I’m Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much.
- By Kelly Diels
- 28 February, 2010
- 78 Comments
I can’t remember how I learned about the “Seduction Community” or “pick up artists”, but I do remember my reaction…
..and that quiet, decorous, rational reaction was,
WHAT THE FUCK?
If you get past the part where the author is just doing the Lord’s work, y’all – trying to get women of the world “to realize they must improve themselves (lose weight, get better attitudes, stop playing games) in order to have a better chance to get a quality male” – then this screed might be a touch inflammatory to those of us on the double-X side of the fence.
(Gawd, I kinda hope it upsets a lot of you on the XY side of the fence, too.)
(side note: I find the “stop playing games” part wildly amusing and ironic.)
I mean, where to start, exactly? With the contempt he shows women – especially women who don’t conform to his vision of beauty?
(Because what’s the point of women, really, if we aren’t pretty, thin, heterosexual, docile and infected with the disease-to-please?)
Nah. That’s not really unique to a pick-up artist. That’s our society, writ large.
(I think this is why it takes women thirty-five years to even start to unlearn this stuff. Because it is everywhere.)
Let’s talk about the intent of a pick up artist (or at least, the intent of this particular site’s authors):
The overall point is that, outside of arrangements like marriage, only 20% of the men lay 80% of the women. You either want to be in the that 20% or not. And, unless you’re already a natural at it, you’ll need to learn what it takes to get you there. That’s what this web site is for.
1. I would really like to see the research supporting this fact.
2. So now we’ve got two things. Blatant misogyny, idealization of a narrow sliver of female humanity, and a naked urge to have sex with as many of the pre-approved (HBs or “hot babes” or “hot bitches”), socially-acceptable ones as possible.
3. Again, this is not new or unique to the Seduction Community.
So although all of this upsets me wildly, I’ve written lots of papers pulling apart the dynamic of sexism and this is just part-and-parcel of living in our society. It is ugly. I hate it. But isn’t novel and these guys didn’t invent it.
What these guys did invent – or at least name and practice and preach – is The Neg:
Imagine a guy comes along and says “nice nails. are they real??” she will have to concede, “no. acrylic.” and he says (like he didn’t notice it was a put down “oh. (pause) well I guess they still LOOK good.” Then he turns his back to her. What does this do to her? Well, he didn’t treat her like shit and INSULT her. He complimented her but the result was to target her insecurity…
You didn’t take her shit. OH, and when she asked you for a beer, you said, ” no. I don’t buy girls drinks. but you can buy ME one”. You are qualifying HER now. If she buys you a beer, this is symbolic of her RESPECT for you…
A NEG HIT is a qualifier. The girl is FAILING to meet your high expectations. It’s not an insult, just a judgement call on your part. The better looking the girl, the more aggressive you must be with using neg hits. A 10 can get 3 neg hits up front, while an 8 only 1 or 2 over a longer time. You CAN go overboard if they think you are BETTER than them You can drop the self-esteem right from under them (just like most 10s do to guys) and this isn’t good. You have to get as close to the breaking point as you can without crossing the line. Once you have gotten her RIGHT THERE, you can start appreciating things about her (NEVER LOOKS). There is a mutual RESPECT now. Something most guys never get from the girl.
This is how you remove a bitch shield. 3 neg hits oughta do it within 2 or 3 minutes of neutral chat. Once it is down, you can from a mutual respect place, seduce her.”
(That is from Mystery – the dude with the show on VH1.)
So this is the kind of advice that makes me deeply unhappy with the world we live in. Insulting a person – sort of – until they respect you. Making her insecure so she’ll want to prove her worth, sexually.
But you know what? Putting myself in the shoes of both the man and the woman, here, I’d say this probably works.
I know it works. Let’s say we call the ‘neg’ a backhanded compliment. I don’t hang out in bars or have acrylic nails, so this particular scenario might be about ten years too young for me, but BIG SECRET: I actually love that kind of stuff. I like a guy who is cocky but funny and not afraid to say something unexpected – and who doesn’t make me feel responsible for entertaining him by looking at me with puppy dog eyes while his tail wags expectantly.
I like self-possessed. I like witty. I like a guy who doesn’t kiss my ass unless asked. I don’t, however, like disrespect or a deliberate attempt to structure our interactions so that you’ve got the upper hand and I’ve got to earn your attention.
(I will note, however, that while this stuff might work, initially, these techniques are kind of like a resume and an interview in a job search: they get you in the door. Once you’ve got the job, and want to keep the job, and do the job well, an entirely different set of skills are required.)
All of this is to say that I, personally, like “cocky but funny” – and cocky and funny is pretty much the Pick Up Artist’s playbook.
Now, since I realized this and read up on it, whenever I encounter a guy running cocky-but-funny on me, I wonder about it.
I once asked a guy – a witty Brit – who had cocky-but-funny all nailed down, if he’d ever heard of the seduction community or read The Game.
Looooooooooooooooooooong pause.
“No.”
Yeahfuckingright.
~
Now, to be fair, what I just quoted is the absolute worst of the community, but it is also what ranks highest in searches (thanks, Google!) and so, presumably, is some of the most popular, “authoritative” (and we all know my issues with that word) stuff available.
Still – as Brad Bollenbach wrote about his experience with pick up (he’s not okay with the rampant misogyny in the community, either) - in the Seduction Community, as in pretty much every sphere of life, Sturgeon’s Law applies: 90% of everything is crap.
The mainstream pick up community is pretty fucking awful, in my opinion. But if you dig in, you’ll find all kinds of examples of people engaging with human interaction, psychology, dating, and ethics in really interesting, intelligent and soulful ways.
~
So, when I started learning about The Seduction Community and techniques practised by pick up artists, I had pretty strong and intensely negative feelings about it.
Truth is, though, I recognized these techniques.
I have looked at a man, smiled wide, and said, “That shirt looks awful. I don’t like it at all. You don’t look hot and it doesn’t make me want to kiss you. Not even a little bit.” And then kissed him.
I say things just to surprise. I absolutely wear hot shoes or big bold jewelry and people do talk to me about it and that’s probably the point. I set hurdles for you to clear so it will be clear to me whether or not you’re interested in me. I understand that my appearance is telegraphing a message. I tell a story with my body language. My mission in life is to make you laugh because when you laugh, you’re comfortable, and when you’re comfortable, you like me, and of course I want you to like me. I hope you like me.
And with all of that, I’m essentially doing what PUAs teach their acolytes. I just don’t name them or think much about them. They’re instinct. For me. Because I’m a woman and a flirt.
holyshitnewsflash: PUAs are teaching men how to be attractive to women using the techniques usually employed by …women.
Is this true?
I googled it. Apparently it is common knowledge in the Seduction Community that the teachers derived their techniques by modeling women.
