This feels like such a cliche question to which everyone figured out the answer years ago, but it’s not. Dudes are still asking this as I type. Alex on Yahoo Answers said:
Women always talk about how they want a guy to be nice to them, but whenever i try this I get friendzoned. I’m seriously thinking that being a total d-bag towards women is the way to get them, because a lot of my friends treat women like crap, but do well with them. I always respect and try to understand women, and they tell me that I’m so sweet and cute. THEN they tell me about this guy they like who I know for a fact is a total d-bag. BAM immediate friendzone!! I’m not the best looking, but I’m definitely not totally ugly, and I’m pretty short for my age. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I’m just gonna start being a jerk to women, because I know being nice to them will just make me “a sweet guy”. Will it ever change as I get older? I’m in high school. Do women even care about personality, because I’m starting to think they’re even shallower than we are. help me!!!
Okay, I’ll help you. First, you’re in high school and you’re presumably talking about girls who are also in high school, yet you call them “women.” Stop this! It’s weird and indicates that you deliberately misinterpret the behavior of these strange creatures. Women do not generally whine about wanting guys to be nice to them. This is something girls do.
If there’s one thing you need to know about girls it’s that they’re full of shit. Girls don’t talk to inform or convey ideas. They talk to handle and express their emotions. Their words are not to be taken seriously or literally. When she says she wants a guy to be nice, she’s expressing frustration with a guy not being nice, and if she weren’t into this guy, she wouldn’t be frustrated about it.
Girls are generally as clueless as you are about social dynamics and what they’re actually attracted to. Female humans are attracted to males with social status. Strength, power, wealth, popularity, dressing like a clown, and not giving a shit are things that convey this status. High school girls don’t understand this. They may actually want a guy who is nice without realizing that a nice guy does nothing for them. If there’s a difference between girls and women, it’s that women have a firmer grasp on who does and who doesn’t make them moist and why, and they’re also more apt to laugh at the sillier traits that work so well on younger chicks.
When a girl says you’re sweet or cute (to your face), she’s expressing the emotion she feels when she sees basket of kittens, except that you’re not actually that cute. She feels comfortable using words like this at you because they’re superficially good words. It sounds like a compliment, but, as you seem to realize, she’s actually expressing that she couldn’t even imagine liking you like that. The best course of action when you hear such words is to protest loudly and prove such accusations wrong. A completely inappropriate ass-slap during a heart-felt hug would be one way to do this. Pulling your dick out is probably ill-advised, but at least you don’t have to worry about going to real jail if you’re under 18.
Alex, things will change. Girls get a bit more sensible as they get older and become women, but this is not something you should wait or plan for. A 35 year-old woman can be shockingly childish. The big thing that will change is you. Even if you avoid actively bettering yourself with the ladyfolk, you’ll still manage to get laid by accident here and there and that will change your outlook enough to do okay.
-You have great eyes.
-Thanks! Everyone says that!
-Probably because it’s true. They stand out, you know.
-Yeah…
-Actually they’re quite awful and everyone says they’re nice because lies make the best compliments
-REALLY!?! (with a face that says ,”Oh no, are you serious?”)
-No, they’re actually fantastic.
I don’t know that lies are actually the best compliments, but that sounds about right, doesn’t it? Have you ever heard a girl say to another, “Oh my God! I love your hair!” and thought, “Really? There’s no way her hair looks better now than it did before she paid someone lunatic to butcher it like that.” These compliments come out automatically. The first girl doesn’t think about what she should say, she just knows that the other girl “needs” to feel good about the change she made, and the worse the change the greater the need. The second girl might understand that this is just a lie to make her feel good, but she doesn’t care because it still works. The intent is to make her feel good (positive) and not to deceive (negative). This is very alien to me and probably most males.
It’s a bit different when the lie-compliment comes from a heterosexual male because the intent is suspect, but I’ve witnessed success with this. However, I couldn’t lie about shit like this to save my life. I wander through life making factual statements that are either interpreted as compliments, insults, or confusion. This might not be the most effective game, but it’s a happy way to experience life, and it can work quite well if you handle the responses well, as above.
