I understand that women are afraid of giving the wrong impression. So are men.
I understand that women are afraid of getting taken advantage of. So are men.
I understand that women worry about their reputations. So do men.
I understand that the risk of rejection is nerve-wracking for women. So it is for men.
I understand that repeated rejections are spirit-crushing for women. So it is for men.
We feel these things too. But, to be perfectly frank, we cowboy up and take the initiative anyway. And if it doesn't work, we keep trying.
(Well, okay, we don't always cowboy up. H/A is full of guys who wuss out. Hell, I'm sure if I filled out a ledger sheet and counted up all the opportunities I've missed, the times I've wussed out would certainly outnumber the times I've actually been brave and made a move. But, dammit, nothing would ever happen if we didn't put our necks out.)
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
Yes. Exactly.
SAying things are objectively easier is indicating these things are something other than controllable actions.
Take all the gender stereotypes away you are still gonna have people not being together because they're both too nervous. :P
I'm mostly against the idea that men have it harder so they shouldn't have to ask. No both have to ask, period. Hopefully then one side or the other ends up doing so if the other chickens out. Higher chance of success!
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I understand that women are afraid of giving the wrong impression. So are men.
I understand that women are afraid of getting taken advantage of. So are men.
I understand that women worry about their reputations. So do men.
I understand that the risk of rejection is nerve-wracking for women. So it is for men.
I understand that repeated rejections are spirit-crushing for women. So it is for men.
We feel these things too. But, to be perfectly frank, we cowboy up and take the initiative anyway. And if it doesn't work, we keep trying.
(Well, okay, we don't always cowboy up. H/A is full of guys who wuss out. Hell, I'm sure if I filled out a ledger sheet and counted up all the opportunities I've missed, the times I've wussed out would certainly outnumber the times I've actually been brave and made a move. But, dammit, nothing would ever happen if we didn't put our necks out.)
Er, isn't that the point? Women are socially conditioned against making the first move to such a strong degree that they never do*. Every time a guy is like "I really like this girl, but I can't muster up the confidence to ask her out", that is what it is like for women 100% of the time. Except for that for the woman, there is nothing there to muster up, it simply is not a social option.
So of course any woman who is willing to make the first move is able to get a guy; it's because none of them do. If they did, then men would simply become more discriminating towards propositions (you know, like women are) and we would be living in an egalitarian world (yay) and this supposed "advantage" would vanish.
The whole thing is stupid anyway, because in fact it turns out that any guy who is able to get it together enough to signal his attraction does not have trouble getting a girl. Go figure.
*Hyperbole, obviously. And this is changing, thankfully.
It was, but on the basis that I thought you were refuting Feral's statement. If not then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
On another topic regarding gender roles/differences that was mentioned way up-thread:
Someone said that women aren't mysterious and that guys just have to get over it and talk to them with no special training required. I have to disagree. Women are not purposefully mysterious, most of the time, but for a lot of guys the things that women do which they feel to be overt are completely opaque to us.
I am very nearly incapable of noticing when women are attracted to me unless they make the most obvious, direct signs (usually involving overt physical contact, like the girl the other night who grabbed me by the back pocket to pull me toward a dance floor or when my now-wife told me to sit down and then laid on my lap). There are dozens of instances where I am told after the fact that a woman was flirting with me or putting off signals that she was interested in me when I was completely oblivious to it. Women, in conversation (and even in this thread once or twice), often imply that this sending of signals fulfills their part of a social contract of which the man's part is to then respond to the signals if interested. The female poster who did the monologue even mentioned hoping that smiling at a guy would make him come talk to her.
I suspect that a lot of guys who respond to the idea of these PUA schemes are like me. They just don't get the signals that women are giving and, therefore, are missing opportunities. They want to learn to recognize these things without the painful process of trial and error involved in learning to recognize a "I want you to come talk to me" smile from a "I see you looking at me and am being polite" smile. Of course, the PUA programs do not actually teach this (that I'm aware of), but I suspect it's the sort of thing that Gabe was talking about regarding guys not understanding how girls work.
I suppose, like anything else, the odds of success and experience will vary with the person in question, but it just seems to me (and again, forgive my presumptuousness here, I'm simply speaking from a male perspective) that in a non-threatening, predatory environment (that is, not in a club or bar), if a girl approached me and I were single and she said "hey, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you'd like to get some coffee or dinner sometime?", I just can't envision a rational person thinking, "man, what a whore".
I've had women approach me before (I'd imagine most men have at one point or another), in fact one paid me a nice compliment without coming right out and saying "hey, I'd like to date you" (though I wouldn't have minded that either), and I found that incredibly refreshing. I guess I'm just saying that the perception (not saying it's invalid) that men will automatically think any woman who approaches them is an easy lay is perhaps not totally accurate, and that if more women took the first step, I think they'd find that to be true.
Sometimes I think it boils down to us speaking different languages. I've had a lot of my guy friends talk about women approaching them when they were younger, and they just didn't get that the woman was trying to hit on them. One in my gaming group didn't get it until I told him (umpteen years later) that the girl was interested. It sounds like you did get it and recognized the compliment was an attempt to start the process. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that you being married (and for that matter, me too) means that you're not in the subset of guys we're talking about.
It was, but on the basis that I thought you were refuting Feral's statement. If not then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
On another topic regarding gender roles/differences that was mentioned way up-thread:
Someone said that women aren't mysterious and that guys just have to get over it and talk to them with no special training required. I have to disagree. Women are not purposefully mysterious, most of the time, but for a lot of guys the things that women do which they feel to be overt are completely opaque to us.
I am very nearly incapable of noticing when women are attracted to me unless they make the most obvious, direct signs (usually involving overt physical contact, like the girl the other night who grabbed me by the back pocket to pull me toward a dance floor or when my now-wife told me to sit down and then laid on my lap). There are dozens of instances where I am told after the fact that a woman was flirting with me or putting off signals that she was interested in me when I was completely oblivious to it. Women, in conversation (and even in this thread once or twice), often imply that this sending of signals fulfills their part of a social contract of which the man's part is to then respond to the signals if interested. The female poster who did the monologue even mentioned hoping that smiling at a guy would make him come talk to her.
I suspect that a lot of guys who respond to the idea of these PUA schemes are like me. They just don't get the signals that women are giving and, therefore, are missing opportunities. They want to learn to recognize these things without the painful process of trial and error involved in learning to recognize a "I want you to come talk to me" smile from a "I see you looking at me and am being polite" smile. Of course, the PUA programs do not actually teach this (that I'm aware of), but I suspect it's the sort of thing that Gabe was talking about regarding guys not understanding how girls work.
Yes. This, exactly. I just wrote a response to Halfmex that said something similar.
That's the sinister beauty of PUA and (I think) why Gabe was falling for it. The part of the game that's awesome is teaching self-confidence and getting guys out of their head. The part that's horrendous is teaching that women are prey and objects that need to be collected.
Jhianna on
0
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
Sometimes I think it boils down to us speaking different languages. I've had a lot of my guy friends talk about women approaching them when they were younger, and they just didn't get that the woman was trying to hit on them. One in my gaming group didn't get it until I told him (umpteen years later) that the girl was interested. It sounds like you did get it and recognized the compliment was an attempt to start the process. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that you being married (and for that matter, me too) means that you're not in the subset of guys we're talking about.
Re: the different languages thing, I think you're spot-on there. And not just the spoken languages, but body language as well. Heck, it's what the PUA approach seems to base itself on. That, I think, is exactly the problem. Our culture, at whatever point it began (and I'd be interested to learn when exactly that was, or at least an approximation), is geared toward women being chased and men being the pursuer. If at some point in the future this situation becomes non-existent and it is no longer considered 'abnormal' for a woman to approach a man without negative repercussions (either real or perceived), this PUA culture as it is would likely cease to exist. Or at the very least, it would be diminished, I have to imagine. I don't think we'll ever see an approximation of an Axe body spray commercial, but I do think that (and thankfully there is some evidence that this is happening) women being more forward in romantic pursuits would be nothing but beneficial for society as a whole.
And true, I am married so I am (mercifully) out of the 'dating game' as it were, I was once a part of it and dealt with all of the same insecurities as your average guy (and girl, I'm sure) does. That's why I think that, until the time comes that the pursuer/pursuee roles diminish or even out, a good, healthy instructional course/book/whatever would be hugely helpful for men to overcome their anxieties. Of course, I don't think the PUA approach, such as it exists today, is that answer. But strip away the 'alpha male' garbage and the psychological warfare and parlor tricks and just teach men (heck, and women for that matter) how to be confident and approach people with a good head on your shoulders. That would be enormously beneficial.
It was, but on the basis that I thought you were refuting Feral's statement. If not then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
On another topic regarding gender roles/differences that was mentioned way up-thread:
Someone said that women aren't mysterious and that guys just have to get over it and talk to them with no special training required. I have to disagree. Women are not purposefully mysterious, most of the time, but for a lot of guys the things that women do which they feel to be overt are completely opaque to us.
I am very nearly incapable of noticing when women are attracted to me unless they make the most obvious, direct signs (usually involving overt physical contact, like the girl the other night who grabbed me by the back pocket to pull me toward a dance floor or when my now-wife told me to sit down and then laid on my lap). There are dozens of instances where I am told after the fact that a woman was flirting with me or putting off signals that she was interested in me when I was completely oblivious to it. Women, in conversation (and even in this thread once or twice), often imply that this sending of signals fulfills their part of a social contract of which the man's part is to then respond to the signals if interested. The female poster who did the monologue even mentioned hoping that smiling at a guy would make him come talk to her.
I suspect that a lot of guys who respond to the idea of these PUA schemes are like me. They just don't get the signals that women are giving and, therefore, are missing opportunities. They want to learn to recognize these things without the painful process of trial and error involved in learning to recognize a "I want you to come talk to me" smile from a "I see you looking at me and am being polite" smile. Of course, the PUA programs do not actually teach this (that I'm aware of), but I suspect it's the sort of thing that Gabe was talking about regarding guys not understanding how girls work.