Implicitly, they’re acknowledging that women control the initial game.
So the techniques I’m having a reaction to – that I think are manipulative and gross and sexist and exploitative – come from women.
In the Seduction Community, men learn how to attract women by observing how women attract men and then use those same techniques on women so that men can attract women.
And women – like me – get all pissy about it and say that’s manipulative, exploitative, controlling. And dude, that’s my territory. Getoffamylawn.
You know those shells that fold inside themselves? We’ve just gone fractal.
~
Still, we can’t get away from the misogyny. In addition to the negs – which, to be fair, not all PUAs endorse – we’ve got a whole lot of talk about punishment:
Have your rules. Tell the chick – and they’re always chicks, unless they’re HBs – the rules, and punish her if she violates them. Take your attention away. Slight her. Stand her up. Drop her.
Because women don’t already have enough rules to follow or enough people telling us how to behave. Now we need some guy in a bar or a bookstore or a coffeeshop dominating us in exchange for a $4 latte and some truly high-priced male validation.
This kind of ”punishing” the “target” – the practice and the language itself - is common to both The Seduction Community and heterosexual pornography, and the overlap, I argue, is no coincidence.
Ask Sam Benjamin.
Sam Benjamin is a self-professed “Ivy League Pornographer” who wrote a piece called “Shoot: The Education and Evolution of a Pornographer“ in which he compared his experiences shooting mainstream heterosexual porn and gay porn.
Sam Benjamin is heterosexual; shooting heterosexual porn turned him on; but he had to quit because it was just so damn awful. Despite his best intentions, the heterosexual porn he was shooting was about punishing women. So he quit.
And then he was broke and asked for his job back. It had been filled but there was a spot available filming gay porn – was he interested? Initially, he was hesitant and even a little intimidated, but to his surprise he found that
gay porn was so goddamn simple that it approached a type of Zen beauty. I mean, this was guys taking on guys, in every shape and form imaginable, for the most part in good humor and absent-minded lust. They may have stuck to roles of “tops” and “bottoms,” but in the dressing room, we all seemed equals, on the same team…
… I’m saddened to think that the only path to the absence of hostility and anger in porn is to remove women from the equation. It doesn’t bode well, especially for a world in which men and women must continue to co-exist. In the first half of my porn-life, I lived inside of a world where it almost seemed like an entire gender was being denigrated, like that was the whole point—where very young women were choked and slapped and written-on with lipstick, simply for the crime, it seemed, of being a woman. You should have slept with me, seemed to be the unspoken message. Now see what I have to do to you.
I think Sam Benjamin is on to something.
You should have slept with me, seemed to be the unspoken message. Now see what I have to do to you.
Let’s think about this: according to Neil Strauss, as many as 70% of the guys who start studying the art of pick up are just geeky guys who aren’t very comfortable – or successful – with women. They’re not getting laid and they’re not happy.
You should have slept with me, seemed to be the unspoken message. Now see what I have to do to you.
I’m repeating this point for a reason. Maybe some of the misogyny in the pick up community is the result of a whole lot of guys working through their collective resentment that pussy isn’t tap-water.
You know what?
Women do this too.
We get frustrated when we’re not getting what we want. I know you know what you’ll hear on this party-line: There are no available heterosexual men. They’re all taken, married, gay, dating teenagers, or playing Warcraft. Or, if you do manage to find one to date, he’s probably an inexpressive, emotionally-repressed, sex-crazed, commitment-phobe who not-so-secretly wishes you looked more like Megan Fox and less like, well, you. They all do.
It is the drumbeat that underlines girls-night-out conversations.
But that’s not sisterhood. That’s misandry.
~
Dirty secret: We – the sistas – and I’m talking ONLY about myself and my real-life friends and sisters here, not The Feminist Community with which I express my affiliation but cannot Speak For – often construct our “independence” and don’t-need-a-man-ness (even though most of us are married and are now, or have been, completely financially dependant on a man) and divine feminine connection with each other on the back of man-bashing.
No, you’re awesome, honey. He just can’t see it. He’s a bastard. They all are. That’s why we’re so awesome. Thank goodness for girlfriends. Otherwise we’d have to rely on them.
~
If that kind of talk is a two-martini girl-bonding Friday night for me, why am I so shocked when I encounter misogyny in the Seduction Community?
This kind of misogny and misandry – the kind that collapses The Other into a caricature – is a burlesque. We parody and mock The Other in order to defuse the power they have over us.
Because sexuality, and sexual love, is primal, spiritual stuff. It is dangerous and divine. We can harm or heal each other, and most often, we do both.
So, in heterosexual, binary-gendered, conventional world – which is to say, my suburban milieu – groups of heterosexual women get together to bitch about men so that men are less threatening to our hearts and heads. Groups of men get together to figure out a way to manage women so that women are less threatening to their heads and hearts. And then we all go home and drunk-dial our exes.
~
In a way, what the Seduction Community is doing is no different than say, The Cult of Sex and The City. (And it is a cult. I believe, I believe.) We’re all trying to understand each other while getting the upper hand so we can get what we want and not get hurt.
So maybe the dehumanizing – the misogyny and misandry – by both camps of both camps is the same thing. Maybe.
Or maybe it is not the same thing.
Misogyny scares me and for good reason. It has very real social consequences: rape, assault, abuse, inegalitarian and spirit-snuffing romantic entanglements, The Beauty Myth, and $0.72 on the dollar.
So a group of men getting together to scheme about how to make women do their bidding while referring to them as targets and valuing them exclusively in terms of their attractiveness: yeah, that’s pretty fucking terrifying.
Still, there are two parts here:
The social. The Seduction Community both reflects and reifies the misogyny of our culture. In other words, that shit comes from somewhere. The Seduction Community’s (sometimes) fucked-up attitudes about women come from our society’s fucked-up attitudes about women.
The personal. Some smart but socially awkward guys just want to find a way to connect with women, get confident in their company, and maybe even get a girlfriend. And that – well that’s pretty damn sweet.
________________
this 2,700+ words is about a third of the essay. There’s way more and I’ll post the rest this week.
And please play nice in the comments. Pretend we’re all at a raucous, liquored-up dinner party at my house. It is fun, and we can get real and we can get tawdry, but we’re not talking shit about each other. Criticism? Yes, absolutely, and YES PLEASE. Hating? No.
Let’s go.
xo.
About the author
- More at
You are freaking Brilliant Kelly! Thank you so much for writing this, no matter what comes out of it… it made me think, and jostled me out of my usual way of viewing PUAs and girl-trash-talk.
For that, I thank you.
[Reply]
Nathalie, thank you. I’ve been really wrestling with it. On the one hand, I really “get it” – we all want to improve our social skills. But I can’t get away from or excuse the misogyny.
