Getting Laid in NYC: Technology for the Single Man by Paul Janka

[TonyToneTone]

This article added SO much to my "game":
Paul Janka - Getting Laid in NYC - read here.. - PUA Reviews and Ratings

It's by NY PUA Paul Janka and I consider it a must read for any man who wants to do better with women. I consider Paul one of the top PUAs in the world and there is a lot of good stuff in that article.

[cylon]

That guy is notorious to many people. But I liked the videos I had seen of him in the past, especially when he took on Dr. Phil, that was great.

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by cylon

That guy is notorious to many people. But I liked the videos I had seen of him in the past, especially when he took on Dr. Phil, that was great.

Regardless of what people think about Paul, he really does go out and fight for his stuff. Not too many of the other PUAs are willing to be as visible or upfront as he is.

[cylon]

This is true. The guy uses a spreadsheet, that is a true pro.

I just think it's funny that when PU started becoming popular, he sort of became the "fall guy" for the whole thing, going on all those talk shows, putting his story out there. He did a good job of walking around the shaming tactics thrown his way.

Thanks for the link.

[Angela]

This guy is so inspiring! An "x" on his spreadsheet if the girl lets him have her in the ass! Truly professional, I agree.

[Angela Leeds]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Angela

This guy is so inspiring! An "x" on his spreadsheet if the girl lets him have her in the ass! Truly professional, I agree.

The funny thing is, most guys actually think that way. I know it's not P.C. and I know it would make a woman feel used and like she is just a number, but guys think in those terms. Not just some guys. Guys want to be with lots and lots of women. Some are just afraid to admit it because they are told their natural desires are wrong, that masculinity in general is wrong. So they walk around on one hand being attracted to many women, and on the other hand, having to deal with cultural baggage from women that say they are bad people for being attracted to other women than them. And I suspect the reverse is true, with women wanting to be with many men. You're just not supposed to be honest with your real desires because society is invested in the "one man/one woman" thing. At least on paper.

Having said that, when I saw this guy's videos a year or so ago, I thought he was kind of rubbing it in the face of people for shock value. I wasn't sure what was done for tv, and how much of it was real.

But I did like how he took on the talk show hosts who wanted to shame him. That must have been a bit challenging.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Angela

This guy is so inspiring! An "x" on his spreadsheet if the girl lets him have her in the ass! Truly professional, I agree.

my sentiments exactly...the guy is definitely a good stats-watcher. an excellent business trait. he should get out of SAT tutoring.

[Corey]

Not just some guys. Guys want to be with lots and lots of women. Some are just afraid to admit it because they are told their natural desires are wrong, that masculinity in general is wrong.

WOOOOWWWW...............Way to generalize there. Not ALL of us want to be with lots of girls, some of us just want to find one person to settle down with.

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by Angela

This guy is so inspiring! An "x" on his spreadsheet if the girl lets him have her in the ass! Truly professional, I agree.

This has had me laughing all day

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Corey

WOOOOWWWW...............Way to generalize there. Not ALL of us want to be with lots of girls, some of us just want to find one person to settle down with.

I meant the guys who were honest with themselves. Call it a generalization if you want. You may believe you only want one girl, but I bet you'd settle for two or three, if you thought you could get away with it.

Why would you want to settle down if you don't even know the girl you'd settle down with? You're deliberately looking to cut off all your options forever? I can understand being with a girl, then deciding SHE was someone worth "settling" for, but to know you want to settle, without even having the girl in your life yet? Settling just for the sake of settling?

[Corey]

Originally Posted by cylon

I meant the guys who were honest with themselves. Call it a generalization if you want. You may believe you only want one girl, but I bet you'd settle for two or three, if you thought you could get away with it.

Why would you want to settle down if you don't even know the girl you'd settle down with? You're deliberately looking to cut off all your options forever? I can understand being with a girl, then deciding SHE was someone worth "settling" for, but to know you want to settle, without even having the girl in your life yet?

