I’m rather frustrated because people refuse to believe that negging is a rather minor part of some approaches to PUA. When done right its playful teasing. This is why I brought it up.
I’m rather frustrated because people refuse to believe that negging is a rather minor part of some approaches to PUA. When done right its playful teasing. This is why I brought it up.
I suspect that, speaking literally, they do not refuse to believe that, and that you’re disagreeing about something else.
Actually David DeAngelo (the only PUA from which I’ve read a non-negligible amount of stuff) makes ‘cocky and funny’ the central point of his technique, IIRC.
Actually David DeAngelo (the only PUA from which I’ve read a non-negligible amount of stuff) makes ‘cocky and funny’ the central point of his technique, IIRC.
Which, given that you have read a non-negligible amount of his stuff, you would know does not mean the same thing as negging (although you can do the latter while being the former if it happens to be appropriate). The “actually” is non-sequitur.
I’m rather frustrated because people refuse to believe that negging is a rather minor part of some approaches to PUA. When done right its playful teasing. This is why I brought it up.
I suspect that, speaking literally, they do not refuse to believe that, and that you’re disagreeing about something else.
Actually David DeAngelo (the only PUA from which I’ve read a non-negligible amount of stuff) makes ‘cocky and funny’ the central point of his technique, IIRC.
Which, given that you have read a non-negligible amount of his stuff, you would know does not mean the same thing as negging (although you can do the latter while being the former if it happens to be appropriate). The “actually” is non-sequitur.
(I don’t remember him using the word “neg”, actually—but it’s been years since I read him.)