Yes. This, exactly. I just wrote a response to Halfmex that said something similar.
That's the sinister beauty of PUA and (I think) why Gabe was falling for it. The part of the game that's awesome is teaching self-confidence and getting guys out of their head. The part that's horrendous is teaching that women are prey and objects that need to be collected.
There were a couple of studies I read about in college where social psychologists observed social situations for what they called "courting" behavior or what we'd call "hooking up." What they found is that women make the first move more often; switching seats to be closer to a guy, bumping into the guy, making eye contact, etc. Men made the first direct move, but in most successful [strike]hook-ups[/strike] "courtships" women actually initiated contact in some subtle way.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I couldn't bothered to read pages to 3-8 so sorry if all this has been said before but:
I'm not gonna get into "who gets it worst in dating", but focusing solely on the issue of actually asking someone out, I definately think men have it much harder. Even today we're the ones expected to make a move, and thus A: have to deal with rejection more than women and B: Don't have the self-esteem benefit of being asked out ourselves (even when we're not interested) as often. Personally I'm 22 and have never been asked out. And before you make that joke yeah I've been in a healthy number of relationships (I guess on average my percentage of yes-to-no would be something like 40% of all the times I've asked a woman out). I've had girls-who-are-friends complain about not being able to ask a guy out because they're afraid they'll look desperate, or that guys don't like it etc. So yeah it's frustrating for those girls but at the end of the day we guys are more likely to have to deal with rejection etc.
As for PUAs, well lets ignore the ones that just go for increasing guy's self-esteem and so on, since I don't think any of us have any serious problem with those. But whilst I can understand criticizing the masochistic, chauvinist side of the others, which focus on things like "negging" and turning "pussy betas" into "alphas", blaming them for guys like Sodini is a ridiculous leap. They contribute to giving their clients low opinions of women, though probably not much worse than the opinion of, say, someone who can only find success in getting chicks wasted at bars for one night stands. Obviously people like Sodini are going to be attracted to PUAs as their last chance, though it's worth pointing out (as probably the most tenuous and halfhearted defense of PUAs I can think of) that they didn't actually work for him.
Anyway, that's just my impression of extracts from PUAs I've read on sites ranging from Slate, City Journal and even Jezebel. Actually I only read one Jezebel story on them (staying on that site rots your brain) and the author was obviously trying to get the worst quote she could. All she could come up with was another of the "if this guy used my PUA those women would still be alive! I save lives!" arguments (:S) I've seen everywhere, and tried to turn it into "PUAs cheer on Sodini", which it clearly wasn't. So unless these places are somehow ignoring worse stuff from PUAs I'll never be sold on the Sodini connection.
I really liked the articles "Child-Man in the Promised Land" and "Dating in the time of Darwinism" from City Journal, simply because they mixed the appropriate amount of disdain with sympathy for guys who resort to PUAs:
Also, unless Tycho isn't showing everything that Gabe said as part of their back-and-forth, Tyke comes across as kinda a dick. I mean it took about two replies from his opponent before he basically accused Gabe of supporting rape.
There were a couple of studies I read about in college where social psychologists observed social situations for what they called "courting" behavior or what we'd call "hooking up." What they found is that women make the first move more often; switching seats to be closer to a guy, bumping into the guy, making eye contact, etc. Men made the first direct move, but in most successful [strike]hook-ups[/strike] "courtships" women actually initiated contact in some subtle way.
You'd think the passive partner would have to, though, right?
I mean, if A is the one who cannot outright say "let us bone", then A has to do all this positioning and preening in front of B to get noticed.
I really liked the articles "Child-Man in the Promised Land" and "Dating in the time of Darwinism" from City Journal, simply because they mixed the appropriate amount of disdain with sympathy for guys who resort to PUAs:
Ugh. I really detest the 'child-man' or 'man-boy' or whatever stupid, mocking term gets selected for the latest article denigrating men in their 20's and 30's for playing video games and not being married with children. This one in particular takes the extra step by implying that women are getting more mature while men are either staying immature longer or even regressing in maturity. Apparently because the job and academic communities are more female friendly now than they were 40 years ago the fact that men and women perform about equally out of college makes the women in question 'hyperachievers' while the guys are 'child-men' because they like video games, beer, and read Maxim. After all, women don't play video games, get drunk, or read trashy BS magazines.
I'm a successful, married white-male aged 29 and I play video games and like to drink at parties. I don't have kids and don't want any, but I fail to see how this makes me less of an adult man than my 1965 equivalent.
I couldn't bothered to read pages to 3-8 so sorry if all this has been said before but:
I'm not gonna get into "who gets it worst in dating", but focusing solely on the issue of actually asking someone out, I definately think men have it much harder. Even today we're the ones expected to make a move, and thus A: have to deal with rejection more than women and B: Don't have the self-esteem benefit of being asked out ourselves (even when we're not interested) as often. Personally I'm 22 and have never been asked out. And before you make that joke yeah I've been in a healthy number of relationships (I guess on average my percentage of yes-to-no would be something like 40% of all the times I've asked a woman out). I've had girls-who-are-friends complain about not being able to ask a guy out because they're afraid they'll look desperate, or that guys don't like it etc. So yeah it's frustrating for those girls but at the end of the day we guys are more likely to have to deal with rejection etc.
As for PUAs, well lets ignore the ones that just go for increasing guy's self-esteem and so on, since I don't think any of us have any serious problem with those. But whilst I can understand criticizing the masochistic, chauvinist side of the others, which focus on things like "negging" and turning "pussy betas" into "alphas", blaming them for guys like Sodini is a ridiculous leap. They contribute to giving their clients low opinions of women, though probably not much worse than the opinion of, say, someone who can only find success in getting chicks wasted at bars for one night stands. Obviously people like Sodini are going to be attracted to PUAs as their last chance, though it's worth pointing out (as probably the most tenuous and halfhearted defense of PUAs I can think of) that they didn't actually work for him.
Anyway, that's just my impression of extracts from PUAs I've read on sites ranging from Slate, City Journal and even Jezebel. Actually I only read one Jezebel story on them (staying on that site rots your brain) and the author was obviously trying to get the worst quote she could. All she could come up with was another of the "if this guy used my PUA those women would still be alive! I save lives!" arguments (:S) I've seen everywhere, and tried to turn it into "PUAs cheer on Sodini", which it clearly wasn't. So unless these places are somehow ignoring worse stuff from PUAs I'll never be sold on the Sodini connection.
I really liked the articles "Child-Man in the Promised Land" and "Dating in the time of Darwinism" from City Journal, simply because they mixed the appropriate amount of disdain with sympathy for guys who resort to PUAs:
Also, unless Tycho isn't showing everything that Gabe said as part of their back-and-forth, Tyke comes across as kinda a dick. I mean it took about two replies from his opponent before he basically accused Gabe of supporting rape.
The degree of guilt as far as the PUA worldview vis a vis Sodini is a fairly complex (and interesting) question. I think most people would agree that Sodini would have had the potential to be a killer absent any sort of PUA influence, and I haven't heard anyone actually say that PUA made Sodini into a killer.
However, I think it's probably accurate to say that the PUA view toward women definitely added fuel to an already dangerous fire. Having a warped view of sexuality, sexual frustration and misogyny are all common elements to the stereotypical spree killer, and Sodini seems to have done his killings in a way that is very PUA-influenced (killing those hateful hot bitches at the gym who thought they were too good for him, apparently).
There were a couple of studies I read about in college where social psychologists observed social situations for what they called "courting" behavior or what we'd call "hooking up." What they found is that women make the first move more often; switching seats to be closer to a guy, bumping into the guy, making eye contact, etc. Men made the first direct move, but in most successful [strike]hook-ups[/strike] "courtships" women actually initiated contact in some subtle way.
You'd think the passive partner would have to, though, right?
I mean, if A is the one who cannot outright say "let us bone", then A has to do all this positioning and preening in front of B to get noticed.
Right. And on top of that, B doesn't want to just go up to every pretty A and say, "Let us bone" because most of them are going to turn him down.
So, is there a guy in this thread who doesn't think it's hot when a girl takes the initiative? We keep talking about the social impetus for women not to be assertive but I don't think I know a single guy who has anything except a positive reaction to it. Note that by 'initiative' here I mean saying, "Let us bone" rather than just making flirty eyes or whatever.
CptHamilton on
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
0
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
So, is there a guy in this thread who doesn't think it's hot when a girl takes the initiative? We keep talking about the social impetus for women not to be assertive but I don't think I know a single guy who has anything except a positive reaction to it. Note that by 'initiative' here I mean saying, "Let us bone" rather than just making flirty eyes or whatever.
And I'm not even advocating them going so far as to say "let us bone", but just a simple approach and "Hey, how's it going? Mind if I join you?" would do wonders for your average single guy on the town, I'd think.
I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents to this discussion. Just to preface where I'm coming from, long time geek, just about to turn 30, been married 5 years, and together for about 9 with our first child on the way. Obviously love games and have played them my whole life, and as us older gamers tend to be, have been pretty geeky.
So, I found the 'seduction community' a year or two ago and started reading up on everything. I had always had this fundamental question to answer about myself and a strong need to know... why was I always in the friend zone. Why were women always drawn to my friends? Why weren't people attracted to me? I am happily married and have great chemistry with my wife, but I still needed to know... why in general, is my life special because of a rare exception or dumb luck? What happened different with the few women I dated in my life (3 including my wife)?
