In case you aren’t ready to agree that, contrary to classic feminist theory** the dominant paradigm puts women in the “no-sex” class rather than the sex class then Holly of The Pervocracy has the goods.
Bruno just sent me a wonderful booklet on how any guy can learn the secrets to “getting” lots of women, and I figured that was worth a post…
Anyway, damned if I’m going to read 90 pages of this shit, but the general gist is that women need to be tricked into “giving up” affection and sex and being a manipulative little weaselboy is the height of studliness. Implicit in this, of course, is what Figleaf would call “the no-sex class”—the ridiculous belief that women don’t want sex for the same regular horny reasons as men, and therefore will only have sex if tricked or somehow paid. I’ve heard variations of this belief in a million places and it always drives me insane, because, well, I’m really horny. And of course I’m not horny for all people or at all times, but when I’m not, payment won’t help. Pay me enough and I’ll fake it, but I cannot be paid or tricked into feeling horny.
But why make fun of the underlying assumption when there’s so much to be made fun of in the book?
Seriously! You look at the stuff Holly’s pointing to and you just gotta ask with anti-feminist friends like that why would anyone believe feminism is the enemy!
Extra credit from Holly
Holly’s Two-Step Pick-Up Magic:
1. Say hi to a woman. Talk to her like you’d talk to a human being.
(1a. This will not always work, and not always lead to `. This is not because you lack some asset or skill, it’s because she didn’t wanna. Don’t take it personally and try again.)
2. Once you’ve gotten to know her a little better, continue to treat her like a human being. The panties will melt down her leg, I tell ya.
The comment thread is pretty marvelous too.
The whole “PUA” thing just gives me the giant creeps because other human beings aren’t a goddamn game, goddamnit. You don’t want to make a girl feel like you’re her friend, you want to be her friend.
And, from Dw3t-Hthr, who blogs at Letters from Gehenna
I posted, a while back at Taking Steps, about how some of the Nice Guy Tee-Em types seem to think women are some kind of arcade game. Put in the cheat code, get laid. Only the cheat code doesn’t work on this woman like it did on the last one, it must be broken.
[** Critical note: The “no-sex” class theory merely restates classic feminist theory to better fit men’s experience of it. It does not otherwise refute or invalidate feminist theory. —fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sat, 2008-04-12 18:57.
Yes, because a bunch of female polyamorous Goddess-worshipper BDSM-ers in their early 20s can stare right at an artifact in which MEN detail THEIR prescription for/reaction to heterosexual mating in our society and come up with...snark. Forgive me for thinking that the problem is that it's SWMs talking, and that another fetish (even scat, say) would meet with a great deal more tolerance. DYD, the particular system Holly critiqued, is traditional masculinity as fetish, it's primarily a sorting system for sussing out women who want to participate in traditional femininity on their way to coupling. And yes, it's dehumanizing, but so is the process of approaching 50 women a week and getting one phone number--decisions made with incomplete information are always going to be (to a certain extent) stereotypical, short-sighted, and dehumanizing.
I'm beginning to understand your take on standpoint theory, fl: "Women's standpoint is correct." I admit that PU is rather creepy and lurid (you don't know the half of the early hypnosis-powered stuff, and some of the publishers have pulped the really grotty bits) but I feel more than a little bit defensive about MY freak subculture being critiqued by "The Pervocracy." Then again, "The Seduction Community" is an even MORE ludicrous name. DYD is indicative of where things stood in the mid 90s, but I can assure you that things have softened and mellowed since then, and there are those who swear by the kind of slow-building rapport that Holly outlines.
[No, the weird thing is it's *not* that women are correct! Whether they are or aren't is almost beside the point. This is about what *we* keep trying to tell ourselves and whether *we're* right. The snark has more to do with failure to be recognized (Think how many used-car customers are eager to come back given the way car sales guys behave towards us. We'd be *happy* to buy the flipping car, we just don't want to leave every time feeling like we were robbed -- even when we weren't!) Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sat, 2008-04-12 22:30.
The problem with the "traditional gender roles as a fetish" argument is that, unlike (e.g.) BDSM, it's not made explicit who's participating and who's not - and therein lies the problem. If game-playing were limited to the people who opted in, that'd be one thing (specifically, it'd be one of those kinks I'd be totally unqualified to comment on). But instead, we have enormous social pressure to conform to some form of these gender roles. I've seen a lot of people get burned because they and their prospective partners aren't on the same page when it comes to game-playing, and I've seen a lot of seduction gurus encourage this sort of miscommunication in the name of getting laid or gaining the upper hand in a relationship, and encourage men to think that they've gotten one over on women whom they hook up with.
