For the record, I have almost never had a woman be that explicit with me. This advice should be heeded by both sides — I say this selfishly, because I am completely clueless at detecting when women are flirting with me. I Can. Not. Tell.
It is just as manipulative as the advice dispensed weekly by Cosmopolitan: 10 Signs To Look For If He’s The One, How To Get Your Man To Do XYZ, Don’t Sleep With Him Until ABC, How To Trick Him Into Blah Blah.
However, I don’t see the same kind of ire directed at Cosmo-style manipulation. The magazine certainly seems to sell — what does that say about the women who buy it?
Yeah, it’s manipulative when men or women do it. I don’t advocate the kind of game-playing that players of both sexes do. But when men do it, suddenly it seems like a cardinal sin. I don’t get it.
Mystery et al would probably say they have to fight fire with fire.
It explains why some men don’t just act like they normally would. That approach hasn’t yielded results.
I remember him saying that the man isn’t supposed to give away his value. E.g. buy a woman a drink? No, a lot of women will let the guy buy drink after drink without any real interest in him. So she’s supposed to buy him the drink. In that instance, I don’t think he’s taking her respect from her but demanding respect for himself. She of course has the right to tell him to get lost.
And if she’ll cheat on her boyfriend, how deep was her commitment in the first place, really? What’s she doing in a club, talking to a guy, all that? It sounds like “Look what you made me do” from her.
I try to respect others and never thought anybody was obligated to do what I wanted. Want to guess how well it has worked?
Possibly. But I’m not looking for a date back then. If we rule out date-rape drugs and other things that non-psychos would rule out, the woman has more control over the sex.
A woman I knew, wise beyond her years, once remarked that all relationships seem to be a struggle for dominance. Someone is going to rule the roost. But before that, someone is going to jump through someone’s hoops. Maybe it won’t start in a club with some gimmicky test but we’ve all seen the alpha male/submissive wife or hen-pecked husband/domineering wife, haven’t we? Sharing the control, power, decision-making isn’t easily done.
Not having read the material, I’m reacting to what may be your choice of words or what may be his. Part of what I saw on TV seemed to be “If she disses you, diss her back.” Yeah, not super mature, but I don’t know why anybody, M or F, should tolerate disrespect. If responding to that is “punishment,” I don’t know what to tell you. But admittedly, some of it was to be pre-emptive as well…it could be construed as good-natured teasing among young, hip, thick-skinned people who expect some verbal jousting in the clubs.
The thing that’s hard for me to understand is how you make someone who doesn’t want you want you. I’ve met women whom I don’t want. No disrespect, but they just_aren’t_what_I_want. Do I have buttons that could be pushed to entice me to want them? I’m highly skeptical. That’s a roundabout way of saying that the women PUAs win must have already wanted them (at some level) before the proceedings even began.
I hate Cosmo, but this thread isn’t called “Cosmo advice: Manipulation or no?” The fact that other things in the world exist that aren’t wonderful has nothing to do with whether the Mystery Method is manipulative or immoral.
*I’m not a regular Cosmo reader so I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think that Cosmo tells women that men are supposed to do whatever they say and if they don’t then they need to be punished into compliance. Actually, there’s an awful lot in Cosmo about “how to please your man”. In my limited reading of the magazine I don’t recall seeing anything about how to punish your man. If there’s any advice column or book or TV show for women saying that men should be trained to obey women’s every command then that’s just as bad as the Mystery Method. Heck, there are plenty of things in the world that are unquestionably much, much worse than the Mystery Method, but that’s not the question at hand.
I didn’t say anything about what the woman would say. I said that Mystery himself says he intentionally tries to get women to cheat on their boyfriends with him. That’s how much this guy cares about other men.
*If you’re hoping that I’m going to tell you that you don’t need to treat others with respect then you’re mistaken.
No, she doesn’t. Men and women both have equal ability and equal right to decide whether they want to have sex with another person. A woman can’t unilaterally decide to have consensual sex with a man, and a man can refuse a woman who wants to have sex with him.
