Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Penny Arcade update Previous entry: She Walks Because She Can’t Figure Out How To Start The Car

Epic battle of Nice Guys® vs. common sense at Penny Arcade

Sex

Thanks/curses to Darcy for alerting me to this deeply disturbing public conversation between the writer (Tycho) and illustrator (Gabe) of Penny Arcade, a conversation that had the unfortunate result of reinforcing the perception that geeky dudes are seething misogynists that you better hope don’t have guns or the ability to get you alone.  Tycho played the part of the man of reason, a man who sees women as human beings, and a man who is therefore properly and completely skeezed out by the pick-up artist crap.

I get fascinated by sparkling things sometimes, things I want to incorporate into my nest, and it cinches a noose around my mind which locks me into a kind of inexorable “information accrual” mode. Scientology is a perennial in this regard, to the extent that I actively avoid information about it because it’s too fascinating and I don’t want to join the “church” in a moment of weakness. I recently had the misfortune of being exposed to some propaganda from the “seduction community,” and I’ve spent the weekend on a kind of data bender that has left me psychologically gutted. I’ve been trying to navigate away from this page for about an hour now, and I can’t do it. That these people are base manipulators should be apparent to any literate person; they’ve made a cage of language that I can’t escape from.

As I’ve asserted before, I think the PUA shills are class A hucksters, and just as Scientology is not going to clear you of the aliens ruining your life and homeopaths aren’t going to cure your cancer, PUAs aren’t going to teach you the one! perfect! system! to bed! any! woman! you! desire!  The people most being manipulated here are the sad sack misogynists who are so busy throwing a no pussy blues* pity party that they can’t even grasp that their inability to see that women are basically people is being exploited to free them of their spare cash.  I appreciate Tycho’s concerns here, and he’s not wrong.  Once you get a group of men together to socialize around the concept that a woman’s will is merely an obstacle between you and her pussy—-an obstacle that you not only can overcome, but should overcome to prove your manhood—-then I fail to see how that doesn’t slide into making excuses for and even outright calling for sexual assault. 

Which is all the more reason that Gabe’s reply misses the point.

I don’t know, Love Systems doesn’t seem so bad to me. It’s really hard to talk to girls, and this is just helping guys with their confidence. Women are terrifying and strange, I don’t see anything wrong with getting some advice.

You think women are terrifying?  Men who clearly don’t respect your will or your right to say no are terrifying.  Men who approach you with a “system” that’s “guaranteed” to get you into bed are terrifying.  Women put a lot of work into finding ways to defuse situations when you’ve been selected by such a man, and you realize no isn’t an answer he’s willing to take, and he’s going to neg you and manhandle you until you a) scream or b) give him a fake phone number so he can feel he’s accomplished something and leave you alone. 

Tycho remains calm:

I’m fairly certain the purpose of this course is to make you a better predator of women.  Check out their offers of “in-field training,” as though you were going to hunt antelopes from a jeep in the Goddamned Savannah.


That’s certainly the intention, though again, I remain skeptical of the success rate.  But if you encourage men to put so much value on whether or not they dipped their wick that night, you are setting a lot of them up to get very angry with women who don’t comply to the system.  The Sodini massacre is just the most outrageous example, but I shudder to think of what less nutty PUAs might be tempted to do when the system isn’t working because those damn stubborn females keep refusing them access to the pussy that is rightfully theirs.  But Gabe has a rejoinder that made my jaw drop:

I think you’re being overly dramatic. Girls have been using their “feminine wiles” to manipulate men since the beginning of time. Do you really think the mind games girls play on guys are any better or worse than this stuff. The only difference is that this sort of thing comes naturally to women. Guys are in a tight spot because in very real terms, we have nothing they want. They on the other hand, have vaginas. They can make us do pretty much what ever they want. I don’t see anything wrong with guys trying to learn some tricks of their own.

Emphasis mine.  Gabe now claims he was being over the top to be provocative, but what’s amazing is he summed up all the nonsense that creates the cycle that leads to Nice Guyness®.  First, assume that women are not really human beings like you are, and therefore have no interest in sexual congress.  Conclude that therefore the only reason they associate with men is because they’re trying to game them.  Decide this gives you permission to treat women like they’re the Big Bad in some video game, an enemy to be conquered in order to get the prize of the vagina. Start to believe that women are gloating because they can touch a vagina whenever they want.  Get really angry, and start to hate women.  Your obvious anger and contempt runs off even more women.  Assume that they’re out to get you, are trying to keep you from the vagina out of pure malice.  Buy some books on seduction techniques that are Guaranteed Or Your Money Back from obvious hucksters.  Find a community of men who agree with you that women are basically evil bitch users, and therefore you’re not only justified in using manipulation techniques to overcome their will, but you’re a warrior for mankind to strike back at women for hoarding all the pussy.  If you’re lucky, you won’t nosedive into reading blogs that advocate rape as proper punishment for women who don’t give it up as instructed. 

Never stop to think that many, many, many women happily have sex with men they’re attracted to every day, because it’s fun for everyone involved and not a matter of winners and losers.

Tycho basically gets the upper hand by pointing out that women are people, and Gabe retreats into the “Pity the pussyless!  They don’t know how to get women!”  Which is always the last ditch justification, even though it fails to address why well-meaning men seeking advice are determined to ignore all the free advice that actually works, such as, “If you want women to want you, you should not be creepy and seek women who are interested in a guy like you, instead of only thinking drunk sorority chicks as the sole representatives of womankind on the planet,” and “Remember, women are people, and if you treat them that way, they won’t be so damn mysterious.”  They don’t want to hear advice like that, because it misses that critical element that attracts them to PUA hucksters, which is the rich promise that their system will punish some bitches.  That you will “win”.  That some woman will be hurt by you.  That you’ll get your revenge. 

To make the whole situation worse, Gabe comes back with a shocking comment about how he got the angry emails from women he expected—-which he brushes off with alarming speed, because apparently who cares what women think about this whole discussion of our pussies and what’s fair play in getting at them?—-and moves right onto playing a sad, sad song for geeky men who are scared by women and are forced—-forced, I tell you—-to give their hard-earned money to a bunch of PUA hucksters who tell them that they can’t get laid because women are bitches who have this crazy idea that our bodies belong to us, and therefore they need to treat dating like it’s warfare against women for the scare pussy resources.  I can barely bring myself to quote it.

What I’m realizing is that sort of anxiety is almost like a kind of class feature for nerds. I got tons of mail from guys who aren’t using these systems to abuse girls or score one night stands. They are using them for the reasons that I listed jokingly. They really are trying to learn to be more confident and get past their anxiety with girls. They feel like all the douche bags out there give the system a bad name and more then one recommended a book called the Game by Neil Strauss. Where as I had pretty much given up on the idea of ever meeting a girl these guys are going out and trying to get help. I’m not sure how I can blame them for that.

Yeah, they say that.  They may even believe that they need to believe women are shit, or they are at best machines that work like your video game, where you press A Up B Down and suddenly they perform the correct action (just spreading their legs instead of busting a mortal blow on your enemy).  And we’re supposed to pity them, and not worry about how they’re going to act when the woman-machines don’t perform as instructed.  I’ve thrown my share of video game controllers, you know, but I know the difference between them and human beings.  But the seduction community actively dissuades men from seeing the difference.

Look, it’s all bullshit. There’s plenty of advice for the loveless and the lonely.  But men that are attracted to the seduction community don’t want to hear it, period.  Because it, and I can’t repeat this enough, tells them what they don’t want to hear, which is that the way to get good at dating is to start by believing women are people, and respecting and even coming to enjoy them in all their diversity. 

But because this topic is so irritating, I thought I’d finish it up with a video from “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia”, which has one of the best ongoing jokes about a Nice Guy® ever.  (MEGA SPOILERS) Charlie has a crush on the coffeeshop waitress, who is a fucked-up individual but not so fucked-up that she can’t see that Charlie—-who doesn’t own a toothbrush and huffs paint for fun—-isn’t exactly boyfriend material.  So he stalks her and won’t take no for an answer, and finally, he strikes a bargain with her.  She’ll go see a play he wrote, and he promises that he’ll never bother her again.  Tempted by the opportunity to be free, she goes.  And this is what happens. 

At what point, he breaks his promise to leave her alone.  Of course.

*That said, the song I posted above is brilliant and hilarious, and clearly not to be taken seriously, except as SERIOUS ROCK.  Seduction community members should take notes on the first lesson to stop being such megawatt assholes: Stop taking yourself so fucking seriously.  Get a sense of humor. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 06:04 PM • (229) Comments

The only difference is that this sort of thing comes naturally to women. Guys are in a tight spot because in very real terms, we have nothing they want. They on the other hand, have vaginas.

Wow. So he’s seriously stating that (straight) women don’t get any pleasure out of sex? That they don’t want the dick of a guy they’re attracted to?

Comment #1: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  07:28 PM

Is that “Rejection Line” thing for real?  That would be awesome.  I’d call the number to check, but I’m afraid I’ll just get a tape recording of Rick Astley.

Comment #2: BABH  on  08/11  at  07:32 PM

Yeah, this really isn’t the first time Mike Krahulik has engaged in some unexamined misogyny through his alter-ego Gabe.

I have a good friend who suffered a bit of a self-esteem issue: partly because he’s kinda short (which I’ve been told is hard on a man) and partly because he’s exactly the kind of loner-geek that Mike was trying to appeal to. He tended to fall for “the wrong girls” - girls who would be nice to him because they’re nice people, which he’d interpret as sexual interest and then be so frustrated when they turned him down. Anyway, he fell into that whole PUA thing for awhile and it was incredibly frustrating, as a female that he would never consider sleeping with (AKA worthless in the eyes of the PUA folks), to counteract that.

Eventually, he moved and made new friends and got involved in group activities like dance and social clubs which improved his self-esteem, and now he’s got a steady girl. So I guess the point of this is that loner/geeks don’t need asshole training; they need to either see a therapist or work on their issues with friends.

Comment #3: Sarah TX  on  08/11  at  07:34 PM

<quote>So he’s seriously stating that (straight) women don’t get any pleasure out of sex? That they don’t want the dick of a guy they’re attracted to? </quote>

Well, he claims he was playing devil’s advocate…

Comment #4: Sarah TX  on  08/11  at  07:34 PM

Wow. So he’s seriously stating that (straight) women don’t get any pleasure out of sex? That they don’t want the dick of a guy they’re attracted to?

I know, dude. The level of self-loathing there is really depressing, but since the level of woman-hatred there actually presents a physical threat in everyday life I can’t spare much sympathy. I also think he was probably dismissing those emails because Women: Incapable of Telling the Truth About Anything! is pretty central to this ideology.

Comment #5: purpleshoes  on  08/11  at  07:36 PM

I am glad that even 140 year old people won’t feel left out by hulu…

Comment #6: stephen  on  08/11  at  07:39 PM

They don’t want to hear advice like that, because it misses that critical element that attracts them to PUA hucksters, which is the rich promise that their system will punish some bitches.  That you will “win”.  That some woman will be hurt by you.  That you’ll get your revenge.

You sure about that? I always thought it was more along the lines of “that their system will teach you the two or three simple things that all women, because they are all the same, not full and diverse human beings like men are, all want, thus filling their tiny minds with bliss while you high-five your friends about all the tail you’re getting.”

P.S.: I always tell my lovelorn male friends that “women are actually a lot like people.” First they look at me funny, then the point I’m trying to make gets through.

Comment #7: RickMassimo  on  08/11  at  07:40 PM

I think Gabe’s last comment, especially the last graf, is pretty level-headed. 

Tycho’s e-mail from the friend, however, is amazing in it’s unintentional irony. Given the popular titles of the last ten years, I don’t really express a lot of surprise that the video game culture has a lack of insight into the realities of the female gender.  Maybe if the culture made it easier to allow girls to play D&D;and Halo with you at an earlier age you’d understand talking to women as well as calling someone a gay faggy gayfag over teamspeak.

Comment #8: August J. Pollak  on  08/11  at  07:48 PM

Interesting bit of Trivia: in one of their podcasts, Tycho actually points out a link to feministing.org which linked the David Spade Show segment where the Pussycat Dolls reality TV show was made fun of. Does not surprise me in a way that he would become aware of the “seduction community” at the same time others of us learned what “negs” are as well.

Comment #9: Seebach  on  08/11  at  07:49 PM

Sarah…being a short man is a bit like being a large woman. Its not exactly a crippling handicap, but it can really give you some major body image/self esteem issues. (I’m 5’3”) Anyway, I can see how it can lead you down the Nice Guy/PUA path if you don’t deal with those issues and instead channel your own problems in to misogyny.

yet another way the patriarchy is bad for men as well.

Comment #10: stephen  on  08/11  at  07:49 PM

I caught a snippet of some history channel program about the prohibition and the commentary was about how /women/ went to speakeasies, like they were aliens or something. I commented dryly, “How interesting. Women like to drink alcohol just like people.” My father (87) called me a feminazi. I smiled.

Comment #11: artopia  on  08/11  at  07:49 PM

Sarah…being a short man is a bit like being a large woman. Its not exactly a crippling handicap, but it can really give you some major body image/self esteem issues. (I’m 5’3”) Anyway, I can see how it can lead you down the Nice Guy/PUA path if you don’t deal with those issues and instead channel your own problems in to misogyny.

Also, take as you will, but worth noting that for all the stuff he said (that he claims was mostly a “joke”), Gabe touched briefly on an issue he talked about a lot more in depth a few years back.  Unlike the men in the PUA community who are convincing themselves that women are evil and stupid and need to be tricked into the sack, Gabe is a person who, after years of frustration with his personal social issues, made an assessment and realized that he actually needed professional help and sought professional treatment. (and by that I mean actual therapy and medicine, not a douchebag who told him he need needs to trick people into friendship)  Regardless of the argument in the PA thread I think he’s certainly a braver person than anyone in the PUA community.

Comment #12: August J. Pollak  on  08/11  at  07:54 PM

the free advice that actually works, such as, “If you want women to want you, you should not be creepy and seek women who are interested in a guy like you, instead of only thinking drunk sorority chicks as the sole representatives of womankind on the planet,” and “Remember, women are people, and if you treat them that way, they won’t be so damn mysterious.” They don’t want to hear advice like that, because it misses that critical element that attracts them to PUA hucksters, which is the rich promise that their system will punish some bitches.

*delurk*

Certainly there is no shortage of guys who have a screwed-up view of women and dating, and their attitude is a solid barrier ... but this “just treat women like people and you’ll be fine” line misses the point, as far as I’m concerned.

First, it’s useless. “Regarding women as people” and “being able to maintain one’s composure and confidence in the presence of a woman you’re interested in” are still two different things, even if the former does affect the latter. It’s like telling someone with an anxiety disorder to “just relax and stop worrying.”

Second, there’s the implication of “if you learn to treat women like people, you’ll get laid/find girlfriends and have no problems.” This is problematic for one of the same reasons the PUA approach is: it assumes that by performing act X, you will get result Y. Be honest, please: There is no guarantee that anyone will find success in pickups/relationships/dating, regardless of how you act. Being an asshole will, periodically, get you laid; being respectful, even with the appropriate blend of confidence and eloquence, will often not. That’s just how it works.

You depict pretty well here the manner in which guys who might begin as simply a bit immature and clueless gradually dig themselves a hole with this PUA stuff, but there still remains a dearth of serious material that helps guys who aren’t yet hopelessly ensnared in that trap avoid it - material that goes beyond simple platitudes and pop psych. I don’t think the discussion around here has been helpful in that regard, honestly. Which isn’t to say that it’s your duty to provide that; it’s just a shame that there aren’t many sources I’ve seen that do.

Comment #13: ballast  on  08/11  at  08:00 PM

We have the “vagina” they want, they have the “wedding ring” we want.  Whoever tricks the other faster gets the prize first.

What a depressing world to live in the patriarchy creates for men and women. And those misogynists don’t even see how they are trapped in it too.

PUA culture for me is pretty close to rapist mentality. The woman’s body is there to be taken, by any trick necessary. If all tricks fail, then why not go with brute force ? She deserves it for not putting it out what she owed you anyway, her vagina prize.

UGH

Comment #14: lostmypassword  on  08/11  at  08:06 PM

don’t think the discussion around here has been helpful in that regard, honestly. Which isn’t to say that it’s your duty to provide that; it’s just a shame that there aren’t many sources I’ve seen that do.

I think the reason there’s no real solid advice for “how to meet a nice lady who will sleep with you and be your girlfriend” is exactly because every lady is a unique person. It’s gonna be the same advice given to anyone, guy or gal or neither/both - get yourself out there. Get involved in activities. Try internet dating. Flirt with everyone you meet (yes, even people of the gender or genders or sexual orientations you are not interest in). Be open to unexpected opportunities.

The problem is that such advice is hard to follow. It involves emotional risks. For some guys, they have to give up this fantasy that they’re the only guy in the world who’s being denied sex, or that sex is a reward women give for specific behaviors, or one of several other fallacies they’ve developed over the years. PUA hawkers don’t create these fantasies - they play into ones that already exist.

Comment #15: Sarah TX  on  08/11  at  08:13 PM

Yep Gabe has some real problems with women.  But he has issues overall.  I remember seeing snippet of an interview taunting the jocks from high school because now he drives a totally bitchin’ car!  I stopped reading PA a while ago because their humor never changed even after marriage and kids

Comment #16: Robert  on  08/11  at  08:13 PM

Ballast: so, seriously, you are claiming that being as asshole will get you laid? I will grant, that being a musician will get you laid, whether you are an asshole or not; but just being an plain asshole? I doubt your bona fides, sir.

Comment #17: KMTBERRY  on  08/11  at  08:14 PM

What a depressing world to live in the patriarchy creates for men and women. And those misogynists don’t even see how they are trapped in it too.

Not to mention going in with the “we have nothing women want sexually” mentality means you’re going to be pretty awful in bed, which lowers your chances of having a good relationship (or even merely “getting laid”), and that re-enforces the previous attitude….its a pretty nasty trap.

Comment #18: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  08:14 PM

Be honest, please: There is no guarantee that anyone will find success in pickups/relationships/dating, regardless of how you act

Ballast you are seeing success as getting laid. If you treat women as people, you will count success as getting to know interesting people regardless of what gets dipped where.

If you really are in that dire need of getting laid, regardless of who the person is, then pay for it and get it over with.

If you are trying to find someone you love and that loves you back, then the attempts and the journey won’t be counted as failures. Nor will you score them in a PUA scale where only 9+ women count.

Look, I think I would enjoy making love with Brad Pitt or George Clooney or the cutie guy on the 5th floor but I don’t spend my life bitter about it never happening, not even if I’m a really good girl.  PUA men do. There are women and men for all kinds but when you decide only a certain narrow standard counts or you are a failure, guess what ? You are a lot more likely to fail.

Because you see the other as a trophie, not a person.

Comment #19: lostmypassword  on  08/11  at  08:15 PM

“girls who would be nice to him because they’re nice people, which he’d interpret as sexual interest and then be so frustrated when they turned him down.”

this is so frustrating! I now just go around being ever-so-slightly cold, because just normal friendliness some guys interpret as coming on to them! Don’t want to lead people I’m not interested on, but have also had the flip - guys *rejecting* me when I wasn’t even coming on to them, and was just making conversation! Talk about humiliating, dudes who think you’re the only ones who get humiliated!

I guess some guys really think that if a woman even talks to them, sex or the prospect of is involved somehow. Either they want me and think I’m receptive, or they think I want them, and have to reject me. Um, no, just humans on the planet, thanks so much! Conversations do happen, ya know!

Comment #20: liviaclaudia  on  08/11  at  08:16 PM

Ballast: so, seriously, you are claiming that being as asshole will get you laid? I will grant, that being a musician will get you laid, whether you are an asshole or not; but just being an plain asshole? I doubt your bona fides, sir.

This. The reason Henry Kissenger gets more women than I (or most men, period) ever will isn’t because he’s an asshole. It’s because he’s a former Secretary of State. He gets laidin spite of being an asshole, not because of it.

Comment #21: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  08:16 PM

I think the appeal of the PUA stuff is that it’s so *easy*. Because if you really have serious issues talking to women, the things you might try (other than seeking professional help if you actually have an anxiety disorder):
1) Make friends with a woman you aren’t interested in romantically. This helps a lot with the ‘women are people’ point.
2) Broaden your social circle - meeting more people = more potential dates, but it also means that you get more practice at basic social skills and particularly at the meeting-people social skills
3) Have a hobby that is of a different genre than your job (is you’re a software engineer, ‘building computers’ doesn’t count). You will not only meet new people, but you’ll meet people with different interests, and you will become more interesting as well.

But all 3 of those things are hard to do, particularly if you’re the introverted, awkward guy most likely to be seeking this advice in the first place. They take time and energy, and a lot of mental effort.
Now someone comes along and says, ‘oh, don’t worry, I have 3 simple tips that will get you all the women you want! Only a few hundred dollars and an hour of your time required!’ It’s why so many people take the diet approach to weight control rather than the exercise approach (whether they should be taking either approach is another matter).