So I dove into the material. I found like in any community you have a huge variety of people, motivations, and practices. When I finally resurfaced, I felt like I could start looking at the world with wide open eyes. A lot of common social things that were seemingly common sense were not for me, and needed to be pointed out to me. Sort of the same eye popping look at the world I got through the win friends and influence people book that was mentioned above. I just could look around at my world, and understand and explain things just a bit better. On top of that I came out with some great material I've used on all my friends to have a ton of fun, either dissecting it, or just using small routines designed to entertain groups. I ran 'the cube' on all my friends, male and female, and found the thing to be just great fun for both people. Youtube it and watch the video of 'style' doing it to see it in action, it's a ton of fun, do it with your SO, it'll be great.
One of the most interesting things to me in the writings were techniques for cold approaching. I'm a person who is pretty anxious about a lot of things, so you can imagine how hard it hits me the though of just cold approaching anyone, again, men or women. Every once in a while I will head out to a bar with friends, even sitting there happily married, I am freaked out at the thought of ever having to brave that gauntlet of approach my single friends are sitting there battling.
So to have a road map of things to do, ways to say things, already tested out, that puts people at ease, is amazing.
Like anything, there are a lot of good things to take out of the community, and bad. I think peoples extreme reaction to the idea of a "seduction community" is itself the whole reason for its existence. Consider your reaction when you first heard of these guys, "Oh, a bunch of predatory men, out to lie, lie and lie some more to bang women, the jerks!" Before you know ANYTHING about them, you have already throw them up in to our cultural standard that sex is bad and dirty. That sex is only 'clean' between monogamous couples, and everything else is a filthy lie. This is what we are pushed out from every angle, that casual sex is BAD, that there is something wrong with you for having a sexual drive. This seeming normal part of your functionality is so layered in sociological pressures and meaning, that you by the time you read the term "PUA", your brain just explodes in disgust for countering the image of the nuclear family.
What I got from reading the PUA stuff, was its intent is to teach you a way to better present yourself. To show you at least ONE path towards having a meaningful relationship with woman. Most PUA stuff covers techniques to break through that social wall we all put up when we leave our circle of friends to enter into that comfort area to allow you to actually get to know each other. Sure, they start you with canned lines to demonstrate that, hey, you can walk up to this group of 6 girls, you can make them all laugh at a joke, you can put them at ease, and you can actually get to know a person. What you want to do with that is up to you, maybe the girl isnt for you, maybe it turns out both of you want a little casual fun, maybe nothing, but before you find out, you have to get in the door.
The idea is that, you practice with some canned, proven lines. Lines that are silly like opening with "Hey what's this from, "Nobody puts baby in a corner!". Is that line deceitful, does that line harm anybody? No, it is entertaining, HAHA dirty dancing I loved that movie. Bam, set open, and now you can talk to people. From there, the next step is, sell yourself.
We are taught to sell ourselves all the time. We have classes in college to write our resume to sound better then we are. We are taught to dress a certain way when we go on a date or to a dance. So, again I ask, what is wrong with learning to present your truthful self in a better light? Again, the PUA stuff does not say LIE. It shows you some canned routines like the cube, which are not lies, but entertaining things. Eventually, you learn to talk about your TRUTHFUL self in an interesting way. IE "Hey what do you do for a living?" "Oh i'm a programmer". Boring. Instead "Oh its really cool, we write software for ultrasound machines." I'm not best at that part, but you see where I'm going here, just finding a better way to present and talk about who you are. If I went out and practice, I'd have a much better line, cause I could see which one hits the widest audience better. Hell, I had this amazing story about some weird euro guy that was bugging us on the beach, I had to tell the story when I got back from vacation. The first time I told the story, it was too long, people lost interest. After I was running down the line of friends to talk to it, the story had been condensed to about 1/4th the length, hitting on the key points, and people were rolling. Not everybody can instictivly do that, and will go on putting people to sleep with the same old story.
Every PUA reading I've seen talks about honesty, it doesn't talk about working over 4 women at once, it talks about being honest with the women that you aren't going for something serious. And yes, many women still are ok with this. I have a friend who has no clue what PUA is, and he runs his life like this, and has plenty of women who have no problem with this at all.
I think the over hyped selling and outrageous bootcamp fees are all a sham, people trying to make a living praying on this inner need we all have to find sex. Most of the material that is worth it can be found pretty cheaply or for free with a little bit of googling. From there, like anything, the main point is you go out, get comfortable in the setting of choice, and keep trying.
I honestly think most people who pass judgment on PUA community are either young, or have been married and out of the 'dating scene' far too long to remember what it is like. Society tells us we have to be this certain way , and most people spend A LOT of time putting on that front to appear so, but the reality is that few people are REALLY like that, but to appear to be otherwise gets you flagged, much like members of the 'seduction community' are.
I couldn't bothered to read pages to 3-8 so sorry if all this has been said before but:
I'm not gonna get into "who gets it worst in dating", but focusing solely on the issue of actually asking someone out, I definately think men have it much harder. Even today we're the ones expected to make a move, and thus A: have to deal with rejection more than women and B: Don't have the self-esteem benefit of being asked out ourselves (even when we're not interested) as often. Personally I'm 22 and have never been asked out. And before you make that joke yeah I've been in a healthy number of relationships (I guess on average my percentage of yes-to-no would be something like 40% of all the times I've asked a woman out). I've had girls-who-are-friends complain about not being able to ask a guy out because they're afraid they'll look desperate, or that guys don't like it etc. So yeah it's frustrating for those girls but at the end of the day we guys are more likely to have to deal with rejection etc.
As for PUAs, well lets ignore the ones that just go for increasing guy's self-esteem and so on, since I don't think any of us have any serious problem with those. But whilst I can understand criticizing the masochistic, chauvinist side of the others, which focus on things like "negging" and turning "pussy betas" into "alphas", blaming them for guys like Sodini is a ridiculous leap. They contribute to giving their clients low opinions of women, though probably not much worse than the opinion of, say, someone who can only find success in getting chicks wasted at bars for one night stands. Obviously people like Sodini are going to be attracted to PUAs as their last chance, though it's worth pointing out (as probably the most tenuous and halfhearted defense of PUAs I can think of) that they didn't actually work for him.
Anyway, that's just my impression of extracts from PUAs I've read on sites ranging from Slate, City Journal and even Jezebel. Actually I only read one Jezebel story on them (staying on that site rots your brain) and the author was obviously trying to get the worst quote she could. All she could come up with was another of the "if this guy used my PUA those women would still be alive! I save lives!" arguments (:S) I've seen everywhere, and tried to turn it into "PUAs cheer on Sodini", which it clearly wasn't. So unless these places are somehow ignoring worse stuff from PUAs I'll never be sold on the Sodini connection.
I really liked the articles "Child-Man in the Promised Land" and "Dating in the time of Darwinism" from City Journal, simply because they mixed the appropriate amount of disdain with sympathy for guys who resort to PUAs:
Also, unless Tycho isn't showing everything that Gabe said as part of their back-and-forth, Tyke comes across as kinda a dick. I mean it took about two replies from his opponent before he basically accused Gabe of supporting rape.
The degree of guilt as far as the PUA worldview vis a vis Sodini is a fairly complex (and interesting) question. I think most people would agree that Sodini would have had the potential to be a killer absent any sort of PUA influence, and I haven't heard anyone actually say that PUA made Sodini into a killer.
However, I think it's probably accurate to say that the PUA view toward women definitely added fuel to an already dangerous fire. Having a warped view of sexuality, sexual frustration and misogyny are all common elements to the stereotypical spree killer, and Sodini seems to have done his killings in a way that is very PUA-influenced (killing those hateful hot bitches at the gym who thought they were too good for him, apparently).
To hideously mangle your analogy, I think that the amount of fuel added to this particular fire is immaterial - it wouldn't have made the fire any worse than it already was. Anyway whilst I agree it's not a cut-and-dry question of how culpable the PUA's level of anti-female rhetoric was, I don't think it's serious enough to classify it as, say, a implicit incitement to violence. Saying outright that all women are selfish, petty and shallow - "and will toally be your adoring sex-slaves if you follow my advice!" - isn't on the same level as, say, "women are also dangerous and a threat to your safety, and soon there will be a gender war, not that I'm saying you ned to go kill people hurf durf". I'm pretty sure even the latter can't be legally classified as an incitement to violence (?), but I think everyone would agree that it would've been a significant factor in what Sodini did (it's a totally fictional example btw in case I didn't make that clear), whereas the relationship between the kind of PUA-talk exemplified in the former has a much more distant relationship to Sodini's state of mind.
So, is there a guy in this thread who doesn't think it's hot when a girl takes the initiative? We keep talking about the social impetus for women not to be assertive but I don't think I know a single guy who has anything except a positive reaction to it. Note that by 'initiative' here I mean saying, "Let us bone" rather than just making flirty eyes or whatever.
And I'm not even advocating them going so far as to say "let us bone", but just a simple approach and "Hey, how's it going? Mind if I join you?" would do wonders for your average single guy on the town, I'd think.
Oh, yeah. I just used your phrase because I found it hilarious.
A friend of mine (anecdotes are not evidence, etc) goes out every single weekend looking for women. He's interested in relationships rather than hook-ups, so he doesn't take every opportunity... but he has an extremely low success rate. He told me that two weekends ago a girl came up to him at a club and said, "Hey, can I ask you a weird question? Are you here alone?" which lead to them talking until 1:30am and 2 follow-up dates. She wasn't really the kind of girl he'd have approached normally, and I doubt they're going to stay together (she's traumatized by horror movies, which are his biggest hobby) but just that much was enough to get something going which would never have happened otherwise.
To hideously mangle your analogy, I think that the amount of fuel added to this particular fire is immaterial - it wouldn't have made the fire any worse than it already was. Anyway whilst I agree it's not a cut-and-dry question of how culpable the PUA's level of anti-female rhetoric was, I don't think it's serious enough to classify it as, say, a implicit incitement to violence. Saying outright that all women are selfish, petty and shallow - "and will toally be your adoring sex-slaves if you follow my advice!" - isn't on the same level as, say, "women are also dangerous and a threat to your safety, and soon there will be a gender war, not that I'm saying you ned to go kill people hurf durf". I'm pretty sure even the latter can't be legally classified as an incitement to violence (?), but I think everyone would agree that it would've been a significant factor in what Sodini did (it's a totally fictional example btw in case I didn't make that clear), whereas the relationship between the kind of PUA-talk exemplified in the former has a much more distant relationship to Sodini's state of mind.