I'm being honest with myself. I dont like the idea of ****ing numerous women that I barely know. I'm not saying I'd settle with the person after a week, month, or even a year. What I'm saying is that once I'd find that person I'd want to focus on her and see how that goes.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Corey

I'm being honest with myself. I dont like the idea of ****ing numerous women that I barely know. I'm not saying I'd settle with the person after a week, month, or even a year. What I'm saying is that once I'd find that person I'd want to focus on her and see how that goes.

I never said anything about barely knowing them. Why can't you have a great relationship with more than one woman? I said two or three. You can't get to know two or three women well over a period of time?

[Corey]

Originally Posted by cylon

I never said anything about barely knowing them. Why can't you have a great relationship with more than one woman?

I'm not into that. I'd just want to be with one. If that doesn't work out then I guess I'd move onto the next one. Then again I'm not very good socially so I probably wouldn't wind up with anyone after that =/

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Corey

Then again I'm not very good socially so I probably wouldn't wind up with anyone after that =/

See, that's the thing. And I know the feeling. I'm not Mr. Social either. But I'm getting better.

I still say, you'd like to entertain the idea of having more than one woman in your life, but like you said, you don't believe something like that is even possible, so you've convinced yourself you'd rather just find one and focus exclusively on her, because you don't think you have any other options.

So you've reframed a limitation into thinking it's a real desire.

[Corey]

Originally Posted by cylon

See, that's the thing. And I know the feeling. I'm not Mr. Social either. But I'm getting better.

I still say, you'd like to entertain the idea of having more than one woman in your life, but like you said, you don't believe something like that is even possible, so you've convinced yourself you'd rather just find one and focus exclusively on her, because you don't think you have any other options.

So you've reframed a limitation into thinking it's a real desire.

Its mainly because of how I've been brought up. Brought up to believe in not sleeping around and trying to find one girl to be with. I like it though but in fairness to each their own -_-

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Corey

Its mainly because of how I've been brought up. Brought up to believe in not sleeping around and trying to find one girl to be with. I like it though but in fairness to each their own -_-

Hey cool, no problem there. I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life. I'm just pointing out that earlier you said it's what you wanted (only one woman) but now it's because that's how you were raised, so it's more about, what society may think of you, or your friends/family may think of you.

Totally understandable. I felt the same way most of my life.

[Dan.Linehan]

This is an interesting article..

Reading through it, I've realized this sort of PUA technique would never work on me.

First off, I don't really drink, so I'm not sure how the whole "buying me drinks at the lounge" thing would go over. I might show up, but I'd just get a coke or whatever. From that point on, assuming there was any attraction there to begin with, I'd be all about finding out everything I could about my date. If he was ducking my questions, being aloof, etc., it wouldn't go over well.

I'm almost positive I'd notice if my date drinking water. I'd probably ask to try his drink at some point. If he declined I'd be highly suspicious and probably keep pushing the issue.

From the PUA's perspective I'd be giving off a lot of "maybe" indicators to start off. Then it would probably get pretty "brutal" as the night continued and I picked up on more and more deception coming from my date. This would be because: A. I'm not an idiot who wants to have sex with any stranger in a suit after two drinks at some lounge and B. I'm not seeking meaningless hookups in general.

However, Paul's strategy is excellent for finding girls who do want to have meaningless hookups. For that I commend him. This is a very good process for weeding out girls who are either too smart or confident to want to sleep with him, as well as the girls who are looking for any sort of real connection or relationship.

These women he ends up with are not seeking anything more than a gushing affirmation of their own self worth (see what he wrote about emotions and moods) through sex, and Paul is more than willing to provide that to them.

[wren]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

This is an interesting article..

However, Paul's strategy is excellent for finding girls who do want to have meaningless hookups. For that I commend him. This is a very good process for weeding out girls who are either too smart or confident to want to sleep with him, as well as the girls who are looking for any sort of real connection or relationship.

These women he ends up with are not seeking anything more than a gushing affirmation of their own self worth (see what he wrote about emotions and moods) through sex, and Paul is more than willing to provide that to them.

ha ha ha! nice breakdown of the situation.