Plus, as an engineering girl, this really bothers me:
“Our kind, the nerds, are the worst of the lot, man! How many girls did YOU have at your gaming table?”
Well, gee, dude. It couldn’t be the ‘women are aliens’ as a prevalent viewpoint, could it? ‘Cause nothing says ‘welcoming’ like ‘I find you terrifying because you have boobs’. If you want more girls at your gaming table, try inviting more girls.

Comment #22: jalmondale  on  08/11  at  08:26 PM

Being a Tubist has yet to get me laid.

Flirt with everyone you meet? If I did that, I don’t think I’d be me. And I don’t see how being someone other than myself is going to help me meet a woman who will be interested in dating me. Beyond that, I haven’t the slightest idea how to flirt. (well, it has something to do with being playful and giving compliments that aren’t backhanded, I think)

I don’t know how I make new friends, or meet new people, but I do it every so often. And now and then, I meet a woman I’m interested in getting to know better, so I ask her out. If I have a crush, I tell her about it. No harm in it, I haven’t lost a friend yet by bringing up the subject, and as soon as I find out the crush isn’t reciprocated, I stop worrying about it.

Comment #23: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  08:27 PM

Not to mention going in with the “we have nothing women want sexually” mentality means you’re going to be pretty awful in bed,

To be fair Ben, when you haven’t had sex before, there’s fairly good reason to suspect you won’t be any good at it. It’s something I’ve worried about with girlfriends. “Shoot, she likes me now, but what if I’m not good in bed for her, will she decide she doesn’t want to see me any more? Will she give me a second chance?” I mean, there don’t seem to be many opportunities for “sexual education”, that is to say, it’s always a performance, there aren’t really many dress rehearsals.

Comment #24: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  08:32 PM

Girls have been using their “feminine wiles” to manipulate men since the beginning of time.

Fuck you, Gabe.  Women have had to rely on “wiles” because we’ve historically lacked money and power.

Comment #25: DonnaDiva  on  08/11  at  08:34 PM

Sarah…being a short man is a bit like being a large woman. Its not exactly a crippling handicap, but it can really give you some major body image/self esteem issues. (I’m 5’3”)

I can relate to both sides to the height and weight issue as I started high school as a really chubby and short 5’ 13 year old…...and ended up starting my first year of college as a slim and tall 17 year old a smidgen under 6’. 

*That said, the song I posted above is brilliant and hilarious, and clearly not to be taken seriously, except as SERIOUS ROCK.  Seduction community members should take notes on the first lesson to stop being such megawatt assholes: Stop taking yourself so fucking seriously.  Get a sense of humor.

Damn, I really want that lead singer’s guitar…....reallly BAAAADDDD!!!! smile

Comment #26: exholt  on  08/11  at  08:35 PM

Deserving of pity, however, are your non-U.S. visitors who cannot view Hulu videos! Spare a short description?

Oh wait! Mystery tells me that in order to get something I want from a woman, I must use “game”. Let me try that again, Amanda:

Nice blog - reminds me of my Grandma’s! Hey, did you hear about those two bloggers fighting in the…er…blogosphere? Um, what I mean is, your blog would be prettier if it was pink and sparkly.

Hmmm…maybe it only works if I’m a man?

Comment #27: Floyd  on  08/11  at  08:36 PM

BenYitzhak, I understand that, but if you’re open and honest with your partner, etc, she can help you get around that.

But if you’re convinced that all men have nothing to offer sexually, and that women don’t want dick, even one of a guy their attracted to, and that women do have sex with a guy they do it out of of pity/duty, you will NEVER be good in bed.

Comment #28: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  08:40 PM

But if you’re convinced that all men have nothing to offer sexually, and that women don’t want dick, even one of a guy their attracted to, and that women do have sex with a guy they do it out of of pity/duty, you will NEVER be good in bed.

Exactly, so they aren’t wrong in thinking that they have nothing to offer a woman sexually.

Comment #29: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  08:46 PM

FWIW I went from there to here…personally I despise the whole PUA thing, I think it’s stupid, but there’s one thing that did make me raise an eyebrow and gives me a bit of pause. It puts it in a bit of a different light.

“It’s harmless and normal between two people to tease or even, in the case of you and Mike, insult. How much outlandish and even insulting inside jokes do you have with Brenna or does Mike have with Kara?

I kinda can understand that, I mean it makes a sort of sense. People think that they’re emulating what they perceive to be other successful relationships. I can understand that.

Where it goes off the rails is they don’t get this…

WHEN YOU MEET A NEW PERSON YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THEIR BOUNDARY LINES ARE!!!

It’s as simple as that. You don’t know what will come across as harmless and comfortable and what will come across as being hurtful and mean. You just don’t know. So don’t do it. That comfort they admire is something that takes a long time to form. It takes give and take…and yes mistakes are made. But you need to know where to start!!!

It’s a different type of wrong, but it’s still wrong.

Comment #30: Karmakin  on  08/11  at  08:47 PM

Exactly, so they aren’t wrong in thinking that they have nothing to offer a woman sexually.

But they didn’t say THEY have nothing to offer. They said men, (“guys”) in general, have nothing to offer. Maybe THEY individually don’t, but the fact they painted the entire male gender with that brush is really screwed up thinking.

Comment #31: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  08:48 PM

But all 3 of those things are hard to do, particularly if you’re the introverted, awkward guy most likely to be seeking this advice in the first place. They take time and energy, and a lot of mental effort.

But all of those things are also fun.  They’re effort, but they’re not work.  They are a reward in themselves.

Comment #32: lonespark  on  08/11  at  08:50 PM

Floyd wins 2 internets for her comment :D

I’ve always enjoyed Tycho’s writings, and it can be pretty obvious which comics rely more heavily on his influence.  The PAX forums can be a hive of scum of villainy

Comment #33: themann1086  on  08/11  at  08:52 PM

it’s always a performance, there aren’t really many dress rehearsals.

I feel that, if you’re doing it right, they’re all dress rehearsals.  And performances, I guess.  But not big scary ones for an audience.  Fun jam sessions.

Comment #34: lonespark  on  08/11  at  08:53 PM

Guys are in a tight spot because in very real terms, we have nothing they want.

When I read this, I don’t just read that women don’t want sex.  The ultimate message is that men have nothing to offer women at all, which says a lot more about Gabe and the men who parrot this crap than it does about women.  One thing you need to do before you can be attractive to women is to be attractive to yourself.  If you have nothing to offer, why would you think any woman would want to be with you?

Comment #35: keshmeshi  on  08/11  at  08:55 PM

ballast, I agree that “treating women like people” != getting laid.  And I agree it can be crippling at first when you like someone so much you can’t breathe and yet you also can’t bear to say anything in their presence for fear of fucking things up.  Believe me, I’ve been there. But that was in high school and early college.  Once I got enough experience dating people, I learned the valuable lessons that a) sometimes you like someone who doesn’t like you. it sucks, but you also can’t change how they feel. and there’s no point in seeing it as an official referendum on you b) if someone likes you, you often don’t have to try all that hard anyways. even if you’re a bit awkward, eventually your liking for each other will come out. If it feels like you’re working towards something, it’s not worth it, msot of the time.

I think men who get so anxious they can’t even talk to women at all never learned those lessons, somehow.  Especially the first point.  I think they can’t maintain their composure because they are so defensive about getting rejected that they take any negative interaction with a woman personally. To me, that seems like a form of anxiety that needs professional help. And it’s hard for me to not believe they’re having trouble with the women=people meme if they can’t talk to them at all.

But if the issue is that men are just not successful with women (rather than having a phobia of saying anything at all to any of them.), then I think the real advice that is useful is: look at yourself. harshly. look at the person you are interested in. put yourself in their shoes. why, on earth, would they/should they like you?  If you can’t think of a reason, then move on. Next time, try to find someone who could conceivably like you and still be a rational human being. If you can think of a reason they should like you but all signs point to them not liking you, then perhaps they aren’t the person you’re imagining them to be, so similarly you should move on. 

This won’t help you attract partners, of course.  What attracts partners is being interesting, funny, smart, cute, liking the same things, smelling nice, etc. etc. etc. And since no people are alike, there’s no practical advice for how to attract the perfect person.  The one thing I can say is that no one really has to be alone. Every guy I know who has been alone for extended periods of time is kind of damaged goodsy.  Either they have volatile, borderline abusive tendencies, or they’re ugly but still want someone attractive (read: too hot for them) and think their money and personality can compensate, or they’re kinda picky and take ZERO effort to attract women, not realizing you’ll get your minimally acceptable choice if you don’t make some effort to date. (see stable marriage algorithm). But all of those guys could do something to make themselves more appealing: date uglier girls, stop being so prickish and abusive, actually pursue women and make an effort to expand your social circle.

Comment #36: t-ster  on  08/11  at  08:55 PM

I think liviaclaudia and ballast are both making good points. People are assuming that these guys are getting involved with the PUA system, expecting it to seduce models because that’s what the courses advertise. But these men, almost universally, have chronically low self esteem, and I’m sure know that whatever they do, that will never be the case. I suspect that a lot of them (but not all, obv. - I do agree with the thrust of this post up to a point) go on these courses because it teaches them how to read romantic body language, flirt and appear confident, in the hope that they’ll be able to land A girl. Their willingness to try it on with dozens of women just to get one phone number looks to me like they don’t think they can afford to choose someone they really like, and will probably be dumped once their real personality comes across.

And I’m sure these guys have been told some variation on the ‘just be yourself/just get to know someone with similar interests’ but if you don’t have the social skills to know if someone’s flirting with you or not that’s completely irrelevant. Sarah TX: it would be irresponsible to tell someone with low self confidence who’s unable to read body language to flirt far and wide because it’s probably only going to lead to more embarrassment and unease for both parties.

Still, that’s not to say there aren’t a significant amount of PUAs who do join up because they aren’t willing to sleep with normal looking women, or who are misogynists. Some of them almost certainly do find support for their views - even most of the PUAs who’ve posted on this have admitted there are entitlement issues. But tarring every person involved with these as a danger to women is a gross and simplistic generalisation and isn’t going to do anything to help the problem.

Comment #37: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  08/11  at  08:57 PM

But you can’t have a jam session the first time you pick up an instrument. You need to be taught how to hit the notes. I’ve been playing tuba for 15 years, I can lay down a baseline and have people improv over it. I can improv over a baseline. But at the beginning? Even if it were fusion jazz, I wouldn’t have wanted to listen to me play with a group.

Comment #38: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  08:58 PM

Damn shame what happened to that Neil Strauss.  He was alright about 10 years ago when he was into break dancing and was writing for RS and we would screw in his flat in the east village every now and then.  He was nerdy and fun and inquisitive and authentic.  I totally blame the Motley Crew book.  Did him in.  Like I say, damn shame.

Comment #39: Ann  on  08/11  at  08:58 PM

Second, there’s the implication of “if you learn to treat women like people, you’ll get laid/find girlfriends and have no problems.” This is problematic for one of the same reasons the PUA approach is: it assumes that by performing act X, you will get result Y. Be honest, please: There is no guarantee that anyone will find success in pickups/relationships/dating, regardless of how you act. Being an asshole will, periodically, get you laid; being respectful, even with the appropriate blend of confidence and eloquence, will often not. That’s just how it works.

This. I think for a lot of these customers, it’s a lot more compelling to think that there’s some trick they’re missing that if they can just learn, will let them join the normal, sociable world. The reality - that if you “do everything right” for any definition of the word, you may still never meet anyone that you click with - is something that they want to (understandably) deny. And then they get wrapped up in all the grotesque PUA crap.

It’s kind of the male equivalent to the Oprah quacks who promise that if you just make this one life change, all your problems will go away. And similarly, this advice can cause the sucker to treat other people unpleasantly. An easy answer is incredibly compelling, but ultimately fruitless and disappointing.

Remember, the geeky men tend not to be very good at talking to other men either. The few friends they have are from similarly geeky pursuits which, as is lamented upthread, are skewed to be female-unfriendly.

That said, the “neg” really creeps me out. From Tycho’s PUA friend’s description, it’s basically treating someone far more intimately than you really are with them, which is uber creepy.

I’m not defending PUA culture here, but I see why it seems appealing to these men.

Comment #40: Dolbia  on  08/11  at  09:04 PM

I guess some guys really think that if a woman even talks to them, sex or the prospect of is involved somehow.

One of the great benefits of marriage is that I am now free of this.  Before I was partnered up, almost every interaction I had with anybody was sexually charged, at least on my side.  Even if I wasn’t particularly interested, I would worry about whether they were interested in me.  Now that I have a husband I can meet and talk to people in the comfortable knowledge that I will never sleep with them, and that both they and I know it.  It is an enormous relief to be publicly out of the dating pool.

Comment #41: BABH  on  08/11  at  09:05 PM

Aw, I’m sorry to see my pretend-boyfriend Nick Cave getting associated with these people. Although the song fits pretty well.

After having a lot of multi-viewpointed conversations on this topic over the last week, I’m coming to the depressing conclusion that there is no fix for this short of a deep, revolutionary cultural overhaul. Because after explaining to the pro-PUAs that it’s really unpleasant for women to deal with this crap (they don’t believe the tactics will be unsuccessful - they’ve heard too many bullshit success stories from other guys), what they come back at me with is that they’re only attracted to certain women. Under a certain age and weight and above average looks. And that they cannot re-program their hormones otherwise. They also seem to have skewed “league” perceptions - they’ll say, “I don’t need a supermodel, I just want a girl who’s basically cute and in good shape. Like X. She doesn’t have to be drop dead gorgeous.” And X will in fact be someone who IS real-life gorgeous, someone who out of a hundred women would easily be rated the most beautiful. It’s so frustrating.

They also seem to be more content believing that women’s romantic choices are motivated by money, not attraction. The whole “what do I have to offer” sentiments that I hear usually refer to having a shitty job or car. As if their looks and personality have nothing to do with it. A few guys got riled up about Robert Pattinson (theTwilight guy) - what the hell did girls seem in him, etc - and just wouldn’t listen to the two women explaining his appeal. So it’s hard for me to have any sympathy for these guys when they won’t even bother listening to women on what women want.

Comment #42: Veronica  on  08/11  at  09:08 PM

  I guess some guys really think that if a woman even talks to them, sex or the prospect of is involved somehow.

You know what goes along with this? When you’re a guy, a lot of your friends have it in their head that is
impossible to have a completely platonic friendship with a girl you are not sexually attracted to. In college every time I got back from visiting a particular female friend, the first question my room mate would ask is YOU’RE FUCKING HER AREN’T YOU? HAR HAR!” And I’d say “I’m not attracted to her that way”, which would get the response, “WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR TIME TALKING TO A CHICK YOU WON’T FUCK?”

*facepalm*

Comment #43: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  09:10 PM

One thing that I find hard to deal with is the “have reasonable expectations, don’t go for someone too attractive.”

My last girlfriend, I thought, was absolutely stunning, but she apparently, didn’t hear that very often. And she called me a pretty boy on more than one occasion. She was even wearing her glasses the second time. I’ve gotten cute once or twice in the past nine years, but “pretty boy” isn’t something I expect to hear.

I mean, if I didn’t ask out a girl just because I thought she was beautiful—I don’t know that I’d ever ask anyone out.

Comment #44: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  09:17 PM

I can’t jam, either.  I am the sort of half-trained musician who can basically only play in an orchestra with a conductor.  But I think my point still stands.  You have to practice anything to be good at it, and if it’s an enjoyable activity the practice will be enjoyable and the performances also enjoyable, if occasionally a little bit nerve-wracking for folks prone to anxiety.

Comment #45: lonespark  on  08/11  at  09:20 PM

One thing that I find hard to deal with is the “have reasonable expectations, don’t go for someone too attractive.”

It’s not that.  Go for as many ridiculously hot people as you want to.  The ridiculous expectations come in when you’re writing off most of the rest of the world because they’re insufficiently amazingly gorgeous.

Comment #46: lonespark  on  08/11  at  09:22 PM

But all of those things are also fun.  They’re effort, but they’re not work.  They are a reward in themselves.

No.  They aren’t.  They’re terrifying and traumatic (the first two, which are really the same thing) and frustrating (the last).  They may be rewarding in the long run, but they’re not fun.  Meeting new people and making new friends SUCKS.  It’s not easy, it’s not fun.  At least not for everybody.  You might like meeting new people, but I really, really don’t.  And a new hobby?  What’s that going to do but take time and money away from my existing hobbies - things I already know I enjoy and don’t have nearly enough time or energy to pursue?

Comment #47: libdevil  on  08/11  at  09:24 PM

Yeah, but it’s something where, even if the woman likes me, I can’t assume she’s going to have the patience to be willing to teach me the fingerings.

Comment #48: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  09:24 PM

Ben Yitzhak, I’m not saying deliberately don’t ask someone out who you think is beautiful.  Beauty is of course relative and everyone has their types and there’s a slim chance that someone you find is beautiful may also find you hot, etc. etc. etc.

What I’m saying is that if you are continually rejected and alone, for a period of years, then maybe you aren’t going after the right people.  Expand your interests. Get out of your comfort zone.  Give a chance to pepole you ordinarily wouldn’t.

As a girl, society has told me I’m supposed to wait around for some guy to express interest.  I don’t always do that, but it does mean more men approach me than women approach a man of comparable attractiveness. Sometimes men approach me who do not fit within my conception of what I want.  Sometimes, I give them a chance because ,mabye my conceptions of what I want are whack and haven’t been bringing me happiness.  And all I’m saying is that people who haven’t been getting what they want need to reevaluate what they want.

Comment #49: t-ster  on  08/11  at  09:25 PM

Ah. Okay then. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

Comment #50: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  09:30 PM

First, it’s useless. “Regarding women as people” and “being able to maintain one’s composure and confidence in the presence of a woman you’re interested in” are still two different things

The first is prerequisite to the second, unless you want to come off exactly like one of these PUA glad-handing phonies.

Second, there’s the implication of “if you learn to treat women like people, you’ll get laid/find girlfriends and have no problems.”

No-one’s implying it’s a “no-problems” guarantee. It’s a first step, and sadly one that a lot of supposedly mature men have yet to take. The PUA gurus don’t do these guys any favours by continuing to claim that women are diabolical alien creatures who, like $cientology’s “thetans”, are conspiring to keep them from achieving their full potential.

To be fair Ben, when you haven’t had sex before, there’s fairly good reason to suspect you won’t be any good at it

Agreed, but I’ll be blunt: If you have a girlfriend (as opposed to a one-night stand), and she’s decided to let you put your penis inside her body, I’m kinda-sorta guessing you probably have something she wants sexually, and she’ll likely be forgiving if your first time with her is so-so, or if you’re (gasp!) honest with her about your lack of experience.

And you know what? If she isn’t forgiving, if she makes you feel like crap, if she dumps you because you’re not good in bed, her priorities are probably a little different than those you seem to want in a GF.

Sex isn’t nearly as difficult as playing a musical instrument, by the way. If it was there’d be a lot fewer kids on the planet.

One thing that I find hard to deal with is the “have reasonable expectations, don’t go for someone too attractive.”

Two separate things: the first makes sense, the second is bunk.

But these men, almost universally, have chronically low self esteem, and I’m sure know that whatever they do, that will never be the case. I suspect that a lot of them (but not all, obv. - I do agree with the thrust of this post up to a point) go on these courses because it teaches them how to read romantic body language, flirt and appear confident, in the hope that they’ll be able to land A girl.

As I’ve said before about those things, there are better ways to reach that goal than the PUA methods, all of which incorporate some self-defeating degree of misogyny and disdain for the alien entities. Dale Carnegie and Toastmasters may be corny ‘50s era relics, but they’re still around and they apparently go a long way toward getting people past their low self esteem without making them into PUA-style jerks.

Comment #51: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  09:34 PM

I bought a PUA book once, years ago. The only effect I really got from it was an attractive former coworker looking at the title (“How To Succeed With Women”) and saying “we can be single together”.

I still have it somewhere, but damned if I can remember where. I did find that there seemed to be a lot of useful advice, but where it went wrong was that it insisted that the whole thing had to be followed rather than picking and choosing.

Comment #52: BrianX  on  08/11  at  09:43 PM

About 5 years ago I spent a lot of time reading PUA sites, and I think it helped me immensely.  The catch?  I was also reading a lot of feminist blogs at the same time.

There is a tonne of good advice for men in this thread.  But it’s exactly the same advice that I was getting from the PUAs.  The only difference was that the feminists weren’t wrapping their advice in misogynist language.

At the core were two rules:

Rule 1:  Women are people, and therefore women often want to have sex.
Rule 1b:  There’s nothing wrong with that, so don’t judge them for it.

Rule 2:  Men are people, and therefore men often want to have sex.
Rule 2b: There’s nothing wrong with that, so don’t be embarrassed or dishonest about it.

Comment #53: pete  on  08/11  at  09:46 PM

The problem isn’t going for somebody attractive, it’s being angry when you don’t get them.

