Before we get started this morning, I've received a few emails lately from people who were having trouble understanding the blog because they are not familiar with the PUA lingo. Lol :-) For those readers, I offer this glossary from Fast Seduction. Newbies might also be interested in reading Neil Strauss' best selling book, The Game. It's a highly entertaining introduction to the community.
Anyway, on with today's musings ... it was so much fun getting everyone's feedback about that letter that I published a few days ago that I again want to invite you all to give your opinions in the comments section.
Friend of Papi (FOP) posted a comment that raises some questions close to my heart. What are the ethics of pickup artistry?
FOP was mentioning seeing a skilled PUA who (if the portrayal is accurate) has a "no rules" approach to pickup.
One reason that makes him super successful is that he is totally cool with not following any rules from society or community pu wing rules... he has no problem hooking up with other people's gfs, taking other puas' sets, hooking with puas' gfs, etc... Nothing against [him], I seen other guys, a few here and there, do the same thing. Hooking up with brothers, cousin's gfs, friends' wives, etc... The person hooking up with gfs of family and friends think all cool and fun that night and no nobody's feelings get hurt and that's not true. So these guys that play with 'no rules' do get laid more.... All I can say is Congrats to them... they are more successful. So does the end (getting laid plenty) justify the means?
Erika, what does the ACIM say about playing life's game with this kind of attitude? My intepretation is that ACIM in some way is cool with [guys] satisfying themselves regardless of whether he honors the other puas (or brothers aka other gods are offended or not). I guess.... my interpretation of ACIM in this area is the guys' who get offended by those with 'no rules' is their issue huh.... Erika, is that your interpretation too or is ACIM saying honor your brothers as gods and see the world with abundance so it is not necessary to hookup with everybody's gfs or take their sets just because you can? Does hooking up with other people's or puas' gfs, wives, other puas' sets truly reflect an attitude of abundance that GS himself talks about? There are definitely pros and cons of 'no rules'. Pros is getting a more action than following the rules. Cons... someone gets hurt... but fuck them right? My dick is more important regardless of how someone else feels ;)
Again, nothing against [PUAs] doing this ... just observations.... I do not condone or support their views... it just their spiritual paths... just thought it would make an interesting discussion thread.
Interesting discussion thread, indeed. I invite everyone to chime in with their views.
The whole idea of exclusivity in relationships is something I have pondered a lot (see prior post here), and I'm still continuing to sort out my feelings about it.
On the one hand, I want to go deep in my relationships, and there is a lot of appeal in going deeper with one person to have more focus. I also would like to have continuity and longevity. On the other hand, I'm finding that the less I try to tie anyone down to exclusivity, the less fear I have in relationships, and the deeper I'm able to go with people. It's definitely a paradox.
FOP, you asked about ACIM's view of all this. First and foremost, it is essential to have the right perspective on things, meaning the right "frame." If a guy sleeps with someone else's girlfriend, is he really "taking" something from the other guy? Is he really "hurting" the other guy?
Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows I'm a fan of radical authenticity. So I would generally not endorse sleeping with someone else's gf or bf if it's grounded in deception. I want these things to be out in the open! Transparency eliminates guilt, and it is usually guilt that is the problem, not the actual thing the person is doing.
But I want to throw some ACIM ideas out there that seem especially fitting here:
"[I]f you choose to take a thing away from someone else, you will have nothing left. This is because, when you deny his right to everything, you have denied your own. You therefore will not recognize the things you really have, denying they are there. Who seeks to take away has been deceived by the illusion loss can offer gain. Yet loss must offer loss, and nothing more."
This is a matter of perception though. If a guy sleeps with another guy's girlfriend, is he really "taking" her away? Or are they sharing? The key is one's inner perception of what is happening.
Here's another ACIM quote that seems to fit here:
"Love is not an illusion. It is a fact. Where disillusionment is possible, there was not love but hate. For hate is an illusion, and what can change was never love. It is sure that those who select certain ones as partners in any aspect of living, and use them for any purpose which they would not share with others, are trying to live with guilt rather than die of it. This is the choice they see. And love, to them, is only an escape from death. They seek it desperately, but not in the peace in which it would gladly come quietly to them. And when they find the fear of death is still upon them, the love relationship loses the illusion that it is what it is not. When the barricades against it are broken, fear rushes in and hatred triumphs."
I've said before that I cannot reconcile this passage with exclusivity. ACIM also says "If I defend I am attacked." I see exclusivity as one of these defenses, the irony being that by trying to prevent "cheating" we actually create cheating -- whereas by embracing "sharing" we eliminate the entire concept of cheating. See how that works? ;-)
FOP, as for your comment about "hurting" someone else, well, I know this isn't in line with conventional wisdom, but that's a concept we must abandon. All perceived "hurts" can be transcended through communication. I did write about this before also. One really inspiring model for making this transition is the Restorative Justice work that is being done in Brazil by non-violent communication practitioner Dominic Barter. I attended a two-day workshop that Dominic gave in the Bay Area a couple of years ago. The work they are doing there is so powerful that they not only bring a lot of peace to victims of crime, but also they have virtually eliminated recidivism among juvenile offenders who participate in the program.
But I digress ... back to OPP and whether we can ever be "hurt" by someone else's actions. In the short term, perhaps. In the long term, no. I leave you with this provocative quotation from ACIM:
"A miracle can offer nothing less to him than it has given unto you. So does your healing show your mind is healed, and has forgiven what he did not do. And so is he convinced his innocence was never lost, and healed along with you. Thus does the miracle undo all things the world attests can never be undone. And hopelessness and death must disappear before the ancient clarion call of life. This call has power far beyond the weak and miserable cry of death and guilt. The ancient calling of the Father to His Son, and of the Son unto His Own, will yet be the last trumpet that the world will ever hear. Brother, there is no death. And this you learn when you but wish to show your brother that you had no hurt of him. He thinks your blood is on his hands, and so he stands condemned. Yet it is given you to show him, by your healing, that his guilt is but the fabric of a senseless dream."
So that's it for now, I need to go. Please send in your opinions about Friend of Papi's question in the comments section. And please also support this blog by following it and subscribing (buttons in the right-hand side bar) and by telling your friends about it.
Cheerio for now. Blessings to all of you.