Huh. The only women I’ve heard of doing that are trans women who want a surgeon to create labia for them. I can understand that. But if you have labia that aren’t really disfigured in some way, i find it hard to imagine wanting surgery.
… the number of labiaplasties performed since 2012 has spiked by over 217%. These figures mirror what is regarded as the rise of the so-called “designer vagina,” with a survey by the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery published last year showing a 45% rise in labiaplasty procedures. …
… some experts have expressed concern that pornography and social media have pushed up the demand for female genital procedures. Last year, a UK-based doctor told BBC News she saw girls as young as 11 “thinking there’s something wrong with their vulva—that they’re the wrong shape, the wrong size, and really expressing almost disgust.” …
Some articles say that more are motivated by comfort in tight fitting exercise clothing to be fair.
That’s terrible! Nobody uses cabs anymore; has ne not heard of Uber?
On a more serious note, If you start dating someone and they have attitudes or habits that are completely incompatible with your own, wouldn’t you want to know that as soon as possible so you don’t invest too much time? Same with all the pick-up-artist bullshit; if a guy’s a jerk don’t you want to know in the first five minutes?
As I understand it, the whole point of PUA BS is to present yourself as someone who is the sort of confident and charming person who women want to sleep with.
That’s the fundamental paradox of meeting women IMHO. Women don’t like aggressive jerks but if you aren’t aggressive you aren’t going to meet any women. Or I guess you go online where you become a series of metrics women pursue where there’s always someone taller, richer, more photogenic, etc. because you’re competing against everyone online instead of whoever just came out to the club tonight.
But also going out in your teens and 20s to environments where people are just looking to drink all night and hook up is a bit different from finding a life mate to raise a family with.
Zooming out to the larger cultural context for a moment, this is one of the main problems about individual social lives switching from a community-facilitated to an individual-enterprise thing.
Back when communities took a larger role in organizing social activities, people could meet each other in group settings where there were more interactions and more connections, and you could generally get a better sense of what a person was really like. Attraction could develop more organically, since you’d likely be seeing that person at multiple events.
Now that it’s expected that anyone who wants friends or dates will have to actively hustle for them on their own initiative, every encounter has to be a sales pitch. And most people don’t really enjoy being pitched to.
The community-based social life had its drawbacks, of course, such as rigidity of social customs and being too controlling about who was allowed to socialize with whom and in what circumstances. But at least it softened down the adversarial aspects of meeting people, where every seller is trying to make a score and every buyer’s trying to figure out which sellers are trustworthy.
Our son met his fiance in a somewhat old fashioned way. Freshman year of college, working together on a group project. Became friends, then dated, finally got engaged recently after 7 years together. Our daughter met her wife online, when they both still identified as male. They were part of a big community, many of whom are now living in Chicago. They started dating after they met in person a couple of years ago. Their story is obviously less traditional than their brother/brother-in-law.
All I know about the PUA approach is from discussions of it here, which were overwhelmingly (maybe even unanimously) negative. Women seemed to direct a lot of vitriol toward them. In a strange way, I’m not sure if that’s justified. If a guy is a jerk, and enough of a jerk to follow some online recipe that promises a way to attract women, isn’t it best to find that out in the first five minutes you know him? I’d be a lot more worried if there was an approach that worked in attracting women by concealing their manipulative motives.
I think there’s still a bit more pressure on men to be the one to initiate conversations and relationships. I remember reading (although it was some years ago) that women on dating sites get inundated with messages from men. It said how difficult and draining it was to read through them all, and either sent a “thanks, but no thanks” reply, or no reply at all. From the few times I’ve had to do that, I’m sure it does suck, but the opposite sucks, too. It’s draining to send out message after message, and maybe one-in-ten gets a reply at all.
Oh, of coooooouuuurse; this is also why you and everybody else are never bothered by getting unsolicited con-job telephone calls and emails from scammers. At least the scammers have shown you who they are right from the get-go, and that’s a good thing, right? /s
Seriously, this attitude you’re expressing here is kind of taking it for granted that any man is entitled to expect a woman to pay attention to his sales pitch, however sleazy and manipulative it may be. And that a woman who encounters a PUA trying to manipulate her with jerkish bullshit should merely feel satisfied to get such an immediately clear indication that he’s not worth her time.
No. That’s not how the ethics of requesting a stranger’s attention works. It’s not ethically justified for men to try to manipulate women with PUA bullshit, any more than it’s ethically justified for pig-butcherers and other con artists to try to fool you with scams. You would doubtless be mighty ticked off if somebody told you it was “unjustified” for you to express negativity about online scammers.
