Let’s say that I spot an attractive woman on the subway. My goal is to try to get to know her enough to see if I want to date her. I say hi. That, in itself, is a compliance test. If she says hi back, she passed the test. If not, I move on, or maybe try saying hi again a few minutes later. Assuming she passed, I’ll try to continue the conversation. That’s another compliance test. If I decide I like her, I’ll ask for her number. Does she comply again? Yes? Good. In a day or two, I will test her again by calling her and seeing if she wants to talk to me.
Let’s assume that I keep testing her in this way until a week later, we’re sitting on her bed. Now all this, time, of course, I’ve been testing her to see if she’s smart, funny, and sane. If not, I leave. Now make no mistake, all this time she’s testing me as well. She wants to know if I’m stable, safe, interesting, and fun, and so far she has found me to be so. Now I want to escalate to a physical level. I want to test if she’s amenable to that. I touch her hand. Does she pull away? She failed the test. Obviously it would be a bad idea for me to go in for the fuck at that moment, I’m sure you’d agree. Perhaps she needs a little more time to be comfortable.
So we talk some more. I touch her hand again. This time she touches back. Good. Now maybe I can put my arm around her.
And so on. Does that make sense? Of course, one could view that as breaking down her will, but could it not also be viewed as building familiarity and comfort?
It’s really not all that sinister, it’s not in any way dishonest, and of course it could lead to a committed, caring relationship.
I disagree. You could call that a “friendliness” test, or an “openness” test, or if you wanted to stretch it, an “interest” test, but it is not a “compliance” test. The only thing she would be complying with are social norms, in contrast to the test from the OP, which is testing her compliance to having her hands physically pulled around.
Here’s what’s squicking me: at no point does the woman have any agency. She only responds to the PUA in acceptable or unacceptable ways. It is a completely passive role, and there’s apparently nothing that attracts you except for her looks. What’s special about her? Why do you want to have a relationship with her, and not the equally attractive woman two carriages down? Or the less attractive but brilliantly funny and sharp woman sitting next to her? It’s like she’s a piece of Silly Putty you’re pressing newsprint against to see what leaves an imprint.
ETA: I think it’s also worth repeating that in our society, women are socialised to be agreeable, and if you keep trying (saying “hi” again after she’s chosen not to respond, continuing to touch her after she’s pulled away) and she eventually acquiesces, that doesn’t necessarily indicate interest. It is hard to say “no” to persistent but not overtly offensive interest, and not be slammed as a “bitch” or “tease”.
Thank you very much, WhyNot. You’re getting exactly what I’m talking about. Ah, it’s satisfying to finally make one’s self understood at long last.
Again I apologize for my tone yesterday. As I’ve been studying this stuff for some time, I took it very personally. My bad. And I realize that some of my posts in the past year have indeed come of as a bit oogy. I will attempt to explain things better in the future. I’m really not an oogy guy IRL.
And don’t be put off by either the nomenclature or the marketing. It’s not really representative of the actual content. Despite what you may have read or heard so far, there really is a strong sense of ethics in The Community. That’s not always apparent on the surface.
There’s a great example of this on one of the message boards. The subject of dating single moms comes up quite often, in multiple threads. The number one priority, almost all of the time, is to protect the kids. It’s not fair to them become part of their lives and then remove yourself. Either commit to something long term, or arrange to not really get to know them and create attachments. The idea behind pickup is NOT to create pain.
We are not born knowing any of this. Everybody–every single one of us–learned these tactics at some point. The only thing different about the guys studying Pickup 101 is that they didn’t learn them as early or as successfully as the guys for whom it seems like a natural impulse. If that trips your creepy meter, you probably need to get it readjusted.
And don’t think that the difference is that the Pickup 101 crowd just wants to get laid. There are plenty of other guys out there who are also just looking to get laid.
You’re getting hung up on words. Let’s call it a “sdjknsdfjh” test. Does that make it any better?
That’s simply not true. At one phase of TMM, the idea is to find out more about her. You do, in fact, want to find out if there’s more to her than her looks. And if your goal in picking her up is to start something meaningful, OF COURSE you’re going to want to know more about her. But that’s hard to do if you can’t even start a conversation with her to begin with.
Of course. That’s why aspiring PUAs are trained to look for more clues.
I’ll be more specific, as I can see how that language was vague.
Natural impulse (good): “This woman is interesting and attractive. I’d like to touch her hand. Is it an appropriate time to touch her hand?” If yes, he touches her hand. If not, he doesn’t.
Studied tactic (bad): “This woman is attractive enough to have caught my interest. We’ve been talking for a few minutes – time to use The Hand Touch move.” It’s a calculated technique to get a preset goal.
Call which a keysmash test, the hand-pulling “how much will she bend to my will” one, or the cordial “how open is she to everyday social pleasantries” one? They are not ‘testing’ for the same quality.
I still don’t see how the woman has any agency in this script whatsoever. And I absolutely don’t understand how your stated goals are achievable by the tactics described. What are your filters for choosing which women to approach? If it’s solely “they are in proximity to me and attractive,” I’m going to have to call BS on the claimed goal to find a real, long-term connection.