In Part 1, we got halfway through this article that was written by Charlotte Allen and published in the Weekly Standard. We left off with the speculation that by evolutionary psychologists that monogamy is not natural for men or women.
All of this is obviously pure speculation, if imaginatively rendered and bolstered by anthropological observations of hunter-gatherer societies today.
…evolutionary psychology offers a persuasive explanation for many things that we are supposed to pretend are culturally conditioned: that the natures of men and women are fundamentally different and that, pace Naomi Wolf and the cougar-empowerment movement, women don’t get sexier as they get older, at least not in the eyes of the man sitting on the next barstool. Youth and beauty are markers of fertility.
Evolutionary psychology also provides support for a truth universally denied: Women crave dominant men. And it seems that where men are forbidden to dominate in a socially beneficial way—as husbands and fathers, for example—women will seek out assertive, self-confident men whose displays of power aren’t so socially beneficial. This game of sexual Whack-a-Mole is played regularly these days in a culture that, starting with children’s schoolbooks and moving up through films and television, targets as oppressors and mocks as bumblers the entire male
I think the fact that his truth is universally denied causes a great deal of suffering, mostly in men. When a wife stops finding her husbands sexually attractive, the common reaction for the husband is to become even less attractive by attempting to satisfy the increasing demands of his wife. In a futile attempt to make her happy, he attempts to do what she says would actually make her happy, allowing her to completely dominate him. The wife need not understand what’s happening at all. She may well fixate on issues that really don’t matter unaware of what truly motivates her to feel as she does, or she may be highly aware that the real problem is that her husband’s a pussy.
This is probably good marketing, but submissive husbands need to understand that a car will not solve their problem.
It’s increasingly common for women to air their husbands’ perceived faults to both their friends and the general public. There is now an entire blog, My Husband Is Annoying, in which an anonymous wife and her guests post pictures of the schlubs they married and freely criticize their beards, sleeping habits, irritating questions, and dopey poses in photos. Slate’s Hanna Rosin called her husband a “kitchen bitch” because he had dared to cook dinner from a recipe that she wanted to try herself. The Atlantic’s Sandra Tsing Loh, going through a divorce because she found her husband less romantic than her adulterous lover, detailed the personal and sexual failings of her friends’ spouses—in print.
Wives who look down at their husbands are going to leave them for men who “make them feel like women” or some such language that their victims won’t be able to make sense of. Decades ago, the social and material costs of divorce were much greater, and simple dissatisfaction was not a legally sufficient cause for divorce. Unsatisfied women were much less likely to leave, but with men being men and all, they were probably less likely to be unsatisfied.
Wives have historically reported less satisfaction from their marriages than husbands, but according to the National Marriage Project’s latest report, their discontent is growing: fewer than 60 percent of wives report that they are “very happy” in their marriages, in contrast to more than 66 percent in 1973. “Women initiate two-thirds of divorces,” W. Bradford Wilcox, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, told me.
That doesn’t seem a huge difference, although I’d like to see what that number would’ve been in 1957. She briefly mentions the reduced costs of divorce and how the percentage of children growing up in fatherless households has increased from 9 to 26 percent since 1960. Then, she explains her article’s title:
In The Mating Mind, Geoffrey Miller wrote:
Our ancestors probably had their first sexual experiences soon after reaching sexual maturity. They would pass through a sequence of relationships of varying durations over the course of a lifetime. Some relationships might have lasted no more than a few days. . . . Many Pleistocene mothers probably had boyfriends. But each woman’s boyfriend may not have been the father of any of her offspring. . . . Males may have given some food to females and their offspring, and may have defended them from other men, but . . . anthropologists now view much of this behavior more as courtship effort than paternal investment.
That’s a pretty fair description of mating life today in the urban underclass and the meth-lab culture of rural America. Take away the offspring, blocked by the Pill and ready abortion, and it’s also a pretty fair description of today’s prolonged singles scene. In other words, we have met the Stone Age, and it is us.