I agree that it's not an incitement to violence, even indirectly; my point was simply that the warped worldview he absorbed and the behavior that it encouraged probably contributed to his downward spiral, and in all likelihood exacerbated it.
After all, the PUA stuff basically says if you (by this meaning anybody - even someone who is mentally disturbed to the point of being a potential murderer) do x actions you'll become a bona fide ladykiller. This obviously wasn't working for Sodini and hadn't for about twenty years, so it's unsurprising that when reality didn't pan out like it was "supposed to" that his mental state continued to degrade to the point of mass murder.
To hideously mangle your analogy, I think that the amount of fuel added to this particular fire is immaterial - it wouldn't have made the fire any worse than it already was. Anyway whilst I agree it's not a cut-and-dry question of how culpable the PUA's level of anti-female rhetoric was, I don't think it's serious enough to classify it as, say, a implicit incitement to violence. Saying outright that all women are selfish, petty and shallow - "and will toally be your adoring sex-slaves if you follow my advice!" - isn't on the same level as, say, "women are also dangerous and a threat to your safety, and soon there will be a gender war, not that I'm saying you ned to go kill people hurf durf". I'm pretty sure even the latter can't be legally classified as an incitement to violence (?), but I think everyone would agree that it would've been a significant factor in what Sodini did (it's a totally fictional example btw in case I didn't make that clear), whereas the relationship between the kind of PUA-talk exemplified in the former has a much more distant relationship to Sodini's state of mind.
I agree that it's not an incitement to violence, even indirectly; my point was simply that the warped worldview he absorbed and the behavior that it encouraged probably contributed to his downward spiral, and in all likelihood exacerbated it.
After all, the PUA stuff basically says if you (by this meaning anybody - even someone who is mentally disturbed to the point of being a potential murderer) do x actions you'll become a bona fide ladykiller. This obviously wasn't working for Sodini and hadn't for about twenty years, so it's unsurprising that when reality didn't pan out like it was "supposed to" that his mental state continued to degrade to the point of mass murder.
One thing I've wondered is what happens to guys who become "model" PUAs when/if they get married or at least find a long-term girlfriend who they can admit being in love with. I wonder how much of that philosophy continues to pervade their thinking, especially if they find themselves with daughters to raise.
Hey, someone clearly mentally unstable went on a shooting spree. He recently bought into that whole pick-up artist thing (artistry?). There must be a direct causation effect between these books on manipulation and murderous rampages!
And playful and/or predatory manipulation of women is obviously misogynistic (hateful of women) because anytime we manipulate something, it's because we hates its! Oh yes, we hates the preciousesss.
Having this chair over by the wall will not do! Ha ha! I am putting you in the middle of the room to take advantage of the natural light flowing through the windows! Fuck you, chair! I'm not doing because of the natural light, I'm doing it because fuck-you-chair!
[/sarcasm]
Let's be honest.
The whole PUA thing is just snake oil. It's Dumbo's feather for 'late bloomers' (or to use the correct 21st century terminology 'social retard'). It's a little nudge in the right direction.
Decrying the whole PUA thing as misogynistic seems a bit off target. Of course there will be misogynistic undertones in something catering to guys who have no success with women. Whenever there's a personal problem, the tendency is to blame everyone except the person.
Hey, someone clearly mentally unstable went on a shooting spree. He recently bought into that whole pick-up artist thing (artistry?). There must be a direct causation effect between these books on manipulation and murderous rampages!
And playful and/or predatory manipulation of women is obviously misogynistic (hateful of women) because anytime we manipulate something, it's because we hates its! Oh yes, we hates the preciousesss.
Having this chair over by the wall will not do! Ha ha! I am putting you in the middle of the room to take advantage of the natural light flowing through the windows! Fuck you, chair! I'm not doing because of the natural light, I'm doing it because fuck-you-chair!
[/sarcasm]
Let's be honest.
The whole PUA thing is just snake oil. It's Dumbo's feather for 'late bloomers' (or to use the correct 21st century terminology 'social retard'). It's a little nudge in the right direction.
Decrying the whole PUA thing as misogynistic seems a bit off target. Of course there will be misogynistic undertones in something catering to guys who have no success with women. Whenever there's a personal problem, the tendency is to blame everyone except the person.
...Seriously? I'm entirely open to the possibility that I'm miscalculating the sarcasm tags. Okay...
Furniture metaphor. Jesus...
Yes, "predatory manipulation" of women is misogynistic. A woman is not an inanimate object like a chair to be displaced and used for your convenience (or for you to plant your ass on.) A serious honest-to-god furniture metaphor is just so ... I mean, GOD. slow clap sir, bravo.
It's misogynistic because manipulating someone into having sex with you is brutally unethical. It is fundatmentally disrespectful.
If your self-esteem is low and the only way you can conceive of to raise it is by manipulating someone you might otherwise care for into letting you use her body, there is something wrong with you. If you feel entitled to sex with someone, there is something wrong with you. If you measure your self esteem by how many women you've fucked, you're doing it wrong. Especially this PUA bullshit because a big side effect (if not a desired effect) is making someone else feel like shit, not appreciating that is really shortsighted.
It's misogynistic because the premise is built on the idea that women at a bar are only there for you to fuck, and that you're entitled to fuck them. Yes people do go to bars to hook up. They are not prizes to be won with your epic fucking wiles. They are human beings. Just because a girl at a bar may be looking to hook up does not entitle you to be her hook up, and if you are she probably isn't into being treated like trash. That's two things you have in common right off the bat. Build from there and you will both feel good about yourselves.
Selling yourself is icky. But it's also the kind of ickiness that is practically required in life, unless you happen to be such a hot commodity that the world beats a path to your door.
It would be nice if coupling had no economic component -- that scarcity and perceived value played no part.
Selling yourself is icky. But it's also the kind of ickiness that is practically required in life, unless you happen to be such a hot commodity that the world beats a path to your door.
It would be nice if coupling had no economic component -- that scarcity and perceived value played no part.
Selling yourself is icky. But it's also the kind of ickiness that is practically required in life, unless you happen to be such a hot commodity that the world beats a path to your door.
It would be nice if coupling had no economic component -- that scarcity and perceived value played no part.
I don't think anybody here is getting very wound up about cold, hard facts like that dating can feel more like a job interview than a shot at love, as you seem to be alluding to. Hence I havn't seen people complaining about PUAs that talk about how to "charm" women or make yourself seem more appealing than you really are. We're talking about a large number of PUAs that teach unlucky or vulnerable men that women are superficial whores, and thus can and should be treated as such.
I'm sure somebody would say "but dressing nice and smiling is a form of manipulation! You're doing these things just to elicit a certain response!" Well, maybe it is; if we really wanted to get into a semantic argument over the definition of "manipulation." The real issue is that dressing nice and smiling are neither disrespectful nor dishonest.
PUA stuff is often both. When it's not - as when it's encouraging young men to go out and socialize and be confident - it's perfectly fine. When it is - as when it's teaching men how to "neg" or to pretend like they're talent agents - then it's misogynist.
Like any kind of self-help crap, there are small kernels of truth scattered among PUA. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of pig shit.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
We're talking about a large number of PUAs that teach unlucky or vulnerable men that women are superficial whores, and thus can and should be treated as such.
I mean, I guess my point is -- this is not admirable behavior, obviously, but it's also not that different from women who teach unlucky or vulnerable women that men are violent thugs and thus can and should be treated as such.
It's pity party bullshit, of course, but that's something I have the luxury of saying since I've been off the market for a while now. I remember how hard it is to remain magnanimous when you feel like you're being undervalued by 'the other side'. Women and men both deal with that in their own ways.
Hockey Johnston on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
I once worked with a dude at a gas station. He was from Africa. Nicest guy in the world, and didn't care to make with a lot of formality. Once a lady came in and he just said something to the effect of "Hey baby, I just got my check. Let me take you out."
Sure, it doesn't have the class of a nice meal with only strongly implied fornication, but I had to admire his frankness.
We're talking about a large number of PUAs that teach unlucky or vulnerable men that women are superficial whores, and thus can and should be treated as such.
I mean, I guess my point is -- this is not admirable behavior, obviously, but it's also not that different from women who teach unlucky or vulnerable women that men are violent thugs and thus can and should be treated as such.
It's pity party bullshit, of course, but that's something I have the luxury of saying since I've been off the market for a while now. I remember how hard it is to remain magnanimous when you feel like you're being undervalued by 'the other side'. Women and men both deal with that in their own ways.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Is that what female-orientated PUAs do? I don't know.
And yeah there are a million reasons why men turn to these PUAs in the first place (hence the "unlucky" and "vulnerable").
Ed321 on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
I dunno. I think what informs a lot of the feminist discourse on this is that they dislike - for understandable historical reasons - any space reserved for men exclusively, and this PUA scene seems to also function as an all-inclusive "men's community" for a lot of people on it.
The premise is startling - trying to reduce social relationships down to a series of iterations and treating women as objects to be won in a game. But it's not like that doesn't happen with either gender in a bar every day. It's just that some people are naturally better at it - it's natural baseball players taking issue with a mathematician trying to figure out the mathematically ideal way to throw a ball.
Now, the PUA types seem to mostly come up with the wrong conclusions - "negging" and the like isn't some universal approach to women, but instead something you keep doing until you find someone with low enough self esteem that they respond to it, or you have enough confidence that the girl likes you in spite of your goofy behavior.
