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.
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.
EDIT: Continued in Part 2