Comment #54: mythago  on  08/11  at  09:47 PM

Yeah I never believe Mike when he claims that it’s not really some deep-seated prejudice, he was just being “edgy” (and why is it always the “edgy” fallback when these idiots get called out) mainly because I remember rather bitterly awhile back listening to their podcast where Mike notices that Jerry has a tab open to (I believe it was feministing) and responding in the exact tone you would use if you caught a friend masturbating to pictures of children and basically attempted to shame Jerry to death about daring to read a feminist perspective on something. I believe the main subtext was about how Jerry’s dick was going to fall off because he sees women as people and how emasculated Jerry was. I believe Jerry tried to sidestep the issue saying he was looking up some article that looked interesting and Mike kept on harping on why any man would read something feminist if he wasn’t a woman or a fag.

So yeah, “playing a character” my ass. He does draw good though and Jerry’s writing is well worth it most of the time.

I was more disturbed that one of Jerry’s friends apparently works as a scammer for the exact PUA he singled out and sent him a really creepy email basically echoing most of the Nice Guy TM BS under the argument that because nerd spaces tend to have few girls that girls are therefore rare endangered prey that must be hunted more efficiently as if MORE creepy guys around the LAN or D&D;table would make women MORE likely to stay and hang around.

I’ve played in sexist D&D;circles and there’s a reason that a pre-epiphany transwoman was the only woman there for more than one game and it wasn’t the lack of interest or random rarity.

Comment #55: Cerberus  on  08/11  at  09:50 PM

Meeting new people and making new friends SUCKS.  It’s not easy, it’s not fun.  At least not for everybody.

I’d agree with that—I’m not much for meeting new people either. It’s not fun for me, and in fact it’s downright draining and usually a nuisance. I’m not a talker.

However, if someone starts up a conversation with me, I’m prepared to make that small talk I loathe so much. It’s polite, it’s low-stakes, and it’s good practise for the rare times I do bother to initiate things myself, or when I actually want to get to know this new person (and, believe me, meeting a new girl is still low-stakes in comparison to other such situations—a sense of perspective plays a part here).

I could go on about what comes after the initial small talk and banalities, but (as Amanda noted) the good advice is available for free, and without all the woman-hating clap-trap the PUAs drape over it.

Comment #56: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  09:51 PM

You know what helps in meeting new friends? Alcohol. In moderation, of course, but it’s a great tool.

Comment #57: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  09:53 PM

Yeah, but it’s something where, even if the woman likes me, I can’t assume she’s going to have the patience to be willing to teach me the fingerings.

Why on earth not ? ! ?!

If fingerings are fun for her and you are willing to try to make her have fun even if it feels awkward the first time, you are already a better lover than at least 50% of her past boyfriends, I can guarantee you.

Bad sex is usually when the creep only thinks about himself and is not the least interested if you - his partner - are having any fun.

Comment #58: lostmypassword  on  08/11  at  10:00 PM

Yeah I never believe Mike when he claims that it’s not really some deep-seated prejudice, he was just being “edgy” (and why is it always the “edgy” fallback when these idiots get called out) mainly because I remember rather bitterly awhile back listening to their podcast where Mike notices that Jerry has a tab open to (I believe it was feministing) and responding in the exact tone you would use if you caught a friend masturbating to pictures of children and basically attempted to shame Jerry to death about daring to read a feminist perspective on something. I believe the main subtext was about how Jerry’s dick was going to fall off because he sees women as people and how emasculated Jerry was. I believe Jerry tried to sidestep the issue saying he was looking up some article that looked interesting and Mike kept on harping on why any man would read something feminist if he wasn’t a woman or a fag.

Haha wow I actually remember that podcast, the context was specifically that Jerry was trying to show Mike that one bit from (I think?) David Spade’s TV show that took a shot at the Pussycat Doll’s version of “empowerment”. But yeah as soon as Jerry opened up the website Mike goes all “Dude what is this, Feministing? OMG FEMINISTS WOMYN GAYZ HURF HURF DURF.”

I think the main reason I remember it was because the thing he was looking for hadn’t been linked at Feminsting at all, I was like “wait no, I’m pretty sure he’s actually thinking of Pandagon.”

Comment #59: Dan  on  08/11  at  10:00 PM

You know what helps in meeting new friends? Alcohol. In moderation, of course, but it’s a great tool.

This is true, and it was never more obvious to me as when I quit drinking almost five years ago now. I was a garrulous, oft-times unruly drunk, and that all evaporated when I gave up the booze. Also, the built-in social circles of the bar life and music scene just aren’t as availible when you don’t pound the alcohol, especially in a town like Athens. So now, when I go out, I usually wind up finding a relatively quiet place in the club in which to see the show, be it a band or my increasingly inebriated friend(s), and I’m far too shy go up to people. Again, it’s probably an Athens thing, but most people here, male and female, travel in packs. No one, but no one, approaches the wallflower.

Funny, but being a stoner doesn’t really have that sort of socialization aspect to it. You have a few folks you’re comfortable lighting up with, your dealer, and that’s about it.

Comment #60: Matt T.  on  08/11  at  10:02 PM

You know what helps in meeting new friends? Alcohol. In moderation, of course, but it’s a great tool.

Yeah, social lubricant, etc. But for me, it’s just making an act of will, and understanding that if I get no response or interest it isn’t the end of the bloody world.

[Just watched that “Always Sunny in Philadelphia” clip—thanks to Amanda for posting it and the great set-up. I am so looking forward to catching up on that series]

Comment #61: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  10:03 PM

There’s a reason Gabe is the homophobic dumbass of the comic.

Comment #62: mythago  on  08/11  at  10:03 PM

Oh, for those who were commenting on the insecurity introvert thing. I’m as introvert as they get. I’m not conventionally attractive and I’m transitioning into a different sex entirely. More to the point, I’ve never been actively “engaged” in any real scene and I wouldn’t know what to do even if I was because I’m an asexual and most of the “sexual” communication cues completely skip past me.

And I somehow managed, through pure zen approaches to the acquisition of friendship managed to secure myself a long-term loving girlfriend.

It’s a two part thing:
Part 1: The don’t be a dick lesson
Part 2: Don’t overthink it.

The part 2 is the big one. Too many insecure introverted people get stuck on part one and get anxious about their loneliness. The secret is to try and remind oneself that no matter how long it takes, as long as you’re doing your thing and not being a complete dick or scary creep, you’ll probably stumble into a friendship with some form of spark or meet someone really intriguing whose intrigued by you. Heck, I’ve witnessed more than a handful of marriages between introverts (stuff that lasts longer than a year or two) arise in these here internets. It’s all about not freaking out about the loneliness and letting that turn you into a really creepy desperate asshole.

Comment #63: Cerberus  on  08/11  at  10:05 PM

Bad sex is usually when the creep only thinks about himself and is not the least interested if you - his partner - are having any fun.

Shhhhh! You’re giving away the super-secret core of the Gracchus Method™, for which I charge the big bucks. Why don’t you tell everyone the story of Xenu and spoil things for the $ea Org while you’re at it?

Comment #64: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  10:07 PM

Funny, but being a stoner doesn’t really have that sort of socialization aspect to it. You have a few folks you’re comfortable lighting up with, your dealer, and that’s about it.

Probably because of the legal aspect of it. For me, though, it was because weed has a funny effect on me—it makes me really quiet and introspective, I just start thinking a lot, so it wasn’t a good way to make friends!

Comment #65: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  10:08 PM

Further thought: When I drank, I ran into all sorts of different people. Irish exchange students, old Hell’s Angels, drag queens, Vietnam vets who hadn’t seen their kids in 20 years, and loads of libertarians. I once spent the better part of the evening in an ABC package store bar in Gainesville, FL, drinking with a woman in her late ‘30s that’d just turned to hooking. Just me, her, the bartender and Led Zeppelin’s fourth album at her request.

Now, I smoke weed alone because all my older friends have adult shit to worry about, my younger friends are all too busy getting shit-hammered and my brother has a girlfriend. I swear, I’d almost start back drinking again if I wasn’t afraid I’d hurt somebody, and I’m pretty sure I would.

Comment #66: Matt T.  on  08/11  at  10:10 PM

Patriarchal views of women having all the power—a subset of this logic being “women have all the pussy”—is just the logic of a paranoid infantile disposition in terms of which “mummy towered over me and made me do stuff”.  So women seem all powerful and the illusion (on this basis) emerges:  “Oh they are already gaming us!  Let’s take revenge and game them back.”  But that’s an illusion based upon the recollection of mummy power.  Women really don’t have all the power, but very little of it, politically.  If they had more power, they might be prepared to take more risks without worrying about reputation and the way in which money will come in, in the future (which explains conservative women and their tendency to latch onto a breadwinner).  But the patriarchs, as usual, with their inverted logic, want to take away women’s power (or “game them”) in order to try to even the score.  The score against whom? Against mummy!

Comment #67: scratchy888  on  08/11  at  10:11 PM

Shhhhh! You’re giving away the super-secret core of the Gracchus Method™, for which I charge the big bucks. Why don’t you tell everyone the story of Xenu and spoil things for the $ea Org while you’re at it?

Next up he’ll spill the secret super duper Pay Attention to the Clitoris and Listen to her Verbal Instructions Executive Lecture Series and then we’ll…

Aaaah, I’m so sorry Gracchus. Maybe no one noticed.

Comment #68: Cerberus  on  08/11  at  10:11 PM

For me, though, it was because weed has a funny effect on me—it makes me really quiet and introspective, I just start thinking a lot, so it wasn’t a good way to make friends!

I’m bad about that, too. Nothing in the outside world is as remotely interesting as what’s going on in my head, so why bother. Plus, apparently I look pissed off when I’m deep in thought, which on top of being homely on my best day, doesn’t help worth a damn.

Comment #69: Matt T.  on  08/11  at  10:14 PM

I think Gracchus has a solid point about Dale Carnegie and Toastmasters: there’s nothing wrong with thinking tactically about social interactions.  That, I think, is what these PUA sites offer to a lot of otherwise okay men.  They represent not only a body of knowledge but also a new way of thinking about social interactions that used to be nothing but a trackless wilderness of despair and confusion.  It’s quite a pity that there is no (to my knowledge) feminist friendly equivalent. 

“Remember that she is a person, just like you” is a fine mission statement, but “if you see someone you are attracted to approach them and begin a conversation within three seconds.  If you wait any longer you will over think things and become nervous, also she will probably catch you staring at her and think you are a creep” is a little more practical.  The two pieces of advise are hardly mutually exclusive, but to a nervous, low-self esteem having geek the second will be more comforting.

Comment #70: Andy  on  08/11  at  10:15 PM

Aaaah, I’m so sorry Gracchus. Maybe no one noticed.

Too late! I am contacting my attorneys even as we speak. Keep spilling my trade secrets, all of you, because every time you do I hear *ka-ching*!

Comment #71: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  10:18 PM

Andy-

Yeah, it really often boils down to “stop overthinking things and be natural”, but I’m not sure how to market that up for nervous people.

Maybe the advice should work like polyamorous advice regarding jealousy, work on your own self-esteem and self-regard first and take care of yourself first otherwise you’re going to displace a lot on partners and those you seek out? Dunno.

Maybe we can get Senator Franken to reprise the Stuart Smalley character.

Comment #72: Cerberus  on  08/11  at  10:19 PM

They also seem to have skewed “league” perceptions - they’ll say, “I don’t need a supermodel, I just want a girl who’s basically cute and in good shape. Like X. She doesn’t have to be drop dead gorgeous.” And X will in fact be someone who IS real-life gorgeous, someone who out of a hundred women would easily be rated the most beautiful. It’s so frustrating.

I mean, if I didn’t ask out a girl just because I thought she was beautiful—I don’t know that I’d ever ask anyone out.

I just wanted these two quotes to be next to each other for a second.  BenY, I think where you’re having a block with the “adjust your expectations” thing is that your personal expectations are predicated on whatever you personally find attractive.  Most of us have very quirky definitions of “attractive” (Or, rather, I do and assume lots of people are like me in their quirk level).  From what Veronica is saying, and from my own experiences with men along the Nice Guy/PUA continuum, they aren’t judging women they see based on their own personal definitions of pretty.  “I don’t know what it is about a person with just one dimple, but it gets me every time” or whatever.  What they are doing is assuming that certain women are markers of a certain status in the hierarchy of men, and they either want or reject that status, depending on the woman.  They’ll tell you they only find women between 5’2” and 5’6”, 95 - 115 lbs, of far northern European ancestry attractive because their hormones say so, but when you question them, you discover that their boyfriends say that these women are the hottest, and the guys who get them are the coolest.  They really are trying to use their sexual relationships to get a higher rank.  Holding out for Ms. Tennessee may not get you a girlfriend, but your buddies won’t know that you only rank a Ms. Turnip festival, or worse, a regular girl who loves you for you.

Comment #73: Heo Cwaeth  on  08/11  at  10:20 PM

Ben, one of the pluses about treating a woman like she’s a person is that if you do, ahem, get the fingerings wrong, she’s more than likely willing to work with you on improving, because you’ve actually got an emotional/intellectual connection. You DO have something to offer, and a willingness to learn to make the sex part better.
And because different women have different turn-ons, it doesn’t even matter that much what your experience level starts at, because some guys with more experience have to unlearn and not do what their new SO dislikes, etc. It is a well established idea that sex actually gets better as a relationship lasts a while, because of the learning process.

Aside from that little misconception/insecurity issue, though, it sounds like you are doing things tremendously RIGHT! Being upfront about your feelings, letting go if they aren’t reciprocated and being able to maintain a friendship anyway… those things show you are on totally the right track. I’m a married woman, but would totally introduce you to my single friends. smile

Comment #74: Samantha Vimes  on  08/11  at  10:22 PM

hmph:

1)  If I was all afired to get laid, I damn well could get laid.  I still get near jailbait interest.

2)  What I want more are friends (hey, the sex too), but I find that really hard going.  People generally think of me as easy-going, intense, and I suspect arrogant.  So I ping whatever radars people have very hard and with contradictions.  I’d have done much better if people would react a bit more normally to me.  I have generally done much better being internet friends.

Problems dating are pretty much *both* general and specific to the person.  I don’t have a serious job and no prospect for a career which is a condition that I suspect will affect more people.  I’m also highly isolated in suburbia.  The sort of girls I’d be interested in are pretty much other geeky girls—the sort of people who has had excessive interactions with problematic geek guys.  Thing is, there are very few joint activities where you can meet others where I am.  No in-person book clubs, and I’ve yet to catch a WorldCon—never can remember to go, and only one event a year.

I think many of the issues relating to dating has a great deal to do with very few places where people can interact with and talk to one another in some detail even if they’ve never met before.  No really busy communal areas that are free and also safe.  The time that a cute girl struck up a conversation with me in the Border was notable (I didn’t ask for her number nor did she me, we just talked while we waited for others to shop) in that it was such a rare event.  I suspect that if there were more place cultures that didn’t involve spending money, like bars, many fewer geeks would already have the social experience points to find a happ(ier) relationship.  They don’t treat women like people because they rarely interact with women outside of obligatory relationships like family member or secretary or the traffic cop.  The media harps on their lack every chance they get since a fundamental aspect of marketing seems to me to be provoking insecurity of sense of self.

Ashley at Feministe seems to have an interesting complementary post as well.

—written with Patricia Barber’s Blue Prelude as the background music, which I thought was appropriate.

Comment #75: shah8  on  08/11  at  10:23 PM

“Before I was partnered up, almost every interaction I had with anybody was sexually charged, at least on my side.  Even if I wasn’t particularly interested, I would worry about whether they were interested in me.  Now that I have a husband I can meet and talk to people in the comfortable knowledge that I will never sleep with them, and that both they and I know it.”

Hmm, but the people who come on to me are USUALLY MARRIED - they are more aggressive than the others, actually! Also, when I’m talking about something, that seems to be totally normal, sometimes I get “MY WIFE” or “MY GIRLFRIEND” interjected into the conversation out of nowhere - as if they’re panicked I’m coming onto them (which I wasn’t).
sigh. For me, it usually takes SEVERAL conversations before I decide whether or not I’m interested in someone, so it’s a little insulting to be put off like I’m some predator. But again, I guess “cutish girl talking” = SEX ALERT!!! again, insulting. Like, calm down! can’t we all just talk like normal adults?

Comment #76: liviaclaudia  on  08/11  at  10:25 PM

Next up he’ll spill the secret super duper Pay Attention to the Clitoris and Listen to her Verbal Instructions Executive Lecture Series and then we’ll…

I’d like to say thank you thank you thank you to everyone in the community who has given advice like this to boys like me.

(I’d like to add “pay attention to her non-verbal instructions”, because once you’re doing 1 and 2 right, she’ll be temporarily unable to form coherent sentences)

Comment #77: pete  on  08/11  at  10:29 PM

BenYitzhak, SamanthaVimes beat me to what I was going to say—individual women can be as different as a clarinet and a cello, and knowing the “fingerings” for one won’t necessarily help you with another.  Knowing how to “read music” is more of a plus, by which I mean being able to pick up on nonverbal cues and body language, and that IS something you can practice in nonsexual situations as well as in bed.

Comment #78: Rikibeth  on  08/11  at  10:29 PM

Undeniably the PUAs are hucksters. Some of them even run what are in fact pyramid selling schemes - if there was ever a tip-off that somethings a scam, its pyramid selling. But I’m going to risk my life here and dispute that most of their customers are mysogynists or that the primary attraction is mysogyny,

There are an awful lot of young guys out there who have real trouble meeting, attracting and approaching women. The initial reasons are presumably multitudinous, but its very easy (and believe me I know of what I speak here) to end up in a psychological vicious circle in which failure reinforces the belief that you’re not attractive, which undermines confidence, which makes further failure more likely. I don’t think its controversial to say that confident people are, other things being equal, more attractive than unconfident people, and anyway they’re more likely to try to attract others since they’re less vulnerable to rejection. And by confident I really do mean confident - not loud, extroverted, obnoxious or any of the other things unconfident people tend to confuse with confidence. I don’t think this is necessarily specific to romantic failure or to meeting and approaching women, but the vicious cycle is especially vicious in that case. 

Contrary to what Amanda claims above, there is in fact very little advice on how to meet and connect with other people that is useful if you’re stuck in that loop. I looked. Really. There’s a lot of advice about dating. Very little about meeting and approaching new people before you actually get around to the dating part. What there is is mostly about getting out, having more hobbies, etc etc. This is useless. Everyone knows that’s how you meet people. What someone stuck in that vicious cycle needs is detailed advice on how to behave in a non-creepy, personable and socially acceptable manner, and some cognitive reinforcement to stop them disolving into a little of psychogoo the minute they try to put it into effect. Managed properly, carefully scripted success leads to confidence which leads to further success.

This is actually 90% of the attraction of PUA seminars. Now here I’m going from talking from first hand to second hand experience, but it was certainly what would have attracted me. Its a fast-track highly focussed way to build confidence in a very specific arena - picking up women - in which even normally confident men are usually not particularly great. It is potentially high-octane confidence fuel. Now at this point I hear a mental chorus of “yes, but what about the nasty manipulative techniques and the horrible mysogynistic comments”.

Pickup seminar content seems to fall into four basic categories: There’s basic cognitive re-alignment - how to think of yourself in a way that doesn’t destroy your chances at the outset. This is pretty much completely unobjectionable. There are little semi-scripted “routines” for aproaching women and building raport. Depending on just how far you go and whose seminar you’re in it some of this is vaguely dishonest and could be manipulative, but in most cases it doesn’t really seem to be. At its very worst, its probably still better that what you’d be subjected to at the average timeshare presentation (I know, not a ringing endorsement). In the specific case I know most about, its pretty much completely unobjectionable - nothing you wouldn’t find in a self-help book called “How to Talk to People like You Are One” - but there definitely are cases where it gets into “now demonstrate your value by showing pictures of your fake family”. Personally I think that crosses a line. 

Then we get into more dodgy territory - the third category is manipulative little power games. Frankly I think these guys read “The Rules” and simple reversed the pronouns and re-printed the advise. Things like never returning calls, never calling first, pretending to be busy, etc. This stuff used to make me very unhappy when women did it to me, until I realised what was going on, so I’d never do it to someone else. The only way I think it can be excused is as a way to get people to not appear desperate in their desire to please, but if that’s what you mean, why not just say that?

But none of this is mysogynistic in and of itself, and I think if you were to attend a “love systems” seminar, I think that’s about all you’d get. But there is stuff out there that is outright mysogynistic, of course - that disparages women’s intelligence, judgement, self-awareness, value and just about everything else and which seems to condone behaviour that isn’t merely manipulative, but downrigt nasty and in some cases possibly damaging.  But that isn’t actually what most of the world of pickup seminars is about - in fact I think you could easily attend a few dozen and never come across any of it - and its easy enough to explain the attraction without needing to accuse people who are mostly completely harmless, of mysogyny,

Comment #79: SimonK  on  08/11  at  10:40 PM

The part that gets me is the guys who say they just can’t talk to women without some kind of Game or PUA tricks.

Really? Isn’t that a little bit difficult? I mean, half the people in the world are women. What happens when you need to order a coffee and the barista is female? Or you call to pay your cable bill and a woman comes on the line? Are there no women in your work place? Your church? Your favorite local hangout?

Ohhhh, wait, you mean it’s hard to talk to women you find attractive and would like to get to know further. Well that’s exactly the point where the advice ‘Women are people’ can help you if you let it. Because the way to end up in a relationship is to get to know someone and the way to get to know someone does not change based on their genitalia.