Okay, they may be ‘trained’ to look for more clues, but in the subway woman example that you yourself created, that’s not what happened. The PUA kept pushing even when she was sending clear “no thanks, not interested” signals. That is not good.
I’m kind of hesitant to jump in here . . . but I don’t think the first is a natural impulse, exactly. The initial attraction may be a natural impulse, but somewhere along the way the man has learned that touching someone’s hand can be an appropriate way to show his interest, and that there is an appropriate time and an inappropriate time to do so. The only difference between him and the second guy is that he’s internalized the thought process to an extent that he doesn’t really have to think about it on any conscious level.
When I’m with a guy I find attractive, my body language becomes different. I laugh more, I lean in closer, I find excuses to make skin contact. I don’t do it consciously (“In 1.56 seconds it will be the perfect time for me to touch his wrist and smile up at him”) but on some level I am modifying my behavior to express my interest and to test his reaction. As does everyone. I don’t think learning such behavior at a later age necessarily makes it creepier.
There isn’t anything you can do unless you wrote the material quoted in the OP. If you are the original author and you want to tell me that when you wrote “compliance” you meant something other than “compliance” then go ahead, although it’s going to take a LOT of explaining. But as far as I know you aren’t the author, and it’s pretty condescending of you to claim that you have special knowledge of what the author really meant. He said “comply” again and again. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that he didn’t mean it. Perhaps this particular author’s presentation of things is atypical, maybe it’s not a fair description of Mystery’s technique, I don’t know, but I started posting in this thread in response to those exact words. If you’re trying to take my criticism of those exact words as applying to something else entirely then that is your mistake. I think I’ve been pretty clear as to what I’m referring to.
I am very, very put off by the use of the word “comply” in this context, and your rephrasing “I want to see how compliant she is” is not any better. The word “compliant” means “submissive”. No matter how much you want the author to have meant “interested”, the plain fact is that this is not what he said at all. If you’re not happy with the quoted material then you’re free to disagree with it, but you’re fooling yourself if you think it means something totally different from what it says.
Fair enough. Let us then assume a guy who would like to do the natural impulse move, to move things along with a woman in which he is genuinely interested. Let’s also assume that he has absolutely no clue how to do it. How would you suggest he learn?
Actually, they are. This “bend to my will” thing is a fiction. Where did you get that from, and why are you hanging onto it so tightly?
The woman has every right to walk away, tell the guy to buzz off, or throw a drink in her face. She also has the right to talk to him a bit to see if she likes him. She has all the agency she wants. She’s not being held prisoner!
And how would you suggest filtering which women to talk to? Before you talk to anyone, all you have to go on is their looks. That’s why you talk to them, to find out more. Should we instead only approach women we find unattractive, to see if a better connection can be made?
Let’s turn the tables for a moment. Suppose you’re out, hoping to meet the man of your dreams. As no guys are approaching you, it’s up to you to approach them. What criteria do you use?
I’m confused here. Are you conflating two different examples? In the subway scenario, I said that she showed interest all along. In the other example, I said it was the PUA who backed off and the clueless guy who persisted.
Well, if you refused to be convinced, then we’ve reached an impasse. I certainly am not the author, but I’ve read far more of his stuff than just the quoted bit. I’ve made an effort to understand it. I’ve gone beyond dictionary definitions and tried to search out the deeper meaning.
I feel bad that we can’t come to an agreement on it, but as you’ve said, you’ve already made up your mind. No more effort that I put into it will make a whit of difference, apparently.
You’ve made an effort to convince yourself that it means something completely different from what it actually says. The only “deeper meaning” there is what you’ve invented to make yourself feel better about it.
*No, it won’t, because you’re just making stuff up. You can tell me that up is down and black is white if you like, but the quoted text says what it says and your wishing otherwise does not make it so. Your refusal to accept that is your own problem. I certainly am not going to “comply” with your fanciful reimagining of a pretty straightforward piece of writing, so I’m happy to hear that you’re going to stop trying to convert me…or con me, as the case may be.
Exactly. A lot of men (not all, so don’t jump my shit if the shoe doesn’t fit) have the attitude that if you’re out in public, you (as a woman) have some sort of responsibility to be nice to them and to have a conversation if they so choose.
It’s amazing how fast you can go from “so pretty” to “fucking bitch” for not responding the way they want. One of my good friends had her father die last year. She was out a few days later at a department store because there were a few things she had to get. She was standing in line lost in her own thoughts on her father when a man behind her started trying to chat her up. She said she was really distracted and barely answered his questions. He was (from what she told me he was saying) trying to hit on her. She was barely responding, but he persisted. Finally she said “I’m sorry, I don’t feel like talking.” and he said “Why not?” she said “I’m sorry, my father just died 3 days ago. I’m not looking for conversation.” he said “Well maybe you should be at home until you feel better.”
The attitude was clear. You’re out here - I find you attractive - if I’m smiling and complimentary, you owe me conversation. Again, not ALL men are like this. Out of the men who are, most aren’t this direct with their feelings. Still, the attitude is there.