There are some fairly important differences in terms of economics, but I tend to agree with this. This is important because monogamy, an invention of man, seems to have played a major role in the development of Western civilization. It’s not exactly Lord of the Flies yet, but the social order is in a mild-to-moderate state of chaos.
Living in the New Paleolithic can be hard on women, many of whom party on merrily until they reach age 30 and then panic. “They’re at the peak of their beauty in their early 20s—they’re luscious—but the guys their age don’t look as good, so they say to themselves: ‘Why do I want to get married?,’ ” notes Kay Hymowitz, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, who is writing a book about the singles crisis. “Then they get to age 28, 29, and their fertility goes down and they’re not quite so luscious. But the guys their age are starting to make money, they look better, they’ve got self-assurance, and they’ve also got the pick of the 23-year-olds.”
This is something I think the 23-year-olds need to realize. Go ahead, do what you want now, but know that your actions will have consequences.
Some argue, though, that it is actually beta men who are the greatest victims of the current mating chaos: the ones who work hard, act nice, and find themselves searching in vain for potential wives and girlfriends among the hordes of young women besotted by alphas. That is the underlying message of what is undoubtedly the most deftly written and also the darkest of the seduction-community websites, the blog Roissy in DC…
Do I have any readers who don’t like Roissy? I would expect so; though he writes well, the pictures he paints are uglier than what many people care to see. He has a tendency to exaggerate, generalize, and keep things simple. It’s an effective style that appeals at least as much to emotion as it does to reason.
His blog combines Darwinian analysis, harshly hilarious commentary about the current erotic landscape…, and a sense of impending social meltdown as the family crumbles and beta men are increasingly denied access to women.
Yes, there is a sense I’m getting from multiple sources that more violence is forthcoming from the undersexed and overtaxed.
Roissy’s blog is an unflinching look at female nature at its very worst: the acquisitiveness, the narcissism, the self-absorption, the selfishness, the superficiality, the brainlessness, the wayward lust as powerful as any man’s.
He holds women, especially young attractive women, accountable, something few others dare to do. For that, he’s been called “worse than Tucker Max.”
If Roissy has anything resembling a mentor, it is F. Roger Devlin. …Devlin deftly uses theories of evolutionary psychology to argue that the sexual revolution was essentially aimed at restoring primate-style hypergamy to human females and freeing women to try to capture the attention of and mate with the alpha males of their choosing instead of remaining chaste until their early marriage to a decent and hard-working beta.
And then she ties it all together:
…“Monogamy is a form of sexual optimization,” Devlin told me. “It allows as many people who want to get married to do so. Under monogamy, 90 percent of men find a mate at least once in their life.” This isn’t necessarily so anymore in today’s chaotic combination of polygamy for lucky alphas, hypergamy in varying degrees for females depending on their sex appeal, and, at least in theory, large numbers of betas left without mates at all—just as it is in baboon packs. The aim of Mystery-style game is to give those betas better odds.
It could also be argued that the growth of the pick-up community, particularly where “natural game” is concerned, is an attempt defeminize men, a rebellion against the new social order, a far more effective rebellion than a black Dodge with a great-sounding exhaust.
Devlin may be spot-on when he writes, “The female sexual revolution, as typified by Helen Gurley Brown of Cosmo, amounted to a program of getting women to follow all their worst instincts” or “Part of the folk wisdom of all ages and peoples has been that sexual attraction is an inadequate basis for matrimony.”
I think that’s a good rule. After this she touches on how underneath all this “misogyny” lies a significant amount of possibly justifiable of anger and resentment toward heartless ex-wives, absent and pussified fathers, irresponsible mothers, and the new social order.
Roissy often writes of a coming “apocalypse,” a thorough collapse of civilization thanks to the stalling of its reproductive matrix. Right now marriage as an institution is still reasonably intact—but mostly for the demographically shrinking educated classes. The decision to halt the advance of the New Paleolithic ultimately lies with women, the mate-choosing sex, just as it lay with women to bring the hypergamous sexual revolution into being. What are the chances of that? “Women have been told for so long that it doesn’t matter what they do [sexually],” one of Roissy’s regular commenters, an Ottawa historian who goes by the online name of Alias Clio, said in a telephone interview. “I don’t think [the female sexual free-for-all] has been good for women, but it’s what they’ve chosen. And it’s always hard for women to see beyond the personal level.”