Women. are. people.

Women have hobbies and pets and relatives who drive them nuts. They like/don’t like their jobs. They watch tv/read books/parasail on their days off. And any number of them actually like having sex and would like to meet someone they find interesting who is interested in them.

All that said- there are any number of reasons why a particular woman may not be interested in you. You aren’t best friends forever with every guy you meet either. Do you stress over that? Probably not. Stop making whether or not a woman will have sex with you the definition of a successful interaction.

Comment #80: bbrugger  on  08/11  at  10:41 PM

This is a stunningly popular topic of conversation, no doubt because most everyone has been faced with the conundrum of how to meet people.

I guess some guys really think that if a woman even talks to them, sex or the prospect of is involved somehow.

It certainly depends on the context. I mean, if I’m at a party, I’m not talking to a woman and asking for her phone number because I want new friends, unless we have some kind of a professional/business overlap. I’m not really looking for new platonic friends (i’m all set in that department, thanks!) I generally assume they’re thinking the same thing about me. On the other hand, casual conversation or something like asking for directions in a public place? Some of the more socially awkward might mistakenly think this is a come on or try to turn it into an opportunity, and that’s where it gets them into trouble.

Meanwhile, I assume women are coming at it from the same perspective. Of course, where people like libdevil and I part ways is that I actually find the process of meeting new people to be fun. It’s hard work trying to find those venues, but the activity of going to a party or similar social event and meeting new people is a form of entertainment for me. And I didn’t look at it as a question of “how to pick up women.” For me, it was about basic skills and how to put yourself in a situation where you’re surrounded by strangers and still manage to have a good time.

Comment #81: Tyro  on  08/11  at  10:42 PM

“The time that a cute girl struck up a conversation with me in the Border was notable (I didn’t ask for her number nor did she me, we just talked while we waited for others to shop)”

This is the key, I think. If people would just be more interested in the lost art of conversation, and stop thinking of the end goal (SEX!!!!!11!!!!), then they might 1. make friends with women, 2. develop an actual attraction to a human, rather than getting angry that people don’t just fall into bed with them because they gave them the time of day. (And expect that everyone else is doing the same.)

Comment #82: liviaclaudia  on  08/11  at  10:42 PM

Probably because of the legal aspect of it. For me, though, it was because weed has a funny effect on me—it makes me really quiet and introspective, I just start thinking a lot, so it wasn’t a good way to make friends!

Ben D.,

This is the reason I make it a point to avoid drinking any alcoholic beverages without having a full meal first and having started conversation in social settings first.  Though alcohol doesn’t make me introspective, it does tend to dull my willingness to do more than sit and hang out….especially if there’s Jazz or R & B playing in the background.

Comment #83: exholt  on  08/11  at  10:44 PM

They represent not only a body of knowledge but also a new way of thinking about social interactions that used to be nothing but a trackless wilderness of despair and confusion.  It’s quite a pity that there is no (to my knowledge) feminist friendly equivalent.

The thing is, the various PUA methods lead most of these guys into further disappointment and frustration in the long term. The PA gym murderer was one of these guys: in his own screed, he complained that whatever he did to change himself (and this turned out to be following the advice of one of these PUA gurus), nothing changed. He couldn’t get it through his thick, entitled skull that he wasn’t gonna get any woman, of any age, into bed as long as he the reek of his crappy attitude toward women overwhelmed his Axe cologne.

Comment #84: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  10:49 PM

“You aren’t best friends forever with every guy you meet either. Do you stress over that? Probably not. Stop making whether or not a woman will have sex with you the definition of a successful interaction.”

THIS!!!!!!!!

Comment #85: liviaclaudia  on  08/11  at  10:50 PM

I really think it’s fairer to include Gabe’s last paragraph:

In my exchange with tycho I was trying to do a bit, I was playing a part and I thought I was making a joke. I guess I was being a little more honest then I really understood. Now obviously I don’t think women are evil witches ensorcelling men with their magic vaginas. I’m a 31 year old married guy with a kid and a much clearer view of the world thanks to the miracles of modern chemistry. What I can say to all the guys mailing me about this system is that the girls you’re so terrified to talk to, are just as scared of you. I’ve got guys mailing me saying they don’t know how long they should wait before calling a girl or if it’s okay to ask for their phone number. They are worried about not understanding the rules of some imaginary game. My advice for what it’s worth,  is that the girls you really want aren’t playing a game, and they won’t expect you to play one either.

As two guys talking with each other, I don’t find their discussion terribly off-putting or anything, especially as Tycho is used to Gabe sort of shooting off his mouth and going further than he would advocate with a straight face, and they know how each other work. Published on their very popular and public website? There are lots of assholes reading that exchange that will take it as an agreement with their asshole philosophy. There are a lot of regular people who won’t weigh the “Devil’s Advocate” part appropriately against the last paragraph of reasonable advice. There are people who don’t see anything bizarre about the industry professional’s letter. Penny Arcade usually keeps controversy (things that would be personally controversial with their readers) off the page, and I think I like it way.

Comment #86: Maple  on  08/11  at  10:53 PM

“I’m not really looking for new platonic friends (i’m all set in that department, thanks!) I generally assume they’re thinking the same thing about me.”

why would you assume that? and what’s wrong with having a platonic convo regardless? So you discourage platonic conversation unless you think sex is coming?

THIS IS WHY IT’S HARD TO MAKE FRIENDS IN THE CITY PEOPLE

Comment #87: liviaclaudia  on  08/11  at  10:53 PM

The thing is, the various PUA methods lead most of these guys into further disappointment and frustration in the long term.

This is the impression I get from the PUAs themselves. It seems that the PUA classes don’t primarily teach social skills/methods. Primarily, they seem to be about teaching people how to handle the repeated rejection they will face while giving them the endurance/confidence/arrogance to keep trying these techniques again and again in the hopes that they will work occasionally. And the way they teach people how to deal with the inevitable rejections they get while trying to pick someone up is to tell convince them that “all women are mean and manipulative” and the like.

Comment #88: Tyro  on  08/11  at  10:54 PM

Thanks Your Grace and Rikibeth, those are both calming sentiments. I’ll try to remember that when I’m sufficiently recovered from my last relationship to go onto the next.

Comment #89: BenYitzhak  on  08/11  at  10:57 PM

why would you assume that? and what’s wrong with having a platonic convo regardless? So you discourage platonic conversation unless you think sex is coming?

I’d assume that because we’re both single and at a party and being vaguely flirty. I’m ok with having platonic, polite conversations with acquaintances. Lots of people have interesting stories. I’m just not really looking for new friends. If I want your contact info and ask you to get dinner sometime, it’s because I am interested in seeing if any romantic possibilities exist. There may be certain hobby/professional exceptions to that, and a few dates that don’t go anywhere might turn into a friendship (but I have close friends that I’m already socially tied to), but that’s pretty much it.  It’s also why it’s easier to meet someone to date if the rest of your social life is in order.

Comment #90: Tyro  on  08/11  at  11:06 PM

Tyro;

well I never said “vaguely flirty” - I said “having a normal conversation” which is what I’m saying is difficult to do these days. Maybe because I can’t just have one without people assuming all kinds o’ things. Esp. as a girl? If you had the same normal convo with a guy, would you think you were being “vaguely flirty”?

Maybe I’d be talking to people because I’m more interested in friends than romance at the moment?

But yeah, this closed-off “I already have friends” is a big prob to people in our 30’s who because of our jobs move to new cities.  Maybe our social lives aren’t “in order” because we’re new in town? don’t assume so much.

It’s a cruel world, who said these sad sack dudes have all the social probs? Like it’s soooo easy for women. Nope, it’s not!

Comment #91: liviaclaudia  on  08/11  at  11:16 PM

Tyro, I think “not wanting new friends” is strange.  I have enough friends (enough that I can’t always keep in touch with them all as I’d like), but if I met someone cool and interesting at a party, regardless of our sex/singleton status, I’d be open to a conversation turning into a friendship, even if I have a busy, full life.  I don’t have a friend quota; there’s always room for more people I like to hang out with/feel fondly about.

Comment #92: t-ster  on  08/11  at  11:21 PM

Aw, so the poor widdle men are afraid to talk to us beguiling, bewitching bitches.

That fear is so much worse than being afraid to go to a fitness club lest one of them shoot at you with a gun.

Gabe and Tycho write a videogame web comic. Their readership is ground fucking zero for Socially Stunted Dudes Who Get Frustrated by Their Own Ceilbacy—guys who refuse to take a realistic look at themselves and then adjust their expectations accordingly, and lash out with an incredible amount of anger when some 3-dimensional bitch dares act like anything more than a wank station (over the internets, of course—they’re much to shy to volley that sort of anger in real life. Just keep that cover on the pressure cooker, fellas!) Gabe and Tycho could have used their dialog / devil’s advocate schtick to actually, I dunno, enlighten a few of their readers—they founded Child’s Play, but instead, they spun their wheels in the turgid swamp of MRAs, PUAs, and general douchebaggery. What a fucking waste.

Comment #93: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/11  at  11:24 PM

I admit to not paying attention to PUA stuff, so maybe I’m confusing random bits of information. But it seemed to me that bringing up The Game in what is apparently some kind of defense (admittedly Gabe doesn’t seem to be using it himself) is some kind of bad idea. Am I off base or just thinking about something else?

Comment #94: Santa Claustrophobia  on  08/11  at  11:25 PM

“I’d assume that because we’re both single and at a party and being vaguely flirty.”

You understand what the word “vague” means in English, right?

“Being vaguely flirty,” more often than not, means “social interaction in which I’ve decided I see undertones of flirtiness because I want to.” If it’s only vague, then it’s entirely likely that one of the people involved has not intended it that way or has not picked up on it.

So you’re left with “single and at a party.” Dammit, then, I guess I’ll have to give up celebrating holidays and friends’ birthdays and the fact that getting drunk and dancing is kinda fun, ‘cos I’m always single. I didn’t realize I was horribly teasing everyone I spoke to merely by enjoying attending parties and occasionally interacting with the other humans at them without an official man-accessory to publicly designate me off-limits. What a strange alien bitch-creature I must be.

On the other hand, if this is a common assumption amongst single-minded manly types, this definitely explains some of the weird stalkery and angry behaviors I’ve gotten from certain people I’ve met in social gatherings that happened to have been planned more than one day in advance. It’s starting to sound almost worth getting a boyfriend just to make new people calm the hell down.

Comment #95: thecynicalromantic  on  08/11  at  11:31 PM

Tyro #88:

Oddly enough, that was precisely the problem I had with the book I mentioned above.

Someone as a joke sent me another book about not how, but where, to pick up women. It was a rather amusing book, but some of the suggestions were downright squicky—like the part where the author suggested trolling for dates at an abortion clinic. (He suggested not doing that unless you were willing to get serious.)

Comment #96: BrianX  on  08/11  at  11:32 PM

Their readership is ground fucking zero for Socially Stunted Dudes Who Get Frustrated by Their Own Ceilbacy—guys who refuse to take a realistic look at themselves and then adjust their expectations accordingly, and lash out with an incredible amount of anger when some 3-dimensional bitch dares act like anything more than a wank station (over the internets, of course—they’re much to shy to volley that sort of anger in real life.

I wonder if there’s an element among this group of their feeling that even attempting to develop social skills is a sign of “misplaced priorities” and a sign the person concerned is compensating for an “inferior intellect”. 

This mentality was commonplace at my urban public magnet high school….and is probably one big reason why several older alums I met at an alumni gathering several years back had been out of work for 3 years after the dotcom bust despite graduating with 4.0 level GPAs from rigorous topflight schools like MIT and having solid engineering/technical skills.

Comment #97: exholt  on  08/11  at  11:33 PM

Karmakin:

“It’s harmless and normal between two people to tease or even, in the case of you and Mike, insult. How much outlandish and even insulting inside jokes do you have with Brenna or does Mike have with Kara?

I kinda can understand that, I mean it makes a sort of sense. People think that they’re emulating what they perceive to be other successful relationships. I can understand that.

Where it goes off the rails is they don’t get this…

WHEN YOU MEET A NEW PERSON YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THEIR BOUNDARY LINES ARE!!!

But who cares about crossing boundaries? 

The point of such an exercise is to find women who will allow men to push and even overrun their boundaries.  Hence when it comes to the sexytimes, they might just not say “no” even though they really don’t want to.

*That’s* what a neg gets you.  It winnows out the women who don’t allow you to push them around.  A woman who engages when a guy insults her is showing she is prey, because she’s allowing him to set the agenda.  One who ducks her head and blushes is probably too cowed to even laugh at the guy because he might take offense.  She might fuck him because she doesn’t want to hurt his feelings.

They say they want “nice” girls, girls who won’t “shoot them down,” but then they complain that they get mixed signals.  But how the hell can I say no to you if you will only take a yes?

And is it any wonder that these guys get confused by women who are in a position where they literally can’t be rude, like sales people and waitresses?  They think the only way women show what they want is by not saying “no.”  It’s the implied consent rule at work.

Comment #98: oldfeminist  on  08/11  at  11:34 PM

What’s the use of fucking someone you don’t have any feelings for?  What are you trying to prove?

It isn’t about the pussy or the orgasm. It’s about the social status, and lot of guys have a lot of their self-worth wrapped up in what kind of woman they are banging.

Comment #99: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  11:35 PM

To add to that:

It is a really fucked up belief, but one that is easy to fall into if you’re not careful, both because of peer pressure and that message being pounded into your head by every kind of media imaginable (TV, movies, books, even fucking advertisements).

Comment #100: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  11:38 PM

Monkeyshines, the fucking itself can be the goal. It can be more sensual and exciting than just masturbating. I know some people need to have an emotional investment but not everyone does. Sometimes casual sex is about the conquest - but sometimes it’s just about enjoying a warm human body wrapped around yours. So I can understand why just having orgasms is not enough for some people. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting sex - it’s just the entitlement part I have a problem with.

Comment #101: Veronica  on  08/11  at  11:45 PM

<Blockquote?Monkeyshines, the fucking itself can be the goal. It can be more sensual and exciting than just masturbating. I know some people need to have an emotional investment but not everyone does. Sometimes casual sex is about the conquest - but sometimes it’s just about enjoying a warm human body wrapped around yours.</blockquote>

Then they could just pay for a prostitute—it would be easier and less time consuming. But that doesn’t “count”. No, they have to be banging a “9.5” or whatever the fuck, and not even one THEY consider to be a 9.5, but one that media/some vague notion of society does.

Comment #102: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  11:47 PM

Ben, I get what you’re saying, but I was just defending casual sex in general, not from the PUA perspective. Which to me is not the same as paying someone, because in the first case, you’re having sex with someone who’s also attracted to you, thereby making it more rewarding. (I’m presuming… not having paid for it. smile )

Comment #103: Veronica  on  08/11  at  11:56 PM

It isn’t about the pussy or the orgasm. It’s about the social status, and lot of guys have a lot of their self-worth wrapped up in what kind of woman they are banging.

Yep…seen this in action on various college campuses I visited from my friends’ classmates.  For some reason, this has always struck me as being excessively crass juvenile behavior for people supposed to be young adults at college…especially in my first year when nearly all of them were older than me.  rolleyes

It also didn’t jibe with the image of masculinity I grew up with where it was measured mainly by how many dudes you can defeat in a schoolyard fight and how much pain, suffering, and pseudo-deprivation* you can suffer with little/no complaint (aka Suck it up and deal without complaining). 

By this standard, those dudes would have been laughed at in my childhood neighborhood….especially considering the vast majority I’ve met tended to be middle/upper-class kids who were attending college with full expenses paid at their parents partial/complete expense. 

* Using that term to denote the difference between being deprived of basic necessities for daily living and survival such as food, shelter, healthcare and anything else.  In short, what one actually needs vs “wants”.

Comment #104: exholt  on  08/11  at  11:56 PM

What’s the use of fucking someone you don’t have any feelings for?  What are you trying to prove?

Not really proving anything—people just like to fuck. It’s a natural function of human biology, and people who can’t avail themselves of sexual options tend to find it extremely frustrating that they can’t do what everyone else seems to have few problems doing. As one of those frustrated people, I’m not really in a position to speculate how much is perception vs. reality, but quick’n'easy seduction solutions are extremely attractive to people like that.

Comment #105: BrianX  on  08/11  at  11:56 PM

Veronica:

Understood.

Comment #106: Ben D.  on  08/11  at  11:59 PM

I wonder if there’s an element among this group of their feeling that even attempting to develop social skills is a sign of “misplaced priorities” and a sign the person concerned is compensating for an “inferior intellect”.

This mentality was commonplace at my urban public magnet high school….and is probably one big reason why several older alums I met at an alumni gathering several years back had been out of work for 3 years after the dotcom bust despite graduating with 4.0 level GPAs from rigorous topflight schools like MIT and having solid engineering/technical skills.

Are you sure they weren’t telling you they had 4.0 GPAs to show off to you? I think places like Harvard have a 15 point scale, meaning that “all As” and others have a 5 or 6 point scale making a “4.0” be a B or a C average (this is to add extra penalties for getting an “F”). Not to mention that typically, people in the sciences who are straight-A students tend to go on the “tenure track” and get PhDs and become professors rather than act like the hoi polloi who merely want to get rich.

Generally, though, yes, coming across as putting too much into your appearances or appearing too socially polished is, in the sciences, considered something that makes someone suspect, because it creates the suspicion that the person is trying to put something over on his audience or sell them something.

Comment #107: Tyro  on  08/11  at  11:59 PM

Continuing my last post:

As far as someone who you have no feelings for (save, presumably, physical attraction)... it’s mostly just about having fun. That’s not to say it’s necessarily disrespectful or dehumanizing; after all, a woman can just as easily be out solely for a hookup as well, and that’s fine. It’s when the detachment becomes part of one’s overall approach to the opposite (or perhaps same) sex that you get the fucked-up attitude of the PUA community.

Comment #108: BrianX  on  08/12  at  12:00 AM

Anybody else taking “we have nothing they want” as a big fat pile of backlash? Used to be a wedding ring or willingness to pay for a fancy dinner or suchlike was worth something. Now those modern wimminz don’t need men even to protect them from other men, so we have to be interesting to them or something. Geez.

On the whole “adjust your expectations” and “think of women as human beings” thing, there’s also the fact that for those who view sexual (and nonsexual) relationships as collaborative enterprises, “hot” is only tangentially a physical quality. A few well-chosen words can render someone intensely desirable even if they’re visually not your type, and ill-chosen ones the other way around. (Probably not surprising that my three most serious relationships have all involved lots of writing and talking back and forth.)

Comment #109: paul  on  08/12  at  12:04 AM

I’m a disabled woman, and when I was in my early 20’s and “cute” and not as disabled I could pass for not disabled a lot. But I still knew a lot of disabled guys. These guys would hang around me and complain that women didn’t like them because of their disability or they were too short or too geeky or whatever such reason. And at that time, I thought they had a point and so I would be nice to them and hang out with them because *I* was different! I was not shallow like those other girls! I understood!

And 4 out of 5 times, this would backfire in my face so damned badly it was pathetic. They would instantly think I was their girlfriend or that I “owed” them something and I got myself into uncomfortable situation after uncomfortable situation. Some would prance me around to their friends as if I was their girlfriend, implying we had done things we had not, or even bragging because they had a nondisabled hot girlfriend. It was more about status for them than anything. More about winning the prize. And quite frankly, I realized that hanging around these guys who guilt tripped me into how only shallow girls rejected them due to their disability/geekery/shortness/whatever and did I want to be shallow? or even stuff about how I was disabled, too, so get off my high horse—if I rejected them—was SO NOT a good time.

And so I smartened up and finally figured out that I am not responsible for these guys self esteem or self-acceptance, they are. I quit that game. And I only started hanging around guys who I honestly had a good time with, genuinely liked, and in some cases beyond friendship was genuinely attracted to. And low and behold, over the last, er, 20 or so years, I have still at times befriended and dated (and sometimes had quite enjoyable sex with) short guys, disabled guys, and geeky guys. I have just dated the ones who treated me as a person and who were confident enough in themselves to take responsibility for their own neurosis.  And life has been oh, so much better and more fun.

I have no idea why just taking responsibility for yourself and treating women like people is so hard for these guys to understand. I have no sympathy for that “women are scary” “women are mean” “women are hard to talk to” bullshit anymore. I am not another species! It is undesirable to relate to someone who treats you as if you are, and if bagging you is akin to taxiderming a trophy tiger kill and displaying it in your living room. Ick.

Comment #110: Lexie  on  08/12  at  12:25 AM

Charlie’s a Nice Guy now? 

I’m starting to get the feeling there’s some serious definition creep going on.

Comment #111: stormhit  on  08/12  at  12:36 AM

Oldfeminist:Here’s what I don’t get about this. Even if there is something to what they’re talking about, they’re still doing it completely wrong. Every PUA thing I’ve seen, the “neg” goes directly for what I would consider to be hot topics that most people know you really shouldn’t touch. Appearance, class, job, whatever.

If you really wanted to create a little bit of space/comfort whatever, there’s much better ways to do it. You can disagree on a movie or a band or something. Something of little real importance, but you’d still get the same effect. That would be, if it wasn’t about establishing sexual dominance, like you said.

