Taoist Ethics for taoist PUA

I decided to start a new thread on the topic of taoist ethics for PUA because I think it deserves it.

Taoism is quite well known for not recognising a fixed list of good and bad behaviours. Which is not quite the same of having no ethics, but more suggests that each practitioners should find in each situation what is correct and proper and what would lead to a downfall.

PUA in this context represents a vary good case study, which I think can help us more to learn about Taoist Ethics than about PU art.

My teacher would ask an ethical question
"should you..."
and wait for a yes or no answer.
And then he would ask why. And the answer to this question could not contain any reference to any writing, any book, any master saying or any external authority of any kind. It had to come direcly from the inside.

So we could ask:
"should you use PUA techniques to seduce a member of the opposite sex to have sex?"
why?

And if she is taken?
And if she is married?
And if she is married but unhappy?
And if she is married and happy?
and pregnant?
and a mother?
And if you are willing to use only some techniques, which would you use, and which would you avoid?
And if you are avoiding to use a technique, is this not itself a technique, especially if that behaviour is by now natural to you?


Of course any other post on the topic is also welcome on this thread.
Take those questions just as guidelines.

It just sounds kinda complicated and lacking in spontaneity...

But then, I have a friend who would be classed as an "AFC", who could probably use some techniques or tutoring to help increase his confidence when it comes to women - so it all probably has its place...somewhere

I think the thing to do, to make this whole thing ethical, is to focus on 'inner game' - clearing out all the needy attention seeking parts of us - becoming congruent - having our own values and criteria for the type of girls/boys that we want to go for. Learn to move and speak and interact from the centre - with spontenaity, rather than following routines or pre-practiced techniques. Learn to touch and be touched - learn to look into someone's eyes and have them look into yours (dance classes are good for this, if it's not natural for you)...

The ethical aspect here is that we flow from the centre out - not from some small needy part of us out - from the centre out... the ethics then fall into place with no need for rules - if you feel a deep satisfaction with sleeping with loads of women and you dont care about their energy or personality then it's fine - if you feel the satisfaction...

people have different natures, and it impossible to have an umbrella morality system that covers all of them - so we need to trust the inherent goodness of people - the key is in getting to the centre then learning to 'be' from there - it's hard! and it's very easy to delude yourself and still be trying to satisfy some small part of yourself thinking that you're acting in accord with your true nature...

I think the inner and outer game is a useful division, but inner game in itself is not enough. I know many people who only went on the inner game and never achieved much. They might have increased their value skyrocket, but it might also made their availability go way down. And if they kept their availability low, then the girl would go: uh, uh why is this incredibly high value guy being so available? Something must be wrong over here. I've seen that happen a lot. And the more the guy then pushes toward the girl the worse it is.

In my experience, and what I am learning now, is to go with the flow.
You see, it is normal to have sex, to make love and to reproduce. If it wasn't so we simply wouldn't be here. We would have extinguished long time ago. If it doesn't happen. If it happens way less than it should. Not just as too low, but very very low, then it means that somwhere the flow of energy is not flowing properly.
And this is where I applied my PU skills.

My inner game was already very high. Think about it, here you have a person who has done meditation for more than 15 years. Whose integrity is such that he would even refuse to buy an mp3 reader with radio included because then he would have to pay the taxes on the radio every month, even if he never hears the radio and no one would know about it. Who is able to feel the energy in his body and others body, and move it practically at will, and have sex for many nights without ever coming. And I think I am describing as well most of the people in this site. People over here already have their inner game. Surely it is in a much better shape than most rAFC (recovering AFC) or even most PUA "gurus".

But then the outer game comes of two different taste. Active and passive (the division is mine, but I think it mirrors a fundamental division in the game, just one that it had not been focused on that much). The active one is when you act so to awaken attraction in a woman.

The passive one is when you take a women who is already naturally attracted to you... and you avoid all the little errors you would normally do that would turn off the attractions.