I’ve always thought it would be interesting if we could have a mini-camera strapped on to a reasonably attractive woman and one to a reasonably attractive man for a week. We could learn a lot about each other if we could see where the other is coming from.
Do you have any idea how smug you’re being about this? Five people can read the same book and see five different opinions about the same passages. Your opinion isn’t any more valid than anyone else’s as you’re just absorbing the parts that you want to, while disregarding the parts that you either don’t believe in, or think wouldn’t apply to you. You’re looking at the information as a man who was actively looking to be in a relationship. You’re using the male perspective, which is all you can do because you’re a man. That’s not said “you’re a man!” in a sneering way, it’s just biology.
A woman (most likely the target of these tactics you reading about) will look at it from a female perspective. Multiple women will see it in different ways using their own perspective as it pertains to their life experiences.
The suggestion that you are seeing her as stuck in her mode of thinking without realizing that so are you to the point that you want to take it like by freaking line so that you can show her is insulting and obnoxious.
I’m not trying to be smug, nor am I trying to be insulting or obnoxious, and I’m sorry if I’ve been coming off that way. I’m honestly trying to come to common understanding on this, and I’d like to keep the lines of communication open on it. The reason I’m suggesting taking it line by line is that I think context is more important than dictionary definitions. I am – or at least was – confident that we could keep the lines of communication open.
I was hoping to offer my insights to the issue, being that I’ve looked at the materials more closely than anyone else here. It looks like my input is unwelcome, so I’ll shut up about it now.
What is the difference between the ‘pickup’ scene and the ‘dating’ scene? I associate the pickup scene with much of my youth. Every thursday, friday and saturday begins a ritual of you and your wingmen getting ready to go out. Shower. Pick out your ‘money’[sup]1[/sup] shirt. Throw some product in your hair. Go pre-game[sup]2[/sup] in someone’s dorm room or appartment. You and your crew then head to some crowded frat party, bar, nightclub or other venue where full of other groups just like you all trying to look cool and find someone to hook up with for the evening.
The environment can be characterized as loud, superficial, elitist, highly sexual and agressive. Drug and alchohol use is pretty common as well. The term “meat market” often gets thrown around.
Generally you aren’t looking to find your true love at margharita night at Calico Jacks.
The dating scene is more going to places to try and meet people with who you can build a more substantial connection. Although there can be some overlap. One of my friends dated and ended up marrying a girl from our summer shore house while the rest of us were out trying to pull Jersey guidettes at some beach bar.
One thing I noticed from the Wikipedia article on Becker’s “The Gift of Fear” is that a lot of the Pre-Incident Indicators are very simmilar to Mystery Method terms. For example “Typecasting - an insult to get a person who would otherwise ignore one to talk to one” sounds an awful lot like a “neg”.
I can see how women would feel an “ick” factor by these techniques. They can come across as predatory. At best, they seem like high-pressure sales tactics one might expect from a stock broker who calls you. At worst they echo psycho stalker traits.
In all fairness, one of the things Mystery and his crew do teach in the show is to not come across like a overly aggressive douche. For example, if a woman is giving you Indicators of Disinterest, you “roll off” and disengage. I see so many guys think they are going to wear down a girl with creepy, aggressive pickup and it never works. The girls just come away like ‘eew’.
Also known as a ‘going out shirt’. Usually a long-sleve collared shirt with garish patterns or colors that is generally inappropriate anywhere other than a bar or club.
Have a few drinks before you go out so as to already have a buzz on when you get to your destination.
Somehow I suspected you weren’t going to give up so easily. Well, I may be just a woman but I do know how to read, and I have obviously paid a lot more attention to the quoted text than you have. I’m not the one who’s pretending that it says something completely different from what is actually written. Maybe this aggressive and condescending behavior helps you to pick up insecure women in bars, but it is not going to work on me.
You’ve got it. This is a big part of what creeps me out about what I’ve read here about the “Mystery Method”. His techniques seem designed to target and exploit insecure women and women who aren’t good at standing up for themselves. I’m reminded of a passage from Douglas Coupland’s book Life After God, where the narrator describes a “headbanger couple” who are his neighbors. The woman’s name is Cathy, and the man has the unlikely nickname of Pup-Tent.
Confident women with good self-esteem aren’t going to be attracted with insults. But there are plenty of messed up women in the world, and if all a man cares about is scoring with as many different chicks as possible then I guess going after insecure women is the easiest way to do it.
*I hope you’re right about that. Another thing that bothered me about the “Kino Test” described in the OP was that it said the man should treat women who resisted the same way as women who were “compliant”. He should initially “dismiss” either of them, but then “keep making more and more moves”. But that passage isn’t totally clear, and maybe the “keep making moves” bit was meant to apply only to the “compliant” woman.
I have a question…you don’t intend to use aggressive or condescending behavior when picking up women…
How do you know the behavior isn’t perceived by some percentage of women as aggressive and condescending? Obviously, since you’ve had some luck, not all women are perceiving it as such (or maybe they are, but they are the insecure ones that Lamia is talking about).