I don’t entirely agree that the choice is up to women. Men who see the new way as a problem in need of fixing can do more than just sit around waiting to see what women decide. We can choose to hold women accountable. Men played a role in the sexual revolution. They went along with it because free sex sounded like a good idea. What we can do today is hold women accountable for their actions. We can tell them what to do (like Cosmo does now). Fathers can be present in their daughters’ lives and lock them up when they’re not in school. We can quit believing and quit telling them that we’re fine with whatever they choose to do. Expectant grandparents can refuse to financially support irresponsible single daughters who insist on poorly raising their own sex-trophies. Men can also refrain from sexually abusing young girls. I suppose most men already know not to do that and those who do aren’t going to stop because I said so, but as a long time follower of Dr. Drew Pinsky, I think few appreciate the abundance and significance of early childhood trauma.
The whole point of the sexual and feminist revolutions was to obliterate the sexual double standard that supposedly stood in the way of ultimate female freedom. The twin revolutions obliterated much more, but the double standard has reemerged in a harsher, crueler form: wreaking havoc on beta men and on beta women, too, who, as the declining marriage rate indicates, have trouble finding and securing long-term mates in a supply-saturated short-term sexual marketplace. Gorgeous alpha women fare fine—for a few years until the younger competition comes of age. But no woman, alpha or beta, seems able to escape the atavistic preference of men both alpha and beta for ladylike and virginal wives (the Darwinist explanation is that those traits are predictors of marital fidelity, assuring men that the offspring that their spouses bear are theirs, too). And every aspect of New Paleolithic mating culture discourages the sexual restraint once imposed on both sexes that constituted a firm foundation for both family life and civilization.
The double-standard existed for a reason, and because it is rooted in our differing genetic traits, it can only be modified and shifted around. I’ve mentioned before that there is a corollary to the slut/stud double-standard is the virgin double-standard. Virginity, while an attractive trait in women, is not an attractive trait in men. In modern times (now and prior to the sexual revolution), men of high status who get caught cheating on their wives are not heroes.
That’s about it for the article. I went through it all, but there’s a lot of detail I didn’t include here. One thought I have is that Ms. Allen may have tied everything together a bit too well. Social upheaval may well be on the horizon, but sexual frustration is not the only cause. We didn’t get to where we are today from feminism alone. We’ve had several generations partially raised by state-run schools, with each subsequent generation less prepared to raise their own children than the one prior. A significant portion of population also relies on the state for material support, negating the need for fathers. With more and more children in single-parent homes, I strongly suspect that child abuse, particularly of the sexual nature, has increased. Early childhood trauma changes the way the brain develops and leads to pathological behavior latter in life. Also, she never mentioned anything about mens’ rights activism or the MGTOW movement.
Thanks to Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide, I just discovered a shockingly good article that was published in the Weekly Standard on February 15. For several years, I have understood the Weekly Standard to be the newsletter that defines the ideology of and apologizes for neoconservatives. I never expected to find anything in this rag that I would actually recommend to anyone to thoroughly read and take seriously. I had only expected stuff like this excerpt from “Bush’s Achievements: Ten Things Bush Got Right” by Fred Barnes:
[George W. Bush] deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there’s an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That–defiantly doing the right thing–is what distinguished his presidency.
Considering Bush’s extremely low popularity when he left office, I would expect this to sound ridiculous to even conservatives, at least to any self-described conservative that might read my blog. Although, I don’t actually disagree with all ten items in that list. Looking at the front page of the Weekly Standard’s website, I’m wondering if they might have become a somewhat more reasonable since the government became their enemy again.