[Reply]
Positive Mitch
replied:
on March 14th, 2010 at 1:06 am
@kellydiels, none of this is truly meaningful unless you come from a place of love for the other person. The misogyny has its roots in the objectification of the woman, rather than thinking of her as a person.
When I meet a woman that I find attractive, I have to use far less of the tactical jazz to get to her heart, because when I look at her and tell her I care, and that I think she is beautiful, and ask her all kinds of questions about her life and show her that she is interesting and I want to know more about her, she will get the idea. The only real tactic I have to use is to make sure that when I say I am into her, she doesn’t feel an uncomfortable pressure to do anything she doesn’t decide to do. Then all the uncomfortable game-playing can be put aside, because she knows I don’t think like a salivating shark, and we can explore a good, healthy connection which may or may not include physical intimacy depending on the circumstances. But I will have done my best, and neither of us will feel put down or insecure from it at the end of the interaction.
[Reply]
Agree with Nathalie on two points: you’re freaking brilliant and this made me think! wow, lady!! and:”collective resentment that pussy isn’t tap-water” could so have made a mess of the rug in front of me if i had had a mouth full of coffee when I read it — definitely would’ve spit! Laughed so hard!!
[Reply]
Karen. Gotta admit those five words are a great ROI for the twelve hours I spent writing this damn thing. xo.
[Reply]
Found this through trackback links… and in all fairness I was only about half way through this before i skipped down here to comment…
But so far I love it. It’s honest, witty, insightful, and pretty damned balanced, all considering. Evolutionary psychology says that in theory, women should hate game and pickup. It’s technically damaging to long term evolutionary survival so most people (especially women) have built-in evolutionary circuitry to HATE it. And that is precisely what impresses me about this post. That not only do you explain your innate feelings on the topic, but you have the cognizance to question those feelings and their rational veracity.
Love it.
P.S. Another blogger who has a very, very balanced viewpoint is HughRistik over at feministcritics.org. His seduction community articles are REALLY good.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
@DJ Fuji, oh honey, don’t even get me started on evolutionary psychology. I lovehate it.
I’m glad you liked the piece. Come back and read the rest – there will be a couple more parts, this week.
I’ve read Hugh’s stuff, but thanks for the reminder. I’m going to go refresh.
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
@DJ Fuji, and the reason EP predicts women won’t like game and pickup is that women are the de facto selectors in sexual selection. The overwhelming tendency in all species is for the sex with the largest resource investment to play the selector role. In humans, women’s minimum required investment is measured in months/years and men’s is measured in seconds.
In other words, women have all the power because they need to have all the power to compensate for the outrageously disparate time investment in reproduction.
With that in mind, I find it interesting both that men so often assume they are in control and that women apparently let them/us think that… usually.
[Reply]
I feel very lucky after reading this – my man was upset by the bride-centricity of wedding planning after all.
Very thought provoking – I’m sure that I’ve participated in man-bashing-GNO’s before – but my excuse was to make people feel better… those women people I guess…
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
@Meredith, I think you just gave me an idea for my next rant/opus.
[Reply]
ocbenji
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 12:58 pm
@Meredith, I’m with your man. The wedding would appear to be mostly about the bride.
[Reply]
And this is why we need long blog posts. Because some issues are too important and too complex to be reduced to 700 words.
Thank you Kelly.
I agree on the similarities between some of this Seduction Community misogeny and the ‘Sex and The City’ style generalizing and dehumanizing of men. But when the former is taking place in a context where gender-based violence and sexual discrimination against women are still ‘main-stream’ it takes on a different power and is, in my opinion, much more dangerous.
I loom forward to the rest.
[Reply]
I’ve never loomed forward before, but I guess that’s what Kelly’s truth telling brings out in a gal.
[Reply]
Thank you. For making me realize why it feels so different in my heart and head to be around men in (and from) different social backgrounds/cultures. I can’t wait to ponder this new awareness some more. I look forward to devouring the rest. Again, thank you.
[Reply]
35 years, yes!!! Well said. All of it, well said.
Those poor lost NEG HIT guys–everytime I come across one, I want to hug him and tell him to relax. Following dating “rules,” and trying to puff ourselves up to seem like worthwhile challenges only attracts opponents, not lovers. In the grocery check-out, sometimes I laugh at the warring headlines from the men’s and women’s magazines — it’s lke they’re trying to control one another on the stands. And the same behaviour plays out between celeb couples on the covers of People and Us n’all that.
Favourite Beauty Myth Quote!
“Love freely given between equals is a very recent historical possibility. It is also the enemy of some of the most powerful interests of this society.”
As long as we are not true in our hearts, we attract lies, manipulative people, and fake relationships. When we are honest and happy, we attract real relationships and we’re able to know them when they appear.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
@Sharon, your image of dueling men’s and women’s mags basically sums up this whole essay.
Gorgeous Beauty Myth quote. I dug out that book today. Gonna dig back into it, soon.
But…I do think that what PUAs are teaching each other is really about how to establish connection and rapport – and I think those skills reach beyond just hooking up with women(I have NO issues with getting good at that!) to life, and people, generally. Wanna get your plane ticket upgraded? Be charming. Wanna get your interest rate lowered? Be charming. Wanna get out of a traffic ticket? Be charming. Wanna get a date? Be charming.
Not novel stuff. Too bad we couldn’t divorce it from all the woman-bashing (I think we can).
[Reply]
The bad stuff in the whole PUA community thing seems to come from pain and anger.
- Man doesn’t have woman, man feels pain.
- Man can’t get woman, and feels anger, because it hurts less to be angry than to be in pain.
- Mystery tells man to “neg”, David DeAngelo tells him to be “cocky and funny”, and all of a sudden the man can insult a woman, release that pent up anger and pain, retaliating at the women that “caused him” so much pain, all while convincing himself that he is “learning how to pick up women”.
- Vicious cycle continues.
[Reply]
kellydiels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
@Deacon, I put it way more crassly and said something about tap-water.
[Reply]
I think this is my favorite post from you so far, and I’ve enjoyed a whole lot of them.
I really appreciate your scientific meets witty meets a little crazy approach to the subject. Can’t wait to read the rest of it!
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
@Colin Wright, it is like you were reading that I like backhanded compliments or something
. Thanks. There’s more of this coming this week.
[Reply]
One point I find interesting is that PUA tactics are designed specifically to work only on “hot” women. They predict consistent negative reactions from those who don’t meet that qualifier. The theory goes that this is due to differing levels of self-esteem which tend to correlate with the way beautiful women are conditioned in relation to non-”hot” women. They (PUAs) explicitly advise that using the same tactics on less attractive women will hurt feelings and shouldn’t be done. In other words, hot women are so used to being fawned over because of their beauty, they won’t take “Negs” as anything but playful.