In the situation of the letter writer that I quoted, instead of thinking angry hunter type, I’m thinking sad sucker type.

Comment #112: Karmakin  on  08/12  at  12:47 AM

Well, I’m coming in rather late on this one, but I have never quite understood the no pussy blues attitude.  I can understand being in love with a woman, and hurting if she doesn’t return your affections.  That’s emotionally intelligible.
But complaining “I can’t get laid” doesn’t make any sense to me.  If an orgasm is all you’re after, you can give it to yourself.  A handful of Vaseline, is every bit as useful a tool as a vagina for attaining that end, and you don’t have to engage in any kind of scheming or manipulation in order to obtain it.  What’s the use of fucking someone you don’t have any feelings for?  What are you trying to prove?

Let’s be fair here.  There’s more to relationships than sex and there’s more to sex than orgasms.  Maturbating is not the same as sex, even sex with someone you’re not particularly emotionally intimate with.

Additionally, a lot of these guys are very lonely and have a lot of trouble distinguishing between ‘I’m horny’ and ‘I’m lonely’.

Comment #113: NBarnes  on  08/12  at  12:50 AM

Additionally, a lot of these guys are very lonely and have a lot of trouble distinguishing between ‘I’m horny’ and ‘I’m lonely’.

This is the best statement of the problem that I’ve seen yet. They also have trouble figuring out that being lonely is the bigger part of the problem, so they focus on the wrong part of the issue. They look for someone to have sex with (reasoning that the sex with fix their loneliness en passant), rather than looking for friends for the sake of friendship.

Comment #114: Llelldorin  on  08/12  at  01:08 AM

What’s the use of fucking someone you don’t have any feelings for?  What are you trying to prove?

Not everyone is tied up into having emotion connected to physical contact. The free hugs people, for example, you see them at conventions wearing t-shirts or carrying signs. I rarely hug family members, I certainly don’t hug people that I haven’t known for at least a year. I don’t understand giving hugs to strangers, to people you don’t have any particular reason to hug, but that doesn’t mean those people are trying to prove anything at all. They’re just happy to hug people that want to be hugged.

Same thing with sex. There are people that don’t necessarily associate a huge amount of intimacy or emotion with sex. They just enjoy having sex with people that want to have sex with them. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Comment #115: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  01:10 AM

Amanda, there is one thing you’re actually really wrong about—

I was never, ever told that women were human beings with sex drives.  Seriously.  It was something I had to figure out for myself.  The image of women I was always presented with was “person who wants your romantic affection and is willing to trade some sexuality they aren’t into for it.”  The thing that you have to put out there, relentlessly and without hesitation, is that women are human beings with sexualities, and that if you want access to that sexuality, you can try understanding it and working to make yourself more compatible with it.  And, further, that different women have different sexualities, and you will never be attractive to all of them.  And that’s okay.

Amanda Marcotte, teacher of the fact that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too, I cannot emphasize enough how positive learning this was for me.  It really changed my life, much for the better.  You are wrong that everyone has heard it.  They haven’t.  Seriously.  Tell it from the mountain tops.  Tell it from the cell phone towers.  Tell it from any of the high places that haven’t been removed for their coal.

Comment #116: Punditus Maximus  on  08/12  at  01:16 AM

Are you sure they weren’t telling you they had 4.0 GPAs to show off to you? I think places like Harvard have a 15 point scale, meaning that “all As” and others have a 5 or 6 point scale making a “4.0” be a B or a C average (this is to add extra penalties for getting an “F”). Not to mention that typically, people in the sciences who are straight-A students tend to go on the “tenure track” and get PhDs and become professors rather than act like the hoi polloi who merely want to get rich.

Tyro,

Some of them actually brought their freakin’ college transcripts just to show how awesome they were…and so many classmates from each year end up going to the same topflight college/majors each year that one cannot get away with BS about one’s college GPA without having other high school classmates calling BS on it from personal knowledge or from actually checking up on them through friends who were their classmates/TAs/Profs (Yes, we’re that grade-grubbing and anal about checking up each other for personal reasons and to check to see if they’d be suitable for being referred to our employers as potential job candidates.). 

Also, keep in mind that your notion about straight-A science students going on to Phd tracks is mainly applicable to those in the natural sciences. 

The people I am talking about were engineering/CS majors…..fields where IME…few people go on for more than a professional Masters…and that’s only if they are compelled to.  Most engineering/CS majors IME are not inclined towards working in academia IME….including an older cousin who did a stint as an engineering Prof for a few years and then got fed up with engineering academia being too far behind the technological curve and decamped to the private sector where he is doing very well right now.

Comment #117: exholt  on  08/12  at  01:16 AM

ImonK, I’ve heard it. Pity the poor guys who need sel-esteem and swear they can only get it by dumping on and objectifying women. Not buying it. Sexism, racism, homophobia: these alll give someone a quick dose of confidence. But it’s like eating a candy bar when you’re hungry. The crash leaves you worse than you were before.

There is no quick fix. To develop self-esteem, you need to quit using women and work on yourself. Become someone you like, and it will be easier to get others to agree.

Comment #118: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  01:20 AM

Yeah, but it’s something where, even if the woman likes me, I can’t assume she’s going to have the patience to be willing to teach me the fingerings.

These are just my observations from the worst instances of sex I’ve had in my life so your mileage may vary.

First, don’t ever act grossed out by any part of a woman’s body.  My worst lays always had at least a little hint of “You want me to put my mouth where?  Ewwww!”  That kind of attitude earns any guy a kick in the head.

Second, act as confident as you can.  Every guy I’ve slept with who was so-so acted really uncertain as what to do.  Fake it ‘til you make it.  But with a caveat.  If a woman acts like something makes her uncomfortable, says something hurts, asks you to stop doing whatever, stop (of course) and don’t start doing it again five minutes later.  I practically had to scream in the face of the last guy I slept with that, no, I don’t like it when he does ______ before he would finally give up on it.

In my opinion, any guy who likes my body and acts like he knows what he’s doing is worth training.

Comment #119: keshmeshi  on  08/12  at  01:29 AM

Amanda - the last sentence I agree with. The rest I don’t, and I’ve already really explained why. Its not obvious to me that the core motivation for most pickup students is sexist. I’ve already explained the opposing theory, I think, and you don’t say anything that counters it. You’re reading things into people’s motives that are just not evidenced in their actions.

Also, its a total side-point, but I don’t find the concept of self-esteem terribly helpful. It implies you can just think yourself better if you have some kind of anxiety problem. It just ain’t true - confidence has to be confidence in something concrete.

Comment #120: SimonK  on  08/12  at  01:33 AM

The point of such an exercise is to find women who will allow men to push and even overrun their boundaries

No kidding.  Looking back on a lot of interactions with men I’ve dated, I’m certain some of their strange behavior was an attempt to push my boundaries, and every time I pushed back, those guys would evaporate into thin air.  Good riddance, I say, but for the longest time I couldn’t figure out why that happened.

Not everyone is tied up into having emotion connected to physical contact. The free hugs people, for example, you see them at conventions wearing t-shirts or carrying signs

The last “free hugs” guy I saw was also offering free breast exams.  So, I’m not buying it.

Comment #121: keshmeshi  on  08/12  at  01:34 AM

Well, exholt, I can’t speak to the people you knew, but in my experience the top students in CS that I knew when I was in college—the ones who got all As, not simply the ones who were “good hackers”—went on the Ph.D. track.  Not saying all of them did, but it was fairly common, in part because they were considered so promising that merely joining a startup right after undergrad or ending up working for Oracle was considered kind of a “waste of your potential.” Most engineering and CS majors aren’t so inclined, but the top tier are definitely more inclined. I found the straight-A students to be less “the guys who were unemployed because they couldn’t develop social skills” as “the guys who sat out the dot.com bust in grad school and became assistant professors at 28.”

It’s possible, of course, that those who finished undergrad at the height of the dot.com boom were inclined to make radically different decisions, though, given the distortion of the market at the time. Also, I have selection bias: any CS people I knew were, by definition, people I socialized with and thus had enough social skills to end up meeting me and allowing me to learn enough about what their deal was to make judgments about their academic background and plans. So of course I’m less likely to know what the anti-social straight-A CS students were doing with their lives. I assumed that the situation in CS was similar to law school, where the stereotype is, “The Cs hire the Bs, and the As teach.”

Comment #122: Tyro  on  08/12  at  01:40 AM

Once in a long while, something happens over at Penny Arcade that makes me feel like I’ve accidentally driven over a cliff.

I remember my sister screaming at me after I asked her why The Game doesn’t work on men.  I remember a friend confessing, “The first time I had sex, it made me into a complete asshole, and now I’m scared.”  I remember helping my cousin get the dirt on EST because she was worried about the far-off look in a friend’s eyes.  I feel dizzy.  It’s like there’s a leak in my fun-loving nerd play bubble.

Comment #123: realityfighter  on  08/12  at  01:41 AM

Ben @117: and there are people who see sex as a power game. There’s a lot of that in the PUA community; the sentiment that all male/female interactions are a game, where the man “wins” and the woman “loses” if they have sex. They aren’t fucking; he fucks her.

Comment #124: mythago  on  08/12  at  01:42 AM

What worked for me to get over my fear of talking to women was to completely dispose of any sexual tension by flat-out ASSUMING from the get-go that they didn’t want me, and all I could expect was a nice conversation. Basically, I’m awesome in customer service and dealing with people on a superficial level but have no idea how to open a conversation or flirt.

Since I’ve creeped out women in the past by expressing my interest, I’ve worked really hard to not give any signal at all of interest, and to appreciate beauty in the opposite gender more on an esthetic level than sexual. This appears to allow me to get along with lesbians rather well compared to other men.

Strangely enough, my fear of initiating any contact is gender-neutral; I won’t go up and start talking to men either unless I have a reason. That this makes dating a problem is somewhat irrelevant compared to how traumatic this makes job-hunting.

Comment #125: Mark Temporis  on  08/12  at  01:50 AM

This whole conversation just makes me incredibly sad.  This must be what it feels like to loose faith in humanity.

Someone up thread was talking about how she can’t have any conversation with a guy without the specter of sex getting in the way.  I just wanted to add that that has been my experience lately as well.  Hell, back when I was taking the train regularly I learned that I can’t even exchange the most rudimentary of greetings with strangers I pass on the street without giving the wrong impression. 

Also, Mythago @ 126, that is very true too.  I encountered a guy once who literally managed to start in on the mind games while asking for directions, and honestly there didn’t seem to be anything I could do to make him realize I wasn’t playing a game with him.

Comment #126: laterose  on  08/12  at  01:57 AM

Its not obvious to me that the core motivation for most pickup students is sexist.

That makes you dense, not Amanda wrong.

Comment #127: kristin  on  08/12  at  01:58 AM

No, you know what, maybe I should take that back, because it’s not obvious to me that Amanda or anyone is arguing that sexism is the “core motivation” for these guys. I’m sure their “core motivation” is something along the lines of “get some attractive to sleep with me”.

The problem is that whatever their core motive is, when they work within PUA philosophies, they’re working within a structure that’s irretrievably, undeniably, poisonously sexist. And at that point, their “core motive” doesn’t matter, what matters is that they’re acting like creepy sexist jerks.

So maybe you’re not dense. Maybe you’re just attacking a straw-PUA.

Comment #128: kristin  on  08/12  at  02:03 AM

Yeah, but it’s something where, even if the woman likes me, I can’t assume she’s going to have the patience to be willing to teach me the fingerings.

It’s been my experience that any woman in nearly any sexual relationship, once they’ve decided to let you practice the fingerings, are not just willing but ecstatic to guide your efforts.

Most of the complaints on the subject are that their lovers aren’t listening to their helpful suggestions.

Comment #129: NBarnes  on  08/12  at  02:04 AM

Okay, kristin, assume I’m dense. Explain it to me.

Comment #130: SimonK  on  08/12  at  02:07 AM

The last “free hugs” guy I saw was also offering free breast exams.  So, I’m not buying it.

Very creepy. I have not seen that. At the San Diego Comic Con there seemed to be about as many women as men with the signs/shirts. And not all the men/women looked to be creepy people desperate for physical contact.

Comment #131: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  02:16 AM

I agree with Punditus Maximus. It is more than possible for a man to be utterly ignorant of the fact that women have sex drives. I’ve written posts on the subject, in fact. It was an amazing realization when the time came.

Comment #132: Auguste  on  08/12  at  02:16 AM

Utterly ignorant while actually caring.

Obviously, there are plenty of men who don’t know, don’t care.

Comment #133: Auguste  on  08/12  at  02:17 AM

Sorry, kristin, crossed posts there.

Amanda did say that the only reason to go to the PUAs and their money-making schemes is for the mysogyny. My point was this isn’t obviously true - in the business of teaching people to meet people, in a manner that works for someone with very little confidence in their social skills they have almost zero competition. This disagreement is what I was trying to address by talking about “core motivation”.

As to the PUAs themselves and what they teach, what little I know from talking to people who been to and/or taught these seminars says the level of mysogyny is actually highly variable. There is stuff out there that’s downright toxic. There are others that are no more sexist or manipulative that certain self-help books aimed at women. There are a few that I think are almost completely unobjectionable.

Comment #134: SimonK  on  08/12  at  02:23 AM

Slightly OT, I guess, but liviaclaudia and laterose, thanks for talking about this!  I spent many years assuming I was so socially inept that I was accidentally hitting on people.  And then when one of them would reject an advance I never remember making, it was both embarrassing and a bit surreal.  Dealing with a random person declaring that they find you uninteresting romantically is awkward to say the least.  I mean, what do you say?  “Thanks for the update, I’ll mark my chart”? 

This doesn’t happen so often now (go go gadget grey streak! Holy hell I love getting older), but I am a little relieved to know that I wasn’t the only woman wandering the world experiencing this.

Comment #135: Heo Cwaeth  on  08/12  at  02:27 AM

There are others that are no more sexist or manipulative that certain self-help books aimed at women.

Most self-help books for women are deeply and irrecoverably sexist. When you’re drowning in patriarchy, your reference point of normality is already extremely skewed. What seems unobjectionable is more likely just unexamined.

Comment #136: asdf  on  08/12  at  02:28 AM

asdf - I would agree about the self help books. That wasn’t intended as a recommendation, just as a reality check for those who think pickup seminars are the root (or at least a conduit) of mysogyny. As for what’s unobjectionable, I already explained above what I think is unobjectionable in the pickup world in some detail. If you’d care to explain what I’m missing I’m all eyes.

Comment #137: SimonK  on  08/12  at  02:32 AM

There are others that are no more sexist or manipulative that certain self-help books aimed at women.

The best stuff is actually pretty progressive, e.g:

* Women are people, they like sex too.

* Society has a bad habit of labelling sexual women “sluts”; women will be more willing to have sex with you if they know you won’t judge them for it.

* Attractive women get hit on all the time.  If she was rude to you it’s because you’re the eleventh one she had to deal with today.

Comment #138: pete  on  08/12  at  02:39 AM

I’m a longtime reader of Penny Arcade. It’s frequently brilliant and occasional problematic as most hysterical things are.

An interesting comparison between the two personas (and what I suspect is the first use of the word “patriarchy” in a video game webcomic): http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/2/14/

Comment #139: queuemark  on  08/12  at  02:53 AM

At best you’re saying that they’re no more misogynous than the rest of society in general. Which isn’t exactly impressive to feminists, as we are trying to overthrow patriarchy, not just to smile and nod at the status quo.

Never missing an opportunity to quote myself: “You can work within the constraints of patriarchy to improve your own lot, relative to others, to a limited extent. Maybe for you, that feels like enough to settle for. But it doesn’t make you free.”

Objectional about PUA is the “pick-up” and the “artist.” If you want to meet women, try speed-dating; they have groups in pretty much every city now. You only have to talk for a few minutes, and you get to listen for half, so there’s no pressure to keep a big conversation going. You can introduce yourself and say the easy stuff, what you do and what your interests are. If there’s common interests, you’ll have no trouble filling the time. And if not, you’ll be switching tables shortly.

Here’s the great part. Like you, the women are there because they want to meet men. Nobody is “picking up” anyone. Everyone is seeking. As long as you aren’t impolite, no one is going to turn away and conspicuously ignore you. There’s nothing creepy about it, and almost no opportunity for awkward silences and “zomg what do i say?”

Comment #140: asdf  on  08/12  at  02:57 AM

Amanda et al.: Have you seen this latest post from Mike/Gabe? http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/08/11/last-thing-i-promise/

It kinda supports my hunch, based on a decade of following the comic, which was that Mike was just being ignorant and naive in backing the PUA stuff (“Devil’s Advocate” or not). He seems to have back-pedaled after the deluge of e-mails and links and such that he no doubt received and admitted that, at the very least, PUAs are sleazy dudes. I get the impression that he honestly just hadn’t looked into it before making this off-the-cuff comment and inviting the epic shitstorm that came down on him. (Which is very much what the character based on him would do as well.)

It’s very easy, if you’re a guy who struggled with anxiety personally, to just assume that everyone in these classes is coming from the same place and that the organisers of these classes are genuinely trying to help. In fact, I don’t doubt that at least a sizable minority of the guys who attend the classes actually are just nervous, insecure guys who think this still will help them, because they don’t know the truth behind the movement either. Of course, once you look into it, it’s clear that the guys running the classes are scam artists at best and inveterate misogynists at the most likely, and that the really dedicated attendees (like Sodini) are deeply fucked up individuals whose problems go well beyond mere anxiety. But, if you don’t actually look into it, you don’t see any of that.

That’s why I’m kinda glad they had that discussion out in public, because it opened up the topic to discussion and exposed some of the easy misconceptions that people develop when they don’t know the truth about PUAs. The whole unseemly mess is a lot like Scientology in that sense. It’s so easy to write off Scientology as just some kooky, fashionable celebrity club, but it’s not until you actually research the cult that you find out about all the awful shit they do to their members and critics.

Comment #141: Tobasco da Gama  on  08/12  at  03:15 AM

It’s possible, of course, that those who finished undergrad at the height of the dot.com boom were inclined to make radically different decisions, though, given the distortion of the market at the time.

Tyro,

That was probably a secondary factor as they graduated right before the dotcom boom started or at the very beginning during the mid-1990s.  A larger factor was probably the fact that the vast majority of my high school classmates tended to be very pre-professional and had a preference for earning high incomes from private industry rather than spending more time in school only to earn less compared to what they could make in the private sector as engineers/programmers.  Worse…they tended to regard those who entered grad school as “perpetual students” and people “who couldn’t hack it in the real world.”  That is…before the dotcom bust. 

Then they get really pissed at their situation because from childhood through high school…their parents, teachers, and even some employers told them that all they needed to write their meal ticket and to have their life all set was to attend topflight schools and graduate with the best grades possible.  Unfortunately for them, the dotcom bust made hash of all that….

Their bitterness combined with their entitled attitudes made that reunion quite awkward…..in fact, the extreme versions of “Nice Guys” described in this very post.

Comment #142: exholt  on  08/12  at  03:16 AM

asdf - I agree there are many other channels for meeting people beyond picking them up in bars that are rather better for everyone in just about every way. I figured out my own anxieties around meeting women long ago, and availed myself of them.

Interesting point, though: There are even “pickup” seminars focused on speed dating. Shouldn’t be surprising. Is that less objectionable? I suspect not, but it becomes less clear just what the problem is.

Regarding patriarchy, I think there’s a whole seperate discussion there, but I don’t dispute your basic point.

Comment #143: SimonK  on  08/12  at  03:21 AM

It’s never a separate discussion. Why is it expected that men should be confident? We don’t ask the same, at least not to the same extent, from women. Why shouldn’t a man be able to say, “I get nervous easily, so if I clam up, you shouldn’t worry that I think you’re boring.” Patriarchy imposes a set of gender-role obligations upon you, so that it’s perceived to be unattractive for you to show weakness. But there’s no reason the world need be like that. We all have weaknesses. We ought to be able to be honest about them.

Of course, it’s of little use to blame any individual woman for growing up in this same world and absorbing the same expectations that were thrust upon us all.

Comment #144: asdf  on  08/12  at  04:36 AM

just as a reality check for those who think pickup seminars are the root (or at least a conduit) of mysogyny

No, but the root of PUA seminars is Richard Bandler. He taught mind control techniques to Psychotherapists for them to use to help their patients. His students spawned a bajillion how-to-connect-in-business and sales marketing seminars in the 90’s, which has now morphed into Pickup Assholes. That’s the lineage of your system.

Comment #145: banisteriopsis  on  08/12  at  06:40 AM

that for those who view sexual (and nonsexual) relationships as collaborative enterprises, “hot” is only tangentially a physical quality. A few well-chosen words can render someone intensely desirable even if they’re visually not your type, and ill-chosen ones the other way around. (Probably not surprising that my three most serious relationships have all involved lots of writing and talking back and forth

Oh me too, on all counts!

Comment #146: Lady Vader  on  08/12  at  07:33 AM

I said participating in new hobbies and getting to know new people were rewards in themselves.  I believe it, too.  I didn’t say it was easy or fun at the time (although maybe I wasn’t clear about that bit.)  I know it is for some people, but it isn’t for me.