*Mystery says that when a woman doesn’t comply with a man’s requests or advances, he should punish her. He uses the exact word “punish”. Do you think it’s disrespectful for a woman to not want to jump into bed with any man who approaches her in a club? Do you think it’s disrespectful to refuse to do whatever a stranger asks you to do? If so, you have a pretty twisted idea of what “respect” is all about.
Mystery also says that a man dealing with a very beautiful woman should open with insults. This is before the woman has said a word. Because she’s beautiful she should be treated badly. He says this is to make her lose confidence and feel she’s of lesser value than the man. He advises against offending the woman too much because that will make it harder to get in her pants, not because of his good nature.
*I guess you think people really want to lose thousands of dollars to Nigerian con men too. But if what you say is true then Mystery shouldn’t need a Method at all. And if that’s true it makes his treatment of women all the more repulsive. If the woman was already inclined to do what he wanted and have sex with him, why should he subject her to manipulative games and insults first? Other men manage to have sex without doing these things.
From work I’m not going to peruse the Mystery Method site, but is it possible you’re reading too much into it? You’re the person in the thread who’s going on about “punishing women into compliance,” so it makes me wonder: either you’re unusually perceptive and see things which nobody else can, or there’s nothing there at all. I don’t wish to offend, but is there any possibility that you’re reacting viscerally to something in a way other people aren’t?
I don’t know — women do this all the time to men. There are even names for the techniques. The techniques are premeditated. Withhold sex. Give him the “Silent Treatment.” Even the “how to please your man” are superficial ways to lure him into a relationship based on sex, in the hopes of acquiring his respect and love at some later date. These are equivalent manipulations and, if your characterization of Mystery Method is accurate, they should be denounced as equally abhorrent.
I realize you don’t want the discussion to be sidetracked, but I can’t accept that there’s much use in speaking of men’s treatment of women in complete isolation from women’s identical treatment of men.
Yes, the Mystery Method seems (from what this thread shows) manipulative. What it isn’t is unique.
She did post a cite, including page numbers. “there are other ways to punish defiance” is a direct quote from the place that Lamia said it was. If reading the source material = “unusually perceptive” then, yes, she is. But it is more likely that others have not taken the time to read the book, you admit to not having done so yourself.
I don’t necessarily agree with the whole compliance defiance aspect of this, but from a higher level Mystery preaches about survival and replication. Women primarily seek from a man survival - be it physical strength or financial security. Men seek replication from a woman and that’s why they can more easily get physically turned on from the mere site of a woman. To me, this makes complete sense. It’s not uncommon for a decrepit old rich man to be seen with a beautiful woman because he provides financial security and survival for her. Men get easily turned on my the “right” waist to hip ratio etc because that’s their replication desire coming out.
Now woman all the time do things to improve their replication factor - wearing push up bras or stuffing their bras, wearing underwear designed to provide a better hip to waist ratio, wearing makeup to appear healthier. Now that men want to do something to increase their survival factor this makes them a loser as has been suggested? Now I don’t agree with the compliance bullshit and all of that, but I can certainly see the benefit in some appropriately placed negs, etc. The negs and things are what the former Nice Guys saw as “jerkish” behavior that apparently women dig.
Maybe I should preface this by saying that again, I don’t know enough about Mystery’s methods etc. to approve of them. By the same token, I don’t know enough to dismiss him. But here’s someone saying, “This is how you get women” and I’m 1) skeptical, 2) curious, 3) open-minded, and 4) up for some academic debating. I play Devil’s advocate at times, of course. If the evidence shows it, I’m willing to accept that his methods are unethical…but I’m not willing to accept it just on someone’s say-so. I’d like to understand the rationales behind the objections rather than paint them all over with a broad brush.
I think Fish’s point was that some women act outraged at being manipulated but routinely manipulate men. I once dated a woman who told me I better NEVER lie to her, but I caught her in several. Or another example, some say “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind,” and that seems sufficient to excuse it. If the man changes his mind though, he’s a Nazi dickhead. Seems like there are double standards, and you might point out things women forgive men that men won’t forgive women—but can we agree that double standards aren’t cool?