Conversely, they’d also say that men not “playing” any “games” and fawning only works on not “hot” women who have not been bombarded with compliments on a daily basis.
So from now on, all the women have to post pics of themselves along with their comments so we can test the theory.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
@Andrew, cuz the hot/not-hot thing isn’t sexist at all…
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
@Kelly Diels, it’s not actually. What men find attractive in women (typically physical ‘beauty’) tends to correlate with their respective reproductive fitness. For example, a low waist-to-hip ratio in a woman correlates directly to fertility and the ability to survive both childbirth and child rearing. It’s also the majority beauty preference of men regardless of culture (Singh, 1993).
Women tend to find men capable of providing resources and security to them and their offspring more attractive. Is that sexist? I don’t think so… and guys everywhere would love to be able to drop the ‘s’ bomb every time we ran into that.
While both examples present quite differently, they’re both in the category of reproductive fitness indicators. And… I think… legitimate ones.
You imply that beauty is culturally imprinted and is therefore sexist. I proffer that the rejection of beauty as a reproductive fitness indicator (so much so that it warrants being referred to as an ‘ism’) is actually the culturally informed position. This is something that can be tested. The study I referenced above (in part) shifted my position from one similar to yours. I haven’t seen a better study that convinces me beauty is primarily cultural, but I’m willing to consider evidence.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 12:00 am
@Andrew, I’m talking about the hot/not formulation equating to value. As in: this is the sum of a woman’s value. And of course I take massive issue with that.
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 12:14 am
@Kelly Diels, I think it does relate to “reproductive value” whether we like it or not. I’m certain we can all come up with examples of things we don’t like about it. But I agree that reproductive value is not the same thing as the sum of a person’s value. The post is about mating behaviors and my comments were meant to address that alone.
[Reply]
Aebhlin
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 6:33 am
I have to jump in here and state the obvious difference between a “low waist-to-hip ratio” and being “capable of providing resources and security” – most people can’t control the formwe, but have significant influence over the latter. Tell you what, trade places with me – you get your waist-to-hip ratio to some arbitrary number that I decide, and I’ll go out and try to better myself through education and hard work. Oh, and by the way, once you get to the hip-to-waist ratio I decide, I’ll change it.
Great post – not meaning at all to be combative, just trying to bring up an issue I think needs to be aired.
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 8:13 am
@Aebhlin, of course. Like I said, there are differences in presentation of reproductive fitness indicators between sexes. And again, whether we like that or whether it’s fair doesn’t change the way genetics works. In the case of waist-to-hip ratio, it is also clearly influenced by eating habits and exercise, so it’s not the best example of things that can’t be changed.
In any case, it’s important to note that nature (reproduction) doesn’t care if these are things we can control.
“Where fat is deposited on the body is determined by sex hormones; testosterone in men and estrogen in women. If a woman produces the proper amount and mixture of estrogen, then her WHR will naturally fall into the desired range. The same goes for a male’s testosterone.
People in the ideal hip-ratio range, regardless of weight, are less susceptible to disease such as cardiovascular disorders, cancer, and diabetes, studies have shown. Women in this range also have less difficulty conceiving.”
http://www.livescience.com/health/060213_attraction_rules.html
Women aren’t exempt from selecting based on physical traits. One of the most significant factors in women’s assessment of men’s reproductive value is height.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 5:20 pm
@Andrew, You and I have had some of these discussions – about EP – before and I absolutely concede that you know your shit and you know way more about this stuff than I do.
Here’s my problem with this kind of argument, though.
We’re talking about hip-to-waist ratios and reproductive fitness.
Fine.
But somehow we’ve slid – and I’m talking about our Twitter conversation, too, which isn’t entirely fair because it took place off of this conversation – into conflating a woman’s value (in society, I’m thinking, and to men) with reproductive fitness and an hourglass figure.
And when women take issue with this construction – with the continued emphasis, over and over again on their appearance – I don’t think they’re fighting biology or even fighting your beloved EP. I think they/we are simply trying to say: that’s a genetic lottery. There’s more to life, attraction, love, and yes, our worth, than our waists and our ability to reproduce.
Because for a very, very long time, women’s roles in society were pretty tightly circumscribed.
I guess this is all in the way of caution: arguing around reproductive fitness is a tricky business. Are you sure you really want to be arguing that a woman’s value in the eyes of men and her mate is her ability to reproduce?
Not only that, but I think these kinds of arguments end up being used to discriminate against people -especially women- who are fat. And we discriminate in all kinds of settings that have nothing to do with reproductive fitness, but the preference for small waists carries over…
I’m off topic. But it is all related.
One final thing. This argument produces a pretty thin vision of masculinity, too.
EP might explain our subterranean instincts, but we’re also equipped with brains and character and rationality, and I’m guessing a whole lot of us are hot for, and love, people without respect to their reproductive cues.
[Reply]
kareem
replied:
on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:21 am
@Kelly Diels, I think it’s fair to say that both men and women often initially select (determine value) on the basis of physical attractiveness (i.e. there is a genetic lottery).
But if one is looking longer term, attractiveness / WH ratio / height / whatever decreases in value. And other factors come into play – is she a genuinely good person? Does he act with integrity? Does she want the same things out of life as I do? Etc.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 am
@kareem, yep, yep and yep. Exactly.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on February 28th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
@Andrew, and I like negs – they make me laugh – and I’m definitely not a 9/10 (and grrrrrrr to even having to play on these terms). And this isn’t modesty. This is just the fact. I’m hot in my own eyes but not necessarily in everyone else’s.
[Reply]
Reading this makes me so glad not to be dating anymore. It makes the occasional drudgery of monogamy feel way too delicious. But I am considering the world into which my daughters will enter – a decade or less from now – and knowing that essays like this are something to bookmark and let them read and talk about with them so they can discern something that might help avoid the certain heartache.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 12:06 am
@MDTaz, I hear that, X one million.
[Reply]
So many things to say about your post. Very brilliant conversation starter.
I think it’s important to acknowledge that the Seduction Community/PUA mentality is a very common attitude that is not exclusive to women. It’s the same kind of domination-imagination that goes with (in WWII) reducing Japanese to Japs, reducing people of color to insults, turning adrenaline-based sales into “kills” (remember Enron and “Death Star”) and just about any competitive field where there isn’t enough of something to go around for everyone. This is just how guys are and it’s really not about women.
The other important consideration on this is the whole Seduction Community/PUA crowd who are out to make money are just as likely to talk trash about the geeks who want to get laid. The paying customer falls into the “sucker born every minute” way of life of these fast-talking cats who really like to play it up like they actually have it made seducing a woman here and there as if they are The Fonz and can snap their fingers and make a girl come (Um, yeah, I did just write that).