The article that I am so impressed with is titled, “The New Dating Game: Back to the New Paleolithic Age“, and was written by Charlotte Allen. It is an extremely well-written look into how dating and mating has drastically changed in the United States and how the pick-up community and related blogs have emerged as a result. It is very detailed and says much of what I’ve been wanting and trying to say since I started this page. It also says a lot more that I didn’t already know. The author writes about Mystery, Tucker Max, F. Roger Devlin, and Roissy in DC. She even interviewed the last two, and displays an ability to tie everything together that I envy. She is so matter-of-fact and dispassionate, that it’s hard to believe this was published in a conservative journal or that it was written by a woman (considering the topic). I’ll dig into it a little, but you really should read the whole thing for yourself, even though it might take more than a few minutes. At 12 e-pages, it is lengthy, but it does not wander (as my writings do) or repeat itself.
She first talks about the feminist view that there should be no slut/stud double standard and that young women (and not so young women) are now behaving accordingly.
[Feminist writer, Naomi] Wolf devoted her 1997 book Promiscuities to trying to remove the stigma from . . . promiscuity. On the one hand, she decried the double-standard unfairness of labeling a girl who fools around with too many boys a “slut,” and, on the other, she lionized “the Slut” (her capitalization) as the enviable epitome of feminist freedom and feminist transgression against puritanical social norms. Wolf’s point of view is today mainstream.
[...]
Wolf’s op-ed in the Guardian praised the uninhibited sexual “self-expression” of the four female leads in Sex and the City, especially the 40-something Samantha (hitting 50 in the 2008 movie), who, during the six seasons that the series ran, racked up nearly as many sex partners (41) as her three coleads combined—and Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte were no slouches themselves in the quickie department. “Did not thousands of young women . . . breathe a sigh of relief or even liberation watching Samantha down another tequila, unrepentantly ogle the sex god at the end of the bar, and get richer and more beautiful with age, with no STDs or furies pursuing her?,” Wolf gushed.
Urban life, furthermore, turns out to imitate Sex and the City. A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.
As might be expected, many males would like to help themselves at this overladen buffet. But there’s a problem: While it’s a truism that the main beneficiaries of the sexual revolution are men, it is only some men: the Tucker Maxes, with the good looks, self-confidence, and swagger that enable them to sidle up successfully to a gaggle of well turned-out females in a crowded and anonymous club where the short-statured, the homely, the paunchy, the balding, and the sweater-clad are, if not turned away outside by the bouncer, ignominiously ignored by the busy, beautiful people within.
One thing to note is that the changes in social dynamics over recent decades are apparently most pronounced in the most urban areas.
She continues:
Out of such anxiety was born the “seduction community,” part band of brothers, part nakedly commercial and ferociously competitive business enterprise.
[...]
A UCLA graduate and former comedy writer who calls himself Ross Jeffries devised a hypnosis-based technique he calls “neuro-linguistic programming” that formed the basis of his 1992 book, How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed.
[...]
Jeffries’s most famous pupil is …Mystery. … Mystery’s identity transformation was the most thorough, successful, and influential. His 2007 book,The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed, is probably the most widely read of the seduction manuals, and a Mystery-hosted reality series,The Pickup Artist, ran for two seasons on VH1 in 2007-08.
I didn’t realize this. For what it’s worth, I don’t actually know much about Mystery and have never seen his show, but I have noticed that his name is highly regarded. I didn’t know his adventures began when he read a book.
In the late 1990s, Mystery developed a precise and exacting “algorithm” of moves and routines—pre-scripted lines to be practiced in the field—that are virtually guaranteed (according to Mystery at least) to lure a female into your bed after just seven hours in her company from a cold turkey meeting in a public place. And an ultra-good-looking female to boot. …The fundamental strategy is to “demonstrate higher value”, to appear so fascinating that the woman will want to prove her worthiness to you, not the other way around. You don’t buy her a drink; you offer to let her buy you one. You don’t give her your phone number; you get her to give you hers, in what Mystery calls a “number closing.” If she asks you what you do for a living, you don’t mention the drone desk job that you actually hold down; you tell her you “repair disposable razors” (the choice of a Mystery disciple). You “peacock” (yet another Mystery coinage), which means donning outlandish, attention-grabbing attire. Mystery’s signature peacocking wardrobe includes a black fur bucket hat and matching black nail polish and eyeliner. On The Pickup Artist, he sported a seemingly inexhaustible supply of exotic headgear and man-baubles.