[RT Wolf]

There's a dark side ot becoming too involved in a goal, any goal. It's possible to become a bit like a cyclops. One eye for only one thing. In the pursuit of that goal, you can easily dehumanize everything in your way, including other people and including yourself. I think I read that dehumanization in that article, but also an odd relationship with others. There's a tinsy bit of compassion but it's covered by a whole lot of treating people like notches and just breaking all womankind into categories and not treating them as individuals. Maybe that's just a persona he's putting on. He does that to himself and to others, too. The PUA community in general does that. They've got lots of names and initials for eveyone: AFC, rPUA, GPUA, MPUA, etc. Breaking the world down into categories based on goal structures makes some sense, but it does violence to teh soul.

The story of the man/woman who sacrifices everything for their career or success or money or whatever, only to realize that what truly matters is family or happiness or whatever is almost a cliche, but it's an example of becoming too fixated on one goal to the extent of forgeting that everyone's human and if you don't relate to them on that level, well...good luck.

[cylon]

Extremes always get the notice. If it was common, if most guys had the focus, stamina, and determination, to actually approach it this way, guys like this would not be on talk shows.

But there are guys who use spread sheets. Not for any evil purpose. But guys that date multiple women, and they want to remember things like birthdays, likes and dislikes, important dates and events that are significant to the woman, because they may have multiple relationships, and don't want to forget stuff, but they aren't out of any ill-will.

Some guys have lists of likes an dislikes, qualities they are seeking in a woman, and they will use methods like that to filter out some of the women they are dating, in order to focus on their objectives of "dating women who are a,b,c".

Guys are just like this. We are like hunters, goal oriented. It is extremely normal for a guy to think of women as prey and to put another notch on the belt and tell his friends about the 'kill'. In a man's world, attractive women are considered possibly the most valuable thing in existence. In the same way we want to accumulate money, wealth, food, shelter, status, we want to accumulate women. Totally natural and normal and our genes make us like this. Nature is supposed to work this way. Nature DOES work this way. If it didn't, guys like Paul Janka would not be out there having sex with an almost unbelievable amount of women.

Not many could pull something like the OP off, but if they could, they would. They just wouldn't actually TALK about it, because they would have society breathing down their necks and shaming them. But they should know what they are getting into when they brag. Jealous guys insulting them. Jealous women shaming them.

ANY shaming towards "PUAs" (men who are non-exclusive with women), is almost always coming from women. Because in the long run, this is not to their advantage. If their objective is to find a man to settle down with and raise the kids, this behavior obviously isn't going to help. But it's exactly this type of guy that HAS kids. This is why guys like this are successful. They are different and stick out and the proof is in the pudding.

And I think to say men like Paul Janka can't relate to other people, like they are real human beings, is wrong. You can have lots of friends, lots of acquaintances, and family members, and relate to all of them as unique people. There is no limit to the amount of people you can relate to. We are social creatures. "The more, the merrier".

Not every woman in this guy's chart, is a low-quality, low-self esteem, psychologically damaged, woman of ill-repute. Like this guy, they are out their living their lives and having fun, acting the way humans do, naturally. But women call other women that, because it's a threat to them and their goal of snagging a guy for marriage.

90% of the dudes who hear about people like Paul Janka secretly wish they could actually be the same way, even if just for awhile, but would never admit it openly.

/ramble.

[RT Wolf]

I get the sense that at least some PUAs may be talking about women like notches or meat becuase they expect other guys will respect them more if they talk like that, or they think that's how they should talk. If they said they met someone who wanted to have fun and they wanted to give them the gift of a wonderful evening, so they were sensitive to the woman's desires and their own and they created something beautiful together, they'd be shot down for being a wuss.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

I get the sense that at least some PUAs may be talking about women like notches or meat becuase they expect other guys will respect them more if they talk like that, or they think that's how they should talk. If they said they met someone who wanted to have fun and they wanted to give them the gift of a wonderful evening, so they were sensitive to the woman's desires and their own and they created something beautiful together, they'd be shot down for being a wuss.

Guys do look up to guys who get a lot of women, there's no question about it. But you don't have to be in PUA to do that. You don't have to kiss and tell to be that way. Some guys just keep it to themselves, they have no need to get pats on the back from their friends. They just enjoy women. No crime there.