And I have very different take on this which is not in disagreement over what you are writing, but I can tell you from month after month of what others would call “picking up women” that **I** was the one getting picked up. I was just looking for a girlfriend but I can’t tell you how many times I would be given a disconnected phone number (which had to be memorized, in fact…you can’t just make up a number that goes to someone’s house where some girl named Lisa answers and doesn’t know where Mary is…to give a working number would be like making a lie into the problem of a total stranger).
It’s very much the case that if a guy is “picking up the HB’s” that it isn’t because he is manipulating the women into doing something she doesn’t want to do. I do acknowledge, and have seen this firsthand, how guys do this whole insult thing and they know how to work it. It’s disgusting. One guy told me that he would get the attention of a bunch of girls in a bar and then go meet them if they laughed at him and he would be super-friendly to all of them except the one he wanted for himself–to her, he would blow her off and not shake her hand or say her name right or whatever. It wouldn’t be long before ALL the girls were trying to connect the pretty one up with this guy. That’s disgusting, dishonest and wretched. I just don’t believe in lying and his whole strategy was to lie (pretending he wasn’t interested) until he got what he wanted. “I guess he WAS interested in me after all! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!” …BARFO
Well, it’s an interesting topic. I look forward to reading the rest!
[Reply]
And the hot/not hot thing is definitive, by whose qualifications?
Do we even need reminding that ‘hot’ is something we all judge ever so differently? The objectification inherent in that point (@Andrew) is what’s making me uncomfortable.
My current idea of a hot guy is 54, grey beard, bald head and wrinkles. I’m 34, by the way. Tho not about to give myself a ranking out of 10.
But I’m clearly not a Hot Babe as I don’t enjoy those kind of neg hit pick-up lines.
I describe myself as a fairly staunch feminist, but I like old-fashion charm in a man. Is that a contradiction or more common than we think?
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 12:02 am
@Sam Brightwell, nothing hotter than charm. really and truly.
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 8:30 am
@Sam Brightwell, I’m willing to play the role of the messenger who keeps getting shot at. I’m merely bringing points to the table that have been scientifically studied, subsequently peer-reviewed, and that show not only strong correlations, but also tend to predict the way people behave. I don’t know how else to say it, but reproduction and genetics don’t care what we think is fair, what we want to be true, or what makes us comfortable. We’re all playing the hands we’re dealt.
Another thing that fascinates me is that, as @Jessica illustrates below, what we say/think we want and what we actually respond to are often very different. “Stumbling on Happiness” by Daniel Gilbert is an interesting look into this phenomenon.
[Reply]
I tried online dating for a while and actually met a guy who was a PUA. After the fact I found out that his entire online ad was taken word-for-word from a PUA website instructing guys how to pick up girls online.
I called him out on it, and I think it forced him to break from the script. Honestly, I felt a little bit sorry for him. After he was “called out,” I felt like he liked me a lot more and suddenly became vulnerable. I found out that this confident tough guy I had been talking with actually had low self-esteem and was masking it by using others’ words.
I felt a little upset at that fact that he hadn’t been completely genuine and was following these techniques, but on some level I had to admit that they worked. His online ad got my attention. The way he reacted to email and phone calls was in such a pattern that I found myself viewing him as mysterious and thinking about him non-stop for the week before we met up.
It sort of saddened me. I profess to hate games, but if they work on me, do I really hate them? Would I really have liked this guy if he put up ad normal ad listing where he works and what music he listens to? Would I really have daydreamed about him if he had acted as interested in me as he actually was, and texted, called, and e-mailed right when I expected it rather than making me wait?
Strange to think about…
[Reply]
Very nicely done!
I can’t recall anyone (outside a small circle of friends) willing to discuss misandry. Certainly not in public.
[Reply]
Wonderfully thought-provoking. Being in the dating world and not being a 10 but not being a 3 or 4 either, I can truly relate to what you said. I can see the PUA playing out both in men and in women. Hard to say how to end a cycle like that.
Definitely looking forward to the remainder.
[Reply]
Well, I’ve studied that subject intensively (extensively?) out of curiosity, also read Neil Strauss’ hilarious book and did some research of my own only to come to the conclusion this pick-up business is by and large the same as with all self-help or personal growth courses: 100% buys them (and pays for them) 10% get some and 1% decent success out of them. It’s a bit like people matriculating in psychology so as not to face they might be better off getting therapy.
[Reply]
From my perspective, when it comes to consensual sex (ie: not rape), women are ALWAYS the deciders. We teach the boys how to treat us.
During our low self-esteem phase (we all have one, somewhere between 13 and 35), we feel like we are not worthy of love, respect, admiration, and kindness. If a guy offers those things, we quickly put him in the “friend” category. If a guy comes along that treats us like shit, we think he really “gets” us… and btw, he’s hot, and manly, and all that good stuff that leads to wild sex in the alleys (or whatever).
But when WE decide all of that is bullshit, and that, in fact, we are worth MORE than that, and we deserve all the good stuff in life, then everything changes. That same guy who used to be able to easily seduce me is now a pathetic loser, easy to walk away from. Now if a guy approaches me with PUA lines, he’ll be shot down. Now instant chemistry, and butterflies in my stomach, and wondering if he will validate me, and all that stuff, is meaningless.
When WE know, love and respect ourselves, we expect others to do the same (ie: in order to “score”). At all other times, it’s just a pointless game anyway, since they only want sex, and we only seek confirmation that we’re worthless… everybody wins, in a sick twisted way.
I’m going to have to agree with Andrew in that women are the de facto selectors when it comes to sex. All the boys are doing is deciding which group of women to target (try for), the ones who hate themselves, or the ones who love themselves. We decide the rest.
[Reply]
Amanda
replied:
on March 2nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
@Lisis, Never really been drawn the kind of guy that treated me like hell. Always been more into the awkward, geeky guy with more brains than sense. So… I guess it seems a little counter-intuitive that women are initially drawn to assholes.
But this is a great point. Tasty words for me to digest.