I've never had problem finding dates and relationships with men or women, but then A) I'm 6"2, fit, and fairly attractive, fairly smart, and C) nearly egomaniacally self-confident and heedless when it comes to talking to people. Being funny or confident or physically attractive are, insofar as those are consciously cultivated or displayed behaviors and traits, conscious attempts to manipulate men and women that are no different in character from what the pick up people are doing. People resist the notions of processes or procedures that are effective on people because they want to believe in their own individuality and free will. The more people theorize ways to seduce people that undermine our concept of free will - via mental or physical (i.e. scent. for millenia, this has meant perfumes and our natural body odors, and may mean things like pheromones in the future), the more we reject those methods of seduction as being creepy and sterile.
And, undoubtedly, they are creepy and sterile. But if someone isn't getting laid with what nature gave them, i'm not going to begrudge them the opportunity to learn new techniques to get mates, any more than I begrudge people for wearing make-up.
So while I don't think i'd ever try to use the PUA stuff, it seems unfair that we should deny people who could benefit from it the opportunity to study mechanically how to find love in a modern world where we have cut off the traditional opportunities that gave even very awkward and shy people social contact such that potential mates could get to know them better (e.g. church, the daily rhythms of small communities, civic groups).
I also think feminist bloggers have missed a broader point - while these previously-passive nerds and the like are taking up an approach that has misogynist baggage associated with it, they're much better than what many "outgoing" or "normal" men do to get sex, especially in college environments - introduce lots of booze and take advantage of women, either via the alcohol, their low self esteem, or date rape in the form of peer pressure or actual pharmacology. So while men are always going to try to figure out how to get sex from women, even a new, misogynist approach eschews non-consensual or pressure-based methods of getting it. The feministing article tries to link frustrated PUAs with violence - i'd think that people who were going to use some sort of violence were going to anyway, regardless of what seminars they attended. Violence against women and sexual violence have been constant companions to human civilization, so it's hard to show a causal link between that violence and anything new PUAs are arguably doing.
Really I heard about this stuff and in my interest in the opposite sex read some stuff. It all sounded retarded...this was when I was about 17 or 18.
I re-discovered it when I turned 21 a few months ago. I thought it was still stupid...same stuff...different people...then I went to a night club for my 21st birthday...and felt stupid. People I introduced myself to felt kind of cruel, I was confident, I don't look too bad, am pretty fit. All night though I couldn't interact with people more than a few minutes. I thought people went to clubs to meet people...that night it seemed like it was just people going out with their friends.
I am definitely a lot more successful at talking to women outside of clubs, in lines, at coffee shops etc. but for some reason people act a lot different in clubs. I think that is what all of this seduction stuff is about mostly, is how to get girls looking for casual sex in clubs. Basically girls doing this have a large selection, and the tips and stuff seem to be a way to get to the top of their list. At the end of the day the girl is still the one choosing. I bet there are several seduction teachers who treat women as things. Most of what I read though said that women are the same as us, and that they should be treated as such, and that you shouldn't mis-represent yourself.
People in this thread keep relating it to rape, but that doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't hypnosis, the girl can always say no. I just see seduction advice as basically like style tips, a way to improve how you present yourself. It seems kind of similar to toastmasters and stuff like that actually, teaching and learning how to converse and interact in a more pleasing way, just it is specialized to a sexual nature.
I personally find no use for it, I figure if I can talk to women and date just fine outside of clubs then I don't need to go there unless it's actually just to mess around with the guys, I doubt I would have a date at a dance club...too many guys looking to get girls. But I do find some of the games and jokes I have read funny and cool. The cube is an awesome technique thing that I actually heard of again in my psych class.
The final thing that I find funny is that people who are 'ladies men' just do a lot of the stuff they do naturally. It is kind of like just peeling back layers of social tactics. I noticed my brother in law basically doing the same stuff I had read about on an ex girlfriend of his. He is married, but it just comes so naturally to him that even though he is married he still acts the same way. He doesn't think of women as 'things' it's just that the way he treats women is something that women find attractive.
I have no idea if any of this made sense...it's just I can see where the community is coming from, and what it is used for. And I felt the need to give my two cents. I believe this is what the seduction community calls supplicating but we're all friends right?
EDIT: Does this topic just make people want to pound keys? A lot of pretty long posts in this thread.
Frankly, I'm not sure I consider "passively-agressively lowering a woman's self-esteem in a calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable so she lets someone have sex with them" as having much moral high ground over "having sex with some really drunk chick you met at a party".
Both of them are pretty sleazy, especially if the male in the latter equation is mostly sober, but the former seems much more fucked up and cruel. There's more than a few parallels between supposed pick-up tactics and behaviors associated with domestic abusers - the careful manipulation of the other person's self-esteem and self-image being the most notable and disturbing. That's the reason most people - not just "feminist bloggers" - have issue with this subculture, not because it's "exclusively male".
Frankly, I'm not sure I consider "passively-agressively lowering a woman's self-esteem in a calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable so she lets someone have sex with them" as having much moral high ground over "having sex with some really drunk chick you met at a party".
Both of them are pretty sleazy, especially if the male in the latter equation is mostly sober, but the former seems much more fucked up and cruel. There's more than a few parallels between supposed pick-up tactics and behaviors associated with domestic abusers - the careful manipulation of the other person's self-esteem and self-image being the most notable and disturbing. That's the reason most people - not just "feminist bloggers" - have issue with this subculture, not because it's "exclusively male".
I think one of us misunderstands the purpose of 'negging' I thought it was to make it look like you felt in a position to be critical of somebody, instead of the usual barrage of 'I love your dress' 'I love your shoes' 'I love your earrings' they probably usually get. It is just to make them not think you are another guy waiting to grovel at their feet.
And from what I remember (this was about 3 years ago, since I haven't seen anything about negging lately) it is only used when the girl is so gorgeous she is almost constantly being complemented by guys. And if saying you think somebodies earrings are too big is a 'calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable' then you don't take criticism well.
Did anyone read reapy's post? I, too, got curious after clicking Tycho's links, and honestly a lot of the stuff in this community is legitimately good advice on how to present oneself better, and make an honest good first impression, and keep things moving naturally so you don't get stuck in the friend zone, how to read female "signals" etc. This shit might seem like common sense, but it's honestly kind of counterintuitive a lot of the time, especially for nerds like us.
There's a lot of good advice and information that doesn't involve lying or being disingenuous at all. In fact most of what I found said "don't lie, if you're not seeking commitment definitely don't lie about that," to paraphrase.
Edit: Also, what Interjection said about negging. It seems like this whole topic is everyone saying "OMG men making a science out of picking up women, that's gotta be sleazy" and then taking that to their worst imagined extremes. I mean, to be fair I'm sure the sleazy element of the PUA thing exists, and may be even the majority, and some of the stuff I read while deliberately trying to avoid "sleaze" did sound so clinical and manipulative that I was recalling Tom Cruise in Magnolia, but it was mixed in with genuinely good advice. "Seduction" community members seem to be all different types. And when talking about degrees of manipulation, the more you think about it the harder it is to draw a line because manipulative characteristics can be found in most social interactions.
Frankly, I'm not sure I consider "passively-agressively lowering a woman's self-esteem in a calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable so she lets someone have sex with them" as having much moral high ground over "having sex with some really drunk chick you met at a party".
Both of them are pretty sleazy, especially if the male in the latter equation is mostly sober, but the former seems much more fucked up and cruel. There's more than a few parallels between supposed pick-up tactics and behaviors associated with domestic abusers - the careful manipulation of the other person's self-esteem and self-image being the most notable and disturbing. That's the reason most people - not just "feminist bloggers" - have issue with this subculture, not because it's "exclusively male".
I think one of us misunderstands the purpose of 'negging' I thought it was to make it look like you felt in a position to be critical of somebody, instead of the usual barrage of 'I love your dress' 'I love your shoes' 'I love your earrings' they probably usually get. It is just to make them not think you are another guy waiting to grovel at their feet.
And from what I remember (this was about 3 years ago, since I haven't seen anything about negging lately) it is only used when the girl is so gorgeous she is almost constantly being complemented by guys. And if saying you think somebodies earrings are too big is a 'calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable' then you don't take criticism well.
Unless PUAs use the terms differently, that's not what negging is. Hell I make light jokes at a date's expense all the time (i.e. on every date I've been on, not throughout the whole date lol) to break up a particularly long strong of compliments. Negging is constantly undermining a girl's self-esteem (i.e. making her worry about whether her dress makes her look overweight, "accidently" mistaking a spot or mole for a food spill etc.) to make her think she's lucky to have someone interested in her, as if her date is the pinnacle of what she could possibly achieve.
Did anyone read reapy's post? I, too, got curious after clicking Tycho's links, and honestly a lot of the stuff in this community is legitimately good advice on how to present oneself better, and make an honest good first impression, and keep things moving naturally so you don't get stuck in the friend zone, how to read female "signals" etc. This shit might seem like common sense, but it's honestly kind of counterintuitive a lot of the time, especially for nerds like us.
There's a lot of good advice and information that doesn't involve lying or being disingenuous at all. In fact most of what I found said "don't lie, if you're not seeking commitment definitely don't lie about that," to paraphrase.
Yeah, I think most people have a problem with negging, and see it as a form of misogyny. I just did a search and apparently the community feels somewhat similarly and that it isn't really a good idea anymore. Really having a method at all is kind of falling out of style in the seduction community it seems.
Personally though I have never had a problem being honest about stuff. And I do find those giant hoop earrings ridiculous. And if I am being honest I don't see it as misogyny. Really I have only said it to friends/girlfriends before.
Frankly, I'm not sure I consider "passively-agressively lowering a woman's self-esteem in a calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable so she lets someone have sex with them" as having much moral high ground over "having sex with some really drunk chick you met at a party".
Both of them are pretty sleazy, especially if the male in the latter equation is mostly sober, but the former seems much more fucked up and cruel. There's more than a few parallels between supposed pick-up tactics and behaviors associated with domestic abusers - the careful manipulation of the other person's self-esteem and self-image being the most notable and disturbing. That's the reason most people - not just "feminist bloggers" - have issue with this subculture, not because it's "exclusively male".