I'll be the first to say that I don't understand the pick-up artist mentality. What I see from my outsider perspective are a bunch of anxious guys, and a bunch of would-be gurus who are willing to "pick up" those guys and sell their masculinity back to them. I'm supposed to be the target demographic for that sort of thing - I'm not particularly "mainstream attractive," I'm a recovering shybie, my interests tend to the nerdier side of life - and yet I can't imagine how adopting that approach could ever lead to finding any kind of joy for me.
[I dunno. I can *sort* of get it in the sense that, first, people can fetishize anything and, second, once someone's alienated it's pretty common to believe that the best way out is to do more of whatever it is that's making you alienated. Thanks, JFP. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 00:21.
I'm not a Goddess-worshipper! I'm Jewish! (A tubby Jew, in fact... if you have me pictured as someone who doesn't sympathize because she can have any partner she wants, you're picturing wrong.)
But the thing about BDSM is, I don't practice it by going up to any guy who strikes my fancy and hitting him. I clarify first that we're both into this and we know what we're doing. Likewise scat practitioners (hopefully) don't just suddenly start pooping.
Pick-up artists, on the other hand, are not seeking out women who want to be picked up; they're saying manipulative things to women who aren't aware that they're participating in your game. (In fact, the whole deal requires the woman's unawareness.) Only men are members of the "seduction community"--women are targets. It's unethical and sexist.
Also, I feel like you're sort of missing the point when you say "the kind of slow-building rapport that Holly outlines"--I'm not describing an alternate technique. I'm describing actually interacting with people you actually like. (It's not even necessarily slow.) Honest attraction and affection aren't a method. They're how you treat other humans.
["Honest attraction and affection aren't a method. They're how you treat other humans." Yup. Because... I mean, look at it this way -- if you can't treat your prospective partners as human (and this obviously goes both for pickup "artists" and their "high achievement" counterparts) then you're by-definition being predatory. Which just isn't enjoyable for the prey no matter how reassuring the carnivores try to make it. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 00:49.
And I'm more 'early thirties', and am pretty sure Stkh ain't no goddess. (Hthr is, but She's much less relevant to my sex life.)
Honest attraction and affection aren't a method. They're how you treat other humans.
Exactly. The whole "pick up" thing is completely outside my scope of experience -- it doesn't happen in my real world at all. The closest I've got is a few people who fiddle with OKCupid, and the only one of those I see regularly is currently partnered with someone she met ... in her ordinary social circles ... spending time with people she liked.
The only experience I have of it is guys on the internet complaining that they don't know "what women want" and rejecting all complicated, unfeasable methodologies like "Have you asked her?" in favor of "There has to be a cheat code in here somewhere" with occasional lapses into "This woman is defective, the cheat code doesn't work!" And wondering why it doesn't work, and sneering at people suggesting that interacting with women as people they actually like might, y'know, lead to relationships.
And I've been seeing this for a decade or so now, and I suspect that I'll continue to see it for as long as I venture out into the wilds of the computer landscape where there are people with strange customs. The names change occasionally, but the "Why doesn't this woman do what I want her to?!" never does.
[Yup. Even human pheremones, while evidently real, work only between individuals with very specific histocompatibility. So even our "cheat codes" don't work because, beyond "when you're hot, you're hot," it's just not gonna help. Thanks, Dw3t. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 03:04.
Holly wrote:
"Pick-up artists, on the other hand, are not seeking out women who want to be picked up --"
And that's their problem. It looks like Eurosabra's idea of traditional feminity includes being uninterested in sex - nothing wrong with that, but if that's the kind of women you want, then you expect to have a low success rate. One in 50 sounds surprisingly good, in fact.
Plus it's quite annoying when they talk about women like the uninterested ones were the only kind of women there are. I think that's what Figleaf is complaining about?
jfpbookworm wrote:
"The problem with the "traditional gender roles as a fetish" argument is that, unlike (e.g.) BDSM, it's not made explicit who's participating and who's not --"
It wouldn't be so difficult to make it explicit, either; for instance, they could write personal ads saying that they're looking for a woman who likes to play hard-to-get.