[Reply]
All false modesty aside, I am considered ‘hot’ and, except for the postpartum periods, have been ‘hot’ since I was 17. Since social contact tends to exhaust me and I value my time alone or with close friends, I have always loathed being hit on and erect what Mystery and co. describe as the “bitch shield” (the last time two guys approached me at a club, before they could even speak I said “No” and turned my back on them). A male friend once “ran a game” on me (I recognized it when I read Mystery’s “how to get beautiful women into bed” book a couple days later — my friend’s game was literally TEXTBOOK) that lasted all afternoon, and although he didn’t hit a home run he got far enough for me to be impressed at how effective the techniques can be. It’s not about the negs or being ‘punished’ — negs can just be playful banter, guys do it to each other all the time, and I first attracted my current boyfriend with a neg that he still likes to talk about when he gives the “how we met” story (and although we both find it hilarious, other people will sometimes look a little bit…appalled) — but about the trust and comfort level the PUA (if successful) manages to build with you. *it doesn’t feel like you’re being picked up* so you drop your guard, laugh, talk and enjoy. one of Mystery’s key things — that somehow I don’t see getting talked about so much as the ‘negs’ thing — is not to take too much too soon, even if the girl is willing in the moment, because she might regret it afterwards and freeze you out as a result. You keep her comfortable and enjoying your presence and having fun.
so it’s dishonest at core — Mystery teaches you to get what you want by pretending that you don’t want it, thus taking it off the table and defusing the girl’s defense systems. this whole thing about undermining her self-esteem is bullshit — ‘hot’ girls have just as uncertain a sense of self-esteem as anybody else — but the ‘ignoring her’ thing instead, in my mind, plays off an innate social-herd instinct that also works on horses (the Horse Whisperer guy writes about this and uses it in his work with the animals). As in: exile someone (or animal) from the herd,that animal is immediately motivated to get back into the group (and has to seek the approval of the alpha to do so — and the whole PUA thing is about establishing yourself as alpha and dominating the group).
So this is what I truly find disturbing: that these kinds of basic principles that aren’t all that shocking or complicated (act alpha, make the girl feel comfortable, provide entertainment and ‘fun’ value, don’t ever come on strong or make her feel at risk, manipulate her through playing on innate social instincts of inclusion/exclusion, use the power of touch in a way that’s nonthreatening) are framed in such misogynistic terms: negging her, punishing her, qualifying her, making her ‘prove’ herself to you, etc. This is why, no matter how much Mystery claims he loves women and urges men not to call them hos or bitches or chicks or whatever, no matter how positive the interaction might seem, there’s something sick and twisted and sad at the core. The very terms of the game say it all. How radical it would be if men just took a genuine interest in women, even the women they really want to fuck, and were warm and generous with them and cared about their viewpoint without trying to extract anything in return. I love men, respect and admire them in many ways, but the bitch shield exists for a reason.
[Reply]
This piece is stunning.
I’ve always felt terribly uncomfortable with the misandry that seems inescapable in a lot of feminist discourse, and I hate the idea that we must either believe women are the same as men, or else be sexist and believe women are weaker than men. Why not acknowledge both the differences and the equality? Why can’t a strong woman rely on a man, and a strong man rely on a woman? Why are we all so damn afraid of vulnerability?
Thank you for writing this. I’m excited to read more.
[Reply]
I live in a house with two boys (well, a boy and a man but for convenience sake…), just me and two boys, and I often find myself saying things like: “Boys!” “Men!” etc. Just this weekend my head declared that I needed to stop doing that.
How, I asked myself, can I ask men to honor me for who I am and to not make assumptions or follow the culture line, etc… and yet it’s ok for me to degrade them simply because they have boy parts? Because they act like men! If I don’t want to be told that acting like a Girl is wrong, then I CAN NOT tell them that acting like a Man is…
It seems you and I were plugged into the same pre-recorded voice this weekend.
I admit that we as women degrade men – and I even believe that the media’s thrust at degrading and insulting men (white men are the only safe target don’t ‘cha know) – which I hate for my son’s sake – is designed to “even the playing field” if we can’t build ourselves up to their standards (if they won’t let us, if we can’t BE them) then we’ll just pull them down into the mud with us. Everyone loses. And I think this all needs to end.
I don’t think it’s that far fetched to believe that we can create a change so that men and women are honored equally for who they naturally are and neither one of us needs to degrade or step on the other to feel better about ourselves. That’s my feminist dream…
I’m really grateful that you posted this. I’m just learning to be a feminist, just learning that I need to be a feminist and what that looks like, how it integrates into my life. So much of what I’m learning terrifies and disgusts me. I’m terrified right along with you of the PUA – I’m terrified of what it means to the future and what it reveals about the truth in the present. Terrified that as much as I learn and try to help pull back the curtain on what our culture says and does to women, it seems there is another side taken as many strides forward. And here I was naively thinking that Truth would be enough to cause a shift…
Thanks to you I am discouraged, terrified, and yet, energized – propelled forward. So thank you.
Yours,
Megan
[Reply]
[...] so couldn’t partake in the verbal “beat down on Mom.” Now, after reading Kelly Diels’s take on negative compliments and pick up artists, I think my boys are in for a new lessons this week on women and on people in [...]
Good Job Kelly! You keep getting better and better! I can’t wait to read the next part.
[Reply]
I must admit, the first thing I thought of while reading this post is the following:
http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/
Now that I’ve shared that (and am somewhat ashamed of that fact), I cannot help but feel that if such a large group of men feel they have to systemize an approach to women it is most definitely a sign of insecurity and concern. You can’t just walk up to us chicks anymore and get exactly what you want.
I applaud your call for equanimity. If we want deep connected relationships with members of the opposite sex, then we must respect them. And if what we want is sex, then equanimity, respect and honesty allows us to know which members of the opposite sex want just what we want.
No playing around needed.
I’m pretty sure this will work well enough for same sex relationships too. Or anything else.
[Reply]
“holyshitnewsflash: PUAs are teaching men how to be attractive to women using the techniques usually employed by …women.”
GOD YES. A few months before I met my current boyfriend, I got so fed up with the bar/party/college scene and asshole guys that I purposely decided to play “The Game” by my own rules. Because I’m old-fashioned and don’t want sex without love, this meant going out at night, finding the cockiest, most arrogant SOB out there and just messing with him all night–playing the tease, bringing him down, bringing him back up, whatever it took.
I still can’t believe I managed to NOT screw things up when I met the boyfriend, but what got me right away–he was friendly. Respectful. Honest. Genuine. In other words, NOT LIKE the guys I was used to meeting at parties and bars. I was actually really thrown and had to ask a male friend for advice because “I don’t know what to do with nice guys.”
Neg Hits — I once sat and listened to a guy friend give another friend advice on how to ask a girl out: “You have to make fun of her a little. Insult or laugh at her.”
When I piped up and suggested maybe giving her a quick compliment and leaving it at that (the girl was a Starbucks barista he saw every morning), I was told I didn’t know what I was talking about. I asked the guy, “Do you want to listen to a girl or two SINGLE guys here?”
Loved reading, can’t wait for more. I need to think more about this, but your comparisons of misogyny and misandry — my first reaction is that the behaviors may come from the same place, but guys are more likely to *act* on their misogynistic talk. Girls mostly just vent and get it out (in general).
[Reply]
[...] I'm Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much. [...]
