This is the most frustrating thread I’ve taken part in for years
I don’t think that your experience with these techniques (which you’ve described as more general social skills) is the universal version that everybody trying to become a “pick up artist” learned.
I’ve seen and heard too many guys “throwing game” at women to believe that the techniques being shared were always gender neutral social skills that they could practice on their fellow bros.
That’s just the thing though, I have not claimed that my experiences were universal. In fact I have said explicitly that I make no claim about the PUA thing in its entirety.
The thing that’s frustrating is that other people are making such absolute claims and outright ignoring, not just the experiences of people like me, but also some of the pop culture references I alluded to.
Fair enough. I do apologize if you felt I was speaking of you, or of people like you.
But there is a version of these techniques that is predatory. Even at its most mundane, some of the skills strike me as distasteful - telling a woman you liked her shoes and that you saw them on somebody else, for example, is lying to a woman to try to obtain a reaction. White lie or not, it’s being dishonest for the purposes of obtaining some outcome.
Now, that is just one potential part of the entire skill set. I get that. And I do think that there is value is learning to understand things like body language, or in figuring out the best time to leave a conversation (didn’t George Costana, a la the Seinfeld sitcom, eventually figured out to leave on a high note), which do not involve trying to deceive other people. Being more observant about how people act and react is just wisdom.
So, you are certainly correct that there is a spectrum of people, and of behavior, which might be considered part of this general topic. And not all of them are bad. In fact, I’d venture to say that it’s worthwhile to acknowledge that social interactions are a learned skill, and so we could do well to teach those techniques.
But, the problem is that learning how to navigate society morphed - at least at some level, and amongst some people - into a path to get laid. Not get a girlfriend. Not win friends and influence people. It was to score with chicks. And while that is not necessarily problematic, this carnal goal has led to a sect that practices lying and manipulation for selfish purposes, and which - if it is so to succeed - must prey on vulnerable people.
(Of course, if that was never intended to be the most visible strain, perhaps there is better branding than calling the group at large “pick up artists”)
Yep. Thanks for the apology and I agree completely.
And I agree about the PUA branding (I was going to compare it to “defund the police” but thought it would annoy people because it would make them think I was considering the issues somehow equivalent. But I just mean linguistically, sometimes the word that catches on might be misleading for at least some of the group).
That’s an interesting point. If you look at characters like Joey Tribioni from friends or a Ryan Reynolds, Matthew McConaughey or Jake Gyllenhaal character from a rom-com, they are often portrayed as a “serial bachelor”. Good looking and effortlessly charming, which they use to sleep with a string of women without ever taking a relationship to a more serious level. They tend to be viewed as “immature” or “emotionally unavailable”, but just need to find the “right woman” (of which every woman wants to be).
However if some join a group of people IRL actually make an effort to be more charming or improve their appearance, it is perceived as distasteful. Even if the end goal is the same - a bunch of meaningless superficial sexual encounters.
I think maybe the reason is that PUA techniques seems very manipulative and disingenuous. Like a used car salesman, 80s stockbroker, people who get involved in pyramid scheme, or crypto bros. On some level most people sense the cognitive dissonance between what they are actually selling and the bullshit they are presenting.
Take the Neil Strauss interview with Jimmy Kimmel. IMHO, he seems very affected. Outwardly, he appears to be a short, bald guy with a creepy beard and a weird fashion sense (graphic T over a dress shirt). His mannerisms are reminiscent of corporate sales techniques I’ve witnessed (or have been trained in) over 20 years of management consulting - eye contact, smiling, focusing in on his “target”, supporting the client’s “conclusion” once you have led them there (like he does when Alba says something he agrees with. Prior to that he is 100% focused on Jimmy). Interesting “stories” (like Britney Spears and Motley Crue) that demonstrate what I would call “subject matter expertise” and “a track record of competency”.
Taken in the context of PUA discussions around scoring women, refining their various tactics and techniques, and so on, it comes across as very aggressive and creepy.
Good-looking being the key factor. You can always be the hero someday if you’re good looking enough.
Even when one of the characteristics of the antagonist of a show is supposed to be that he’s the handsome jock type, he’s often less good looking than the protagonist.
That may not be the end goal though, as I say.
And…I agree with what you’re saying, but I also think that there is an aspect of society needing to reconcile this stuff. Even a small proportion of men learning to be more attractive is too big a shake up to how relationships are perceived right now.
What do you think of claiming to be busy at such-and-such time when you’re not really busy but are playing hard-to-get for strategic reasons? Does that have the same moral aspect for you?
The OP asks about the PUA community in its years 2005-2015 overall zeitgeist.
From 1963 to 1984, when Time magazine announced that the Sexual Revolution was over,, the big new idea was: “women like sex.” (This was not news, of course, and there was testimony that women were even more enthusiastic in the previous century.)
That then changed to “women like sex, just not with you.” This was bullshit too, but could be palmed off as a concept blamed on growing income parity, the Pill, etc., and sold to lovelorn guys like a bill of goods.
From what I’ve learned from listening to women, many times when they make an excuse it’s to deflect an unwanted advance, and is based on the idea that if they were more direct they’d be faced with anger or hostility.
Other times it’s more of a general social convention that is intended to allow the other person to save face. Much to my chagrin, I’ve been turned down for dates. But I’ve usually been let down easy with a no that sounds like a yes (“sure, we should get together sometime” followed by no follow up or enthusiasm for scheduling “I’m really tired tonight - maybe sometime later”).
You don’t have to embarrass the other person, who is expected to get the hint that there are no plans on the horizon. That’s usually the meaning behind some bullshit excuses to avoid a get together.