I think one of us misunderstands the purpose of 'negging' I thought it was to make it look like you felt in a position to be critical of somebody, instead of the usual barrage of 'I love your dress' 'I love your shoes' 'I love your earrings' they probably usually get. It is just to make them not think you are another guy waiting to grovel at their feet.
And from what I remember (this was about 3 years ago, since I haven't seen anything about negging lately) it is only used when the girl is so gorgeous she is almost constantly being complemented by guys. And if saying you think somebodies earrings are too big is a 'calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable' then you don't take criticism well.
Unless PUAs use the terms differently, that's not what negging is. Hell I make light jokes at a date's expense all the time (i.e. on every date I've been on, not throughout the whole date lol) to break up a particularly long strong of compliments. Negging is constantly undermining a girl's self-esteem (i.e. making her worry about whether her dress makes her look overweight, "accidently" mistaking a spot or mole for a food spill etc.) to make her think she's lucky to have someone interested in her, as if her date is the pinnacle of what she could possibly achieve.
Quoting a thing that I just looked up to make sure
Then you give her another NEG HIT like this: "Is that a hair piece? Well, its neat... what do you call this hairstyle? The waffle? " Smile and look at her to show her you are sincerely being funny and not insulting. You are pleasant but disinterested in her beauty.
This will intrigue her because she KNOWS guys. And this isn't normal. You must have really high taste, or be used to girls, or be married or something. These questions make her CURIOUS. So this keeps happening and is known as FLIRTING. She gives you little Negs and these tests are qualifiers. You pass them by Negging her back. After all, you aren't like the others showing interest. But...why?
To me it seems like the point isn't to make them seem inferior or vulnerable. Just to make them feel like you are "disinterested in her beauty."
Nobody thinks you should constantly insult a girl. It's called light teasing...we did this as kids...once you grow up it is how people usually flirt. My god I remember my sisters friend from college and me going back and forth...she said how crazy that I was a nerd and owned a black velvet blazer, so I said how crazy that she is a college party chick who visits 4chan. It's just teasing each other...it's not constantly trying to hurt her confidence.
Interjection on
aka kcMasterpiece
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
We have covered this. It's intent, not the information itself, that is the defining factor in disapproval.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
I understand that women are afraid of getting taken advantage of. So are men.
I understand that women worry about their reputations. So do men.
I understand that the risk of rejection is nerve-wracking for women. So it is for men.
I understand that repeated rejections are spirit-crushing for women. So it is for men.
We feel these things too. But, to be perfectly frank, we cowboy up and take the initiative anyway. And if it doesn't work, we keep trying.
(Well, okay, we don't always cowboy up. H/A is full of guys who wuss out. Hell, I'm sure if I filled out a ledger sheet and counted up all the opportunities I've missed, the times I've wussed out would certainly outnumber the times I've actually been brave and made a move. But, dammit, nothing would ever happen if we didn't put our necks out.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
SAying things are objectively easier is indicating these things are something other than controllable actions.
Take all the gender stereotypes away you are still gonna have people not being together because they're both too nervous. :P
I'm mostly against the idea that men have it harder so they shouldn't have to ask. No both have to ask, period. Hopefully then one side or the other ends up doing so if the other chickens out. Higher chance of success!
My fiancee asked me out.
*shrugs*
Er, isn't that the point? Women are socially conditioned against making the first move to such a strong degree that they never do*. Every time a guy is like "I really like this girl, but I can't muster up the confidence to ask her out", that is what it is like for women 100% of the time. Except for that for the woman, there is nothing there to muster up, it simply is not a social option.
So of course any woman who is willing to make the first move is able to get a guy; it's because none of them do. If they did, then men would simply become more discriminating towards propositions (you know, like women are) and we would be living in an egalitarian world (yay) and this supposed "advantage" would vanish.
The whole thing is stupid anyway, because in fact it turns out that any guy who is able to get it together enough to signal his attraction does not have trouble getting a girl. Go figure.
*Hyperbole, obviously. And this is changing, thankfully.
It was, but on the basis that I thought you were refuting Feral's statement. If not then I apologize for my misunderstanding.
On another topic regarding gender roles/differences that was mentioned way up-thread:
Someone said that women aren't mysterious and that guys just have to get over it and talk to them with no special training required. I have to disagree. Women are not purposefully mysterious, most of the time, but for a lot of guys the things that women do which they feel to be overt are completely opaque to us.
I am very nearly incapable of noticing when women are attracted to me unless they make the most obvious, direct signs (usually involving overt physical contact, like the girl the other night who grabbed me by the back pocket to pull me toward a dance floor or when my now-wife told me to sit down and then laid on my lap). There are dozens of instances where I am told after the fact that a woman was flirting with me or putting off signals that she was interested in me when I was completely oblivious to it. Women, in conversation (and even in this thread once or twice), often imply that this sending of signals fulfills their part of a social contract of which the man's part is to then respond to the signals if interested. The female poster who did the monologue even mentioned hoping that smiling at a guy would make him come talk to her.
I suspect that a lot of guys who respond to the idea of these PUA schemes are like me. They just don't get the signals that women are giving and, therefore, are missing opportunities. They want to learn to recognize these things without the painful process of trial and error involved in learning to recognize a "I want you to come talk to me" smile from a "I see you looking at me and am being polite" smile. Of course, the PUA programs do not actually teach this (that I'm aware of), but I suspect it's the sort of thing that Gabe was talking about regarding guys not understanding how girls work.
Sometimes I think it boils down to us speaking different languages. I've had a lot of my guy friends talk about women approaching them when they were younger, and they just didn't get that the woman was trying to hit on them. One in my gaming group didn't get it until I told him (umpteen years later) that the girl was interested. It sounds like you did get it and recognized the compliment was an attempt to start the process. But I'll go out on a limb here and say that you being married (and for that matter, me too) means that you're not in the subset of guys we're talking about.
Yes. This, exactly. I just wrote a response to Halfmex that said something similar.
That's the sinister beauty of PUA and (I think) why Gabe was falling for it. The part of the game that's awesome is teaching self-confidence and getting guys out of their head. The part that's horrendous is teaching that women are prey and objects that need to be collected.
And true, I am married so I am (mercifully) out of the 'dating game' as it were, I was once a part of it and dealt with all of the same insecurities as your average guy (and girl, I'm sure) does. That's why I think that, until the time comes that the pursuer/pursuee roles diminish or even out, a good, healthy instructional course/book/whatever would be hugely helpful for men to overcome their anxieties. Of course, I don't think the PUA approach, such as it exists today, is that answer. But strip away the 'alpha male' garbage and the psychological warfare and parlor tricks and just teach men (heck, and women for that matter) how to be confident and approach people with a good head on your shoulders. That would be enormously beneficial.
There were a couple of studies I read about in college where social psychologists observed social situations for what they called "courting" behavior or what we'd call "hooking up." What they found is that women make the first move more often; switching seats to be closer to a guy, bumping into the guy, making eye contact, etc. Men made the first direct move, but in most successful [strike]hook-ups[/strike] "courtships" women actually initiated contact in some subtle way.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not gonna get into "who gets it worst in dating", but focusing solely on the issue of actually asking someone out, I definately think men have it much harder. Even today we're the ones expected to make a move, and thus A: have to deal with rejection more than women and B: Don't have the self-esteem benefit of being asked out ourselves (even when we're not interested) as often. Personally I'm 22 and have never been asked out. And before you make that joke yeah I've been in a healthy number of relationships (I guess on average my percentage of yes-to-no would be something like 40% of all the times I've asked a woman out). I've had girls-who-are-friends complain about not being able to ask a guy out because they're afraid they'll look desperate, or that guys don't like it etc. So yeah it's frustrating for those girls but at the end of the day we guys are more likely to have to deal with rejection etc.
As for PUAs, well lets ignore the ones that just go for increasing guy's self-esteem and so on, since I don't think any of us have any serious problem with those. But whilst I can understand criticizing the masochistic, chauvinist side of the others, which focus on things like "negging" and turning "pussy betas" into "alphas", blaming them for guys like Sodini is a ridiculous leap. They contribute to giving their clients low opinions of women, though probably not much worse than the opinion of, say, someone who can only find success in getting chicks wasted at bars for one night stands. Obviously people like Sodini are going to be attracted to PUAs as their last chance, though it's worth pointing out (as probably the most tenuous and halfhearted defense of PUAs I can think of) that they didn't actually work for him.
Anyway, that's just my impression of extracts from PUAs I've read on sites ranging from Slate, City Journal and even Jezebel. Actually I only read one Jezebel story on them (staying on that site rots your brain) and the author was obviously trying to get the worst quote she could. All she could come up with was another of the "if this guy used my PUA those women would still be alive! I save lives!" arguments (:S) I've seen everywhere, and tried to turn it into "PUAs cheer on Sodini", which it clearly wasn't. So unless these places are somehow ignoring worse stuff from PUAs I'll never be sold on the Sodini connection.
I really liked the articles "Child-Man in the Promised Land" and "Dating in the time of Darwinism" from City Journal, simply because they mixed the appropriate amount of disdain with sympathy for guys who resort to PUAs:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_single_young_men.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_darwinist_dating.html
Also, unless Tycho isn't showing everything that Gabe said as part of their back-and-forth, Tyke comes across as kinda a dick. I mean it took about two replies from his opponent before he basically accused Gabe of supporting rape.
I mean, if A is the one who cannot outright say "let us bone", then A has to do all this positioning and preening in front of B to get noticed.
Ugh. I really detest the 'child-man' or 'man-boy' or whatever stupid, mocking term gets selected for the latest article denigrating men in their 20's and 30's for playing video games and not being married with children. This one in particular takes the extra step by implying that women are getting more mature while men are either staying immature longer or even regressing in maturity. Apparently because the job and academic communities are more female friendly now than they were 40 years ago the fact that men and women perform about equally out of college makes the women in question 'hyperachievers' while the guys are 'child-men' because they like video games, beer, and read Maxim. After all, women don't play video games, get drunk, or read trashy BS magazines.