[...]
If it all sounds cheesy, tedious, manipulative, obvious, condescending to women, maybe kind of gay, it’s because it is. But here’s the rub: This stuff works. If you think men who peacock look ridiculous and unmanly, click onto the photo-website Hot Chicks With Douchebags, where spectacular-looking babes hang on the pecs of preening rednecks and “Jersey Shore”-style guidos sporting chest-baring shirts and product-stiffened fauxhawks.
Yes, this is true. If you want to enrage clueless “nice guys”, show them those pictures.
Maybe the top guy actually looks alpha in a male’s eyes, but most of these guys look like clowns. It used to bother me to see this, maybe it still does somewhat, but it’s part of life. Back to the article:
Pickup mentors are relying, consciously or sub, on the principles of evolutionary psychology, which uses Darwinian theory to account for human traits and practices. Robert Wright introduced the reading public to evolutionary psychology in his 1994 book, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are. He summarized what biologists had observed in the field: that among animals—and especially among our closest relatives, the great apes—males often fight each other for females and so the most dominant, or “alpha,” male has access to the most desirable, and perhaps all, of the females. But it’s the female of the species who ultimately makes the choice as to which member of the pack she will deem the alpha male. “Females are choosy in all the great ape species,” Wright wrote. He also noted that, for example, a female gorilla will be faithful—forced into fidelity, actually—to a single dominant male, but she will willingly desert him for a rival male who impresses her with his superior dominance by fighting with her mate.
[...]
Evolutionary psychologists postulate that the same physical and psychological drives prevail among modern humans: Men, eager for replication, are naturally polygamous, while women are naturally monogamous—but only until a man they perceive as of higher status than their current mate comes along. Hypergamy—marrying up, or, in the absence of any constrained linkage between sex and marriage, mating up—is a more accurate description of women’s natural inclinations. Long-term monogamy—one spouse for one person at one time—may be the most desirable condition for ensuring personal happiness, accumulating property, and raising children, but it is an artifact of civilization, Western civilization in particular. In the view of many evolutionary psychologists, long-term monogamy is natural for neither men nor women.
I’m just about shocked that this is in the Weekly Standard. I think this is enough for now. I’m right at the halfway point and will finish up in a day or two with her assessment of Devlin.
I don’t exactly consider myself a member of this community, but I’ve watched it for a while and learned a few things. The modern community was born on the internet. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know who really started it, but I believe it began on a usenet newsgroup. Usenet, since nobody seems know this, is an older internet protocol for message boards with all the technical sophistication of e-mail. I’ve read some of the old posts that are archived at fastseduction.com, and they seemed to consist guys trying different things to improve their success with women and sharing the results. A lot of learning took place. Some of the guys that are making lots of money on seminars and “bootcamps” today started there.
I think the seriousness with which some guys take this stuff and the complexity of their jargon is a bit silly, and it’s crazy that people spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on books, DVD’s, seminars, and one-on-one training. However, I understand how frustrating and devastating the world can be for a man who has little to no success with women, and I know that some dudes have a bit more disposable income than I do. I know someone who once spent over a grand on a pre-internet “computer dating service” and had very limited success. George Sodini recently went on a homicidal rampage where he targeted only women after 19 years without sex. I’ve seen some pretty serious frustration in people I know. Sexless life for a man with hormones is basically a fate worse than death, so I suppose I can understand why some dudes might shell out a few bucks to remedy the situation. Still, I think it’s pretty nuts when tons of good information is available on the web for free.
The first problem with the community is that it exists outside the paradigm of equality of the sexes. The claims of feminism are rejected, even laughed at. It doesn’t say that men are better than women, but it does say, very loudly, that we are different, a lot different. This is important because it’s something that modern males don’t really seem to understand. Sure, they may have noticed that girls cry more and like the color pink more than them, but many of the most important differences are not nearly as apparent. Often, a guy with unsatisfactory success with women will blame his looks, foolishly thinking that looks are as important to women as they are to men. Without evidence to the contrary, a guy automatically assumes that the female mind works like his own. Young men are not learning this from their parents or teachers, nor do most of them learn it on their own, so the community serves a noble purpose. We are different and for acknowledging that, the community is branded as sexist.
