSD stuff. And from what they told me, the advice they got was "fuck morals just get laid". So they basically actively went out and picked up drunk girls. Again...still a little manipultive because you're taking advantage of the fact that she's not in full control of her decision making. ...Now idk if RSD actually teaches this stuff. But I will say that there are definitely a lot of companies out there which do.

So those are the obviously manipulative tactics.

Here are a few debate worthy ones (in terms of weather or not they're actually manipulative):

A lot of the stuff even here and on sites which generally give good advice might be considered "manipulative". Obviously not in the same way that Mystery and Neil Strauss are manipulative. But still...in a more subtle way, some would argue that there is manipulation involved.

For example...let's say you're not the kind of guy who likes to go out and do "Chase frames". But you read here on GC that Chase Framing will get you laid. So you go on a date with a girl, and you start Chase Framing her. Well...this isn't who you really are right? You're being inauthentic. Therefore, your "Chase Framing" is effectively a lie to get in her pants, hence manipulation. Same goes for any behaviors or "techniques" you might pick up from the PUA community.

It's the same type of subtle manipulation as what "nice guys" do. They're super nice to a girl and let her treat him like a doormat, in hopes that he'll get some pussy. They have a covert agenda. All of their actions have strings attached to them. Except that in this case, instead of "being a doormat/super nice" it's "Chase Framing" or "[Insert whatever technique you've learned from the PUA community here]". You're still doing it to get laid. Not because its who you genuinely are.

Personally, I don't believe in the ^ argument. Or even if it is true, I wouldn't call it manipulation. Because by that definition, anytime you're training to learn to do something new, that would make you "manipulative" while you're still learning it. But once you've mastered it and it becomes a habit, it would be "authentic". This seems wrong to me.

But...there are some people who would disagree.

Finally...the PUA community promotes certain mindsets and beliefs which cause people to behave in ways that are inauthentic. Specifically, I'm talking about beliefs and mindsets like "I need to be dominant", "I need to lead the interaction", "I need to have the stronger frame", "Girls are silly and cute", "I need to be an alpha male", "I need to always add value to a women's life", "I need to be sexual" etc. Basically any ideas or paradigms which might encourage you to behave differently from how you normally would if you weren't trying to get laid. For example, if you believe you have to lead a women to get her in bed, you might bounce her around from place to place all night in order to get compliance. So you might go to like, 5 different bars. When all you really would have liked to do is get a drink at that one quiet bar. So you're basically doing all this other nonsense just to "lead her" so you can sleep with her, and playing it off like you actually wanted to go to five different bars that night. So you're effectively lying AND being inauthentic through your actions. Granted...this is a little bit of an extreme example. That's not something most people would do. But you might do something similar on a smaller scale (e.g. maybe you'll ask her to pay for your dinner in order to get investment. When in reality, you're not comfortable with having other people pay for your shit.).

Note that this is different from the previous argument about actions and "techniques". Because actions are something you learn. Then they turn into habits, thus becoming a part of you are. Some people learn to play Guitar to get laid. That's not manipulative. As such, learning a "technique" (like Chase Framing) is no different. Whereas this argument is talking about actions you do which are incongruent to who you are (i.e. you're lying) as a result of beliefs. Not techniques which you've learned or are currently learning.

Personally, I can see the merit and logic behind that last arguement. Still undecided on weather or not I agree with it though. Because I think that we all change our behavior around people we're attracted to. At least a little bit. Therefore, by that logic maybe we're all a little manipulative regardless of weather or not we're "PUAs". So I'm just laying all the arguements out here. I don't actually endorse any of them (except for the ones which are not controversial. But they don't apply to GC and most other quality material out there).

Also, I think it's mostly because of that first part. The part about Neil Strauss and Mystery. They're the face of PUAs. And they spawned a bunch of other PUAs which were just as bad. And it doesn't help that a lot of what they taught was not only manipulative, but also misogynistic, objectified women, and reeked of bitterness. Problem is, some of them are still out there. So the title "PUA" will probably forever have a stigma attached to it. Which is why I think it was a smart move by Chase to switch GC's label from "PUA" to "Men's dating advice".

 

[Average]

Thanks for the replies gents.

Bboy, thanks for the insight. I thought that the fears of PUA manipulation were baseless, but hearing about its origin, it seems that the fears aren't as wish washy as I thought they were, and may very well be around for a while. However, on a moral standview, I'm still a bit lost. Does this mean that morality has less to do with THE COLD HARD TRUTH and JUSTICE and IDEALS (especially since we don't live in an ideal world) and is more about how people around you are affected by your actions?

For example, I agree with Kingcuck's statement:

Women use sexuality to manipulate, men manipulate for sex. It’s how the genders go.

Everybody does everything to achieve some goal that will benefit themselves. We live in a world where people want it to be IDEAL, but cannot be. And thus, we are all forced to be PRACTICAL. My main question is this:

If nobody will get hurt by your actions, but your actions do break some form of ideal law out there, yet will benefit everybody involved, then is it ultimately the wrong thing to do?