Yes, I’m female.  Society has been telling me my whole life I’m supposed to understand nonverbal cues and have emotional intelligence and blah blah blah, but my mileage has varied.  I’ve always been severely shy.  I have panic attacks.  I will go to an eagerly anticipated event and spend half of it in the car because making initial smalltalk along the lines of “Is this where the fencing practice is?” can be too draining.

I joined the Toastmasters because I had trouble conveying necessary information to fellow scientists at work when my job depended on it.  I love the Toastmasters, just gave a kickass speech about health reform last week, and yet it hasn’t helped that much for making actual conversation that isn’t a formal, rehearsed speech.  I have a new book to work on called “Interpersonal Communication,” though, so we’ll see.

I still say getting into a hobby or meeting new people is worth it, because once the first, or the first five, awful heart-stopping encounters are past, you get to do fun stuff you like.  Plus you can get a lot of the initial meeting and talking on the internet, which is sooooo awesome, because no one can see you blush and stammer and sweat and forget how to speak English, and you can send an email that says, “I’m really, really shy, so if you see someone in a blue tunic lurking around the edges that’ll be me,” or whatever.  The internet is a thing without which I would have much less social life or human contact of any kind, and without organized activities I’d have none.

Comment #147: lonespark  on  08/12  at  07:48 AM

Strangely enough, my fear of initiating any contact is gender-neutral; I won’t go up and start talking to men either unless I have a reason. That this makes dating a problem is somewhat irrelevant compared to how traumatic this makes job-hunting.

I don’t think that’s strange, cuz I’m right there with you, Mark.

Comment #148: lonespark  on  08/12  at  08:06 AM

Also, its a total side-point, but I don’t find the concept of self-esteem terribly helpful. It implies you can just think yourself better if you have some kind of anxiety problem. It just ain’t true - confidence has to be confidence in something concrete.

A real anxiety problem requires a real therapy—a psychological or even medical professional. It has nothing to do with self-confidence or self-esteem. No help from the PUAs (or any self-help or life-coaching programme) there.

As to self-confidence, yes, it has to be in something concrete. But it’s not too hard for most people to find something in themselves that’s a source of real pride. The problem I see more often is people who internalise the negative things other people say about them, over-shadowing the positive. The PUA approach does the latter, by claiming that women are only attracted to cash and superficial flash, and demanding that these guys pretend to be something other than themselves.

Strangely enough, my fear of initiating any contact is gender-neutral; I won’t go up and start talking to men either unless I have a reason. That this makes dating a problem is somewhat irrelevant compared to how traumatic this makes job-hunting.

And I’m with you and lonespark, although I wouldn’t call it a fear. I just recognise that it’s an exhausting process for me, so I avoid it unless I must do so (and sometimes a person will just inspire you). The strange part is, when I do initiate, I’ve been told I’m good at it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel drained afterward.

One thing that’s helped over the years, as I said above, is practising now and then by initiating very low-stakes situations. For me, flirting is low-stakes, and has been for a long time—in large part because I’m not a creep or insincere about it, so I don’t have to worry that I’ll get slapped in the face.

I do understand how many people wuld find flirting and showing interest in someone else to be high-stakes, but in those cases “systems” like the PUA methods or “The Rules” usually ensure that they’ll come off as creeps and phonies, and throw in a good measure of obvious contempt for the other gender.

Comment #149: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  09:17 AM

I love the Toastmasters, just gave a kickass speech about health reform last week, and yet it hasn’t helped that much for making actual conversation that isn’t a formal, rehearsed speech.

My problem lies somewhere in the middle—I’m very comfortable speaking to a group of 10+ people, and have made myself comfortable in one-on-one conversation despite my aversion to small talk. It’s the small groups of 4-5 people that are the worst for me.

To be honest, some of the techniques that Strauss described in “The Game,” stripped of the PUA power games and manipulation, do seem to work in that context. But even so, I find those situations the most uncomfortable.

Comment #150: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  09:25 AM

first up, just wanted to say i’m a longtime, internet-wide lurker, but just registered here, because it’s an absolutely fantastic site. the only one i bother to recommend to anyone, the only one i (now) comment at.

i’d echo what some have written, that the whole PUA enterprise isn’t necessarily egregious. but only in the Big Bang sense. that’s the first 3 to 30 seconds when you approach someone unintroduced. for that, many many men really need -or feel they need- hands-on, bare bones practical advice, and anything out there that purports to be that is going to be seized on. even if it’s bullshit, if it gives some men enough confidence to approach, it may help despite itself.

but after the Big Bang, far as i can see, the fact that women are people is more than enough, or should be. if it isn’t, it either means you need a lot more help, or you’re an asshole.

but even this isn’t clearcut. i have a friend who’s naturally gregarious, smart, generous in many ways, a high end professional etc etc. and had a couple of good, long relationships. no real problems. but at a certain point he started getting into variants of pickup stuff. nothing as nasty as ‘negging’ etc. but formulas for walking a woman through an evening in your company.

1. listen; 2. steer towards emotional subjects/issues; 3. steer towards what attracts you and her/him; 4. ideally, make out.

it was hilarious because it was nothing you wouldn’t do anyway if you were interested in someone. and do it naturally, not as a calculation. but my friend treated the formula as a revelation. also claimed he met and used it on his now-wife. (she later found his notes -yeah, he did indeed take notes- on the subject but they’ve steered clear of discussing them).

Comment #151: ochon  on  08/12  at  10:07 AM

Gabe does bring up some fair points about what creates the anxieties that PUAs exploit, but he’s not willing to just come right out and call it exploitave. I was right with him here, though:

Our kind, the nerds, are the worst of the lot, man! How many girls did YOU have at your gaming table? They are thin on the ground in my weekly d20 modern group and in my XBox Live Friends list, and I don’t think I’m overreaching with my anecdotal evidence when I say my experience is not abnormal. I’m sure we both have compelling reasons for WHY girls might steer clear of our favorite hobby, but the simple reality is that gaming, even when there are comparitively a LOT of girls, is still going to see WAY more men than women.  It doesn’t grant us the same male/female socialization tools that say, sports does.

This is true, sort of, although sports is a bad example of a hobby where you’re likely to meet girls (try acting, dancing, or knitting). But why is it so? well, gaming is overwhelmingly male-dominated, for a lot of reasons that have been brought up here, and instead of recognizing this and arguing for turning that around, Gabe grasps at straws. But right now we have a situation where even games that women do like (like Vampire) are treated with derision in the gaming community, largely because they’re seen as effeminate. Honestly, gamers are macho people with macho insecurities, it’s hard to see that sometimes because they aren’t muscle-bound or traditionally manly a lot of the time, but it’s there. Dealing with this problem in our culture requires a degree of perspective about it, something that’s hard for the most anxious nerds, who treat the “nice guy” myth like it’s part of who they are.

Comment #152: HonestB  on  08/12  at  10:25 AM

I don’t find the concept of self-esteem terribly helpful. It implies you can just think yourself better if you have some kind of anxiety problem. It just ain’t true - confidence has to be confidence in something concrete.

I think you would find that most self-confident people don’t have confidence in something concrete.

I have no problem socializing, making small talk, or finding myself among strangers and making do. When a conversation turns into some kind of social competition, I always lose, however.  While the best way to avoiding losing is not to play, so I don’t get myself into those little social pissing matches, I sometimes wonder if I’m missing anything.

On a similar token, I can see how people get seduced by the sales pitch of PUAs. People want to find love, and they’re surrounded by all these people they want to meet but feel they can’t. PUA classes promise that “you can meet them!” It’s not really true, but they do provide you with a bunch of warped attitudes that allow you to keep approaching strangers when you probably shouldn’t. In the same way that PUA techniques teach people to prey on the weak and vulnerable, PUA class teachers are themselves preying on the weak and vulnerable. If someone’s teaching you to be manipulate women, what makes you think they would have any problem with manipulating you?

they tended to regard those who entered grad school as “perpetual students” and people “who couldn’t hack it in the real world.” That is…before the dotcom bust.

That kind of surprises me, given the sort of high school you went to as well as the social/cultural attitudes you’re exposed to at topflight universities, which tend to inculcate the opposite type of value system, at least among its most successful students (ie, research is the most important thing, and even if you havea PhD, not becoming a professor means you didn’t quite measure up). Ironically, being a professor is probably *much* more accommodating to those with limited social skills than most other fields.

Comment #153: Tyro  on  08/12  at  10:27 AM

If a guy is actually not clued into the fact that women like sex—-and I believe you guys when you say this happens, for sure—-then the PUA crap is even more baffling, at least if you’re supposed to take it on good faith.  They are, after all, cruising for casual sex.  They aren’t exchanging romance for sex. 

What this means is that PUAs who actually believe women don’t like sex are even more misogynist.  Not because of an innocently held misconception about female sexuality, but because they think that women get nothing out of sex, and so they are actively trying to trick a woman into acting against her own interests.  The entire PUA line is misogynist, of course, but at least the ones who think women like sex are thinking, “She likes sex, and so after I override her will and get her into bed, she’ll probably be okay with it.”  The ones who think women don’t like sex?  Have to convince themselves that it’s okay to go out there to hurt women.

Comment #154: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  10:31 AM

I’ve already explained the opposing theory, I think, and you don’t say anything that counters it.

You won’t believe me, though.  That’s why.  It’s not that I didn’t say it.  There’s plenty of advice.  What you don’t like about it is that it doesn’t end with, “Here’s how to get around the obstacle of the woman to the pussy.”

Good advice teaches men that women are not the enemy.  Period.  That there is no system, no surefire way.  That women are human beings.  Good advice is about how sex is supposed to be mutual.

PUAs are indeed attractive because they’re sexist.  They tell these men what they want to hear, which is that women are obstacles to sex, not fellow human beings to relate to.  And that interactions with women are about wearing down resistance.  All the other misogynist stuff flows from the initial misogynist premise.

Comment #155: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  10:37 AM

I meant, PUAs are attractive to their male marks who want to hear this nasty shit about women.  I remain 100% skeptical that molding yourself into an asshole with issues about women makes you more attractive to women.

Comment #156: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  10:38 AM

Why is it expected that men should be confident? We don’t ask the same, at least not to the same extent, from women.

I dunno.  My experience is that nervous people of all genders are less attractive.

Comment #157: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  10:45 AM

Not for me, necessarily, though I tend to like nervous people as friends. Boyfriends have a lot of confidence in my history.

Comment #158: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  10:47 AM

“My experience is that nervous people of all genders are less attractive.”

Though there is a penalty to women who appear too confident for people’s taste in a lot of circles.  A woman who’s “too” sure of herself can be a magnet for negative attention, and it doesn’t take a crapload of encounters in that vein for girls and young women to pick up on the vibe and self-modulate if they’re unsure of the setting.

Comment #159: preying mantis  on  08/12  at  10:49 AM

in the business of teaching people to meet people, in a manner that works for someone with very little confidence in their social skills they have almost zero competition

It’s a very successful model. They’re building on the sexist viewpoint that most men have already been taught. A PUA seminar is not presenting, for the very first time, the notion that pussy is simply a trade good for women, that men are entitled to pussy, or that sex is a zero-sum game where the man wins by cleverly manipulating the woman into putting out.  They’ve also got a ready-made customer base: guys like Mike, who think sex should be just like a FPS game, where if you hit UP B B A DOWN Z in the right order, you unlock the Pussy Level. Those guys are not going to be particularly interested in a seminar that tries to teach them before they can get laid all the time, they might want to start thinking of women as, say, human.

Comment #160: mythago  on  08/12  at  11:45 AM

“Women are terrifying and strange”

Wow. I think there is a huge point being missed here. Many strait men either don’t like women or, as the gentlement said, are afraid of them. I suppose I could slip into shopworn cliches about mommy issues or repressed homosexuality. But, as a heterosexual man, I can never understand why so many straight men, even (or especially) those who have girlfriends/wives and are having sex, seem to have such contempt for women.

In my single days, even indulging in the occasional meaningless one night snog fest, I kinda’ had to like the women I was getting naked with. And that I could feel that she liked me as well. Quite frankly, the idea of tricking someone into having sex (which seems to be the idea of the PUA), doesn’t sound that sexy to me.

I find the “women don’t like sex” theme especially amusing. There were many women to whom I was attracted. Many (most?) times, it wasn’t necessarly mutual. So onward I moved. It takes an enormous amount of un-selfawareness to assume that if a women doesn’t care to have sex with you she therefore doesn’t like sex.

It simply means she doesn’t want to have sex with you.

Comment #161: Aldorossi  on  08/12  at  11:53 AM

My problem lies somewhere in the middle—I’m very comfortable speaking to a group of 10+ people, and have made myself comfortable in one-on-one conversation despite my aversion to small talk. It’s the small groups of 4-5 people that are the worst for me.

Dale Carnegie.

What’s sort of interesting to me is that methods involving paying attention to other people and what interests them or what they want have actually been supplanted by more hostile techniques, even when there was plenty of evidence that the earlier methods worked. (Then again, the modern GOP.)

Small groups are difficult, in my experience, because my motivations aren’t always clear to me. Sometimes I want to stand out and move the conversation in particular ways, sometimes I want to just be noticed without dominating, sometimes I’m content to listen. And I assume everyone else in the group has a similar mix of motivations.

Comment #162: paul  on  08/12  at  12:00 PM

If a guy is actually not clued into the fact that women like sex—-and I believe you guys when you say this happens, for sure—-then the PUA crap is even more baffling, at least if you’re supposed to take it on good faith.  They are, after all, cruising for casual sex.  They aren’t exchanging romance for sex.

It’s not baffling, given that these guys generally buy into the patriarchal Madonna/Whore concept mixed in with Heart-of-Gold/Gold-Digger descriptor. That leaves you with a majority of women who are trading sex for something (money, a ring, kids, the ability henpeck a husband) and a small minority who are “sluts.” In this formulation, all women are indeed the enemy.

The PUAs are basically proposing that their adherents hunt for the “Whore with a Heart of Gold” (or the “slut”), and that the only way to attract this type is by looking and acting like a complete arsehole (i.e. taking on the superficial trappings of an “alpha male”).

Comment #163: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  12:06 PM

Dale Carnegie.

Yeah, it’s been recommended to me, and it’s supposed to be very good. Honestly, though, at my age I can’t be arsed to deal with this anymore. Public speaking, including ex-temp Q&A;, is easy for me. Reading the body language and tone of one person or a couple is difficult, but do-able—trying to juggle 4-5 people at once just isn’t worth it.

In social situations, I just seek out the one-on-one situations or build on a small group where there’s a sympathetic person or wing-man I already know. It seems to work well enough that it’s been a long time since anyone chided me for being a wallflower.

What I have learned to do over the years is handle more structured small-group situations, like board meetings or seminar groups. It’s stressful, but at least the motivations of the players are usually clear.

What’s sort of interesting to me is that methods involving paying attention to other people and what interests them or what they want have actually been supplanted by more hostile techniques, even when there was plenty of evidence that the earlier methods worked. (Then again, the modern GOP.)

The earlier methods still work, but the media culture promotes the idea of shouting at others instead of engaging in a dialogue or actually shutting up and listening (that last part is actually a hidden advantage for us quiet types).

Comment #164: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  12:23 PM

The strange part is, when I do initiate, I’ve been told I’m good at it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t feel drained afterward.

Ditto here except I end up feeling overwhelmed if I end up introducing myself/getting introduced to more than 5-10 people in one setting as I have a hard time remembering people’s names/keeping track of more people than that amount in one social sitting. 

Personally, I prefer social gatherings where it is one-on-one or groups of no more than 10 people so I do feel I have a chance to maximize my chances of knowing each of them at such events. 

That kind of surprises me, given the sort of high school you went to as well as the social/cultural attitudes you’re exposed to at topflight universities, which tend to inculcate the opposite type of value system, at least among its most successful students (ie, research is the most important thing, and even if you havea PhD, not becoming a professor means you didn’t quite measure up). Ironically, being a professor is probably *much* more accommodating to those with limited social skills than most other fields.

Tyro,

Just talking about the engineering/CS majors among high school classmates…not all of them though there is a heavy pre-professional vibe among us. 

Moreover, my impressions of hardcore engineering schools like MIT from my own visits and from talking with co-workers and classmates who graduated from there was that the vast majority of their students…including the topflight ones tended to harbor strong pre-professional attitudes and are far more interested in finding a private sector job where they can do the most cutting edge research/projects and earn high incomes than going into academia. 

The privileging of academia as the most worthy pursuit for the brightest grads you’re describing is an attitude that sounds more like ones I’ve seen at Ivy/Ivy-level universities and small liberal arts colleges where there is at a minimum, a balance of the perceived value of the engineering/natural sciences and the arts/humanities/social sciences.  Kinda hard to picture that at MIT where the arts/humanities/social science fields are looked upon by many of its students as “frivolous” easy departments populated by students of “inferior intellect” who couldn’t hack it in a much more rigorous STEM field. 

Moreover, most of the top-performing CS/Engineering people I knew outside of my high school classmates like my co-workers and some older cousins also tended to prefer working in private industry.  This includes a classmate and friend who graduated MIT with a BS/Professional MS in 4 years who turned down an offer to continue in his department for a PhD to work in an European engineering firm or that older cousin who after working a few years as an engineering Prof got fed up with academia being too far behind the technological curve in engineering research and left his tenure-track position to decamp to private industry. 

However, the high school classmates who majored in the natural sciences or mathematical fields like physics, chem, pure/applied math, etc and are not pre-meds do tend to go into academia/research IME.

Comment #165: exholt  on  08/12  at  12:25 PM

Ditto here except I end up feeling overwhelmed if I end up introducing myself/getting introduced to more than 5-10 people in one setting as I have a hard time remembering people’s names/keeping track of more people than that amount in one social sitting.

There are good mnemonic and re-enforcement tricks out there for that, so with a little effort it’s not that difficult for me. And really, if you’re at an event where you’re being introduced to 20+ people, no-one expects you to remember every new introduction’s name.

Comment #166: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  01:09 PM

I’m slightly bemused by the comments suggesting that if you really want to get laid and can’t, then you should just pay for it… While I don’t want to go into detail about my various social problems, lets just say that it’s an option I’ve seriously considered numerous times over the last 15 years, but which I shy away from because prostitution is a deeply fucked-up industry, frequently involving all sorts of hideous coercion, manipulation and violence, and I want no part of it.

If we lived in some magical alternate world where prostitution really was simply another career choice, fine. In this world? No fucking way.

Comment #167: Dunc  on  08/12  at  01:15 PM

Dunc, I don’t think anyone is actually advocating prostitution as a fine alternative. It’s simply to point out that the “waaa I can’t get pussy” guys are lying. There’s an entire industry devoted to keeping their cocks happy, and in places it’s even legal. After all, you hear a lot of bitter types say that prostitution is cheaper than dating because you don’t have to buy her dinner and you are guaranteed sex. So why not go pay a woman to do exactly the sex acts you want her to?

It’s because they feel pussy is something they are owed, and it’s greedy, selfish and wrong for a woman to expect anything out of sex. In fact, making sure a woman gets nothing out of sex is part of the game for these types. The idea of actually compensating a woman for giving up what they think they deserve is deeply offensive to them.

Comment #168: mythago  on  08/12  at  01:33 PM

One thing that I find hard to deal with is the “have reasonable expectations, don’t go for someone too attractive.”

My last girlfriend, I thought, was absolutely stunning, but she apparently, didn’t hear that very often. And she called me a pretty boy on more than one occasion. She was even wearing her glasses the second time. I’ve gotten cute once or twice in the past nine years, but “pretty boy” isn’t something I expect to hear.

I mean, if I didn’t ask out a girl just because I thought she was beautiful—I don’t know that I’d ever ask anyone out.

I know the conversation is probably done on this thread, and maybe someone else addressed this already- but these PUA guys aren’t asking out the girls they think are attractive, they’re after the girls they think other guys find attractive.
They do this for several reasons, first it is primarily a homosocial thing. They feel like they have to get one particular type of girl (9+), and engage her in one particular type of social interaction (one night stand), all for the purpose of proving their masculinity to themselves and their friends. And if any relationship doesn’t meet that criteria then ‘it doesn’t count.’
For another thing they so distrust their own feelings about anything related to relationships because they have so internalized the feeling of being a romantic failure. In their mind that is who they are. So instead they look around them and see other guys, confident successful looking guys, approaching a particular type of woman. And then they begin to believe that there is an objective way to rate beauty and that all real men will place any given woman at the same point on a rating scale. They may be way more attracted to Velma, but feel that they have to chase after Daphne in order to pull off the charade of being a ‘real man.’
I had the, ahem, pleasure of dating a guy who actually liked my company, and at least claimed to find me attractive. But because I wasn’t the blonde, giggly, 9+ sorority girl he was all torn up about what his friends thought of me, and wanted me to dress up in a certain way to impress the guys and on and on. I eventually realized that he wasn’t after a romantic relationship, he was after friends, and I was a token he intended to use to prove his alpha male status to impress the other guys.