Of course it’s statistically inevitable that some percentage of men who approach women are going to be PUA bullshitters, just as it’s statistically inevitable that some percentage of the people who send you email and call your phone are going to be unscrupulous scammers. But that doesn’t mean that the bullshitters’ intended victims aren’t justified in being pissed off at the manipulators trying to inflict their bullshit on them.
Scammers are not doing their targets some kind of favor by being obviously unscrupulous jerks and liars, so the targets can immediately spot their untrustworthiness and avoid them. On the contrary, the scammers are failing to fulfill their basic ethical obligation not to be unscrupulous jerks and liars. Their targets have every right to “direct a lot of vitriol toward them” for that.
All very true. One of the advantages of the community-mediated social life was that individual interactions tended to be a lot more low-stakes and evenly distributed.
People exchanged casual remarks appropriate to the situation, without the stress of feeling that they were always receiving (or delivering) a major pronouncement on their (or the other person’s) personal charm and attractiveness that might involve a lot of hurt feelings.
In all fairness, the discussions here tend to skew (maybe even overwhelmingly) towards “I was awkward and clueless around women from high school through my 20s”. I wouldn’t say I felt “awkward” around women when I was younger (like middle/high school). But no one gave me instructions on how you go about the various steps between “hi” and having sex with them. Turns out (in high school) it was mostly just inviting them over to watch a movie on Friday and then start making out. But most guys just can’t walk up to a random girl and say “do you want to come over tonight and make out.” But also no one tells you “she’s not RELLY interested in watching ‘Beetlejuice’ or whatever again, dummy!”
My wife and I used to watch that Mystery Method show on VH1. Yes, a lot of PUA stuff seems ridiculous or even predatory and has this “ick” factor in that it appeals to a certain kind of misogynistic man. But a lot of the stuff “at least what we observed in the show”, was actually decent advice one might give a totally clueless man who asks “I’m interested in meeting someone…how do I do that without looking desperate, creepy, or like a jerk.”
And I think that is a huge part of the “male inequality” program. Because we are told “oh it will just happen!” but also that we, as men are expected to initiate things…but also women don’t want a bunch of dudes hitting on them all the time. Unless you’re Henry Cavill, it’s sometimes a bit more complex than his advice to “just ask them out”.
Which I think speaks to @Kimstu 's comments about “community”. No, we don’t want to return to Bridgerton-like European turn of the century “social seasons” where the upper crust hold various galas and cotillions to marry each other off. But I think it’s a lot easier (or harder) to find potential dates when you are in school or through other organizations that are not specifically constructed for the purpose of dating, but allow people to build up a reputation or some context around who they are.
It also explains why online dating is so shitty for most people. Online you’re just a pool of stats. But actually having the courage to approach a total stranger IRL and actually hold their attention and interest for awhile by being funny and charming sets you apart from 99% of people very quickly.
And this is why my advise to awkward and clueless men looking for women is to do stuff in real life that involve people talking to each other. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Join a faith group that organizers social events. Take an adult Ed language class. Take up one of the many forms of social dance. Go hiking through a local meetup group… It has to be something you’ll enjoy on its own merits, because you need to invest a lot of time in each activity and may not find anyone at any particular one. But it’s a good way to meet potential partners in a low-stakes environment, and it’s also a good way to make friends and fulfill your needs for human social contact.
That being said, I have a lot of friends who have found partners on dating apps.
Although in some ways it’s even more traditional. 
That is, it used to be quite common for geographically separated people to “meet” through (snail-mail) correspondence, usually initiated due to a mutual acquaintance or a shared interest, and to begin actual courtship after meeting in person. Which might be months or years after they started to correspond.
I can see that being a help for awkward men, but I’m not as sure about the clueless variety (I was both, and still am though it doesn’t matter since I’ve been married for 30 years). I have tended to have plenty of women friends, but once I was interested in dating someone it was complete deer in headlights. The more interested I was, the worse it got. I also can’t tell if someone is interested unless they tell me directly (which is what Ms. P did. I was still terrified when I called her to set up a second date, since I had only gotten past a first date a couple of times in my life). I can’t blame anyone for being turned off. I don’t know how extreme an example I am, but I would guess I’m at the far end of the “clueless/awkward” scale.
There are lots of things in the world that interrupt us; phone solicitors, TV commercials, a pledge drive during your favorite NPR show. They all ask for our attention and try to manipulate us by crafting their sales pitch to what they think we want to hear. I don’t like them, and I don’t know anybody who does, but I don’t hear the same level of anger directed at them. Do you get mad at a homeless person who asks for spare change, or someone who asks you to take a survey when you’re walking through a mall?