The other problem is that it’s all about manipulating the pants off of girls through dishonest trickery. It really isn’t. Okay, there are “tricks” and there are certain bullshit games that can be played, but this is not a necessary component. A man can have game without lying or resorting to any sort of dirty tricks. It’s not necessarily about getting laid right now either. It’s about being attractive to women. I’ve never actually seen VH1′s pick-up artist, but I have seen a trailer. If you’ve seen the losers on that show, you should understand what they’re looking for.
A little while ago, in a thread called “How to hit on girls” I posted a hidden camera video of a PUA meeting a girl on the sidewalk during the day. They were making out within 10 minutes. This sparked some hostility toward me and the PUA community.
The PUA thing is all about manipulating very young women with low self-esteem or boulders rolling around in their skulls into sex. They advise the “neg,” a backhanded compliment (insult) to “take her off her pedestal.” And not-so-subtle techniques like touching a woman’s arm, if she withdraws, ignore her. If she responds positively, give her more attention. Seriously, all that’s missing is snausages and a whistle.
No. It’s not about young women. It’s about attractive women, which often happen to be rather young but not necessarily. Low self-esteem is not required at all. Game works on all women. Sure, there are a lot of tricks and things that will work better on the younger ones, but the basic core is universal. The infamous neg is how a guy can get a girl to question her relative value. The goal is to bring her down to his level, so it’s really only useful on those who see themselves as being above the crowd of guys hit on them. It’s not about making her feel bad, and if he does that, he did it wrong.
And PUA’s basic teaching boils down to treating women as if they’re magical beasts guarding the kingdom of pussy. Defeat the beast, get the pussy.
Actually, this is the way guys naturally see things. PUA’s actually try to deprogram this thinking.
PUA’s “quality women” are young (early twenties), heart-achingly beautiful (they call them a 9+), have self-esteem issues, and are devastatingly naive. It’s a very specific group of women.
I see. For eons, men and boys have rated girls on the 1-10 scale. The most impressive thing a PUA can do in front of a young beta student is approach a 9 or 10 and have success. Looks are the primary thing that attract males to females, but I would not judge someone as a “quality woman” based only on looks. I can’t speak with authority on how that term is used within the community, but quality implies relationship material, which requires a lot more than looks.
Now by all means, if that is what you want, go forth and get it. I bear you no ill will, and don’t think you’re a jerk for knowing the sort of woman you want and going for it.
What bugs me about this is that you just say things like “good with women” as if we’re all the same exact thing, and not really people, but magical creatures who have to be unlocked with a magical key. PUA works with some women. It doesn’t work with all women. Same goes for that awful BS “The Rules” which is all about manipulating men (they refer to dating profiles as their “lobster traps” and completely dehumanize men in the same way. Um, “yay equality?”) It only works on a specific type of man, not all. The Rules treats men as magical beasts guarding the kingdom of the Amex platinum card.
One of the first things I understand about human females is how different they are from one another. However, the core, pick-up artistry is universal. If you
Rules Girls and PUA guys should get together and make lots of manipulative, sexist children. That would be awesome.
If recognizing the differences between the sexes is sexist, that would, in fact, be awesome. We should all be a bit more sexist.
Be honest, PUA stands for Pick Up Artist. It’s not Long-term Relationship Artist. Women are people, just as diverse in what they want and who they are as men.
Women are more diverse than men in almost every area. The art is useful and even necessary for relationships, particularly with American women. A man needs to be a certain way to get a girl and he needs to keep being that way to keep her. I don’t like that things are this way, but they are.
I just wish you’d stop referring to your “quality women” as women in general. That’s the part that makes you sound like jerks for painting us all with the same brush.
Who me? When I refer to women in general, I’m talking about women in general.