Now, if it were predatory, I’d feel different. To use stereotypical examples, if a women feigned interest to get a free dinner, I would apply the same moral disapproval.
(I’m not really sure what “playing hard to get for strategic reasons” entails. If the person is pretending to be dating other people to get somebody jealous, I’d see that as a big huge red flag, but that’s mainly because it reeks to me of insecurity and mind games. I’m not sure if it’s immoral, but it is a warning).
I am kind of fascinated by the development in the 1980s that has continued to this day that “she wants sex, just not with you.”
Watched a 1951 movie recently, The Secret Of Convict Lake. Convicts break out of prison during a snowstorm and happen upon a small mountain village of only women. The men of the village are off prospecting and can’t get back due to the snow. A couple of the convicts are injured and they need food so the women allow them to stay.
One of the convicts, Glenn Ford’s character, was unjustly imprisoned. The rest were not good men at various levels. The convicts do help in getting some animals out of a burning barn, but they aren’t especially useful or needed. But what gives the convicts the temporary upper hand later on is the desire of the women for the convicts.
Now one of the convicts is a sexual predator, and he assaults one of the women. Glenn Ford is there and tries to stop the predator, but pointedly he’s injured himself and is unable to do so. So one of the women shoots him, and they stab him to death with pitchforks.
I’m not really seeing a lot of patriarchy in this film from 1951. The women would have been fine without the men there, and in fact their weakness was their sexual desire for men that were present.
And that sort of desire, even pre sexual revolution, was how things were portrayed until the 1980s or so. That there wasn’t some gulf between men and women that a man would have difficulty navigating. Perhaps this is what happens in more affluent societies, I don’t know. IMO what we implicitly believe today about women’s sexual desire is less true that what we believed before. I’m sure someone will argue this point with me.
The lived experience of a hefty fraction of teen & 20-something men is “She may or may not want sex, but I’m 100% certain she, and 100% of all the other women I’ve ever dealt with, don’t want it (or anything else) having to do with me.”
That does not lead to sensible or helpful responses from despondent or desperate socially marginalized young men.
Note that nothing above is trying to assign reasons, or place blame, for why these individuals had / are having this reality. I merely assert they do. With baleful consequences all around.
It’s not insecurity. It’s a demonstration of value. A tactic used by both men and women since the beginning of time. Does it work? Yes.
I don’t believe that sexual relations will ever come down to straightforward declarations of intent. They never have before. Some, yes, but completely? No.
“Many times”. That’s why I wrote “when you’re […] playing hard-to-get for strategic reasons”. That’s done many times too.
Is trying to arouse more interest by means of a “white lie” predatory? That’s kind of the question.
I have another poorly formed half-theory:
Up until the early 90s, IMHO there was more or less an expected correlation between “sexual attractiveness” and things one would assume women find “sexy” - good looking, popular, athletic, successful, confident, etc. IOW, if you were these things, there didn’t seem to be a need to supplement it with clever hook-up tricks. Dating advice (at least how it was portrayed in movies) seemed to be based on helping the protagonist make up for any shortfalls in these areas. Usually either “be more confident” (i.e. just ask her out stupid) or “get more successful or athletic (usually via a montage)” after which popularity and girls just happen.
As Tony “Scarface” Montana said “First you get the money, then you get the power, something something women!”
In the 90s, you started seeing these sort of sensitive sloppy nebbish-y antiheroes “getting the girl”. So I think a lot of guys internalized “hey I sit in front of a computer playing videogames and wearing the same T-shirt all day, why don’t I get the girl?” Because no one wrote it into your story, dummy!
I don’t know… I’m pretty sure that it was more of a consequence of seeing everyone around them hook up, and not knowing WHY they couldn’t achieve that as well, when they weren’t notably worse than any of them, except in the area of confidence, and that’s sort of a blind spot people have, or at very least something that’s hard to cultivate in yourself.
How many times a day am I supposed to change it?
How much Cheeto dust you got on it?
You may be forcing me to backtrack somewhat.
It can be predatory to lie to gain some advantage or ultimate goal.
I guess though - in terms of the sort of banter that goes back and forth between men and women - whether it is predatory does indeed depend on the nature of the lie and whether either person is really unwelcome to the end game.
Meaning, if a guy and girl meet and are in to each other, and one of them responds to the others mention of some place with “I love that place! I visit as often as I can”, it might be just the sort of thing to keep the conversation going. If the two end up in some romantic situation later, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the fabrication was predatory.
But I am aware of a situation where a guy was going around telling women he was a professional athlete. It sparked interest from a young lady who eventually had sexual relations, and was understandably angry and vindictive when she found out she had been duped. That’s on the other end of a predatory lie - at some point, they stop being “white lies” and do become coercive.
My initial point, though, still stands. Regardless of the severity, lying casually to get somebody to develop interest in you is, in my opinion, distasteful. Even when it is simple, stupid stuff, it seems to me that being inauthentic in furtherance of acceptance is, if not predatory, certainly not the foundation for happy relationships or successful interactions.
I mean, at its extremes, who is more well regarded: somebody whose personality morphs to fit whoever they are with, or somebody who is true to themselves and comfortable with their own quirkiness? Maybe a guy who fakes interest in a pretty woman’s shoes, or a girl who meets a guy and mentions her pretend boyfriend, is harmless. But I think they are trending toward the toxic realm of the social spectrum.
This was my attitude through most of my teens and twenties. The only thing that changed during that period was the supposed reason why, which began as thinking I was physically unattractive and ended with the perception that I had other qualities (such as extreme insecurity and social awkwardness) that repulsed women who actually found me physically attractive. I was still holding tight to this perception until the future Ms. P and I started getting serious.