I think it might be a bit of a shock for women to consider that guys, especially young guys, that we are trained to not be who we are instinctively. Boys are rough and loud and gross and all the things that girls tend not to be. The “programming” that boys receive is that if they ever want a girl that they have to behave, they have to “listen” and they have to do all things that don’t naturally come to most of us. What comes naturally is to be completely gaga over boobs and legs and that’s totally instinctive; if a boy doesn’t get those biological reactions then they have been tamed out of him.
Of course, I’m not saying that boys should be more like monsters or that they should be more like gentlemen, but boys don’t get the kind of training that they deserve from many fathers (especially from absent fathers). I’m not saying that the PUA school of women is right, either, but women really aren’t the best teachers when it comes to how to be a man and treat a woman how she wants to be treated.
The key is to get them to be appropriate to women. Some women like things rougher, some like to be treated as soft as a bunny’s bottom and others prefer the guess-where-my-mind-is-at-now game. That’s fine. There is a time and place for everything. The important thing is for boys/men to actually be appropriate to each situation as it presents itself with each person.
[Reply]
You’re a goddamn genius, Kelly. How you can make a thoughtful, inclusive, insightful, emotional, self-aware and balanced post like this? Let me steal your brain. I must have your brain!
[Reply]
Oh, by the way, I’m not saying that there aren’t really insightful things that women can say to boys/men to get them to figure out what they are doing wrong, but there are two different ways that boys/guys will listen to what is being said.
One is “What did I just do wrong?” and the other is “How do I do this all the time so that it works all the time?” Most women have no clue as to what mode guys are in when they are listening so they can be imparting valuable life lessons and they guy is just focusing on one thing or vice versa.
[Reply]
@Kelly Diels, I’m not going to defend the conflation of a person’s value as a person and their respective reproductive value. Not only is that a point I didn’t make, I already said I don’t support that view.
It’s worth noting that body mass and structural beauty have been conflated more than once in this conversation. Genetics play some part in metabolism, but diet, exercise, and body mass(es) of our social groups are all much more significant determinants. Overweight women would typically be more attractive to men if their body mass was lower. This is effectively the collision of lifestyle choices of women and the biological imperatives of men. To ask men to overlook feelings rooted in their DNA because of a woman’s lifestyle choice is an unsustainable position. Men aren’t exempt from body mass scrutiny by women. However, that scrutiny communicates survival fitness rather than reproductive fitness so it’s less pronounced. Ironically, the things culture has trained us to refer to as shallow are actually the deepest.
I still can’t find any reasons in your distaste for the use of physical attraction as a measure of reproductive value. It’s clear that you don’t like it, but not liking something isn’t an argument we can pursue. You’re kind of arguing that there are other factors that should be taken into consideration. I’ve always agreed with that we can cross that off as well. You almost seem to be trying to use the existence of other qualities as an argument to ignore physical beauty. If so, I’d have to disagree. I’m hardly binary as you’ve suggested. I want to use all of the data points available. And believe me… I do.
In other news, this is a great perspective on playful teasing, which is what “Negs” are meant to be.
In Defense of Teasing
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 1st, 2010 at 9:35 pm
@Andrew, I’m not trying to ignore physical beauty. I don’t have a problem with physical beauty. I’m not disagreeing that we have instinctual physical reactions to people (trust and believe I like that sort of thing).
You said this:
“I’m not going to defend the conflation of a person’s value as a person and their respective reproductive value. Not only is that a point I didn’t make, I already said I don’t support that view.”
Well then, we’re in the same place.
But let’s go back to where we started. People making EP explanations of PUA, say, “sure, of course men are trying to “get” the hottest chicks. That’s just biology.”
And so…boys will be boys?
And so…it is totally ok for men to dehumanize women, call them targets and HBs and strategize on how to sex as many of them as possible?
And so…that’s all that men are? Untrammelled lust and ego?
And so…we shouldn’t expect men to take responsibility for their own ethics and the way they make their way in the world?
I know you didn’t say any of this. I’m just trying to explain why EP arguments get me all hot ‘n bothered.
I suspect we are more than just our evolutionary psychology.
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on March 2nd, 2010 at 1:02 pm
@Kelly Diels, I wrote a 2259 word response in this tiny little window last night. Then I saw your tweet (probably in jest) about me not being nice so I filed my response in the future blog posts file. I guess you’ll have to wait until I can come up with a good domain name.
[Reply]
Natasha
replied:
on March 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
@Andrew, Just as somewhat of a side note… You seem to be arguing that men are biologically or genetically attracted to thinner women, or perhaps to the women that are held up as attractive now. While very thin women are the current social standard, curvy women with hips and breasts and higher body fat are more suited to carry healthy children. That genetic fact has not changed, despite our rapidly changing cultural values. While culture often reflects deeper genetic traits, culture can also stray from our evolutionary history.
[Reply]
Andrew
replied:
on March 2nd, 2010 at 12:57 pm
@Natasha, yes the thread has meandered a bit. Again, I think you’re confusing curves with body mass/fat. Please see my comment above which references a specific study addressing this question. Also, the linked article on this comment above.
Once taking that into consideration, there is a point at which body mass obfuscates waist-to-hip ratio. But even before that, higher body mass/fat introduces negative reproductive fitness pressures by way of decreased cardiovascular fitness. To compound the negative pressures, this also impacts survival fitness which is especially important in humans mothers because of the protracted maturation process of our children.
While waist-to-hip ratio does correlate to reproductive fitness, studies do not show a similar correlation for breast size. I’m afraid I can’t cite one off the top of my head, but the (Singh, 1993) may include this; I can’t recall now.
This survives logical scrutiny without a referenced study. The skeletal structure of the hips (what we’re really talking about when we say “waist-to-hip ratio”) influences the fetus directly. Breast size does not have any bearing on the fetus and subsequent breast feeding is not influenced at all by the fat content of the breasts.
As a general point, we’d need some disambiguation to gain a point of reference before directly discussing “higher body fat” as you mention it. Optimal body fat isn’t a linear distribution with 0 being the best and as fat as possible being the worst. It certainly also isn’t a linear curve where maximum fat is optimal and 0 fat is the worst.
In any case, curves (waist-to-hip ratio) and body mass/fat remain two separate conversations. That’s what I was trying to get at in the comment you responded to.
[Reply]
Natasha
replied:
on March 2nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@Andrew, Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood your point. That article and your earlier posts were clarifying and very interesting.
[Reply]
Kelly, this is the topic that has officially pulled me out of “quietly lurking” around your blog! I LOVE it. My boyfriend and I were just browsing the erotic section of Borders last weekend when we noticed a few Pick-Up artist books (kind of disturbs me that it is in the erotic section in the first place– self-help would be less offensive). He pulled one off the shelf, made some comment of disapproval but said “but you know what– sadly. This stuff works. It makes me sad and angry for women out there, but this stuff works.” I didn’t know what to say. His comment kind of made me mad, because I didn’t want it to be true. But I knew in my bones that is WAS true. Why was it true? Well your series is helping me understand AND fueling me with all sorts of fodder for an intelligent conversation about it. Thanks!
