Was watching Superman II last weekend, awesome film! Can be used as an anology of where we are in terms of pick up. When you're at work or at home chilling you're Clark Kent ( Well I am anyway lol) but when you're out in a bar or club and you're feeling in state, thats when you are superman.

In Superman II he relinquishes his powers for the sake of love and becomes mortal. He becomes like every other chode! This in many ways reminds me how so many guys have a good run of success, enter relationships, lose interest in pick up as tey feel they dont need it any more as the whole reason they got into it was was either to find a girlfriend or just have lots of sex but actually found someone special instead.

Fast forward it to then the relationship breaks down and their skills are rusty and non existent so just like in Superman II he has to go back to get his powers back.

I think the best lesson superman can teach us is that even one so mighty as him can fall off a horse and be a paraplegic then die.

Live your life, dont regret not taking chances, because you never know when your ride is going to come to an end.

Pua teaches attraction, it doesn't teach relationships, the major companies would like to avoid you understanding this because failed relationships equals more ad revenue on their sites and forums.

May I also point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with monogamy, yes it makes guys rusty if/when they come out of that relationship but that's no big deal, you pick yourself up and get back out there.

What are you suggesting here? That the lesson from superman 2 to learn is that you shouldn't have relationships because it rusts your pua skills?

Spazzy conspiracy theory is spazzy.


Peace,

kowalski

I'll elucidate a little then, in my experience the company I worked for and it's affiliates(many major companies) all avoided touching upon actual relationships, the money for them is within the party and clubbing lifestyles people live, people generally don't go out to pull if they're in relationships. Also, love is mushy and romantic which contradicts the macho, alpha, I don't care attitude intrinsic to the branding of pua.

Branching out into the absolutely huge relationships sector would indeed be profitable for all of these companies but there would be a huge branding issue, such a movement would effectively kill off the old pua industry and create a new industry altogether that focuses on both attraction and relationships underneath an entirely new brand requiring a new attitude that teaches the necessary differences while also being acceptant of promiscuity and polyamory in the community.

I'm not suggesting it's a conspiracy in the sense that every company is colluding on the matter, it's something that has arisen because all of these companies are afterall businesses first and foremost. No currently successful company would attempt to make such a drastic change in structure when what they already do is profitable, the risks are too high.

I don't think you can demonstrate avoidance.
Many companies do sell relationship products.
Many have nothing to do with macho or alpha concepts.
It wouldn't necessarily be profitable.
It is speculation upon speculation that this would lead to the collapse of the old pu industry etc.
Many pu companies are not successful or profitable.


Peace,

kowalski

You can't without having seen it discussed in meetings I suppose.
None follow basics that have been intrinsic standards of regulated professions.
This is correct, I refer mainly to the big 6 when I refer to the "industry" or major companies.
It wouldn't necessarily be profitable, not if the change failed, you're right. That's the risk I pointed out.
You're right, I stand corrected. I'm speculating on the basis that other companies would want some of the pie if 1 major made the change successfully.
Again, I'm talking about the major companies.

If you worked for a company that discussed this seriously as a policy, then they were retards who actually believed that their relationship advice would improve the longevity of their clients relationships. They probably also believed that their PU teachings helped people to pick-up girls, but they don't. Meaning you were in meetings with delusional fools.

Profitability - Re-read your post it is contradictory.

Here you say it 'would' be profitable for 'all', that is a categorical statement.
"Branching out into the absolutely huge relationships sector would indeed be profitable for all of these companies"

Here you now say that a profitable company wouldn't branch out into an area that would be profitable for them because of some undefined risk.
"No currently successful company would attempt to make such a drastic change in structure when what they already do is profitable, the risks are too high."

"It wouldn't necessarily be profitable, not if the change failed, you're right. That's the risk I pointed out."
You did not point out that there was a risk that the change would fail as you had already said that it would be profitable for all, the risks you mention are undefined but can not relate to profitability as you have already stated that it would be profitable.


So what is your revised view on this is it something like ...
"I worked for a company where some of the employees of which discussed whether branching out into relationship training would make the company more or less profitable and someone suggested that it may make them less profitable because it may reduce repeat custom. In the end the company I worked for did not branch out into relationship training."

You PUA trainers and your outrageous claims, eh! What are we going to do with you.
Have you read any of the Socratic dialogues?


Peace,

kowalski

A miscommunication, I'm not as much of a stickler for extremely specific nuances of language as you are. Don't take that as an insult, I'm simply aware of your Socratic style.

I though I defined the risk? The risk being the potential for failure and destroying their previous brand in the process.

I have and I understand that you're trying to demonstrate a bias due to the fact that I seek a living with my own company and you're right, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest the same occurred in other companies though as they haven't moved into the relationship field either.

But of course, that's speculation, speculation that I feel is quite plausible though. They're businesses, they will have evaluated the pros and cons of the opportunity, that or they have poor business acumen, I think the fact that they're so large demonstrates the contrary.

Superman is the biggest chode in the universe all the time, there are few lessons from that guy. He is the opitomy of hollywood bullshit love plots that mess up guys minds and make them think that the ONE will just appear in their life someday and it'll all be magical. Pedalling the pedastalling of women and immascilating men away from their true dominant nature into romance believing AFC's. Have a look at clint eastwood, seriously.