[<snip>]
“Look what you made me do” was my shorthand for how she might justify it to herself, like she’s a puppet with no self-control or something. That aside, I should add that I agree it’s an excellent example of a place I don’t want to go. If the “target” is taken, forget it. That’s a good red flag about Mystery’s ethics. I won’t pretend to know the ethics of what 20-somethings do in clubs, however, what engagement or marriage mean to them, and so on. I’m pretty strait-laced; their mileage may vary.
WHAT?! Many other men would probably agree: for all women tell us how much they want mutual respect, it_doesn’t_carry_the_day. Now, maybe the recipe requires mutual respect + 100 other ingredients, but if it were sooo important and women cherish it sooo much, how could they fall for guys like Mystery?
A long time ago, there was a book titled “Women Who Love Too Much.”
My sister cornered me into reading it. The upshot, IIRC, was that some come from abusive homes. As we’re growing up, we all assume that everybody’s household is like ours, all parents are like ours, etc., but it isn’t so. These girls grow up into women who unconsciously accept abusers because it’s all so familiar, comfortable, “normal,” etc.
Maybe Mystery’s strategy of insults etc. are tapping into something like that. If I meet an attractive woman, the last thing I want to do is insult her. OTOH I don’t get Mystery’s results.
Put 100 men and 100 women in a club and have them meet each other. Then survey them. “If there were no hassles orchestrating it, no diseases or unwanted pregnancies to worry about, no social fallout whatsoever, how many of the people here tonight would you sleep with?” Men on average are going to respond with a bigger number than women. Women control the supply; there’s no shortage of demand. If gas goes up to $1000 a gallon, we’re free not to buy it as well.
See, this is just it. Why do women fall for it? It’s like when you go to buy a new car. You KNOW they’re going to try to sell you $300 floor mats, you KNOW they’re going to try to give you a lousy interest rate, you KNOW they’re going to try to cheat you on your trade-in, etc. Why aren’t women at least this skeptical when they go into a club or even when they meet a strange man on the street? Why don’t women refuse to comply? ***“No, you’re not touching my hand! You’re an asshole! We’re outta here!” ***
Interesting, makes sense (ignoring the ethics of “the ends justify the means,” of course). It’s also a good example of a method I wouldn’t try. I’d just walk on by, because IME nobody’s ever good enough for them.
My quote:
*The thing that’s hard for me to understand is how you make someone who doesn’t want you want you. I’ve met women whom I don’t want. No disrespect, but they just_aren’t_what_I_want. Do I have buttons that could be pushed to entice me to want them? I’m highly skeptical. That’s a roundabout way of saying that the women PUAs win must have already wanted them (at some level) before the proceedings even began. *
I’m not sure I follow you here.
There was a story on TV here awhile ago about a guy who got sucked in on one of those scams. What’s the saying, something like, “The success of the sting is directly proportional to the greed of the pigeon”? Funny thing: the guy who got taken was a doctor. :eek: Umm, I thought they were too educated to fall for that and already rich besides so…? Maybe he’s not a very good doctor?
I would compare the two situations like this:
I’m a doctor; I’m bright, I’m rich, and I can’t fail. I’m going to cash in on this and I’ll be even richer.
I’m a beautiful woman; I’ve got the face, the body, the whole bit. I can have anybody I want in here. I’m going to get this guy that every woman wants and I’ll be the undisputed “champion” of this club.
The needs being fulfilled—greed, pride, whatever—existed before.
With regard to my comment that they must have wanted him on some level before the interaction even began, Lamia wrote, But if what you say is true then Mystery shouldn’t need a Method at all. No, I disagree. We’ve all met people who interested us until they opened their mouth, started acting like jerks, etc. Mystery might still drop the ball or not fan the flames enough to realize his objective.
