this 1,600 or so words is part of an epic(ish) series on pick up artists, The Seduction Community, and hey, the whole damn world. That-which-came-before is below:
1. I’m Not Picking On Pick Up Artists. Much.
1.5 Interview with a Former Pick Up Artist
2. wherein I take a (temporary) break from bitching about pick up artists
______________________________
In my last essay, I wrote
But maybe that isn’t quite true. At different times, we want different things. Women want different things than it is expected that women should want; men, too. It is pretty damn difficult to say, definitely, categorically, Women are this and want this or Men are that and want that. That sort of binary approach to gender and desire pretty neatly renders everyone outside of those constructions and intentions invisible.
Like: if ciswomen want x and cismen want y, what do transwomen and men want? And what happens if you’re a woman and you don’t want a man? What if you don’t identify with either gender? What if you’re queer? What if you do identify with what it means to be a stereotypical woman, but don’t necessarily want a boyfriend or a serious relationship?
Obviously, the Seduction Community doesn’t deal with any of that or anything outside the realm of hot chick/must fuck.
~
Dating is a numbers game so it isn’t fundamentally offensive that PUAs advise their students to approach lots of women.
Women, after all, work the numbers by looking hot.
And therein lies the fucking (literally) problem.
- “Hot” is, essentially, youth – and is therefore pretty temporary and a risky foundation for feminine identity.
- There is an entire industry dedicated to teaching women that we are not attractive.
- There is an entire society dedicated to teaching women that we have no worth beyond our looks, our ability to dispense sex, and, possibly, create new life. But once we do that, the first two are shot, so society can feel free to indulge in mama-targeted misogyny.
- You know why there is misogyny in the Seduction community? Because there is misogyny in real life.
- Still, when I encounter misogyny in the Seduction Community, it freaks me out because it is so naked and explicit. The Seduction Community overtly embraces the paradigm that young, thin, curvy is a woman’s worth. These women are “HBs” = hot bitches. Everyone else is a “fattie” or “warpig”. Women are rated by their attractiveness (0-10), called “targets” and talking to them is called an “approach” or a “set”. All of these terms chess-ify human interaction and dehumanizes both parties. The man running the set becomes the wizard behind the curtain twiddling the knobs -
(and I think we can safely presume from the lessons of Oz and real life that wizards are lonely. Neil Strauss wrote that the more success he had with women, the less he respected them, which doesn’t sound terribly fulfilling)
- while the woman is just matter to manipulate. It is a science experiment and experimenting on human beings usually requires an ethics committee. I demand an ethics committee.
I also get the sense –from the forums and the language – that some PUAs feel that men are getting screwed by women who are The Keepers of The Pie and therefore have the upper hand in dating and sex.
(This is not unique to the PUA community. See, for example, the superbowl ads that amount to what Mary Elizabeth Williams calls “an annual evening of misogyny punctuated with occasional outbreaks of football”; or even the current debate in the fem-o-sphere about hook up culture.)
The very basis of the PUA methods is inversion. PUAs examine how women attract men and then mirror those techniques. They model women in order to secure the thing they want that women have: the power of sexual selection.
~
Men feel screwed. Women feel screwed. We’re all feeling screwed by each other, and by the world.
Some of it feels like a reaction against sterility and routine. We’re lusting for authenticity and creation. We suspect that we’re alienated from our wildness and our humanity, our flesh biology and imperatives, our appetites and desires, our spirits, communion, and communities. We’re fleeing corporate world; we’re making cartoons and books and blogs and art; we’re manufacturing community; we’re connecting with the divine feminine and the sacred masculine; we’re railing against commutes and building cottage industries. Maybe we’re resisting scale and reasserting the primacy of intimacy. Maybe we want to be together on our own terms rather than warehoused in cubicles and condos.
~
This anguish – about men and women, sex and commitment, intimacy and power, and nature versus the human world – is old. It reminds me of Rousseau’s Emil and Sophie, his fictional, idealized versions of men and women in his new world.
Of course, Rousseau, who wrote the Social Contract – examining the bases of political cooperation – was fixed on figuring out Woman and Man. What kind of citizens will our democratic societies need?
Answer XY: Emil. Ideal Man. Educated to be self-governing. The goal is moral mastery and individual self-sufficiency: The Citizen.
Answer XX: Sophie. Ideal Woman. Educated to be governed by her husband. The goal is to complement The Citizen.
It is an age-old story: when we’re trying to figure out our world and our future, we turn first to figuring out women, men, sex, love and babies.
Every political philosophy and most religions start with organizing sex.
