RyukaTana wrote:That's not to say every man is just a horndog who trolls for sex. The point, however, is that a lot of them are, and it's easy to know where to find them, and they aren't subtle.
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. Whatever the extent of the need for strategies for women to get men whom they could not otherwise get, such strategies need not be anywhere near as complex as those of PUAs. Men may sometimes need convincing, but they will respond to much more direct and simplified tactics. Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing. And by direct and simplified, I do not just mean shallow. Things like directly explaining why I think you and I are compatible and we should give a relationship a try, for example, are probably more likely to work on a man than a woman.
To answer the original question; no (for the reason above), but I tend
agree with Randall Munroe in figuring that the closest thing you will find to such is "The Rules" and the like. But, by my understanding of such (and said understanding comes mainly from the
Sister, Sister episode on the subject), that's more a method for
keeping a man and getting more out of the relationship, than for getting one.
It's kind of ironic because that sort of women is often seen as a 'slut', not a 'PUA' or 'predator'. The same kinds of people who talk down to men for their 'predatory mindsets' will tear you a new asshole for slut-shaming*. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but the difference lies more in method than purpose, and a lot of people cut down Eric (and other men) for 'just wanting sex'.
*Note: I will also tear someone a new asshole for slut-shaming, I'm not at all talking down to the mindset. I'm just discussing the hypocrisy of saying that women who want casual sex shouldn't be judged, but men who just want sex are misogynists and pigs.
I, for one, don't have a problem with men who desire casual sex. Or at least not in the sense that you mean; I don't think it makes you a bad person, or someone who preys on women. My problem with PUAs is indeed with their methods for obtaining casual sex - and my objection still mostly stands when the same methods are used in the pursuit of something somewhat more lasting. Specifically, my problem is that I consider said methods manipulative, and consider the premises on which they are based to be degrading to women (women are biologically programmed to respond a certain way to certain actions, et cetera).
Tem wrote:And this is what sexist men don't understand: the women you deem unattractive are people, too, just like you, and they want sex, too. And by not approaching them in an environment where it is not considered acceptable for women to approach men, you are just as bad as the beautiful women who say "no" to you.
Your general point does illustrate that one could ask "Are there PUAs for women
who aren't attractive?" But as to your specific point, I don't think the problem is with men "not approaching" certain women. I would argue that the problem is with it being "not considered acceptable for women to approach men" in the first place.
For example, I like to go out salsa dancing. I am aware that certain females at the venues are less attractive than others, and consequently don't get asked to dance as much; and will admit, with some guilt, to asking them less often for that reason. However, when these same women ask
me to dance - and they sometimes do - I say yes. Thus my preferred solution to this problem would be to find the sacred scroll on which these things are written, and change the rules so that women are allowed to ask men to dance; and then, if less attractive women keep getting turned down when they do so,
then hate on the men who turn them down.
If a man wants sex, and he's conventionally attractive, he doesn't need manipulation, either. And if he isn't ... see above, there are women who have the same problem.
I think this is true to an extent, but not to the same extent as it is for women. I think that a conventionally attractive woman will have more success getting sex using their looks alone than an equally attractive man will.
Which brings me too:
RyukaTana wrote:The pool of men who are absolutely ready to jump into bed with the next woman who looks at them just right, is almost definitely greater than that of women.
While I am not one of such men, I for one believe this to be true. I don't
want it to be true, but if I am to be intellectually honest, I am under the impression that this is true. There has been disagreement here as to its truth, and by all means continue to discuss that. But under the premise that it is true, I would like to ask as Seth did in his post at the top of this page,
Why?This frankly fascinates me. I know the stock response is that men who will easily have sex are pigs and women who won't have standards; but seriously, do you really think the cause is as simple as that? I can't imagine it being. I'd very much like to hear theories on the reason for this.
Which might appear to answer the above statement with "it is an advantage not to have babies with someone you know nothing about and who is quite frankly an asshole." 
But seriously, is that actually an