WRT Other men manage to have sex without doing these things, um, yeah. I can think of a few women who, for some reason, are into me and the signals were overt enough that even I saw them. Yes, sex. If I were willing to tell them pretty lies until I got what I wanted, it would happen but IMO it wouldn’t be cool. Really, can’t we all get laid if we want? I mention this just to suggest that there are all kinds of grey levels about the ethics of how men and women get sex.
Lamia, I wonder if you’re envisioning a woman who wants a relationship with the PUA. From what I saw on TV, they’re in the excitement of the club and it’s all fun times. He isn’t luring her with images of strolls on the beach and starting a family and growing old together. Some of the women may be content with hot sex. Those hoping for more may feel like shit when reality sets in, but if that’s their reaction I hope they would learn a lesson, take a more skeptical attitude, not repeat it, etc.
Why do I suspect, though, that they’d be back at the club the next weekend?:smack::dubious:
I haven’t read more than the first six or seven posts of this massive thread, so forgive me for being ignorant about all the debate that’s gone on before, but all I can say about it is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for starting it! (Even though success wasn’t necessarily the intention of the OP.)
I have just spent the last five hours kissing a really cute girl.
I was introduced to her earlier this evening for the first time ever, and I shook her hand. She commented on how firm my handshake was, so - suddenly recalling the post quoted in the OP - I got her to shake my hand again, while I did different styles of handshake on her. This first required her to agree to give me her hand again - I offered mine and held her gaze. She hesitated initially, but eventually held it out, and then I started messing about demonstrating what different types of people and cultures would be like shaking her hand. And I held her eyes while doing it.
Damn, if it didn’t work! I got a message through her friend about an hour later that she liked me. So with this knowledge, I asked her to come outside, and kissed her, and she kissed me back. I’ve been single for six months and that’s the first kiss I’ve had during all that time and it was lovely.
Later in the evening she said “I am so glad I met you. Do you know why I liked you at first? The handshaking.”
And she’s charming and funny and I really like her and want to see her again. I’m meeting her for breakfast tomorrow.
I know you’re joking around but I do want to say for the others in this thread, honestly, I’m the least manipulative person you could imagine.
The appalling way I was treated at the end of my last relationship is testament to my emotional simplicity: my scrupulous sincerity and honesty with my recent ex were repaid with nothing but deception and infidelity, but I never even knew what was going on until she dumped me - and reappeared the next day with someone else on her arm, to my total shock. I’m a manipulation retard, honestly.
This evening I was just meeting friends for a meal, and one of them happened to bring a friend with her. I wasn’t looking for cheap sex, and have rarely had one-night stands, and have been uncharacteristically shy since the emotional trauma I recently endured.
But as an ice-breaker with someone I genuinely like, that hand thing was completely awesome. If I hadn’t done it, it’s unlikely this evening would have had such a positive outcome.
(And I really hope, with lots of caveats, that something will come from this. She’s adorable.)
Friend, I know. Been there done that. I was reluctant to post as I did, but I can’t seem to resist a joke.
I saw once on TV that zoos have these short fences around the giraffe area…giraffes could absolutely jump right over, but it’s a psychological barrier and it keeps them in. So it is with us: sometimes if you could just get over that first hurdle, which isn’t nearly as bad as you think, the rest would be easy.
Kissing, eh? Sounds wonderful! Does she have a sister? On a more serious note, take things nice and easy. And good luck!
This thread is a riot. I have no opinion as I’m not single and not looking to pick anyone up or get picked up but it actually explains something that happened to me a few years ago.
I was at a club with a friend - we were just out to dance, have a couple of drinks, have fun, etc. I went to the ladies and when I came back my friend said some dude had been asking about me. Sure enough, up walks this guy. I swear to god, he must have had the Mystery crib sheet in his pocket that he was reading off of. No actual human could speak that way. For the record, I am neither nice, nor subtle. I told him ‘I don’t like you. I want you to go away and leave me alone.’ I assume that him sticking around was my punishment for being defiant.