I actually hear a WHOLE LOT of anger directed at phone solicitors—even the ones who are just honestly trying to sell a product or service rather than deliberately mislead and cheat you—complete with various spiteful schemes for startling them with loud noises, putting the phone down to allow them to waste their time prolonging their call, and so on.
And the level of societal loathing for scammers who perpetrate “pig butchering” and “Nigerian prince” and similar con jobs that outright cheat and rob people is even higher.
This likewise is not particularly comparable to what we were talking about. Most homeless people and opinion-gatherers aren’t deliberately trying to deceive you about what they’re doing or what’s in it for you.
I continue to think that people talking about unscrupulous cheats and liars are entitled to express opinions about them that are somewhat vitriolic.
In the discussions about pick-up artists, the consensus seemed to be that the technique was deliberately negative and insulting, and no woman would fall for it. Now you’re describing it as deceptive and manipulative. Are you more mad that it might work, or that it wouldn’t?
I don’t remember ever getting any of the classic scam e-mails. The people who perpetrate them are lowlifes. Their methods should be exposed to help prevent people from falling for them. They’re trying to steal something and should be prosecuted if they’re caught. I’m not sure the PUA stuff rises to quite that level. The theory is that these are behaviors that women will actually respond to. If I go on a first date and dress a little nicer than usual, does that make me deceptive?
This whole subject if somewhat tangential to the subject of the thread. If folks would prefer we drop it, please say so.
Well, you’re going to have to cite some specific discussions if you want me to get a clearer sense of the details of the discussions. All you originally said was that you didn’t think the “vitriol” directed at PUAs by women was “justified”.
I said, and continue to say, that vitriolic opinions about unscrupulous jerks and liars seem to me quite justifiable.
“Work”? I don’t think the effectiveness or otherwise of a scam is the main issue when it comes to formulating our opinions of scammers.
The whole focus of PUA strategies and culture, AFAICT, is about despising, objectifying, harassing and tricking women. It’s not about simply trying to present your (generic “you”) own self in dating situations as attractively as possible: it’s about trying to reduce women to a game strategy in order to exercise power over them by manipulating and lying to them. (And to bask in one’s own sensations of male superiority in the process, because you’ve assigned yourself all the agency in this situation and regard women simply as targets that you’re free to exploit to whatever extent you can get away with.)
I say that irrespective of how well such an approach does or doesn’t work to fool women, it’s intrinsically an unethical and despicable way to treat women. Is that really such a controversial view? I don’t quite understand why you seem to have such a problem with it.
Yes, the incompetent guy trying to talk you into loading malware on your computer is nearly as despicable as the competent one.
Ignorance here but my limited understanding is not that? Not despising anyway. Maybe a focus on a goal of sex more than relationship? Definitely a focus on how to manipulate to achieve a desired goal. For men who feel they have been completely failing romantically otherwise.
Which strikes me as sad more than anything else.
And not very different than “The Rules” on the female side. Remember that? Or a host of other similar bits guiding women on how to manipulate men to achieve their goals.
Society though views the two sets of attempts at manipulation differently I think. A bit worse for the PUA than followers of “The Rules”.
Inequality?
How is treating women like programmable objects to be manipulated, instead of individual humans whose rights and preferences should be respected, not despising them? As a 2023 study discussed,
Treating somebody’s rejection of sexual advances as a mere game obstacle that needs to be overcome? That’s pretty dehumanizing.
The issue here is not merely wanting sex rather than relationships: there’s nothing inherently exploitative or direspectful about that, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. The issue is the disrespectful PUA attitude that a man’s consent is his own decision, whereas a woman’s consent is a game trophy to be extracted from her by manipulative strategies.
Oh absolutely, I’m definitely not defending The Rules or any similarly manipulative and objectifying schemes for how women are supposed to behave in order to “catch a man”. (With a caveat, however, about imbalance in direct harm levels. Female-audience manipulation techniques like The Rules seem to focus a lot more on women making themselves more attractive, being less available and more “mysterious”, etc., in order to “lure” men. As opposed to the male-audience PUA strategies focusing on harassing, disconcerting, and pressuring women in order to overcome their “resistance”.)
Exploiting and manipulating people to get something you want out of them, without paying attention to what they want or what’s in their best interests, is despicable no matter who’s doing it to whom.
Yeah, well, like I said, it’s the former who seem to be skating considerably closer to the boundary between consensual and non-consensual activity. I mean, when an acknowledged formal stage in the dating strategy is called “Last-Minute Resistance” (“This is the point of no return before sex occurs. It’s often a freak-out moment for the woman”), you can see why that may come across as more threatening and potentially violating than techniques called “Don’t See Him More than Once or Twice a Week”, “Don’t Tell Him What To Do”, and “Let Him Take the Lead”.