[Hmm, now that you mention it the perfect pick-up artist "neg," in theory, would be "too bad you hate sex." :-) --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 07:53.
they could write personal ads saying that they're looking for a woman who likes to play hard-to-get.
Are they, though? That's the big question. I'll admit my understanding of the "Seduction Community" is limited to the late 90s, but "it's just a game, and everyone's playing and having a good time" was only brought up as a response to criticism, not as a selling point.
[Yeah, because if it was a *selling point* people would put "Seduction Community" and "Pickup Artistry" under "Interests" in their on-line dating profiles. Good point, JFP. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 15:52.
But the thing about BDSM is, I don't practice it by going up to any guy who strikes my fancy and hitting him.
Now I'm imagining a female BDSM pickup artist.
Man: (quietly minds own business)
Woman: Will you PLEASE stop begging me to flog you?
Man: Excuse me?
Woman: Look, I understand that you want me to tie you up and whack you with things, but don't you think we should get to know each other a little better first?
Man: Actually ma'am, I don't want you to tie me up and whack me with things.
Woman: Well, I know most women fall for this "I'm beautiful and aloof" part of your personality... but I know that there's really another side of you. A side that none of THEM get to see. You may act tough, but you're actually EXTREMELY sensitive on the inside. If someone makes a negative comment to you, you might act like it doesn't bother you... but you'll think about it all the way home... I know that secretly you're as sensitive as a little boy...
Man: Um, you're making me uncomfortable.
Woman: Well, then you might want to leave, because I say stuff like that a lot.
I'm tempted to try it and see if I get anywhere near a 1 in 50 success rate. (Wild guess: no.)
[You could turn *that* into a post, eh? It'd open a few eyes. Thanks, P. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 22:43.
DeAngelo, eh? [shakes head while making a tsking sound.] I have to agree with you there. Zan, AMP (Travis Decker, et. al.), DiCarlo and Bishop, all to a point, are more my flavor. The first three are the most influential right now, along with Sean Messenger, though his material has never really clicked with me; DeAngelo, Mystery, Carlos Xuma and most of the others that outsiders would think of as the big names are decidedly less than respected. The closest to respected individuals in the big name group would be Mehow, though the opinion there is definitely split, or the guys from RSD, whom I generally find to be repugnant and who have met with some severe criticism as well.
That said: I've never experienced the Two-Step Pick-Up Magic (understanding, from the start, that It's Not A Technique) as particularly effective. By which I mean, I've never responded to it in an intimate way. It's the bedrock, sure; and when a woman or a guy approaches me genuinely, wants to know about me, deals with me as a human being... yeah, I like that. I'm likely to value them, and to want to have them in my life.
But if that's all there is to it, we're friends -- full stop. it just turns out that way, even if they wanted something more. There's no spark; it doesn't make anything melt; it doesn't even make anything of the erotic genre particularly warm. The bottom line being: I like being gamed, if it's played well. If I'm going to get hot, it has to be there.
I guess that most would just call it something else.
(And I'd like to note that there are women involved in the SC, as authors and as valued members of the community. Given what's happened to the scene over the last ten years, though, it's difficult to get a good grasp of its current state unless you're in the private forums. Running them that way is the main option now when it comes to weeding out the cretins.)
[Hi Infra. I think P. Burke's BDSM-up Artist scenario illustrates the inherent problem though. Unless, again, one either announces one's intent or, conversely, one's interest and gets agreement. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Sun, 2008-04-13 23:02.
Ooh, I love it! Fun image, P. Burke.
The other thing that bugs me about the sort of PUA that Holly is critiquing - OK, so, mostly it sounds like a way to be really annoying and turn people off. I sure don't get hot if a guy tells me I don't mean what I say, or that he'll keep doing everything I've told him I dislike. But, the worse thing is, if that kind of thing works? On even 1 in 50? Surely it can't be because people *like* it? If you're training people to get laid by insulting people and ignoring their stated wishes, then it seems like the kind of lay you'd get would be someone with low enough self-esteem to be browbeaten into sex she doesn't really want. As opposed to, you know, actual willing and enthusiastic sex.
[Just for the record that stuff is neither new nor radically different from standard cocktail lounge banter. And in my experience in bars those techniques when attempted with even a little bit of subtlty and *inside-the-rules* "good will" can be quite effective. It's just... just... it results in sneak out before the other wakes up sort of behavior in the morning and there's just something pretty dysfunctional about that. In other words it's In other words, yes, it's annoying. Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 04:53.