For example, being persistent. Society says that such behaviour is a big no-no. Because surprisingly....no really does mean no. Yet, there are situations which might call for you to be persistent, like if you're leaving town and she's conveniently playing the LMR game.

Would this be considered immoral? Would it even matter if she appreciates it in the end?

 

[Bboy100]

First of all...there is on objective set of actions which are "moral" or "immoral". It's very subjective. I might think one thing is immoral, the next guy might think it's totally okay. And we might both have good arguments for why we're right. So as far as morality goes...that's your personal journey. You need to figure out what you are or are not okay with doing in life. So to answer your questions...yeah, it absolutely has to do with how your actions affect others. I don't know what you even mean by "cold hard truth".

Women use sexuality to manipulate, men manipulate for sex. It’s how the genders go.


Everybody does everything to achieve some goal that will benefit themselves.

I personally think this is bullshit. I know exactly 0 women who do this. I'm sure there is a small minority of women who do. But if you think this is true as a generalization, you're hanging out with the wrong crowd man.

As for everyone "doing something to achieve a goal that will benefit themselves"...yeah that's true. Most of the time, we're all working to advance ourselves and our desires. But not everyone uses manipulation as a tool.

For example, being persistent. Society says that such behaviour is a big no-no. Because surprisingly....no really does mean no. Yet, there are situations which might call for you to be persistent, like if you're leaving town and she's conveniently playing the LMR game.

The reason for this is because most people who are "persistent" are actually being aggressive. The thing about persistence is that you need to have a very good pulse on weather or not the girl actually wants to have sex with you. If she really doesn't, and you continue to persist, you'll basically come off as creepy or aggressive and make the girl very uncomfortable. Which some (including "society") would say is morally wrong. And most guys who use tactics like this actually have no idea how the women is feeling. Instead, they just do it indiscriminately on all women who refuse to have sex with them because they read or heard from somewhere that this is a good strategy.

If you do it correctly, "society" would not call it "persistence". They would see it as "charming" or "flirting" or "being confident". So really...society only frowns upon persistence if you're doing it wrong. And perhaps rightfully so. Because like I said...you're making girls uncomfortable and perhaps even causing them to fear for their safety.

 

[Average]

First of all...there is on objective set of actions which are "moral" or "immoral". It's very subjective. I might think one thing is immoral, the next guy might think it's totally okay. And we might both have good arguments for why we're right. So as far as morality goes...that's your personal journey. You need to figure out what you are or are not okay with doing in life. So to answer your questions...yeah, it absolutely has to do with how your actions affect others. I don't know what you even mean by "cold hard truth".

Cool. Answers a lot of inconsistencies that I've seen growing up.

If you do it correctly, "society" would not call it "persistence". They would see it as "charming" or "flirting" or "being confident". So really...society only frowns upon persistence if you're doing it wrong. And perhaps rightfully so. Because like I said...you're making girls uncomfortable and perhaps even causing them to fear for their safety.

So in other words, if you don't do something effectively, then there is a risk of it becoming offensive and it being seen as immoral. Sure this might sound bad.....but if it truly is a mistake (one which you want to learn from) then there inherently is where a lot of mixed debate about morality comes from.

The means to the end. The good ending with a bad journey. The anti-hero.

But hey, I got my answers. Thanks bro. You helped me out a lot. I'm not sure if I've fully grasped this morality thing yet but I feel like I got the answers to the questions that needed to be answered for now, and if I mess up any specifics, then it shall be a learning experience.

 

[Seppuku]

There is a past girlfriend of mine with whom I stayed in contact. About a year ago she met a guy who actually promised her a life together, including having kids, and they ended up fucking like crazy with no condoms. She thought she had found the man of her life. Following what, after a week, he left the country and returned to Canada his home country. They kept chatting and video calling on Viber. Her period was getting late to come. And that's when he told her, via video call, that he didn't mean any of it - then blocked her. Fortunately her period was just late (it came like one month late), but she just stayed with her pregnancy scare in the meantime.

The guy used an outright lie, manipulating her expectations and fucking with her mind, in order to have unprotected sex with her. He was also a pervert, taking pleasure in knowing that he could have left her pregnant without legal recourse, then leaving the country and telling her the truth in a viber call with a laugh on his face.

So here's my take. If you have to misrepresent your motivations and play with her expectations, in order to have sex, this is outright manipulation. You are guaranteed to hurt her. Bad.

On the other hand, what Girls Chase teaches is essentially mimicking the behavior of naturals and other alpha males, so as to represent yourself in a more attractive manner, while simultaneously being careful of not setting wrong expectations. It is exploiting knowledge of what is attractive to women, in order to make yourself more attractive. And as long as you take care of her expectations, to me this is perfectly OK.

And it is also fair game! Just remember that girls do the same. They know exactly what men fall for. They know exactly what they are doing. Think about it:

* they hide their natural flaws behind a layer of make up
* they wear bras that make their boobs seem bigger than they actually are
* they show naked skin via a whole set of clothes revealing different body parts
* they wear heels to shape up their legs and to make their ass look fabulous
* etc... Fake eyelashes, fake boobs, fake hair, whatever it takes to get the males fall for them!