Comment #169: Starfoxy  on  08/12  at  01:40 PM

To shy folks:

If you are shy, you need to get over that first.  I suggest acting classes.  Unlike Toastmasters, you aren’t just giving speeches ‘to’ people, you’re interacting.  For some people, it’s much easier to act things out than it is to do them in real life.  Plus you’ll meet interesting people.  Once you get going, join a local amature theater group.

Another good thing to do is volunteer for a campaign.  It’s great because you’ll instantly be associated with people with similar views and instantly have something to talk about.  It’s really easy to talk to someone after you’ve been sitting next to them for an hour and have just stuffed your thousandth effin evelope.

Animal shelters are another opportunity.  A lot of shy people volunteer for them because its easier for them to interact with animals than people.  After a while you’ll meet someone you like and you’re almost assured of getting a compasionate companion.

These kind of things give shy people a chance to gradually get to know people.  Lots of shy people do things like this.  Join something, anything.

The whole bar scene can be very brutal, especially in up-scale places.  It’s the big leages.  If you haven’t learned to play farm ball; you’re going to get beat up a little and if you have self-image problems…well…beware.

Don’t give any money to the PUA assholes.  THERE AIN’T NO SYSTEM.  Honest.  Not for Vegas, not for the opposite gender (or same). 

Just a geezer’s 2¢.

Comment #170: Magis  on  08/12  at  02:12 PM

From one of the web pages, as one of the seminars offered:

Physical Escalation - Touching gets results!

This goes beyond creepy.

This whole thing buys into the myth that women just don’t enjoy sex.  Here’s some advice to every guy who as ever been mad at me for not having sex with him: Just because I don’t want to have sex with you doesn’t meant I don’t want to have sex at all.  I love sex, just not with jerks or guys with poor hygiene.

Comment #171: bananacat  on  08/12  at  03:12 PM

very guy I know who has been alone for extended periods of time is kind of damaged goodsy.  Either they have volatile, borderline abusive tendencies, or they’re ugly but still want someone attractive (read: too hot for them) and think their money and personality can compensate, or they’re kinda picky and take ZERO effort to attract women, not realizing you’ll get your minimally acceptable choice if you don’t make some effort to date. (see stable marriage algorithm). But all of those guys could do something to make themselves more appealing: date uglier girls, stop being so prickish and abusive, actually pursue women and make an effort to expand your social circle.

As an ugly guy… it doesn’t work that way in my experience.  Sure, there are unattractive people who only want to date supermodels, but being less looks-focused doesn’t make other people less looks-focused.

I’ve gotten to a point where I really like myself.  I’ve got a lot of good friends, I’m on the path to doing what I’d really like to do, and I’m happy.  I know what I’m doing both in the bedroom and out, and think I’d make a great partner for the right person (and have… I’ve lucked out in the past year-and-a-half.  I suppose that this means it shouldn’t matter any more, or that the fact that it still does makes me “damaged goodsy.”)

But my looks have meant that, even for those stretches of time when I liked myself, managed my shyness well, actually thought I looked pretty good (I’m used to my face, it’s easier), nobody (and I mean nobody, not just “nobody I found hot enough”) would be interested in me for months and sometimes years.  I was great at making friends, lousy at attracting lovers.

I think one of the appeals of the whole seduction thing is the illusion of control it provides.  It keeps one from ever admitting that no, some people just aren’t going to find you sexually attractive no matter what.  If they don’t, it just means you entered the cheat code wrong.

Comment #172: jfpbookworm  on  08/12  at  03:28 PM

The ‘don’t go after gorgeous women’ advice is, I think, really aimed at managing entitlement.

There are few things lamer than somebody who is angry that all the superhot people of [opposite gender] won’t pay attention to them, are all shallow and looks-focused, etc., but who refuses to consider anyone who is not, in their view, superhot.

Comment #173: mythago  on  08/12  at  03:49 PM

There are few things lamer than somebody who is angry that all the superhot people of [opposite gender] won’t pay attention to them, are all shallow and looks-focused, etc., but who refuses to consider anyone who is not, in their view, superhot.

FWIW, even when I was a callow young college student who had hardly dated in high school, I never felt that I was ‘entitled’ to anyone more attractive than I, but I did date women who were without any sense that I had ‘scored’.

As for Dale Carnegie and Toastmasters, I have seen them have beneficial effects on people, the former for my girlfriend the post-doc, as it helped her professionally in being able to present material.

The latter helped a cousins’ husband who used to mumble his speech so much that when we first met him we thought his habit had come from being in the Greybar Hotel for a while, but it was actually due to a lack of self-confidence.  My grandmother and I noticed the difference in his demeanour when we had lunch with him one day, having noticed the effect before we were aware of the cause.

They won’t deliver what the PUA courses promise, but they can be a useful tool in learning how to relate to people.

Comment #174: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/12  at  04:59 PM

Gracchus:

All I did was read the book (How to win friends and influence people). Most of it you probably know, but it’s still remarkable to see how the focus is pretty much the opposite of the conventional asshole wisdom.

Comment #175: paul  on  08/12  at  05:05 PM

You think women are terrifying?  Men who clearly don’t respect your will or your right to say no are terrifying.  Men who approach you with a “system” that’s “guaranteed” to get you into bed are terrifying.

I’m sorry, but the person who wrote this obviously has no idea what it’s like to be an adolescent male. To a young man, humiliation is a fate worse than death. I mean that literally. It’s far better to die an honorable death in battle against a hated enemy than to be shown to be less than a man, a contemptible being of no worth. Kill a few of my fellow gang members in a battle over territory? No big deal. People die all the time. It’s just business. But diss me, call me a coward, laugh at me? That’s crossing the line, and you’re gonna pay.

Dying? Not scary at all. Being laughed at? That’s something to be afraid of.

Comment #176: Doug S.  on  08/12  at  05:10 PM

The book is awesome. I was suspicious because, well, I’m a pessimist and shit, but it really is about using positive social strategies rather than predatory ones.

Comment #177: mythago  on  08/12  at  05:11 PM

The interesting thing about Dale Carnegie is that he’s a liar and a huckster, and some of his anecdotes never happened, but most of the advice in HTWFAIP is sound and sensible.

Do as he say, and not as he do.

Comment #178: asdf  on  08/12  at  05:21 PM

Catgirl,

I suppose you’re not going to think much of Ross Jeffries’s “Secrets of Irresistible Arousal” DVD, which, after all, includes such basic pointers as using one’s whole hand for a massage, rather than just the fingertips.  What Bookworm said, coupled with the fact that I was ALWAYS an extrovert, so I had a reasonable circle of friends, but having something to offer the opposite sex isn’t as simple as being secure in one’s own identity, values, etc.  So having a simple script saved me to the extent that it gave me something to do to get things rolling while seeing if a deeper-level connection would develop.  I realize that you don’t necessarily accept the POV of a happy and harmless PUA, but there are those who regard it as a finely-tuned sales pitch, nothing more, and those seem to be the ones who prosper.

Comment #179: Eurosabra  on  08/12  at  05:27 PM

At this point, Eurosabra, I just think we’re sick to fucking death of blase assholes who are happy to keep offering apologetics for a sleazy culture that perpetuates the targeting and abuse of vulnerable women with low self-esteem.

Comment #180: asdf  on  08/12  at  05:31 PM

And I see you’ve already made your minds up and will remain unconvinced, which is why I’ve wasted very little of my time here in comparison to various earlier threads on the subject.  Hugo Schwyzer has had several good posts on the broader implications of how the sexes meet w/respect to PUA, from a generally harshly critical-of-Pick-Up mindset, so I’d refer you to them if you’re interested.

Comment #181: Eurosabra  on  08/12  at  05:44 PM

And I see you’ve already made your minds up and will remain unconvinced

Actually, I was much more sympathetic to the suckers who pay for this stuff when the conversation started a few days ago. But then folks here pointed out how many of the PUA techniques are identical to to those of abusers looking for a victim. In the end, it’s you who have not made your case convincingly, and you who appears to be immune to the facts and evidence.

Comment #182: asdf  on  08/12  at  05:51 PM

But lest I be misunderstood, your implicit offer to spend even less time here is most welcome.

Comment #183: asdf  on  08/12  at  05:54 PM

Oh look everyone, Eurosabra neg’ed us. I guess that means he thinks we’re a 9.

Comment #184: yatima  on  08/12  at  07:15 PM

Doug S., I’m going to assume you were being sarcastic. The alternative is that you were dismissing women’s very real fears of danger by saying “bah, that’s nothing, imagine being a fifteen-year-old boy and getting LAUGHED AT!”

But then folks here pointed out how many of the PUA techniques are identical to to those of abusers looking for a victim.

Seriously. You could save a ton of money on those courses by simply picking up The Gift of Fear and How to Win Friends and Influence People and reading them ‘backward’.

I use some of the predatory strategies de Becker talks about all the time - not in getting laid, but at work, because I’m a civil litigator. And yes, they do work.

Comment #185: mythago  on  08/12  at  07:21 PM

Wooo, we’re a 9!

Doug S., young people are very, very sensitive to humiliation and many would rather die and some kill themselves over it.  Women are people.  The pressure to be masculine isn’t the same, and to a great degree women’s humilation is assumed as a cultural background.  But it’s not like those extreme feelings are unique to boys, or that they free you from the obligation to treat girls with respect.

Comment #186: lonespark  on  08/12  at  07:44 PM

Much of this PUA crap would be a non-issue if we completely dismantled the patriarchal notion that men must approach women first.

If we, as women, gave completely and total approval for women to approach men in the context of dating, would PUA even be necessary?

It took me a long time to get over my sense of entitlement regarding the expectation that men approach me. Of course, I am over 45 and much more bold than I used to be. Sure, I’ve been rejected but I’ve learned to get over it. After all, I’m a strong and independent woman.

Comment #187: AuntieMay  on  08/12  at  09:18 PM

The “Always Sunny” video said “for mature audiences” but I managed to fool it.

Anyway, I’m seeing in this post an unwillingness to take these men at face value. I suspect a lot of them get into the whole PUA thing in the sincere belief that they can’t attract women. Men don’t think they’re signing up for these classes or reading these books to learn how to punish women for rejecting them. And so to that extent Gabe has a point: they’re shy, the media tells them women are these mysterious creatures who guard the Sacred Pussy and only give it to men who please them—and again, they’re shy, so they don’t really have the opportunity to figure out what’s wrong with this—and so here’s something that will help them, as it were, game the system.

So why listen to Mystery and Style and Didi and Gogo and Statler and Waldorf and all the rest? Because “remember, women are people, and if you treat them that way, they won’t be so damn mysterious” isn’t being slickly marketed. I don’t doubt its “success rate,” but common sense doesn’t tend to advertise much.

Comment #188: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/12  at  09:29 PM

But all of those guys could do something to make themselves more appealing: date uglier girls

Wow, really?

Comment #189: annejumps  on  08/12  at  09:44 PM

Hershele,

“Because “remember, women are people, and if you treat them that way, they won’t be so damn mysterious” isn’t being slickly marketed. I don’t doubt its “success rate,” but common sense doesn’t tend to advertise much.”

What are you talking about? This *is* one part of “the community”. Even if you’ve only read “the Game” you should have taken with you that all this isn’t monolythic (and here we go again). Take people like ZAN, Juggler, companies like AMP, they are clearly emphasizing that exact notion - except that they also help you to be able to stop putting women on a pedestal so high you won’t ever be able to treat them as people. If you don’t want to see it, ok, but it’s clearly there.

I just don’t understand why feminists don’t see the obvious commonalities. Maybe it’s just so much fun to have a simple enemy instead of looking at what’s really going on and calling out only the bad stuff. Here’s Elena Clift’s thesis about the “seduction community”

https://webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf

Comment #190: jayjay323  on  08/12  at  10:26 PM

So, jayjay, are you saying that men only believe the common sense metatechnique if they gave money to a douchey creep with a dumb nickname to teach it to them?

Comment #191: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/12  at  10:53 PM

Hershele,

well, some people only work out when they pay for it, but that’s a completely different issue. “The common sense metatechnique” needs to be broken down in quite some detail for a lot of guys. Is that so hard to understand? “Hi” works great, but only if you have something to say afterwards. The point is that the we’re talking about *sexualised* interaction - not that sex is necessarily a part or end thereof, but the motivation. We’re not talking about a guy who’s asking a girl for directions because he’s lost, but about the guy who’s asking her for directions instead of the old guy over there because he wants to talk to her - because she’s a woman he finds attractive. So after saying hi and asking for the next Starbucks, what happens here? What does “women are people” imply about this conversation? Right, it doesn’t imply anything, it doesn’t operate on that level. “Women are people” is not advice for having great conversations, it’s an attitude. So, well, you may still have to go somewhere else to get the conversational skills. Take improvisation classes, comedy, storytelling classes, whatever, or get a bit of all of that in a nicely bundeled purpose driven package.

Comment #192: jayjay323  on  08/12  at  11:33 PM

jayjay323, do you know how to talk to other men? If you’re waiting at the coffee machine at work with another guy do you manage to find something to talk about? Small talk and get-to-know-you is not something you can only learn through PUA seminars.

Comment #193: mythago  on  08/13  at  12:14 AM

Mythago,

“Small talk and get-to-know-you is not something you can only learn through PUA seminars.”

of course not. But that doesn’t mean you won’t learn it there. And the small-talk thing doesn’t really cut it, in my opinion - most guys don’t have problems befriending female co-workers *as co-workers* at the coffee machine. But they will suddenly be unable to talk when they are sexually/romantically interested in that woman. Being a great conversationalist will hurt in that case, but it simply won’t be enough. Flirting is a different skill set.

In the end, I really don’t know what is meant specifically by “women as people”. Russians are people. However much I believe that, I won’t be able to talk to them if I don’t speak Russian. And no, I’m not saying that women are from Venus, I’m just trying to say that even someone with the best possible attitude will not necessarily be able to attract women *just because of that*. In fact, in a way, that kind of advice is problematic to the extent that it’s not a conversation strategy but presented as one, just as “just be yourself”. When feminists say “treat women as people”, and men go and do what they think that actually means, and it won’t work, they may even be driven to those who preach “jerkiness” as a strategy (similar to the dynamic described by Kate Harding in Salon.com). “women as people” should be presented as appropriate attitude towards the other, not as specific advice that’s supposed to work like actual conversational/attraction skills.

Comment #194: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  12:44 AM

lost (19):

Be honest, please: There is no guarantee that anyone will find success in pickups/relationships/dating, regardless of how you act
Ballast you are seeing success as getting laid. If you treat women as people, you will count success as getting to know interesting people regardless of what gets dipped where.

And as you get to know interesting people, where there’s chemistry, eventually hormones will take over, if you still want sex.

Gracchus (51):

Sex isn’t nearly as difficult as playing a musical instrument, by the way. If it was there’d be a lot fewer kids on the planet.

Copulation is easy. Making love takes practice. “Sex” encompasses each of those and both of those and more.

Dale Carnegie and Toastmasters may be corny ‘50s era relics, but they’re still around and they apparently go a long way toward getting people past their low self esteem without making them into PUA-style jerks.

Jennifer Neisslein reports that Carnegie has actually been around so long that his techniques come off as hackneyed and manipulative.

Dan (59):

I think the main reason I remember it was because the thing he was looking for hadn’t been linked at Feminsting at all, I was like “wait no, I’m pretty sure he’s actually thinking of Pandagon.”

Yet somehow Jessica always comes up in these discussions.

Samantha (74):

Ben, one of the pluses about treating a woman like she’s a person is that if you do, ahem, get the fingerings wrong, she’s more than likely willing to work with you on improving, because you’ve actually got an emotional/intellectual connection. You DO have something to offer, and a willingness to learn to make the sex part better.

I have long since lost track of the metaphor here.

And because different women have different turn-ons, it doesn’t even matter that much what your experience level starts at, because some guys with more experience have to unlearn and not do what their new SO dislikes, etc.

My partner said the worst lover she had ever been with had racked up north of 50 notches in his bedpost.

SimonK (79):

But I’m going to risk my life here and dispute that most of their customers are mysogynists or that the primary attraction is mysogyny,

Well, they are and it is (or at least they would be and it would be if you’d spelled it right). But it’s a sort of, not harmless exactly, but genteel misogyny. That is, it’s not (for most of them, initially) a seething hatred of women. But what you’ll see is a perception that women have sexual power over men, and that men have to get it back because for women to have that power is dangerous for men. And fear, of course, leads to hate.

MonkeyShines (97):

But complaining “I can’t get laid” doesn’t make any sense to me.  If an orgasm is all you’re after, you can give it to yourself.  A handful of Vaseline, is every bit as useful a tool as a vagina for attaining that end,

Hell, if all you want is sex with another person, it’s easy enough to do, since lots of people qualify as “another person.”

oldfeminist (99):

The point of such an exercise is to find women who will allow men to push and even overrun their boundaries.

That’s an oversimplification; I don’t think the people actually doing this think “I’m going to go find women who are easily manipulated.” Even the people telling them to do this may not realize that’s what’s going on.

jayjay (194)

“The common sense metatechnique” needs to be broken down in quite some detail for a lot of guys. Is that so hard to understand?

Yeah, actually, it is. I can get it, why can’t other people?

Comment #195: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/13  at  01:04 AM

Hershele,

“Yeah, actually, it is. I can get it, why can’t other people?”

People have different talents. I’d say only about 10% of men are naturally good with women, and that’s regardless of their looks. 90% could need some coaching with respect to flirting.

Comment #196: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  01:11 AM

but surely you know plenty of average to low-average looking guys with wives and girlfriends? (guys that aren’t celebrities?)

Well, yeah.  I’m among them these days.  But back then (and it’s definitely a case of “back then” - you’ve gotta remember that most of the folks talking about this are talking about it in the past, most likely as teenagers who had no actual experience of relationships, and the models they had were mostly desexualized), I assumed that that the basis of those relationships must have been something other than mutual sexual attraction.

Comment #197: jfpbookworm  on  08/13  at  01:15 AM

In the end, I really don’t know what is meant specifically by “women as people”.

Um…that women are people, and thinking of them as exotic fucktoys is exactly what’s causing the problem of “zomg what do I say to her”? Your Russian analogy is good, but not in the way you think; you really are assuming that talking to a female you’re attracted to is like trying to communicate in a foreign language you don’t speak.

Of course flirting is a slightly different skill set than small talk, but we weren’t talking about flirting; we were talking about ‘okay, I said hi to her, now what do I do?’ And yes, that’s simply conversation. From all that’s been said by PUA defenders here, PUA isn’t about “flirting”, anyway, but about some self-confidence skills wrapped in a whole lot of predatory pussy-hunter tactics.

Comment #198: mythago  on  08/13  at  01:16 AM

crap, wrong thread.

Comment #199: jfpbookworm  on  08/13  at  01:22 AM

Mythago,

“Um…that women are people, and thinking of them as exotic fucktoys is exactly what’s causing the problem of “zomg what do I say to her”?”

No, what’s causing that is “shit, I don’t want to f**k this up”. If anything, it’s not “exotic fucktoys”, it’s that the guy is giving a random woman who happens to be his type far too much importance in his emotional circuits. If anything, it’s putting women on a pedestal, not treating them as fucktoys. If he actually thought of her as a fucktoy, why would he care what she thinks about him? If that *were* the case, he’d not have the problem. He has the problem because he gives her too much - at that point usually undeserved - ego crushing power.

Personally, I do speak Russian. But take her off the pedestal, and she may even speak English. But being non-reactive in that way is a teachable skill.

“Of course flirting is a slightly different skill set than small talk, but we weren’t talking about flirting; we were talking about ‘okay, I said hi to her, now what do I do?’ And yes, that’s simply conversation.”

No, in a romantic/sexualised setting that’s flirting. As soon as her gender becomes important, that’s flirting. PUA is a bollocks umbrella term diluted to the extend of not denoting anything specific, even worse than with feminism. I’d say, the good stuff is about flirting, the bad stuff, well call it predatory pussy-hunter tactics if you have to. Just be fair enough to not lump everything together, simply because it’s about guys trying to better their ability to interact (and sexually interact) with women.

Comment #200: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  03:05 AM

No, that’s not a neg.  A neg is playful teasing, not that you’ve managed to understand that in days and days of discussion of the topic.  Most of those who use negs get the mind-boggling response known as The Blank Stare(tm) cuz they r doin it wrong.  I’m pretty intrigued by the whole De Becker freakout because simple compliance is genuinely useless to someone who is seeking good sex per se.  Most of what went through my mind while reading De Becker was on the order of “Why would I want to BREAK someone’s will like this?”  Then again, I’ve lived the whole “cheat code rage” thing and the remarkable thing about it is how completely you dehumanize yourself doing it.

Comment #201: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  04:10 AM

No, that’s not a neg.  A neg is playful teasing, not that you’ve managed to understand that in days and days of discussion of the topic.  Most of those who use negs get the mind-boggling response known as The Blank Stare(tm) cuz they r doin it wrong.

Doing it wrong?! Ok smartguy, explain to me how to deliver the following “neg” the right way: “Wow! Nice hair! So thick! Do you comb it with a rake?”