Finally, I grabed a cute guy walking by and hissed in his ear ‘Pretend we know each other!’ He did. I started flirting with him, hanging off his arm, etc. Loser boy split. So, he tried to manipulate me. I manipulated him back. He left me the hell alone. Hilarious.
Anyhow, carry on with the discussion. I’m actually just glad for an explaination for a totally wackado experience I had.
I do have to suggest that if the woman being targeted by this technique isn’t at least kind of into it, it really isn’t going to work. At the same time, I have to suggest that if the woman tells a guy to piss off 10 times, it might be nice for him to do that.
Mystery uses the exact words “punish”, “compliance”, and “defiance” in exactly the places I’ve said he did. I’ve provided a number of direct quotes with page numbers. Several people in this thread have not read any of Mystery’s book, which I don’t blame anyone for because I only started reading it because of this thread, but since they haven’t read it then obviously they can’t have any reaction to it. Others have apparently read the book but convinced themselves that Mystery can’t really mean anything as horrible as what he’s actually said. tdn spent a lot of time trying to convince me that “compliance” doesn’t mean “compliance” when Mystery says it, but it’s clear from context that he is using the word in the usual sense.
If you don’t want to read the book then fine, I kind of wish I’d never looked at it myself. I felt better about the world before I did. But don’t tell me I’m “reading too much” into something I’ve read and you haven’t.
You don’t have to take my word for it. I’ve already linked to the Google Books version of The Mystery Method where you can browse through a limited number of pages for free. If you don’t believe that Mystery really says that any woman who resists a man’s advances is being “defiant” and that the proper way to deal with this is to punish her into compliance then you can easily see for yourself. I’m not making up any of the quotes I’ve posted. If you trust my quotes but don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with treating people this way then I don’t think there’s anything I can do to help you.
*I don’t. Am I allowed to question Mystery’s techniques, or does the fact that manipulative women exist in the world mean that no woman has the right to complain about anything any man has ever done?
*The reason people are supposed to treat each other with basic respect isn’t because it’s a guaranteed way to get laid anytime you want. Sorry.
*Men have every bit the ability to “control the supply” that women do. A man always has the power to refuse to have sex with a woman. Do you think no woman has ever been rejected? You said yourself in your previous post that you’ve met women you’d never want to have sex with. In a fair situation everyone has the same right to decide whether or not they’re going to consent to sex. What you don’t get to decide is whether another person is going to consent to have sex with you. Other people don’t always have to give you what you want. Again, sorry. Life is hard.
*I’m sure plenty of women do. I would. But you must have noticed that there is no shortage of stupid or messed-up people in the world, and I figure half of them are women.
*People are also fooled by scams where they are asked to donate to phony charities. Is that because of greed? I’m sure that con artists like to believe that only people who deserve to be cheated will fall for their schemes. Mystery may believe that only stuck-up bitches would fall for his schemes. People tell themselves all kinds of things to justify mistreating others.
*I am mostly envisioning a woman like myself who wants nothing to do with Mystery. Since I’m not a “10” in looks I doubt he’d be interested in me either, which is a relief, but if he or some other man trained in his method set his sights on me then I’d be in a very unpleasant situation indeed. He’s not going to accept my refusals. That’s just me being “defiant” or offering “token resistance”. There’s nothing I can say to make him leave me alone.
My best option is probably to leave the area, but it’s not as simple for a woman as it is for a man. I have to deal with the possibility that this guy is going to follow me, and that he’ll attack me if he does. Most men, even most creepy men, are not actually violent, but I have no way of knowing how far a sexually aggressive stranger is willing to go to get my “compliance”. He’s already refused to take no for an answer, which is not a good sign. For all I know he’s got a particularly brutal “punishment” in mind for women who “defy” him by walking away.