I'm a successful, married white-male aged 29 and I play video games and like to drink at parties. I don't have kids and don't want any, but I fail to see how this makes me less of an adult man than my 1965 equivalent.
However, I think it's probably accurate to say that the PUA view toward women definitely added fuel to an already dangerous fire. Having a warped view of sexuality, sexual frustration and misogyny are all common elements to the stereotypical spree killer, and Sodini seems to have done his killings in a way that is very PUA-influenced (killing those hateful hot bitches at the gym who thought they were too good for him, apparently).
Right. And on top of that, B doesn't want to just go up to every pretty A and say, "Let us bone" because most of them are going to turn him down.
So, is there a guy in this thread who doesn't think it's hot when a girl takes the initiative? We keep talking about the social impetus for women not to be assertive but I don't think I know a single guy who has anything except a positive reaction to it. Note that by 'initiative' here I mean saying, "Let us bone" rather than just making flirty eyes or whatever.
So, I found the 'seduction community' a year or two ago and started reading up on everything. I had always had this fundamental question to answer about myself and a strong need to know... why was I always in the friend zone. Why were women always drawn to my friends? Why weren't people attracted to me? I am happily married and have great chemistry with my wife, but I still needed to know... why in general, is my life special because of a rare exception or dumb luck? What happened different with the few women I dated in my life (3 including my wife)?
So I dove into the material. I found like in any community you have a huge variety of people, motivations, and practices. When I finally resurfaced, I felt like I could start looking at the world with wide open eyes. A lot of common social things that were seemingly common sense were not for me, and needed to be pointed out to me. Sort of the same eye popping look at the world I got through the win friends and influence people book that was mentioned above. I just could look around at my world, and understand and explain things just a bit better. On top of that I came out with some great material I've used on all my friends to have a ton of fun, either dissecting it, or just using small routines designed to entertain groups. I ran 'the cube' on all my friends, male and female, and found the thing to be just great fun for both people. Youtube it and watch the video of 'style' doing it to see it in action, it's a ton of fun, do it with your SO, it'll be great.
One of the most interesting things to me in the writings were techniques for cold approaching. I'm a person who is pretty anxious about a lot of things, so you can imagine how hard it hits me the though of just cold approaching anyone, again, men or women. Every once in a while I will head out to a bar with friends, even sitting there happily married, I am freaked out at the thought of ever having to brave that gauntlet of approach my single friends are sitting there battling.
So to have a road map of things to do, ways to say things, already tested out, that puts people at ease, is amazing.
Like anything, there are a lot of good things to take out of the community, and bad. I think peoples extreme reaction to the idea of a "seduction community" is itself the whole reason for its existence. Consider your reaction when you first heard of these guys, "Oh, a bunch of predatory men, out to lie, lie and lie some more to bang women, the jerks!" Before you know ANYTHING about them, you have already throw them up in to our cultural standard that sex is bad and dirty. That sex is only 'clean' between monogamous couples, and everything else is a filthy lie. This is what we are pushed out from every angle, that casual sex is BAD, that there is something wrong with you for having a sexual drive. This seeming normal part of your functionality is so layered in sociological pressures and meaning, that you by the time you read the term "PUA", your brain just explodes in disgust for countering the image of the nuclear family.
What I got from reading the PUA stuff, was its intent is to teach you a way to better present yourself. To show you at least ONE path towards having a meaningful relationship with woman. Most PUA stuff covers techniques to break through that social wall we all put up when we leave our circle of friends to enter into that comfort area to allow you to actually get to know each other. Sure, they start you with canned lines to demonstrate that, hey, you can walk up to this group of 6 girls, you can make them all laugh at a joke, you can put them at ease, and you can actually get to know a person. What you want to do with that is up to you, maybe the girl isnt for you, maybe it turns out both of you want a little casual fun, maybe nothing, but before you find out, you have to get in the door.
The idea is that, you practice with some canned, proven lines. Lines that are silly like opening with "Hey what's this from, "Nobody puts baby in a corner!". Is that line deceitful, does that line harm anybody? No, it is entertaining, HAHA dirty dancing I loved that movie. Bam, set open, and now you can talk to people. From there, the next step is, sell yourself.
We are taught to sell ourselves all the time. We have classes in college to write our resume to sound better then we are. We are taught to dress a certain way when we go on a date or to a dance. So, again I ask, what is wrong with learning to present your truthful self in a better light? Again, the PUA stuff does not say LIE. It shows you some canned routines like the cube, which are not lies, but entertaining things. Eventually, you learn to talk about your TRUTHFUL self in an interesting way. IE "Hey what do you do for a living?" "Oh i'm a programmer". Boring. Instead "Oh its really cool, we write software for ultrasound machines." I'm not best at that part, but you see where I'm going here, just finding a better way to present and talk about who you are. If I went out and practice, I'd have a much better line, cause I could see which one hits the widest audience better. Hell, I had this amazing story about some weird euro guy that was bugging us on the beach, I had to tell the story when I got back from vacation. The first time I told the story, it was too long, people lost interest. After I was running down the line of friends to talk to it, the story had been condensed to about 1/4th the length, hitting on the key points, and people were rolling. Not everybody can instictivly do that, and will go on putting people to sleep with the same old story.
Every PUA reading I've seen talks about honesty, it doesn't talk about working over 4 women at once, it talks about being honest with the women that you aren't going for something serious. And yes, many women still are ok with this. I have a friend who has no clue what PUA is, and he runs his life like this, and has plenty of women who have no problem with this at all.
I think the over hyped selling and outrageous bootcamp fees are all a sham, people trying to make a living praying on this inner need we all have to find sex. Most of the material that is worth it can be found pretty cheaply or for free with a little bit of googling. From there, like anything, the main point is you go out, get comfortable in the setting of choice, and keep trying.
I honestly think most people who pass judgment on PUA community are either young, or have been married and out of the 'dating scene' far too long to remember what it is like. Society tells us we have to be this certain way , and most people spend A LOT of time putting on that front to appear so, but the reality is that few people are REALLY like that, but to appear to be otherwise gets you flagged, much like members of the 'seduction community' are.
To hideously mangle your analogy, I think that the amount of fuel added to this particular fire is immaterial - it wouldn't have made the fire any worse than it already was. Anyway whilst I agree it's not a cut-and-dry question of how culpable the PUA's level of anti-female rhetoric was, I don't think it's serious enough to classify it as, say, a implicit incitement to violence. Saying outright that all women are selfish, petty and shallow - "and will toally be your adoring sex-slaves if you follow my advice!" - isn't on the same level as, say, "women are also dangerous and a threat to your safety, and soon there will be a gender war, not that I'm saying you ned to go kill people hurf durf". I'm pretty sure even the latter can't be legally classified as an incitement to violence (?), but I think everyone would agree that it would've been a significant factor in what Sodini did (it's a totally fictional example btw in case I didn't make that clear), whereas the relationship between the kind of PUA-talk exemplified in the former has a much more distant relationship to Sodini's state of mind.
Oh, yeah. I just used your phrase because I found it hilarious.
A friend of mine (anecdotes are not evidence, etc) goes out every single weekend looking for women. He's interested in relationships rather than hook-ups, so he doesn't take every opportunity... but he has an extremely low success rate. He told me that two weekends ago a girl came up to him at a club and said, "Hey, can I ask you a weird question? Are you here alone?" which lead to them talking until 1:30am and 2 follow-up dates. She wasn't really the kind of girl he'd have approached normally, and I doubt they're going to stay together (she's traumatized by horror movies, which are his biggest hobby) but just that much was enough to get something going which would never have happened otherwise.
After all, the PUA stuff basically says if you (by this meaning anybody - even someone who is mentally disturbed to the point of being a potential murderer) do x actions you'll become a bona fide ladykiller. This obviously wasn't working for Sodini and hadn't for about twenty years, so it's unsurprising that when reality didn't pan out like it was "supposed to" that his mental state continued to degrade to the point of mass murder.
Aah tell me you didn't go there deliberately
Anyway I certainly agree with you to that extent.
It was a complete accident, too.
I was so close to making a sig out of it.
So close.
One thing I've wondered is what happens to guys who become "model" PUAs when/if they get married or at least find a long-term girlfriend who they can admit being in love with. I wonder how much of that philosophy continues to pervade their thinking, especially if they find themselves with daughters to raise.
And playful and/or predatory manipulation of women is obviously misogynistic (hateful of women) because anytime we manipulate something, it's because we hates its! Oh yes, we hates the preciousesss.
Having this chair over by the wall will not do! Ha ha! I am putting you in the middle of the room to take advantage of the natural light flowing through the windows! Fuck you, chair! I'm not doing because of the natural light, I'm doing it because fuck-you-chair!
[/sarcasm]
Let's be honest.
The whole PUA thing is just snake oil. It's Dumbo's feather for 'late bloomers' (or to use the correct 21st century terminology 'social retard'). It's a little nudge in the right direction.
Decrying the whole PUA thing as misogynistic seems a bit off target. Of course there will be misogynistic undertones in something catering to guys who have no success with women. Whenever there's a personal problem, the tendency is to blame everyone except the person.
...Seriously? I'm entirely open to the possibility that I'm miscalculating the sarcasm tags. Okay...
Furniture metaphor. Jesus...
Yes, "predatory manipulation" of women is misogynistic. A woman is not an inanimate object like a chair to be displaced and used for your convenience (or for you to plant your ass on.) A serious honest-to-god furniture metaphor is just so ... I mean, GOD. slow clap sir, bravo.
It's misogynistic because manipulating someone into having sex with you is brutally unethical. It is fundatmentally disrespectful.