Isn't there an underlying promise of sexual delights? And do they hesitate even one second before doing this?

Making yourself more attractive, knowing the other sex natural preferences, is just fair game. All women do it. And not enough men are doing just the same.

So to me, the boundary between bad and good lies in how you handle her expectations. Just make sure you don't convey anything that might set her the wrong expectations. Most girls are in fact OK with casual sex - if it is clear to them that this is what it is. But being led on to believe that there is more than that, then finding out later that they were just tricked into having sex, is wrong.

Women use sexuality to manipulate [...]

Not only this is not bullshit, it is also very common behavior (not just a minority). Ignore it at your own risk. Women are master manipulators, that's how they have been used to get their ways with men for a million years. They know how to do it in the most subtle ways. Your goal is to learn to recognize a manipulation attempt very early on. In particular, pay attention in her use of "we", like in "darling, it would be nice if we ...." (this is one of the very common patterns). The statement is framed as being for the common good of both of you. Just ask yourself who would benefit, and if it would actually be in your interest or not. Is any feminine manipulation attempt, actually using sexuality? Remember that she can always refuse the sex.

That's my take on the subject at least!

Seppuku

 

[ThePhoenix]

I think that associating seduction with manipulation stems from society's long-standing suppression of female sexuality. If it's a given that a woman is not supposed to want sex, then anything that gets her to have sex must inherently be some kind of deceit or manipulation. You can see how ingrained this conflation is in the culture just by looking at the non-sexual dictionary definitions of "seduce":

dictionary.com:
1. to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt
...
3. to lead or draw away, as from principles, faith, or allegiance

Collins:
2. to lead astray, as from the right action

Merriam-Webster:
1 : to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty
2 : to lead astray usually by persuasion or false promises

Oxford:
1.1 Entice (someone) to do or believe something inadvisable or foolhardy.

It's also worth noting that most species have a whole "song and dance" used to induce mating. I don't personally feel there's anything inherently wrong with trying to take on behaviours that trigger sexual responses.

So to me, the boundary between bad and good lies in how you handle her expectations. Just make sure you don't convey anything that might set her the wrong expectations. Most girls are in fact OK with casual sex - if it is clear to them that this is what it is. But being led on to believe that there is more than that, then finding out later that they were just tricked into having sex, is wrong.

Yes, exactly!

Honesty need not come from explicit wording, which in this setting would oft be counter-productive to both parties; it's instead fundamentally a function of what expectations you create.

And it's so pathetic how some men even think they have to create false expectations when really they don't.


Bboy100,

I'm a bit confused, because the Mystery you and others describe seems like a much different person than the one whose book I've read.

Now, I'm not by any means preaching MM. In my own experience it was both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because prior to reading it I had been the penultimate nice guy, and it really opened my eyes to just how dysfunctional the programming I had received all my life from society at large was. A curse because it was so systematized as to make me become extremely intimidated by women, as a somewhat introverted shy guy, to the point of almost giving up because I felt the degree of sociopsychological mastery required to win with them was virtually impossible for me.

It also led me to throw away first-date lay opportunities on multiple occasions because I completely discounted the possibility a girl was trying to get me home even though I hadn't completed the social equivalent of the Lorentz transformation, factorization of a 1000 digit prime number, and a proof of the Riemann hypothesis for good measure.

With that said, I really didn't see the misogyny and utter deceit that you and others speak of. In fact, after reading it I had a female friend of mine read it as well, and she was anything but offended. In fact, her remark was roughly, "oh, my God, I feel like this guy understands me perfectly!"

blatantly lying to the women/making up stories about who and what you are to get them to sleep with you

From MM, emphasis mine:

Does this mean you must steal my magician identity in order to do the Mystery Method? No. You won't be telling stories of your first birthday party magic show (unless you in fact gave one). That would be a lie. You won't talk about how you learned the secret to a card trick by beating it out of a classmate of yours or how years later that classmate saw you on TV and said, "I can't believe your future changed that day." No, you won't use my specific material. But like me, you can use material based on your own real-life experiences.

using back handed compliments called "negs" to basically take advantage of women who have low self-esteem

From MM:

Not only is it cruel to drop a woman's self-esteem out from under her (regardless of the fact that most 10s will readily do this to guys), but not — too — surprisingly, it doesn't get you the girl.

encouraging men to blatantly hit on and take girls who are waay too drunk to make a decision about who she should or should not sleep with home

From MM, note that this is a tactic that the book discourages:

Fool's mate: Seduction-first tactics. Typically only works on girls who are drunk or extremely horny. ...

So, I have to ask, what's going on? I will admit that I have never seen his TV show nor his live coaching, so I can't discount the possibility of the behaviours you speak of in those forums, but it does seem quite inconsistent with the premises of his book.

 

[BetaBoy]

Everyone manipulates for one reason or another.