Odds are that whatever Mystery fan I am unlucky enough to encounter is going to stay in the club/bar/whatever and move on to another target, and that the worst thing that will happen to me is that my evening will have been ruined…but I can’t be sure of that. Either way, it’s no fun for me. When I tell a man I’m not interested then I AM NOT INTERESTED, and I don’t want to be subjected to ceaseless attempts to gain my “compliance”. But Mystery doesn’t care what I want, and that’s just what he is telling men to do: “punish” my “defiance” and “keep making more and more moves”. Like there weren’t enough creeps in the world already.
Same here, although I will say that my fear of being raped is far worse than my fear of being murdered. There are things worse than death.
Okay… so why are these “compliance tests” and not “honest communication”?
I’ll tell ya, if I’m interacting with someone and my mind is keeping track of how many hoops he’s jumped through and how many “tests” he’s passed and which “tests” I should throw at him now, then the whole thing is already doomed. If I’m really into someone, I’m fully absorbed in the conversation and in the moment. I’m not creating mental spreadsheets. Compatibility is an intuitive and organic thing. It doesn’t come from forced conversation or a bunch of checklists, and if someone chatting me up thinks it does, he’s going to be really disappointed when he figures out that I’m a real person, and not some sort of “woman blueprint.”
applause
I’d also point out that it’s a fairly short trip from emotional abuse to physical or sexual abuse. I’m not claiming everyone makes the trip, but plenty do.
On another note, I’d never heard of David De’Angelo, so did some digging. And, well… jesus h. christ. In the space of 3 minutes the guy manages to punch two flashbang triggers on me. His first scenario punches my “rage” button. Note that this is distinct from, and a lot scarier than, the “annoyance” or “anger” buttons. This is me not able to speak because I’m currently using all of my concentration to not punch you in the face.
Seriously, do not ever tell me what I think or how I feel. It’s a creepy, controlling power play. If we are very close you will get off with a severe and lengthy ass-chewing and a “never do that again.” If you are a stranger, the reasons I don’t bloody your face will have nothing to do with my concerns for your safety or dignity.
His second example with the restaurant hostess absolutely buries the needle on the creep-o-meter. If I’d been that hostess, and a customer (who I’m supposed to be nice to as a part of my job) gave me that line, I wouldn’t be thinking “Gee, how funny! How charming!” I’d be thinking, “Oh shit. This guy might actually be dangerous.” When he said it on the video, it actually made my blood run cold. It goes along with what Sleeps With Butterflies (I think) said earlier – a woman’s existence in a public place does not obligate her to have a conversation with anyone. It sure as hell doesn’t obligate her to demonstrate love or affection to strangers. And the quid pro quo element of his line was just chilling. “Hey, I was nice to you. You owe me!”
I wasn’t questioning your honesty or saying you’re making anything up. I don’t assume that he’s Sigmund Freud, using clinical terminology and such. He’s writing for average (and less than average, I suppose) people. I understand that the buzzwords have angered you. See my post where I paraphrased the 9 “rules” or whatever…I’m trying to get past those buzzwords and see what may be valid and ethical.
I think you’re saying, “Read it for yourself” and I’m saying, “Whether it’s ethical or not may be in the interpretation of what he wrote.” As I said, I’ve seen some of the episodes on TV and it didn’t come off that way; I’m not questioning your honesty but rather, noting that it may not play out that way IRL.
Of course you can, and you have been.
OMG. Let’s try this…
I see an attractive woman, I walk up to her, show her respect, and she doesn’t give me the time of day. Was I looking for a guaranteed way of getting laid? No. I was looking to talk to her, try to get to know her, see if there might be some mutual interest. If so, maybe we’ll start a process that would lead to a date or we might determine that we have a basis for a friendship.
Not getting laid is fine. Not getting a date is ok; not making a friend is ok. Not getting the time of day, though? I mean, maybe I’m not her cup of tea, but if she’s not interested then she doesn’t have to be decent, polite, etc.?
No, again, sorry, in my example men will pick a bigger number than women…I’d guess five or ten times higher.
And I never assumed anybody had to give me what I want. In fact I assume they won’t and don’t even ask: it’s how I was raised (ten kids, not a lot of money, you get told ‘no’ a lot, it generalizes…) When I’ve asked out women and they’ve accepted, I’ve always been surprised.