If your self-esteem is low and the only way you can conceive of to raise it is by manipulating someone you might otherwise care for into letting you use her body, there is something wrong with you. If you feel entitled to sex with someone, there is something wrong with you. If you measure your self esteem by how many women you've fucked, you're doing it wrong. Especially this PUA bullshit because a big side effect (if not a desired effect) is making someone else feel like shit, not appreciating that is really shortsighted.
It's misogynistic because the premise is built on the idea that women at a bar are only there for you to fuck, and that you're entitled to fuck them. Yes people do go to bars to hook up. They are not prizes to be won with your epic fucking wiles. They are human beings. Just because a girl at a bar may be looking to hook up does not entitle you to be her hook up, and if you are she probably isn't into being treated like trash. That's two things you have in common right off the bat. Build from there and you will both feel good about yourselves.
Selling yourself is icky. But it's also the kind of ickiness that is practically required in life, unless you happen to be such a hot commodity that the world beats a path to your door.
It would be nice if coupling had no economic component -- that scarcity and perceived value played no part.
You sir are jaded.
I don't think anybody here is getting very wound up about cold, hard facts like that dating can feel more like a job interview than a shot at love, as you seem to be alluding to. Hence I havn't seen people complaining about PUAs that talk about how to "charm" women or make yourself seem more appealing than you really are. We're talking about a large number of PUAs that teach unlucky or vulnerable men that women are superficial whores, and thus can and should be treated as such.
Manipulation implies disrespect and dishonesty.
I'm sure somebody would say "but dressing nice and smiling is a form of manipulation! You're doing these things just to elicit a certain response!" Well, maybe it is; if we really wanted to get into a semantic argument over the definition of "manipulation." The real issue is that dressing nice and smiling are neither disrespectful nor dishonest.
PUA stuff is often both. When it's not - as when it's encouraging young men to go out and socialize and be confident - it's perfectly fine. When it is - as when it's teaching men how to "neg" or to pretend like they're talent agents - then it's misogynist.
Like any kind of self-help crap, there are small kernels of truth scattered among PUA. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of pig shit.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I mean, I guess my point is -- this is not admirable behavior, obviously, but it's also not that different from women who teach unlucky or vulnerable women that men are violent thugs and thus can and should be treated as such.
It's pity party bullshit, of course, but that's something I have the luxury of saying since I've been off the market for a while now. I remember how hard it is to remain magnanimous when you feel like you're being undervalued by 'the other side'. Women and men both deal with that in their own ways.
Sure, it doesn't have the class of a nice meal with only strongly implied fornication, but I had to admire his frankness.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Is that what female-orientated PUAs do? I don't know.
And yeah there are a million reasons why men turn to these PUAs in the first place (hence the "unlucky" and "vulnerable").
The premise is startling - trying to reduce social relationships down to a series of iterations and treating women as objects to be won in a game. But it's not like that doesn't happen with either gender in a bar every day. It's just that some people are naturally better at it - it's natural baseball players taking issue with a mathematician trying to figure out the mathematically ideal way to throw a ball.
Now, the PUA types seem to mostly come up with the wrong conclusions - "negging" and the like isn't some universal approach to women, but instead something you keep doing until you find someone with low enough self esteem that they respond to it, or you have enough confidence that the girl likes you in spite of your goofy behavior.
I've never had problem finding dates and relationships with men or women, but then A) I'm 6"2, fit, and fairly attractive,
And, undoubtedly, they are creepy and sterile. But if someone isn't getting laid with what nature gave them, i'm not going to begrudge them the opportunity to learn new techniques to get mates, any more than I begrudge people for wearing make-up.
So while I don't think i'd ever try to use the PUA stuff, it seems unfair that we should deny people who could benefit from it the opportunity to study mechanically how to find love in a modern world where we have cut off the traditional opportunities that gave even very awkward and shy people social contact such that potential mates could get to know them better (e.g. church, the daily rhythms of small communities, civic groups).
I also think feminist bloggers have missed a broader point - while these previously-passive nerds and the like are taking up an approach that has misogynist baggage associated with it, they're much better than what many "outgoing" or "normal" men do to get sex, especially in college environments - introduce lots of booze and take advantage of women, either via the alcohol, their low self esteem, or date rape in the form of peer pressure or actual pharmacology. So while men are always going to try to figure out how to get sex from women, even a new, misogynist approach eschews non-consensual or pressure-based methods of getting it. The feministing article tries to link frustrated PUAs with violence - i'd think that people who were going to use some sort of violence were going to anyway, regardless of what seminars they attended. Violence against women and sexual violence have been constant companions to human civilization, so it's hard to show a causal link between that violence and anything new PUAs are arguably doing.
I re-discovered it when I turned 21 a few months ago. I thought it was still stupid...same stuff...different people...then I went to a night club for my 21st birthday...and felt stupid. People I introduced myself to felt kind of cruel, I was confident, I don't look too bad, am pretty fit. All night though I couldn't interact with people more than a few minutes. I thought people went to clubs to meet people...that night it seemed like it was just people going out with their friends.
I am definitely a lot more successful at talking to women outside of clubs, in lines, at coffee shops etc. but for some reason people act a lot different in clubs. I think that is what all of this seduction stuff is about mostly, is how to get girls looking for casual sex in clubs. Basically girls doing this have a large selection, and the tips and stuff seem to be a way to get to the top of their list. At the end of the day the girl is still the one choosing. I bet there are several seduction teachers who treat women as things. Most of what I read though said that women are the same as us, and that they should be treated as such, and that you shouldn't mis-represent yourself.
People in this thread keep relating it to rape, but that doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't hypnosis, the girl can always say no. I just see seduction advice as basically like style tips, a way to improve how you present yourself. It seems kind of similar to toastmasters and stuff like that actually, teaching and learning how to converse and interact in a more pleasing way, just it is specialized to a sexual nature.
I personally find no use for it, I figure if I can talk to women and date just fine outside of clubs then I don't need to go there unless it's actually just to mess around with the guys, I doubt I would have a date at a dance club...too many guys looking to get girls. But I do find some of the games and jokes I have read funny and cool. The cube is an awesome technique thing that I actually heard of again in my psych class.
The final thing that I find funny is that people who are 'ladies men' just do a lot of the stuff they do naturally. It is kind of like just peeling back layers of social tactics. I noticed my brother in law basically doing the same stuff I had read about on an ex girlfriend of his. He is married, but it just comes so naturally to him that even though he is married he still acts the same way. He doesn't think of women as 'things' it's just that the way he treats women is something that women find attractive.
I have no idea if any of this made sense...it's just I can see where the community is coming from, and what it is used for. And I felt the need to give my two cents. I believe this is what the seduction community calls supplicating
EDIT: Does this topic just make people want to pound keys? A lot of pretty long posts in this thread.
Both of them are pretty sleazy, especially if the male in the latter equation is mostly sober, but the former seems much more fucked up and cruel. There's more than a few parallels between supposed pick-up tactics and behaviors associated with domestic abusers - the careful manipulation of the other person's self-esteem and self-image being the most notable and disturbing. That's the reason most people - not just "feminist bloggers" - have issue with this subculture, not because it's "exclusively male".
I think one of us misunderstands the purpose of 'negging' I thought it was to make it look like you felt in a position to be critical of somebody, instead of the usual barrage of 'I love your dress' 'I love your shoes' 'I love your earrings' they probably usually get. It is just to make them not think you are another guy waiting to grovel at their feet.
And from what I remember (this was about 3 years ago, since I haven't seen anything about negging lately) it is only used when the girl is so gorgeous she is almost constantly being complemented by guys. And if saying you think somebodies earrings are too big is a 'calculated, premeditated and strategic way in order to make her feel underconfident and vulnerable' then you don't take criticism well.
There's a lot of good advice and information that doesn't involve lying or being disingenuous at all. In fact most of what I found said "don't lie, if you're not seeking commitment definitely don't lie about that," to paraphrase.
Edit: Also, what Interjection said about negging. It seems like this whole topic is everyone saying "OMG men making a science out of picking up women, that's gotta be sleazy" and then taking that to their worst imagined extremes. I mean, to be fair I'm sure the sleazy element of the PUA thing exists, and may be even the majority, and some of the stuff I read while deliberately trying to avoid "sleaze" did sound so clinical and manipulative that I was recalling Tom Cruise in Magnolia, but it was mixed in with genuinely good advice. "Seduction" community members seem to be all different types. And when talking about degrees of manipulation, the more you think about it the harder it is to draw a line because manipulative characteristics can be found in most social interactions.
Unless PUAs use the terms differently, that's not what negging is. Hell I make light jokes at a date's expense all the time (i.e. on every date I've been on, not throughout the whole date lol) to break up a particularly long strong of compliments. Negging is constantly undermining a girl's self-esteem (i.e. making her worry about whether her dress makes her look overweight, "accidently" mistaking a spot or mole for a food spill etc.) to make her think she's lucky to have someone interested in her, as if her date is the pinnacle of what she could possibly achieve.
Yeah, I think most people have a problem with negging, and see it as a form of misogyny. I just did a search and apparently the community feels somewhat similarly and that it isn't really a good idea anymore. Really having a method at all is kind of falling out of style in the seduction community it seems.
Personally though I have never had a problem being honest about stuff. And I do find those giant hoop earrings ridiculous. And if I am being honest I don't see it as misogyny. Really I have only said it to friends/girlfriends before.
Quoting a thing that I just looked up to make sure
To me it seems like the point isn't to make them seem inferior or vulnerable. Just to make them feel like you are "disinterested in her beauty."
Nobody thinks you should constantly insult a girl. It's called light teasing...we did this as kids...once you grow up it is how people usually flirt. My god I remember my sisters friend from college and me going back and forth...she said how crazy that I was a nerd and owned a black velvet blazer, so I said how crazy that she is a college party chick who visits 4chan. It's just teasing each other...it's not constantly trying to hurt her confidence.