I think there is just one bit of "gaming" that might make the difference between the "friends two-step" and the "hot two-step", and I did get it from a television show about how best to form a specifically romantic/sexual relationship.
They called it the "statement of intent", and all it is, is to describe the person you're talking to as "sexy" at least once in the conversation. Just about any other adjective might be something their mother would say to them, but "sexy" lets them know that you are at least open to, well, sex - if they want it.
More magic relevance from reCaptcha: the words I got were "young tooled"!
[And of course such a statement of intent would be nearly all that was required to make the whole PUA business ethical. And, not to put too fine a point on it, I'm pretty sure that one could achieve a one-in-fifty acceptance rate by simply asking "would you like to play pick-up games?" And either way you're right that honest intention will work with autonomous actors better than perfidity. Thanks, SE. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 05:36.
I've had that happen, and that alone doesn't do it for me. Just my preferences and turn-ons, I guess.
More along the lines of what I'm thinking is playful touch, double entendre and similar banter, knowing eye contact, confidence, self-assurance and all the rest. Or, in the words of the community, "game." But as I wrote earlier on, it's difficult to keep an eye on what the community is these days if you're looking at the public face. And generally speaking, the private communities are invitation-only.
Parts of the community went underground again for a reason, and a big part of it is because publishing The Game put partial information in the hands of people who would abuse it, and it spiraled from there. (The commercial aspect is another part, and in a number of the private scenes, the authors are not only active participants: they donate their materials as well -- with no compensation involved.)
It's good that it made people aware of some of the techniques being used, so that people could spot them and avoid them -- but the downside was substantial, and a number of authors are trying to address the misogyny from the inside. Zan and AMP are good examples, clips of which I put up here after posting the earlier comment.
There's a world of difference between what's going on now and what was going on when DeAngelo was still someone that people looked up to.
[It's great that they're working to get reduce misogyny, infra. It's not exactly a step up if practitioners are going underground to avoid scruitiny though. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 07:46.
[** Critical note: The "no-sex" class theory merely restates classic feminist theory to better fit men's experience of it. It does not otherwise refute or invalidate feminist theory. --fl]
On a very different note: not just men's experience, either. Some of my experiences as a woman are far better framed in terms of the classic theory; some are far better framed in terms of your restatement; some are better framed by restating your restatement to "women as the sex-optional class" (i.e., women enjoy sex, but don't in any sense need it). I'm sure there are other possible frames, as well - I like having a selection; it makes for more nuanced communication.
I'm enjoying the other line of discussion as well, but have nothing of substance to add.
Sunflower
[Thanks, Sunflower. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 11:31.
Yeah, well, that's where PU hits the patriarchy...the assumption that beautiful and "hard to get" is the default form of femininity in a universal, all-encompassing system. But they think that system is objective reality, rather than a socially-constructed one. I think PUAs in general think that "seeing the matrix" (a term they use, quite consciously) puts them in a realm where evo-psych IS an accurate description of reality. There is a certain amount of whiny entitlement involved, sure, but missing the forest for the trees in the opposite direction does no good either. People bond with those similar to themselves, and anyone sufficiently idiosyncractic is going to go a long time without a partner, and our society does have an excessively unrepresentative, limited, and rigid view of what constitutes attractiveness, and the combination results in attempts to "game the system" or at least render it intelligible.
Moving on to the actual substance of your comment...it's pretty easy to tell who is willing to play or not, the problem is separating your ego from his/her reaction and having enough respect for someone else's "No." Bonus points for actually being attuned to non-verbal communication, but the problem with just going out and looking for semi-passive non-verbal approach invitations is that it requires you to be obviously, instantly, visually physically attractive to total strangers. Hence the demonstration of high social status touted as cure-all, since (in the aggregate) it's more attractive than not, and the emphasis on traditional masculinity and its codes.
"Joy" is a weird sort of goal for someone thinking in pick-up terms anyway, since the dogma is a way of mainstreaming oneself into a more conventional mating sphere. Someone content to be an outlier is going to have a very personal notion of joy, divorced from the "Get tons of HAWT CHIXXX NOW!" marketing anyway. You have to already be living within a system that unquestioningly values women based primarily on their appearance before that can become a goal in itself, hence the total lack of eye-rolling that habitually accompanies a guru's "look who I'm f*cking" opening slideshow.