It’s tempting to suspect that the Mystery technique works only on stupid or messed-up women. The women they picked up on TV weren’t drooling or anything, however. Still, if this is the case, then doper women can’t be scammed, right? I mean there are issues like predatory lending, and we can condemn people for preying on those less intelligent than themselves. My assumption in reading angry posts from women has been that they fear they could fall prey as well.
I agree that people rationalize doing these things.
To clarify my point, however: I’ve heard that in judo, the trick is to use your opponent’s weight against him. I’m raising the possibility that the reason some women fall for this is that their inflated ego precedes it. Pride goeth before the downfall.
Do you think they’d push it that far if you just up and left? I assume that there are women who just don’t buy into it and they go looking for someone else. I suspect the antidote is the same as for garden-variety creeps: a bouncer, a policeman, friends who are with you.
Something new…
As I said, I saw some of this on TV. He was saying that you should talk to a woman over your shoulder. So one night, I’m out with friends and this woman chats me up. It was karaoke and my number was called, so I got up there, humiliated myself, and when I came back, she was gone. I figured it was my version of Santana’s “Smooth” that sent her packing.
Ah well. So I pulled up a chair and resumed talking to my friends. She came back—I guess she was in the restroom or something—and pulled up a chair behind me. It was very crowded; there weren’t any other options. I ended up talking to her over my shoulder. I think it “worked.” She was uber friendly, moreso than she would have been if we were talking face to face, and it wasn’t my inherent sex appeal.
My point is that some of these things must happen accidentally or naturally. I didn’t engineer the situation, but it worked in my favor. I decided for other reasons that she wasn’t right for me (no, I didn’t sleep with her or even kiss her for that matter) but I could see a big effect.
What’s tempting for me is to suspect that the people Mr. Mystery are actually manipulating are MEN. I think he’s fooling men, not women. And what he’s fooling them out of isn’t their pants, it’s their money.
Am I the only one who thinks the entire thing is a scam, that there’s no international brotherhood of “pick up artists,” that this guy is no better at picking up women than any reasonably smooth operator, and that his reality TV show - where at least half the contestants turned out to be aspiring or professional actors or models, how about that - was mostly scripted malarkey?
Lamia’s ahead of you. Get past the ‘buzzwords’ and the text of the book reveals the unethical nature of his method. Simple.
I disagree. There isn’t much wiggle room in what he wrote, it’s plain to see. It’s already been pointed out that you are going to have difficulty discussing what’s in the book if you don’t bother to read at least some of it.
That doesn’t change the book.
No. It’s nice if people are decent and polite but nobody has to be.
Beside the point. Lamia’s point was that men can control whether or not they have sex.
Are you saying that Doper women only care about ourselves? That we aren’t concerned for other people? I fear that the young, the defenseless would fall prey to this. Women I don’t even know.
Why should she be the one to have to get up and leave? What if a woman is having a good time with friends, until some creep comes up hitting on her and won’t go away? How is it fair that her evening is ruined? And yes, sometimes a guy will follow you around even when you get up and leave the area. One time I left a bar through the bathroom window to get away from a dude.
This wouldn’t surprise me either. He probably is more successful than the Average Joe, but this guy was a magician and he knows how to fool people and how to put on a good show. From what I’ve been reading here and on the Web, it seems that things like just talking to a woman or getting her phone number are counted as successes. Well, big deal. Men talk to women all the time, it doesn’t require a special method. alice_in_wonderland’s story seems to be one example of a case where the guy would have been better off not trying the Mystery Method.
“Compliance”, “defiance”, “punishment”, “reward”, and “conditioning” are not buzzwords. They do not have vague or ill-defined meanings, and Mystery is not using them in some special or unusual manner. Your “Tolerate no disrespect” is not a paraphrase of “Punish defiance”. I’m not totally comfortable with your paraphrase either because it could still be interpreted as “strike back at any perceived insult”, but even that’s not as bad as “when a woman refuses to obey your command, do something unpleasant to her.”