~
A friend of mine told me the following story:
He’s given vibrators or sex toys to several girlfriends as gifts. And every time he has, he noted, the relationship ended. So, he told me, he thinks maybe he should not give sex toys to girlfriends any more.
I told him – all future girlfriends, you owe me a debt of gratitude, please send cash – that his conclusion was based on crap logic. Correlation is not causation. He’s single, so in fact all of his relationships have ended – not just the ones in which sex toys were exchanged. I doubt the problem vibrates.
(Which is not to say that the common denominator is him – I don’t think a history of ended relationships indicates pathology. Instead, I think it indicates being wise enough to move on when it isn’t right.)
I think this urge, though – to rationalize, systemize, isolate variables, invent causation, define a methodology – is pretty understandable.
And that’s what pick up artists do. They attempt to systemize attraction. They try to structure magic.
By most accounts, it seems to work, initially.
~
Let’s be clear:
- Men trying to get laid: ok
- Women trying to get laid: ok
- Relationships: ok
- Casual sex: ok
My issue with PUAs isn’t the pursuit of sex. I take issue with the community’s basic conception of what women are, what they are for, and why and how they are valued.
In essence: sex, sex, sex, preferably all while looking like a “hot bitch”. (Nothing against hot bitches.)
If that is all women are, and are meant for, then why are women bothering with all this education and creating and you know, thinking?
Which bring us to the the New York Times trend section.
It seems like a non sequitur, but it is not. The NY Times trend section could easily be known as “Ladies, you know it is all your fault.”
Mixed martial arts and Jesus? You made church too womanly and anti-bloodsport. Ballstealers, all of you.
Can’t get a boyfriend at college? Blame feminism. This is what happens when you get ideas and an education.
Got a hot career (thanks, college!) but can’t get married or, if you’re married (phew! Close call, that one) and you’re having problems with your earning-less-money husband? Blame your career and your buying power. ‘Cuz men don’t like it if you’re successful and money can’t buy you love, you uppity bitch. Booyah!
About the money/career/successful thing as a barrier to romance:
Really?
Because I don’t know any man who was turned off by me being, you know, self-sufficient. The cool guys I’ve liked and even loved always thought it was hot that I have ambition.
Once, when I was in the middle of a really challenging project, with a really challenging co-worker. (By “challenging” I mean we were having a pissing match that I was determined to win.) I was talking about how I fixed the problem and my beau at the time looked at me and said “that just turned me on.”
Another time, when I was talking about resolving a problem with a sort-of-bf-who-screwed-me-over, I described how I dug in my heels and got mine, a guy friend told me “that’s so hot. Hearing about you fighting back and winning makes my dick hard.”
That is hot. Only weak people – and I use people, not “men”, because this truth is universal – are intimidated by strength.
And all this handwringing about monied career chicks not getting any lovin? (New York Times, I’m a-talkin’ to you.) I call bullshit, especially in sexy cities where an aged bungalow costs a million bucks. Two fat paycheques are way better than one.
~
So the Seduction Community is just a way to talk about what the NY Times is so confused about: just what exactly are our gender roles these days? What do we do if our usual gendered shorthand doesn’t work, either for describing gender itself or the aspirations or temperaments of people? And, more pruriently, who’s doing what to whom?
~
Again, this is an old question.
The women everyone from Pick Up Artists to the New York Times seems to be longing for – the ideal mate – is Rousseau’s fictional Sophie: intelligent but decorous, educated but subservient, beautiful but without vanity, and absolutely, essentially feminine.
And she did not end well.
No woman who exists as the complement to another or for the purposes of another ever does.
Hi Kelly,
I’ve been following you for a month or so and only made a teensy comment awhile back, but this deserves more than teensy.
Thank you. I will now go share with friends and say LOOK! See? That’s what I’ve been talking about!! Look, someone else gets it too! lol
I like it all, but what you said about some guys finding power in a woman hot and so on–sounds great but a little voice in my head says “Well what’s the big deal? Why is that such a turn on? Dude, never heard of that?” lol But no, they haven’t. Or many haven’t so it’s no wonder.
I’ve had a struggle all my life with stereotypes; I grew up in a place where strength in a woman was valued in many ways, where (as a friend put it) “men are men and women are too” (though that’s sort of biased as well) and as an adult it’s so weird how I see people expecting me to be some simpering idiot. It’s bizarre how they act sometimes, and they kind of freak when they realize that’s not how I am. It’s what I call their WTF moment lol
Just thanks, you’re totally right on with this.
Leah
Great job, keep it going!