Which errors:
-I think you are so nice, I really would like to ... with you
Puff! She is gone.
-My name is...
Puff!
-I would like to make love with you...
Puff!
-I would like to be your boyfriend
Puff!
kissing her then: -sorry
Puff!
Trying to kiss her in the wrong moment
Puff!
NOT kissing her in the right moment
Puff! (Actually LJBF!)
Not knowing how to escalate (or knowing it and not doing it)
Puff!
Not taking the lead!
Puff
Just being yourself!
Puff
Puff
Puff!

and so on. those are not inner game issues. Those are outer games issues. But they are mostly negative actions. It is mostly avoiding the errors. And if you get someone who has a really good inner game, but still makes those errors he will be pretty much single. A bit like the rock star who all the girls like at distance but once they get to know him his behaviour just pushes them away. In subtle ways he himself cannot comprehend. Why don't all the guys in a Bruce workshop have a girlfriend. I mean really, most of them are really nice people, way better than the average joe, more interesting, less needy, and with their shit sorted out. (I took Bruce as opposed to others because I know it, but any school with a good vipassana school would equally well do). Most of those people have a great inner game, but no outer game. They keep on doing silly mistakes. They keep on doing what their mother (or their female friends) told them to do to get the girl. Which was wrong!

Having the greatest inner game is just not enough.

Beside all this, having sexual success breeds succes on an hormonal level.
Ypu can be a great meditator, but a hug goes a long way to balance your hormones. A good fuck even more. As a man once you start opening people and having succes you have oxytocin flowing and this is what help you to open more girls. Now here in Europe are thinking of giving nasal spray of oxytocin for shy people. I suppose you can rapidly find the rAFC in a town by looking at the queues outside of pharmacies.

For women, women who have a lot of estrogen are the most attractive (in the animal kingdom those are the ones who are in estro and thus ready to reproduce), and estrogen gets released also through intercourse. Which gives a chemical base to the saying that a woman in a relationship becomes prettier.

So I would say that as long as you do inner game, and this passive outer game you are mostly in very good ethical ground.
why?
Because you are only letting what is naturally there shine through.

WHich isn't saying anything on the active side of the outer game!

Hi Pietro,

Good justification of PUA ethics. I must admit I struggled after reading the game as I have a background in psychology as well. I could easily use these techniques to get what I want after a bit of practice, but is it ethical to manipulate girls just to get sex?

I must admin I decided that it wasn't, but I do find your reasoning sound. I basically just use these techniques to flirt. Everyone has a bit of fun and I've met some cool people.

PUA?

That's the sound I make when expelling my mouthwash? No, that can't be right...

PUA = Pick Up Artist or maybe Aritistry?

Pietro - I see what you mean about 'outer game'. What I was talking about in terms of inner game may be slightly different to what you see it as. I would say that a good 'inner game' would preclude you from saying "sorry" after kissing a girl. What I mean is that the inner game is still a game aimed at being seductive or whatever. You seem to be seeing inner game as general confidence and wellbeing inside.

But you are right, some outer game is probably necessary - I would focus far more on awareness than on 'what to do'. What I mean is being aware of the pressupositions of your interactions (being aware of the social and interpersonal frames, structure and flow) - Noticing what people do, how they behave, react, move, what they avoid and go toward - as well as the awareness of the effect of you in all of this. Seeing the windows of 'opportunity' that women tend to throw out there and see if you notice - that includes the windows to get more intimate and the other windows which are designed to test your congruity (your inner game) etc...

With awareness comes this 'doing without doing too much' - or what you might call passive game - where by you enjoy yourself and nudge very gently this way or that to create more intimacy and connection.

agreed.

Mal, you must really believe all this is wrong if you read my post as a justification.

No time to answer you on the rest, now.

Perhaps poor choice of words on my behalf, the meaning I was trying for is
"I like the way you think"

I don't believe it is "wrong". But it may be wrong for me. It’s more a problem with MY personal belief structure.
(I think the difference in personal beliefs caused the interesting conversations in the other thread, again no right or wrong, just different views)

Now this is wrong, I’m not going to try to justify it, but it is how I feel. From my personal experience I believe women don’t like sex and need to be “tricked” into it or compensated in other ways. Therefore I don’t think they really want to do it so I would feel bad setting things up to “force” them to do something they would regret.

Sad isn’t it……….. Recent personal experience is showing me that women may actually enjoy sex purely for the sex. If I can believe that then I would have no problems using PUA techniques to have lots of sex, because I’m not hurting anyone. That is why I liked how you explained (justified) your thought process.