The following is a response to A message to young women by Hope. She posted a comment on Roissy’s blog, and I don’t think she really gets it. The thing I noticed about her post is that she gives a bunch of advice, commands really, to young women without any explanation as to why they should listen, let alone do as she says. I get the feeling that Hope wants girls to learn the lessons that she had to learn the hard way, but that could be a misread.
Now, I like to advise young men to avoid the military and not to get married. However, there is absolutely no talking a guy out of either of these things if he’s already made up his mind. The best I can do is scare the crap out of him. Reason will not work. Hell, that’s another piece of advice I like to give everyone – it is very difficult to change someone’s mind with reason. Sure, you can technically win a debate and perhaps persuade a third party, but almost all modern humans are immune to logic when it contradicts whatever the hell they feel like believing. Hope doesn’t even try that. She just tells people what to do. I don’t get that.
She’s telling girls to stay away from men who “play the field.”
Men will always find beautiful women attractive. But…
Is this really so regrettable? Men are attracted to attractive women and women are attracted to attractive men. How terrible is this? It seems to have served the species well once upon a time. Of course, this is unfortunate for unattractive people, but it is not a bad for women in general or men in general.
…upstanding men will take care of their women and family, and will not jeopardize their monogamous relationships for a quick fling. The trick is distinguishing between the honorable, loving and committed kind of men from the kind that only see women as sex objects.
There’s a false dilema here. It is quite possible to be upstanding and honorable without being monogamous or committed to anyone in particular. I don’t know exactly what it means to see women only as sex objects. My image of someone who sees women that way is a guy who fantasizes about women when he pleasures himself, but doesn’t seem to know how to interact with them in real life or that, like us, they’re people too. The player is less preoccupied with sex and may well enjoy interaction with the fairer sex for it’s own sake rather than as a means to an end, though not necessarily. Some, may well be sex addicts with little interest in the person they’re fucking, but I think many are more addicted to women themselves than anything else. I really take issue with the way she seperates men into the committed and the players, as if all single dudes are “playing the field”, like there something wrong with a guy who’s not in a serious relationship, never mind that the guy could have been totally committed to a woman who got bored with him and left him.
Some men base their morality on self-interest and believe that women are inherently inferior to men. They justify their views on women not with reason but with feelings sprung from their groins. Such men are opportunists. They prey on women who believe they have no personal worth outside of their physical appearance, and who will meekly submit to any man showing a bit of dominance and status.
Do not fall for them. Do not believe their lies.
Apparently, this is her description of a player. Pick-up, it seems, is necessarily some sort of immoral trickery, and to practice it is to see women as inferior. Certainly, there are ethically objectionable methods of picking up women, but the whole game is not automatically evil. God is not so cruel. At the most superficial level, pick-up is about lines, tricks, and gimmicks. Mainly it’s the skill of being attractive to women. At the deepest level, it’s almost a self-help thing – becoming a better version of yourself. The tricks are seen as a crutch.
Stay away from men who refuse to acknowledge that women have inherent worth outside of sex, who cannot see the inner beauty that exist within the tender, sweet, intelligent women who possess a great deal of personal depth.
Dear ladies, if a man only values you for sex, he’s clearly not a keeper. However, if all men only value you for sex, you’re not a keeper. Women are just as capable of being worthless as men, although the consequences are less severe. I sense some hostility toward the hot girls, as it apparently a virtue to be attracted to women who have all the positive traits that aren’t physical beauty.
She goes on, telling girls not to be slutty…
Ignore men who are so focused on outward appearances and who insist on all women putting out all the time. They mistake the world as a giant “meet them, use them and dump them” club.
[...] Some men might want emotionless sex, but many women do not — many men do not either! Is sex important? Absolutely. But don’t settle for sex with men who just want to use you for your body.
Why not? I’m not arguing that girls ought to be sluts, but I really want to know why she thinks they shouldn’t. What are the consequences?
She goes on telling girls to exercise and to learn how to cook clean, to not dress slutty, and to look for men who are not slutty and superficial. Great! Wifey stuff!
Recent Comments