Leah in New Jersey
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 4th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
@Leah, this: “LOOK! See? That’s what I’ve been talking about!! Look, someone else gets it too!” is the kind of thing that feeds me for days. Recognition is powerful. Thank you so much for seeing this with me.
[Reply]
Dave Doolin
replied:
on March 5th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
@Leah, you left out “and the sheep are scared.”
[Reply]
spot on. so spot on. I give this a standing O. Thank you.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 4th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
@ali, my mind just went a very naughty place. THANK YOU.
[Reply]
“What if you don’t identify with either gender?”
I’m glad that you found inspiration in our conversation about my gender dysphoria, even if you didn’t use the term. Obviously, this hasn’t carried on in my adult life but it was pretty significant as a child and teenager. Until recently, I could not — no matter how I hard tried — identify with women or as a woman myself.
It made love difficult. And easy. I’m head-strong, ambitious, and ridiculously nerdy. I’ve always dressed the part of the woman but acted the part of the man. I’ve learned female by watching. It makes gender issues a bit of a sore spot for me.
From my perspective, it seems like the Seduction Community is built by a bunch of dudes who get high off of pulling one over on the women. It seems almost mercenary: target acquired, drink paid for, HB picked up, dumped the next day. Chalk another one up and dude’s on his way. But even if women were doing this, I’d still feel skeeved. It just seems… wrong. And even if a relationship grows out of it, it would be built on a shaky foundation of deception and mistrust.
I find that people who are cocky, arrogant, and blow their own damn horn are not worth my time. Gender is unimportant. It’s why I dislike Apple: Steve Jobs is self-important asshat with nothing better to do than snow the public into believing that Apple is the greatest thing since spreadable butter. If you’re some kind of self-important, “oh look at me and my hot girlfriend/boyfriend”, indolent, good-for-nothing-but-looking-at jackass, then I’ll pass. Always.
Socially awkward dudes need a better way to learn how to talk to women. There need to be more women that take an interest in helping them. The Seduction Community must seem like a last resort after a long, windy road of rejection and loneliness. There has GOT to be a better way ’cause I’ll choose (and have chosen) the socially awkward, dorky, shy wallflower before ever looking at that cocky wise-ass at the bar.
Just sayin’, fellas. You’ve got one avid female supporter, at least. I like your awkward so there have got to be more women that do too.
[Reply]
Kelly
replied:
on March 6th, 2010 at 9:21 am
@Amanda, Isn’t indolent a word? It should be…
Oh! Let’s get together and teach “socially awkward dudes”. I’m writing a book on that topic but it is mostly about sex. My 25 yo son says “Mom, I ain’t got no game” and, despite being his mom, he truly is good looking and charming. But he is terrified of approaching women. Why? BECAUSE WE ARE TERRIFYING!
I think there are very few truly girly women. Look, wouldn’t we secretly really just love to wear our jeans vs. high heels all the time? We “feel sexy” in the latter but how much of that has ben fed to us?
What I would give to be in Canada so I could suck down a jug of sangria with you smart babes (innocent, totally) and TALK about this stuff.
[Reply]
And by indolent, I meant insolent. Go me. I win at writing.
[Reply]
“The women everyone from Pick Up Artists to the New York Times seems to be longing for – the ideal mate – is Rousseau’s fictional Sophie: intelligent but decorous, educated but subservient, beautiful but without vanity, and absolutely, essentially feminine.
And she did not end well.
No woman who exists as the complement to another or for the purposes of another ever does.”
rar, and boom. there were also strokey beard points.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 5th, 2010 at 6:30 am
@Paddy, “strokey beard points”. Now I’ve got beard envy. Ok, not really.
[Reply]
Paddy
replied:
on March 5th, 2010 at 7:11 am
@Kelly Diels, i’m beardless too, but i still stroke where it’d be.
[Reply]
Standing O indeed.
My favorite assertion in this is that only weak people are intimidated by strength. Right on. It is hard for me to remember that, in moments when I sense the world or another person responding negatively to a show of strength of some kind (which has usually taken great effort by me to muster up). I will remember that line the next time.
It will join the pantheon of your phrases that run through my head now and then, reminding me of all that is true, holy, right. Thank you.
[Reply]
Kelly – this is absolutely brilliant. Last night, I went to a film about global women’s rights as a part of an organization I volunteer for. So many things came up about stereotyping – not just women, but men – and at the end of the day, “we’re all trying to get to the same thing,” as you said, became clear. I had tons of ideas from this evening and your post made me burst with joy – thank you for speaking up and being honest and true.
[Reply]
@Amanda @Lindsey @Laura: I just tweeted it but it bears repeating. The smartest stuff on this blog come from commenters. What you all just wrote: WOW.