[I think Hannah Arendt said there's no such thing as an *invalid* philosophy, only that some have more universality/utility than others. So while yes, EvPsych as foundation for relationships *does* work for some people. (Mary Roach quotes a love letter from pioneering sex behaviorist to his lover: "My total reactions are positive and towards you. So, likewise, each and every heart reaction.") But it should surprise no one that it doesn't work for everyone, or that other philosophies, while technically no less valid, might still produce more desired outcomes and, as you very nicely put it, ES, joy. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 11:49.
Yeah, "cold reads" don't necessarily create rapport. You've actually outlined a fairly standard scenario, because beginners often create a negative dynamic and then compound it by pushing against resistance. Always flow, and when necessary, flow AWAY. That kind of megalomaniacal pushing ("BAD Human. Do what I want!") devoid of any kind of banter, of play, of gentle leading, and seriously lacking in empathy is undoubtedly what you mean by "this woman is broken, the cheat code doesn't work." Hence the labeling of pick up as goal-directed inauthenticity and manipulation. And at the root of that is a broken sense of self rather than a sense of entitlement, but it gets read as entitlement.
["...at the root of that is a broken sense of self rather than a sense of entitlement, but it gets read as entitlement." I *completely* agree with this, Eurosabra. It was one of the four contradictions I kept running into that finally pushed me into recognizing the no-sex class paradigm. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 12:08.
No, really, I'm quite sure they were interested in sex, just not with me. I don't think it's necessarily unfair to notice women's tendency to insist on mating "up" or to notice that the average woman's minimium criteria are generally both more inflexible and more stringent than the average man's. It IS unfair to conclude that women have a "gatekeeper" role à la evo-psych, and (as one BitchPHD post noted) dedicate one's life to quashing women's advancement in areas one CAN control or influence. (The VP of software development who refused to hire women because he couldn't get a date, as if the women who rejected him and the women who applied for jobs with his company were the same Woman.) Hm, empathy, again.
["...dedicate one's life to quashing women's advancement in areas one CAN control or influence..." *Exactly!* Like collective punishment has ever made *anybody,* anywhere *more* accommodating. Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 13:46.
What should have been a follow-up comment here ended up as my 4/14 5:36 entry. (I'd put in a link but that's making MT throw an error for me: something about the permalink having no entry ID.) Just a note so that the thread doesn't get splintered.
As a FYI, fl: the reply-to function is a bit clunky. The setting gets lost when going to the preview page and has to be reset by scrolling to the comment and clicking the reply link again. It's easy to miss.
[Thanks for the info, Infra. It looks like MT, plus *waaaay* too many other web developers, are going to more complex "AJAX" style edit controls with the result that sure, when you navigate around it feels more like a local application but, on the other hand, under all but ideal circumstances... like when there are bugs or slow connections... stuff falls out the bottom. I'll take a look and see if there's a software update. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Mon, 2008-04-14 14:55.
I don't see why entitlement is incompatible with a broken sense of self. Someone who acts like they need validation at all costs, without thinking about the feelings of those around them, just is entitled. Whether it's fun for them to be entitled is sort of beside the point.
From what Infra is saying, it sounds as though the people that Holly is mocking are like the Goreans of seduction. In which case, I'm not sure why all the sane guys who are just trying to learn how to flirt don't ruthlessly mock them anyway. Ruthless mockery is a perfectly good way to get Goreans out of one's vicinity.
[Gorean seduction, eh? Heh. There's a concept. Thanks, P! --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-04-15 16:49.
Right, but we wind up in a situation in which YKINOK, or more honestly, Your Sexuality is Not OK, directed at straight men as an aggregate. Since Western Feminism is a "done deal", this is just a more irritating form of mating ritual/display, since men don't have ANY recourse against suddenly finding themselves permanently one-down in mating due to structural socioeconomic change, while women can potentially have the full force of law enforcement or at least Hollaback brought against men's criminal conduct or bad behavior, depending on its severity. If you want to make PU seem sinister, feel free to regard it as the CONSCIOUS application of patriarchy to women who are going to value "compliance with patriarchy" as a component of their femininity. (Which is what DYD and some of the wackier compliance-testing forms of pick-up quite consciously do.)