"From my personal experience I believe women don’t like sex and need to be “tricked” into it or compensated in other ways. "

I think it's not that women don't like sex so much as they don't like being treated like sexual objects. That's why I have problems with all this PUA discussion - it objectifies women.

I know there are a lot of men on this site who are in monogamous relationships who channel their energy into sex, and I'm sure their partners are not complaining.

Just my two cents.

V.

Edit for typo

This post has been edited by VeeCee: Aug 23 2007, 05:36 PM

Eh? women don't enjoy sex?

I certainly didn't get that memo...

I like sex A LOT but I am selective.

I can't speak for all women but my experience is this: trust is a major part of sex. A man is coming into my person and my body (some women say it is an invasion!) - not just physically but on many levels. Without trust - there can be no action

That's probably the main point. I don't believe/feel/observe that women do not enjoy sex by itself.
I just feel women saying, acting showing very different things depending on who they are, when it is happening, and who it is asking. Oh yes, and their age, too.

One of the thing is that women are EXTREEMLY conscious about the society, and what people will think and feel about them. Their brain is really extremely developed on that side. This was written by a woman describing women. I think it gives an idea of the level of social awarness they have. So how they act is very context dependent.

Plato once suggested me to go to an osho retreat. Well, I just was in one of them last week, again. And believe me if you ever believed that women did not liked sex you would go there and either change your mind or be in the biggest denial ever. No, they were not having open orgies, but putting that aside, I would say pretty much everything else was happening. Take a trip to an osho retreat, pass some weeks there and just observe. Let the data change your world view.

Take care,
Pietro

This brings up two things. From my experience, which admittedly only comes from observation of lovers and disclosure by very close (platonic) female friends. A woman's depth of trust has a great deal to do with how they perceive passionate attention.

High trust + passionate attention - is perceived as being appropriate and experienced as appreciation. Usually creates a positive response.

Low trust + passionate attention - is perceived as being inappropriate and experienced as "being treated like sexual objects." Usually creates an aversive response.

Trust seems to me to be a fulcrum that a great deal of a woman's openness to intimacy (of any kind), and passionate response/orgasm, balances on.

Leidee, I would suspect that you select those who you trust. That's a smart thing to do - if not you would set yourself up for an uncomfortable experience.

I'm glad that you don't live in New York City.

I have a female friend that would smack you upside the head for that one.

Yes, BCT, you are right - I select people I trust. And, even after I have selected that person once, there is no guarantee I will select that person again I have had experiences where I have been involved with people I didn't trust and it wasn't enjoyable, for a lot of different reasons. The last time I tried to be intimate with someone I didn't trust was about 4 years ago and I actually stopped him during sex because I just wasn't comfortable. Tis a shame because I was highly attracted to him but there was a feeling about the situation that I just couldn't shake...

Yeesh! Just like a woman. Haha!

Actually, that's why I don't sleep with women who do not know and trust me - and vice versa. I could be better than Don Juan, and yet she would still feel like something wasn't right.

But if she knows and trusts me, I could be as inept and clumsy as - well, as me - and she would think I was Don Juan.

Hehe!

Would you give someone a bunch of flowers if they were taken? married? married and unhappy? happily married? pregnant? a mother?

what's the difference between giving a woman a bunch of flowers, and seducing her?

when you seduce, are you giving, or taking, in your intention?

Neither.
I am instigating, arousing. The energy is the energy of growth, wood. Acting at distance.

Interesting... if it is the action of provoking growth, then it is an intervention in that other person's process, The seduction is, or has the potential to be, a catalyst for change for that other person. And are you giving them a choice to chooose to meet that catalyst. Or somehow leading them step by step into a new place they hadnt envisaged, and may not wish to visit.

Have you seen the film Don Juan de Marco, with Johnny Depp?


I may be mis-remembering his position in that role, but I'd like to use it to illustrate the point that the morality of what we do is all about our intention. If we come from a heart centred place with an intention to leave behind us more positive energy than there was before we arrived, then how can we be wrong?

WAAAAA HAHAHa!

Passing throug London this friday (70%) or saturday(40%) on my way to brighton and eidenhoven, you (or any other Londoner Tao Bummers) 'round?