[Reply]
Wow– just Wow! I think I love you and if I weren’t married, I would propose… except in my state, women can’t marry women, so we’d have to live together…
You seriously rock Kelly!
[Reply]
Kelly
replied:
on March 6th, 2010 at 9:22 am
@Shauntelle, Crap! Seriously, Kelly D. Another one?
[Reply]
I may regret this.
I agree with the majority of points you make. Men (and women) afraid of strong women (and men). Check. Misogyny sucks. Check. Lots of structural and cultural things that support misogyny and other bad stuff. Check.
And yet – reading the whole post made me a bit sad – and uncomfortable. I do believe that all these things exist, and I have personally been subject to discrimination (and I’m a target on multiple planes). Yet your post makes it sound like the world is trending misogynist and anti-feminist and anti-strong person, and I disagree with that thought. Maybe I’m naive, but I think things are trending positively. While we should remain vigilant for the bad we ALSO keep our eyes open and our hearts open for all the good. And I believe that there’s a lot more good out there than bad. It just doesn’t make the headlines.
Writing from my protective bubble.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 5th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
@ami | 40daystochange, I am so glad you wrote that.
I don’t know if the world is trending misogynyist or trending positively. It is hard for me to say. I can say that in my privileged, cozy world, I don’t encounter a lot of negativity or a lot of people desperate to get their foot on my neck. I think that’s positive.
But I do read a lot of stuff that makes me go ewwwww, and worry about all the corners where things aren’t as rosy.
That being said – I’m trying to write at this issue from different angles. I have such mixed feelings about it: I could write a support piece. I could write this piece (and did) where I’m critical. I could write an intensely personal piece about my emotional reaction to all of this (and I probably will).
I just think it is an interesting window into the way we think about sex and society. Dating is such an interesting social experiment.
[Reply]
ami | 40daystochange
replied:
on March 5th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
@Kelly Diels, funny – you reminded me why I sometimes run with the fear – what does this mean for a mom trying to raise a strong and confident daughter (or son)? Protective bubble childhood or Toss ‘em in the deep end? Mom as Pollyanna or mom as Eeyore? (I can do both). Sigh.
[Reply]
Kelly Diels
replied:
on March 5th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
@ami | 40daystochange, these are questions that occupy me. I have two children, 5 and 3 and I wonder how to equip them to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. (It is an epic question, which is why I quoted Shakespeare.) I toggle between Pollyanna and Eeyore. Pollyanna is my love-is-the-best policy, and I slather them with affection. Eeyore is realism (what Danielle LaPorte calls being “the high priestess of practicality”) wherein I do let them loose in the world, don’t sugar-coat things, and let them make mistakes and solve problems. I trust that the endless love (and freedom to fall down and fix things) that they get at home is the best armour for the hurts the world may have in store.
It is hard to exploit confident people who can recover from missteps and who walk in love.
Fingers crossed.
[Reply]
Deanna
replied:
on March 9th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
@Kelly Diels, You said exactly what I was thinking, but you said it better.
[Reply]
@Ami PS – I don’t think I made myself clear in my essay. I do NOT think men are afraid of strong women. It has been my experience that they are not. I think “men are afraid of strong women” is an urban myth (that gets repeated by the NY Times, alas).
[Reply]
Lots of good stuff. No longer surprised. 3 thoughts:
*If it is all about sex (and sometimes it is) provide us with legalized prostitution-for boys and girls who want boys or girls!
*regarding “hot bitches”: we ALL want hot bitches. Or at least people who are as hot or hotter than we are. Very few of us are completely blind to looks. STRAIGHT women are more forgiving on looks, but not so much lesbians. Picky group.
*I may have said it before but confidence and accomplishment is sexy in anyone! Good lord. Who doesn’t get this?
[Reply]
I totally support your rejection of a community that neglects the humanity inherent in every individual. I’ve just started reading your blog, and I just wanted to say that what you explicitly reject and properly dismiss as shallow and an affront to the individual is what I’ve found most refreshing to find an alternative to in The Christian community. A community that teaches the inherent dignity of all who have been made in the image of God, and one that teaches that the value of a person is a not a function of his or her geometric ratios. Thank you for articulating this frustration in our world’s current conception of relationships
[Reply]
I love your writing, and the clarity with which you express yourself. Thank you.
I noticed on Google that today is Pi (3.34159) day. In light of your delightful expression “Keepers of the Pie”, I’d like to wish you Happy Pi Day.
[Reply]
John
replied:
on March 14th, 2010 at 9:37 am
@John, Sorry, typo : 3.14159
[Reply]