*Everyone should be decent and polite, but there are jerks in the world, both male and female. Or maybe this woman is actually a perfectly nice person but has learned the hard way that there are men who are going to take simple politeness as a big “GO!” sign.
*I don’t care what number they pick. They’ve made a choice, the same as women do. Women do not ordinarily force men to have sex with them, and when they do it’s rape just the same as when a man does it to a woman. Under normal circumstances a man can choose not to have sex all he wants, thus cutting off his personal “supply” of sex to the world. I can understand that he wouldn’t want to do this, but not wanting to do something isn’t the same as not being able to do it.
*I’ve never seen the show, but I don’t see any particular reason to trust its accuracy. As RickJay suggested, it may be scripted or the women may be willing to play along because they want to be on TV. As for the women of the SDMB, I have no doubt there are messed-up and insecure women on these boards, just like everywhere else. They aren’t necessarily stupid. I’m sure there are also some women who sleep with Mystery or his followers for reasons that have little to do with the specific method used to approach them. Maybe they were planning to get laid and went with the first guy to make a serious attempt.
*I have no way of knowing, and the potential consequences for me if I am too trusting in this scenario are very bad indeed.
*That’s kind of my point. When I’m cornered by a pushy, aggressive man who refuses to accept that I don’t want to have sex with him, I have to start planning a safe escape and look for people who can help to protect me from him. I may not know if the guy is a Mystery Method fan or not, although if he is I’m going to be even MORE worried for reasons I will explain in my next post. The only thing I know for sure is that this guy is not backing off when I have made it clear that I’m not interested, and now I have to fear for my personal safety. Even if the guy is ultimately harmless he’s ruined my whole evening by being a big creepy jerk.
One might say that I don’t have to be afraid and let this spoil my night out, but again, if I am too trusting of a man who has already shown that he doesn’t respect my right to refuse him then things could work out very badly for me indeed. The phrase that pops into my mind in such situations is “And then they’ll have to identify my body by my dental records.” I have not read The Gift of Fear, but I think this is what the author means about fear being a gift – if I am afraid, I’ll take extra steps to protect myself from this guy, like maybe I’ll call a taxi rather than walking to the bus stop as usual. Maybe this will actually be an unnecessary precaution, but if the guy won’t take no for an answer then I have to treat it like a bomb threat – there might be nothing behind it, but I have to proceed as if the worst possibility is true. And even if the guy isn’t really violent then he’s still a jerk for not leaving me alone.
I figured it was like “Gone with the Wind.” The book and the movie both involve the US Civil War, have the same characters, etc. and yes there are differences probably but those who have seen the movie and those who have read the book can discuss…I’ll have to read some, I guess.
I’m rearranging the order of quotes here.
These seem to be contradictory positions. I.e. it’s nice if the guy isn’t a jerk, but he doesn’t have to be nice.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I’ve made my point, you’ve made yours.
No. I wondered if some of the posts were saying, “We’re afraid that he knows a certain set of words or a certain sequence of actions that could cause ANY WOMAN to do something against her will.” That would certainly not be ethical or cool.
But if, as some think, it only works on women of lesser intelligence, then doper women ought to be immune. However, the anger of doper women is in defense of others, which I understand. That’s all I was clarifying.
Originally Posted by RickJay
What’s tempting for me is to suspect that the people Mr. Mystery are actually manipulating are MEN. I think he’s fooling men, not women. And what he’s fooling them out of isn’t their pants, it’s their money.
Originally Posted by Lamia
I have no doubt that this is true.
If so—if men are just being fleeced of their money—then yeah, you’re going to have more guys out there acting like jerks because they think it will work. But when they fail, it will fade and disappear, won’t it?
I’m losing my appetite for this thread. They say never to discuss politics, religion, or money…the Mystery thing may be too volatile as well.
Sincere apologies to anyone I may have offended. Peace out.
On a more serious note, take things nice and easy. And good luck!