[Reply]
[...] I'm Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much. [...]
this is effing brilliant.
[Reply]
[...] I'm Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much. [...]
You’ve voiced all the conflicts I’ve had about this whole Seduction Community thing. I’ve met/dated men that have been a part of the PUA way of thinking and always felt slightly nauseated by the “negs” and the “peacocking.” Why not just take pride in your appearance?
But, if it helps you feel better about yourself, sure, who can poo-poo that? I just always feared it would lead to the creation of more cocky misogynistic asshats. That helps no one…
[Reply]
[...] I'm Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much. [...]
[...] I'm Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much. [...]
Kelly, this is some of the most insightful and balanced writing I’ve read about the negatives of PUA and the misandry towards the community. Can’t wait to read more.
[Reply]
[...] I'm Not Picking On Pick-Up Artists. Much. [...]
[...] is Kelly’s fault. She’s been talking a lot about the effective but damaging methods of the pick-up artist community, and the myth that the Nice Guys who finish last are actually [...]
I could go on for ages about PUAs, especially since for a while I WAS sort of one (I know, I was confused).
Girls that play games should be ignored and that’s that. Duh *rolleyes*
What about guys who play games… AKA Pick Up Artists?
[Reply]
What a breath of fresh air. I linked through from Jezebel, where the topics are (sometimes) of interest, but the level of casual unquestioning misandry is truly epic, and often justified by “Well, *we* have to face entrenched Patriarchy in power structures everywhere, so we can say whatever we damned well like.”
Being a “Be the change you want to see in the world” person, myself, I grind my teeth often. Your thoughtful and fair treatment of these issues is most welcome.
[Reply]
John
replied:
on August 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I just stumbled across this blog while searching PUA articles on the internet. It’s interesting to hear a woman’s perspective. I’ve been involved in the Pickup community for a while and have done a lot of research (and fieldwork) on the topic.
I suppose I am to the point where I find your reaction kind of funny. Not that I don’t respect your feelings on the subject. But from my perspective we are all animals equal with the other beasts of the planet. We have two main drives in life: survive and replicate. Now misogyny and “objectifying women” is not a product of our culture or our society. It’s naive that think that our society causes men to be misogynistic. It’s not society, IT’S IN OUR BLOOD. The EXTREMELY strong programming and wiring instilled in every man (especially me, I have an enormous sex drive) is the product of MILLIONS of years of evolution. We (men) want to sleep with every attractive woman that we see. I’m thankful for this very strong drive inside of me because it was the same drive in my ancestors that ALLOWED ME TO EXIST. I feel that it is unnatural to try and tame it, or try to control it. Women will call me a “boy” or “immature” or that I “need to grow up” or that I am “sexist”. Just as a poster said above, it is in a woman’s best interest that her man only sleep with her. From an evolutionary sense, a man that sleeps around is less likely to care for a woman and the inevitable child that will be born. A man that is hopelessly devoted to one woman is more likely to stick around and “protect and provide” for the woman and her offspring. On the flip side, it’s in the man’s best interest to spread as much seed as possible!
The art of pickup is nothing new. And to “hate” it would be the equivalent of hating THE ENTIRE MATING PROCESS. All pickup does is teach men how to attract and sleep with women. This process is the reason why our species is here today. The pickup principles work because they are steps in the natural mating process of humans. Some guys naturally get it, and some guys don’t. I’m a more technically oriented guys that had a mother with a very strong character. Now I used to think, “just be nice to a girl and she will like you for who you are.” Silly me. I found out this JUST DOESN’T WORK. Women like men who have boundaries, self-esteem, and will put their foot down. I’ve seen it over and over and over and over again. The more women say they like “nice guys” the more it instills my beliefs. I believe a woman “thinks” she wants a nice guy, but she’s really attracted to a STRONG man.
That’s where the art of pickup comes in. It teaches men the process. It teaches them techniques and “lines” so that they come across confident. It allows them to practice the art and become competent in all areas of seduction. Don’t blame misogyny and sexism on our “society” or a book called The Game. It’s the way we are. It’s in our programming and DNA. We want to spread our seed. And women will never understand because you are not in our body. You don’t realize how strong this drive is.
[Reply]
DJ Fuji
replied:
on August 25th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
@John, a few thoughts:
“I feel that it is unnatural to try and tame it, or try to control it.”
Murder is also part of evolution/survival. Taking the lives of your adversaries is a perfectly normal part of being ‘an animal’ and of survival itself. Would you condone that as well?
The part of pickup that’s new is that it’s a structured, online-based, methodical process that’s being taught to evolutionarily-underqualified men. Society itself is programmed to dislike things that artificially screw with natural selection. Pick up is one of those things. Pick up (at least in theory) is the male equivalent of a ‘love potion’ that fat ugly women can use to reel rich, good looking, successful men in who get placed under their spell. Would YOU be cool with that kind of love potion being used on you? I didn’t think so.
Now keep in mind that yes, I’m making this overly dramatic and that it doesn’t work like this in the real world. Pick up in the real world is about growth and personal development (otherwise it doesn’t work), but you have to remember that the media and society is looking at it the way it’s portrayed. And it’s portrayed as a love potion.
DJ Fuji
Dating & Life Coach
[Reply]
Hi Kelly, found your site via Rabbit Writes via The Beautiful Kind, saw the headline, had to respond. Great post.
I’m an experienced pickup artist in my 30s and I’ve read and reviewed a galaxy of PUA lit and product. Most of what you’ll read is marketing copy, the kind of over-the-top marketing that is common with any product you find on the Internet. Don’t let the marketing mislead you about the intended audience, though, because most guys who buy the stuff are just regular dudes who want to get a few more dates in their lives. I submit to you that there’s nothing at all wrong with that goal. YES, there are plenty of creepy PUA guys out there, but they are a tiny percentage of the population.
Another point: much of pickup actually came from sales techniques. Research Sandler System and you’ll see some remarkable similarities. If you can use psychology to sell someone an expensive product, you can use psychology to build attraction. I happen to work in sales and it’s essentially the same.
Pickup is also evolving rapidly and has changed significantly since I first got into it. These days, there is a TON more thought and interest in general well roundedness, well being, and growing your inner self to be more outwardly attractive, then is given credit for. Probably the material you looked at is some of the older, less mature material.
Almost any pickup product you purchase these days will have some kind of inner game or self-growth component to it. Again, I submit to you, this is not a bad thing.
Lastly, you are a silly silly girl.
[Reply]
I couldn’t agree more. So articulate.
[Reply]
I found this article revealing and warm. I thank you.
[Reply]
I couldn’t agree more. So articulate.
[Reply]