[And the problem with refraining from criminal or bad behavior would be? I think the key point to all this was made, by the way, by my Women's Studies professor last quarter who said that people keep claiming that Lorena Bobbitt (who castrated her abusive, rapist husband) is a *feminist* hero. She said no, no way, Bobbitt was a feminist because *feminists* no there are other, better, and earlier and more reasonable ways to deal with an abusive partner *assuming* she'd managed to marry one in the first place. Right? In other words, and I know this is born out in my first, second, and verifiable-third hand experience. Sure, feminists will file a complaint when a complaint is really justified while it's more often non-feminists trying to game the system who file *false* complaints. So no, I don't think men are disadvantaged by *feminists.* Not at all at all. (Incidentally, that's another reason why partners of feminists report better sex -- it's better sex over both short and long terms when one has a willing, unduped partner.) Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-04-15 19:15.
fl:
Maybe that was confusing, the way that I put it. They're not going underground to avoid scrutiny (the products are still publicly available, for example). They're going underground so that the more misogynistic guys don't get involved -- so that the current stuff doesn't get twisted the way that the older material did.
There are just some people who need to be kept out, just like there are people you'd never, ever want to have involved in a BDSM scene.
[Thanks for the clarification, Infra. That makes a big difference! --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-04-15 19:22.
Actually, we do. :)
Posting something stupid on one of the private boards is a great way of learning 5,392.5 new ways of knowing that you're an idiot.
(A capsule DeAngelo review:
This book, that book, that book, "inner wuss," the other book, "status," magazine! "status," book book "cocky/funny" bookiebookiebook guest speaker BUY MY STUFF!!!
Douche.)
[Thanks, Infra. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-04-15 19:59.
Heh. A bit confusing there, again, so to clarify:
The products are publicly available, so that people who know about them and afford them can get them -- the private communities are a good way of keeping people informed, doing group buys and donations, etc. whereas most people outside never hear about them or get copies of them, and usually aren't that coordinated. Previews and reviews also surface from time to time. (But if you want to keep an eye on the community, the best way to do so is to get to know someone in the private scene, get to know their intentions and they yours, and they'll generally be willing to keep you up to speed. That being why I mentioned AMP and Zan here -- though such things are best done through e-mail.) The major problem is with people of malicious mind forming groups and reinforcing their own tendencies; debased individuals are one thing, but posting FRs about abusive tactics and getting applause from others is something different. The same goes with selectively using new material and promoting derivative versions.
That kind of thing is best forced into the public forums, where it's more open to public scrutiny.
[Thanks for clarifying, Infra. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-04-16 08:54.
The flip side of this is that the standard "target" (gah!) is someone who is making traditional femininity work for her quite well, a stereotypical "hawt" chick. (Ex-strippers figure quite disproportionally among these guys' girlfriends, go figure.) One of the reasons PUAs say "street pick-up is hard" is that you're NOT in a bar/club meeting women who know and like The Game, and one of the things I've always found laughable about the "evidence videos" on the web (try Sean Messenger of Pick Up 101 on YouTube for a stereotypical, macho example) is the attempt to play up the "cheat code" aspect--"Look what I'm doing to this woman! Ha!"--when a more astute observer would notice that what is really going on is mutual play.
[Yup. Mutual play, if it's clearly really mutual, is fine. It's just not clear from the PR that its mutual at all. Also I wouldn't even assume all strippers or ex-strippers want to play it either. Though now that you mention it, it would make sense that PUA/SC stuff might have evolved from customers trying to crack the stripper/customer "barrier." Hmm.... Thanks, ES. --fl]
Submitted by 2077 (not verified) on Wed, 2008-04-16 09:16.
Further on P. Burke's hittyslut pick-up scenario:
I would also add that with the SM-"lair", which advertises itself as "invite only" on one of the public boards, the guys only want to do SM pick-up with wingmen who are already somewhat relaxed, stylish, and socially adept. I've "auditioned" twice and failed to match up with a wingman twice, they have no interest in a relative noob "learning the ropes" with them. (There are even local ethno-cultural BDSM subgroups here, like www.kinkyjews.com.) So I have absolutely no idea how they handle safety, ethics, and consent. This is a magnified form of the usual snobbery--because enhanced by safety concerns--in the Seduction Community. A lot of open-source stuff got replaced by marketing seminars in the period 2003-4, and most noobs are going to be regarded by the gurus as a source of funding. It's pretty apparent who has "game" and who is a pretty boy coasting on his looks, teaching stuff that works FOR HIM in order to get YOUR $, or (as jfpbookworm put it) "selling masculinity back" to you.
[Woof! They don't sound much like fun anyway. Want to be the male/female ratios there are even higher than average? Thanks, Eurosabra. --fl]