This is just the ancient story of the guy who "wouldn't commit", only now it's something being marketed.

[WordKeeper]

I confess, I've lost all respect for you TonyToneTone.

The idea that "doing better with women" means having sex with the greatest number of women rather than having a meaningful relationship with women is very telling.

Can you say "women are sex objects."

My objection is not out of a feminist stance but out of a profound sense of the lacking but need for true community, true caring about others rather than using others (as many as possible) for our personal gratification.

It is the sign of a fallen society. All Me all the time. Narcissism with a capital N.

[danas]

I just read the article
lets put it bluntly- the guy is dishonest & manipulative.
I know the type very well. I can smell them from a mile.
Thank god there are many other kinds of men out there. honest ones.
Those are the ones that really turn me on.

I mean its ok to want to just get laid. Be honest about it though.
Who want to sleep with a manupulative man? that is such a turn off.

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by WordKeeper

I confess, I've lost all respect for you TonyToneTone.

The idea that "doing better with women" means having sex with the greatest number of women rather than having a meaningful relationship with women is very telling.

Can you say "women are sex objects."

My objection is not out of a feminist stance but out of a profound sense of the lacking but need for true community, true caring about others rather than using others (as many as possible) for our personal gratification.

It is the sign of a fallen society. All Me all the time. Narcissism with a capital N.

Hey Wordkeeper. I see nothing wrong with my post. It has the potential to help men become better with women. That article gives some solid techniques for meeting and attracting the women you want.

I regularly use Paul's number method (for getting phone numbers) when I meet women during the day. Why wouldn't I want other men to be able to do the same?

I don't think this is the sign of a fallen society at all. In fact I think it is the opposite, being truly allowed to express yourself.

[WordKeeper]

Tony, what I think about the article and your support of it is really a kind of "so what" value but I posted it anyway because I was startled by the unabashed self-centeredness of it and of many of the reactions posted on this thread.

I was deeply moved by RTWolf's posts and his(?) clear but unemotional responses but as a person for whom the value of true community, caring about human connection and support, I felt the need to express my concern.

The unbridled individualism is disastrous for any society. As in most aspects of human life there is a need for balance.

As I wrote what struck me most was the phrase "doing better with women" which I initially expect to mean "doing better in building relationship with women." So I was, quite frankly, appalled to realize that what you meant by that was merely getting permission to perform a bodily function with some/any/many/as many as possible females (and the assumption would be without having to pay for it - at least not more than the price of a drink.)

I'm wondering why you would use a phrase as vague as "doing better with women." It could mean many things. Why not be clear and specific? Why not say, "It is a must for men who want to **** as many women as possible"?

[cylon]

shame is the name of the game.

[SuavePlaya]

Hate the game not the player. Tone, do not let anyone discourage you like what you are doing is wrong. If I continue to write my post will probably be deleted again, so I will leave it at that.

[TonyToneTone]

Originally Posted by WordKeeper

Tony, what I think about the article and your support of it is really a kind of "so what" value but I posted it anyway because I was startled by the unabashed self-centeredness of it and of many of the reactions posted on this thread.

I was deeply moved by RTWolf's posts and his(?) clear but unemotional responses but as a person for whom the value of true community, caring about human connection and support, I felt the need to express my concern.

The unbridled individualism is disastrous for any society. As in most aspects of human life there is a need for balance.

As I wrote what struck me most was the phrase "doing better with women" which I initially expect to mean "doing better in building relationship with women." So I was, quite frankly, appalled to realize that what you meant by that was merely getting permission to perform a bodily function with some/any/many/as many as possible females (and the assumption would be without having to pay for it - at least not more than the price of a drink.)

I'm wondering why you would use a phrase as vague as "doing better with women." It could mean many things. Why not be clear and specific? Why not say, "It is a must for men who want to **** as many women as possible"?

Why do you assume that the women involved get nothing out of this?

What is wrong with a man wanting to sleep with as many women as he wants?

Why does doing better with women have to be something negative?

There is some good info in that article. Also, for the women who read it and want to get better with men, they can take Paul's methods and simply switch it for them.

For instance, they can use his number method to approach men they like and get their numbers. It works both ways.