Comment #202: La Lubu  on  08/13  at  09:01 AM

not that you’ve managed to understand that in days and days of discussion of the topic

Eurosabra, you’re being an ass again. Our understanding doesn’t come from “days and days of discussion”, all of which were brought about initially as a result of a sociopathic killer who felt entitled to women’s bodies. Our understanding comes from being on the receiving end of this shit. It. Is. An. Insult. Full stop. Stop telling women that when hateful, demeaning, disrespectful comments are made to us, that it’s really just “teasing” or “affection”. What it is, is abusive behavior. It’s the verbal equivalent of going up to someone and shoving them into a wall and saying, “so, whaddya gonna do about it? Huh? Feeling froggy, huh? (another shove) Wanna jump?”

ALL “negs” r doin it rong. All negs mark the speaker out to be a complete asshole. It’s not the form of delivery. It’s the act itself. Stop being so willfully fucking ignorant.

Comment #203: La Lubu  on  08/13  at  09:44 AM

LaLubu,

again, I don’t like that kind of thing, it’s bound to go wrong - but the right way would be this:

a) Be careful about the person to approach this way. Only ever say this (hair thing) to women who have so obviously unbelievable beautiful hair that they cannot really believe you can be seriously insulting their hair. But there should be a moment of consideration, something out of the ordinary.
a) Big Smile. Open Body Language. Non Threatening Body Language.
a) No question - statement. Don’t ask “do you comb with a rake”? State “you must be combing with a rake” because that allows to correctly communicate and for her to identify the irony (wikipedia) -

“Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what one says or does and what one means or what is generally understood. Irony is a mode of expression that calls attention to the character’s knowledge and that of the audience.”  -

in your statement - after all - it *is* supposed to be a compliment, just one that should be different from the “wow, great hair! You must be a Garnier Model”-stuff, she’s likely to hear. It’s supposed to be a tease, not an insult. Comedic timing is important - and f**king complicated which is why there are so few good comedians around (and why those who don’t have that timing and feeling should definitely leave this kind of thing alone).

The correct result should be a grin on her face, a realisation that that guy is actually able to look beyond her beauty while still acknowledging it, and a playful conversation about the best kind of rake to comb with. Maybe ask her for recommendations or whether she’d be interested to come along get a rake for yourself. Close after a bit of exchange with something like “hey, now that we both know we like gardening, I think I should introduce myself - hi, Im JayJay”.

Again, doing this right is damn complicated - because doing it right requires that she not see it as an insult, but as a backhanded compliment and a comedic device. So teaching this kind of thing to people who are already bad at inter-gender communication is unlikely to result in anything but slaps - and rightly so. Again, I’m pretty good with women, and I wouldn’t trust myself enough to deliver this kind of “neg” appropriately. So I don’t.

Comment #204: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  11:14 AM

Eurosabra (203):

A neg is playful teasing

You can’t “playfully tease” a total stranger. Not that you’ve managed to understand that in days and days of discussion of the topic.

jayjay (202):

No, what’s causing that is “shit, I don’t want to fuck this up”. If anything, it’s not “exotic fucktoys”, it’s that the guy is giving a random woman who happens to be his type far too much importance in his emotional circuits.

jayjay (206):

Again, doing this right is damn complicated - because doing it right requires that she not see it as an insult, but as a backhanded compliment and a comedic device

Oh, yeah, I can definitely see the advantage of “negging.” Makes things so much simpler.

(Also, “shit” you can type, but not “fuck”? Seriously?)

Comment #205: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/13  at  12:43 PM

The point of a neg is that the guy “is actually able to look beyond her beauty while still acknowledging it”?  wtf is he supposed to be able to see in that beyond if the neg is the first or second thing he says to her?

He. Does. Not. Know. Her.  What amazing insights is he supposed to have into her soul that the all the guys she actually knows do not?

Again, it’s very much the Nice Guy trope.  It isn’t about her anymore, it’s about the amazing ability to see what others cannot.

“If anything, it’s putting women on a pedestal, not treating them as fucktoys.”

‘cuz, you know, these are completely unrelated ideas, rather than different sides of the same coin.

Comment #206: jennygadget  on  08/13  at  05:42 PM

Doug S., I’m going to assume you were being sarcastic. The alternative is that you were dismissing women’s very real fears of danger by saying “bah, that’s nothing, imagine being a fifteen-year-old boy and getting LAUGHED AT!”

Actually, what I’m saying is that the proverbial fifteen year old boys do, indeed, dismiss women’s completely justified fears specifically because the things that women are afraid of, they see as no big deal. If someone’s being a problem, first, you tell them off, and if that doesn’t work, you escalate, and if they still don’t get it, you get a group of your friends together and beat the shit out of him. If someone does something bad to you, you go and get your revenge, possibly by beating the shit out of them, and never think of it again, because now you’re even.

Because they generalize from one example, they tend to put men’s violence against women in the category of “things that can be avenged and then forgotten about.” Why be afraid of it, when you can just go and shoot the bastard? Because they think that way, they think women should, too.

Of course, in real life, it’s not nearly as simple as “just shoot the bastard”, but for most of humanity’s evolutionary history, things really did work that way. Tribal warfare, of the kind engaged in by the stereotypical inner-city gangs, isn’t an anomaly. It’s actually the default state of humanity, what we revert to in the absence of all the civilizing influences that keep us from killing the bastards on the other side of the river, the proverbial “state of nature” in which life is nasty, brutish, and short. Peace is unnatural, in the exactly same way that electric light bulbs, antibiotics, and books are unnatural. Humans, especially male humans, have to learn how to be peaceful and we need to work hard to stay that way, because what we’re designed to do is get a bunch of our friends together, kill the evil bastards on the other side of the river, and take their stuff.

Understanding stupidity doesn’t mean excusing it, but it does help you cure it when you see it.

Comment #207: Doug S.  on  08/13  at  07:53 PM

Doug, do you live in a cave? When was the last time you were engaged in tribal warfare? Does the average 15 year old live in a Mad Max-like universe where he can just “go and shoot the bastard”?

Men can’t understand women’s very real and concrete fears because they’re still barbarians? Seriously???!?? And feminists are supposed to be man-haters…

Comment #208: Scarlet  on  08/13  at  08:07 PM

And BTW, all this talk of “ridicule being worse than death” is just self-aggrandizing emo teenage angst. The vast majority of teenage boys in Western countries only have a vague, over-romanticized view of death. Please don’t mix up stupid delusional fantasies and REAL dangers. Women DO get routinely raped and killed. If ridicule killed, we wouldn’t have to fear overpopulation.

Comment #209: Scarlet  on  08/13  at  08:14 PM

Hershele,

(Also, “shit” you can type, but not “fuck”? Seriously?)

This being a feminist American blog, I just wasn’t aware of any conventions. I have no problems saying or writing or doing the f-word wink Oops, I did it again. F**k wink

Comment #210: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  09:49 PM

“Of course, in real life, it’s not nearly as simple as “just shoot the bastard”, but for most of humanity’s evolutionary history, things really did work that way.”

No, They. Did. Not.  (rolls eyes)  That is Hollywood talking, not real life.

Comment #211: jennygadget  on  08/14  at  12:46 AM

Hershele Ostropoler:

oldfeminist (99):  “The point of such an exercise is to find women who will allow men to push and even overrun their boundaries.”

That’s an oversimplification; I don’t think the people actually doing this think “I’m going to go find women who are easily manipulated.” Even the people telling them to do this may not realize that’s what’s going on.

The technique works to get guys laid because it targets women who have difficulty establishing and defending their boundaries. 

Why does it matter whether men who use the techniques realize that’s what’s going on for me to criticize PUA?  I think in fact it makes it worse that they don’t, because that means they don’t really understand that women are other people and that pushing their boundaries is the same as pushing men’s boundaries, only easier because they’re less powerful.  It’s bullying.

If you think the point of my comment was to say that everyone who buys PUA seminars is a horrible person, think again.  I’m describing the problem of PUA as taking advantage of the weakest of women in a systematic fashion.  It’s training men in predatory behavior, normalizing it, glorifying it.

Now that you know that’s what it’s doing, will you stop defending it?  You are no longer ignorant.  I doubt that all the PUA leaders are ignorant, either.

Comment #212: oldfeminist  on  08/14  at  01:32 AM

Well, I think the last time I saw tribal warfare was when I was at a high school football game. Sports riots aren’t all that rare, and pretty much the only reason spectator sports exist is because they appeal to human tribalism.

Fear is in the mind. If you’re not afraid of a gun because you don’t know what it is, then you’re not afraid. If you’re not afraid to die because you have “a vague, over-romanticized view of death” then you’re not afraid. It doesn’t matter whether there is actual danger, only whether there is a perception of danger.

I guess I have been exaggerating, though. Ridicule isn’t actually worse than death, but, in many cultures, “coward” is one of the worst things you can call a man, and “death before dishonor” is more than just a slogan. Contemporary society, in which people don’t fight duels or engage in vendettas, is the anomaly, not the rule. (And it’s a good anomaly!) Homicide rates in the Middle Ages were much, much larger than what they are today. You were far more likely to be killed by another human being if you lived in the 14th century Europe than if you lived in 20th century Europe - even though the twentieth century included two world wars.

The state of nature really, really sucked. That’s why we got rid of it as soon as we could, but we’re still running plenty of legacy code in our heads, and some of that code is running on legacy hardware that goes all the way back to lizards. We’re lucky that modern civilization works at all.

Comment #213: Doug S.  on  08/14  at  05:47 AM

You’re still conflating fear “that is purely in the mind” with fear of a very present danger like they’re one and the same. You’re also implying that somehow, the fictional fears of boys are more pressing and important than the very concrete fears of women concerning actual, real dangers. And I have a problem with that.

And sports… I know people occasionally die in sports riots, but you don’t go see a football game in full body armor, do you? You don’t exactly expect to die the way gladiators did in Ancient Rome…

Are you seriously telling me that the 14th century mortality rate has a bigger influence on people’s behaviours than the rape/murder stories we read about every day in the papers?

And, pray tell, when is “death before dishonor” anything but a slogan in modern society (or a line in a video game)?

Comment #214: Scarlet  on  08/14  at  07:12 AM

I’m a Man, Feminist, Nerd and I was really taken aback by the discussion. I <3 Tycho, and do actually have a lot of respect for Gabe - they do good work, their Child’s Play charity is a great act of philanthropy given their status within the sub-culture.

However, the community seems to be reticent in discussing issues of sex and gender. Given the predominantly male composition of the community, it seems to always ignore assumptions that can be clearly misogynistic.

I think Gabe was naively misguided here, but he’s not some anti-feminist evil guy. He, like many nerd males, haven’t looked deeply into the way gender politics play out in the community.

Nerds need to talk about these issues or else they’ll keep reproducing these patterns of sexism.

My commentary on the subject in a bit more long-form is here:
http://discourseblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/sexual-politics-and-nerd-subculture.html

Comment #215: Discourse Is Knowledge  on  08/14  at  02:23 PM

Given the predominantly male composition of the community, it seems to always ignore assumptions that can be clearly misogynistic.

The predominantly male composition of the community exists BECAUSE of assumptions that are clearly misogynistic. It’s not some benign accident.

Comment #216: kristin  on  08/14  at  05:32 PM

jayjay (212):

This being a feminist American blog, I just wasn’t aware of any conventions.

ou were worried about being unladylike?

oldfeminist (214):

If you think the point of my comment was to say that everyone who buys PUA seminars is a horrible person, think again.  I’m describing the problem of PUA as taking advantage of the weakest of women in a systematic fashion.  It’s training men in predatory behavior, normalizing it, glorifying it.
Now that you know that’s what it’s doing, will you stop defending it?

I’m not defending it. I’m not even really defending the trainees who seek to learn and apply these techniques.

At least, I don’t think I am. I think these are bad techniques. I think the people who promulgate them are bad people, with no respect for roughly half the members of their own species. I think this irrespective of whether they know or care that one particular technique is bad for a particular reason. Is that position and attitudde compatible with defending the whole thing?

I don’t think so, but I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong; I’m also open to the possibility that something, or for that matter everything, I said somewhere in the three threads on this in the past week was unclear, poorly phrased, misleading, or even naive and ignorant. But I don’t think what I just said is different from what I thought last week.

Comment #217: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/14  at  08:35 PM

(1)
i personally dont like this PUA bullshit myself but there is a reason it thrives. fcuk PUA tactics, look at general dating advice given to men by dating experts and in mens magazines…....its always about getting casual sex. its always about how to get women in bed.

i havent seen womens dating experts giving tips to women about how to get men in bed. why…why dont women need this advice? could it be because men have a RELATIVELY tougher time getting casual sex, the dating experts, the books and mens magazines thrive on that. PUA tactics being an extreme example.

there is a tendency (specially among women) to see one side of the picture only and attribute this phenomenon only to mens shitty personalities, low self esteem or even misogyny.  but try to be a bit analytical and consider that it could be because the CASUAL SEX market is significantly more competitive for men. i can understand that it can lead to conclusions that a gender feminist will never accept but still, put your egos aside for a moment.

could it be the fact that because men have a RELATIVELY tougher time getting CASUAL SEX that the mens magazines, books and the PUA tactics thrive on that?

now why men have a tougher time getting CASUAL SEX? why is the market more competitive for a man? there could be many reasons…more men desiring casual sex than women leading to a supply-demand gap, women being more SELECTIVE etc.

because shitty personalities and low self esteem dont come to men only. they also come to women. but how many times have you heard a young, OK-looking woman not getting laid because she is ‘dumb’, she has a low self-esteem or has no confidence….as long as she EXPRESSES her willingness she can get guys to have sex with her (notice that here they tactfully demonize men for not considering her self esteem and personality)

why dont we have PUA tactics for young women unable to get laid with men? maybe because women dont need them. because the market is less competitive for them. maybe because men are less selective.
.
.
.
.
.
(2)
anyways, this brings me to the most important point .....the fact that MEN ARE LESS SELECTIVE about their CASUAL SEX partners is being put forward as a NEGATIVE TRAIT. this is being used by some women here to DEMONIZE mens sexuality. so when i say that men are less selective than women, they are more likely to desire sex with large no of women, they are less discriminate, they require less time knowing a woman before they would wanna have sex with her, that personality of a woman plays less a part in affecting a womans SEXUAL VALUE to them….etc etc…all these traits are being used to DEMONIZE MENS SEXUALITY. these traits are being put forward as a DEVIATION from what SHOULD be the sexuality standard for human beings.

more importantly some women are INTERPRETING these traits as downright MISOGYNY. for eg when i said that men are less picky about looks, personality of their casual sex partner a woman member DISTORTED & INTERPRETED IT AS :

quote : “i dont care about what you look like or who you are as a person as long as you have a vagina attached to you, as long as you just lie down and think of England or whatever country you live in, as long as you have a pulse…. this is misogyny..tell me would you have sex with a woman you found you physically repugnant?”

notice the distorted elaboration done by this poster. this is bullshit because no man would wanna have sex with a woman whom he finds phsycially repugnant. thats not what it means to be less SELECTIVE/DISCRIMINATE or lowering your standards and men know what im talking about.

Comment #218: Timothy Brice  on  08/15  at  04:14 PM

(3)
you cannot have your cake and eat it too. you cannot sell us the idea that women and men are equally interested in CASUAL SEX and at the same time totally blame men for their inability to get some. you cannot tell that women want the PENIS as much as you men want the VAGINA and then frown when men separate the VAGINA from the personality and treat sex as a mere release. you cannot sell us the idea that women and men desire casual sex equally and then DEMONIZE men when their sexualities deviate from womens. you cannot tell us that women and men want CASUAL SEX equally and then call them pigs when they jump at every opportunity to get laid.

the fact remains that men have to put in way more effort to get CASUAL SEX and you know it.

if you do want to DEMONIZE men for being less picky, lowering their standards and being more MECHANICAL about sex, then accpet it that there is an inherent difference between the sexualities of men and women. THEN ONLY YOUR ADVICE CAN BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. think about it.

i hear a lot of self-contradiction from women here. on one hand they DEMONIZE men for “just wanting the PUSSY and not being attracted to the personality” and on the other trying to make us believe that women want the DICK equally bad. but what is so wrong about just wanting the pussy? have you ever considered that the guy who is merely interested in the PUSSY would not mind if the woman he is having sex with is also only interested in his DICK and doesnt care about his personality? what is so inherently wrong about this and if this is WRONG do you atleast accept that far greater men than women have this sexuality standard which means we do have differences?

what mockery is this? what is the ego problem that keeps you from accepting the obvious differences? please…think about it.  you will get no where by bashing these PUA’s endlessly unless you get to the ROOT of the issue.

Comment #219: Timothy Brice  on  08/15  at  04:32 PM

I am not bad with women.

I am godawful with humans, which causes the relationship difficulties I keep seeing PUA defenders blame on being “bad with women,” though if they truly saw women as people, they wouldn’t recognize such a condition. But taking a class and then going up to a woman and saying “I can see you now, bending over a hot stove. Only I can’t see the stove” wouldn’t help me, because apparently you have to finesse statements like that, and I lack the finesse. If I had the finesse, simply seeing women as people would get me more pussy than I know what to do with, if that were my goal, which it isn’t per se, because I try to see women as people.

(Incidentally, my limit is probably two sexual partners at any one time; I could probably juggle three simultaneous relationships if the need arose provided each knew about the others, maybe more if a couple were just for sex.)

Even if I could get it to work, however, it would make me a bad person, at the very least for treating women as obstacles, as reified sexual access, and as conquests, rather than as people.

Comment #220: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/15  at  10:37 PM

I manage quite well at treating women as human beings, I have many close friendships with women, and many good conversations in any given week with casual acquaintances who also happen to be women.  However, very few women have ever desired me sexually, even fewer have let me know, and for the most part I had to initiate every form of communication or contact that distinguished that relationship from a nascent friendship and set it on the road to romance.  So I am not “bad with women” as much as someone whom women have difficulty seeing as a sexual being unless and until I change my behavior with PUA tactics, which sometimes edges the women playing with the idea of becoming interested into the interested camp.  I do tend to treat stereotypically-attractive women a bit differently than others, but I am also more distant with them, with more non-verbal flirting that often no one really acts on, while I tend to build rapport and bond with women I am less Othering towards.  Oddly, because of my physical and health peculiarities, women who are themselves Othered from a disability standpoint seem to connect with me.  I have no other explanation than perhaps that was how things worked out with those individuals in particular.

I am grimly amused by Hershele’s contention that he would be getting women if he could get women, which makes me tend to think “Aunt.  Wheels.  Streetcar” and I hope the Rav of Medzhybidzh pays and treats his jester well.

Comment #221: Eurosabra  on  08/16  at  12:33 AM

The notion of “getting women” is part of the problem (I should point out, too, that a large part of my hypothetical “strategy” for “getting” grillions of women is to have absolutely no standards; limiting it to women I’m actually interested in ... that would be about four, no five ... oh, that woman in my German class sophomore year, so six people, making my “hit rate” 33%). Women are not XP; there’s nothing to"get.” I’m talking about discovering mutual interests, the necessary level of personal chemistry (however much that is for the situation) and proceeding from there. And that requires presuming that there can be mutual interests, that she has as much of an interior life as you do (I suppose she may have less, but that’s a personal thing).

Eurobabra, what you describe is, well, me—as long as we’re being circular, you have no social skills because, to hear you tell it, you have no social skills, which makes it at least as hard to pull off “you’re the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen, which doesn’t say much for you” as “hi there, sure is weather out there.” But meaner; my ancestors would rise from their graves if I tried it, and I’d only have to bury the again.

So, anticipating the thrust of your response, I literally cannot imagine a straight man who has adequate social skills to form relationships, does not discriminate by gender in applying these social skills. and reaches the age of 25 or so without finding one single woman who wants to have sex with him, one single woman who wants what he has to offer, at least as far as sex goes. I don’t think you’re lying; most likely, I think, you’re ignoring (or not seeing) women who are interested in you but who don’t raise your status. So stop using women for status, or anything else, and you avoid this problem.

Comment #222: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/16  at  01:34 AM

Hershele Ostropoler

maybe the notion of ‘getting women’ (in bed) is what makes mens sexuality different from women. maybe thats what is natural for them.

maybe what men are really trying to do is BYPASS the ritual of getting to know that person and finding mutual interests and get straight to bed. some guys can do it really well and they are called STUDS. the other guys wonder “why cant we do that” why do i have to go on 5 dates before the woman is ready for sex….

what men dont understand is why cant they have a SEXUAL VALUE on the basis of what they look like alone? the problem is that women feel the raw sexual attraction only with men who look extraordinarily good…the rest of guys (75%) have to AUGMENT themselves with one quality or another. be it personality, status, charm etc….or have to find mutual interests and get to know her first. so the advice women give to men makes perfect sense. but the question remains…why is it necessary when men can do well without it? why dont men ask for SOCIAL SKILLS from women?

do you understand what i mean here….if this isnt a SEXUALITY DIFFERENCE what is?

Comment #223: Timothy Brice  on  08/16  at  04:43 AM

Wait a minute.

I think “jester” was meant as a dig.

As though a) I would take the name without knowing anything about it and b) the jester doesn’t play an important and valuable role.

Brice, the fact that you don’t think women have to “augment themselves” is part of the problem.

Comment #224: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/16  at  09:09 PM

Hersh,

Don’t think that just because I’m Israeli I don’t have a certain amount of admiration for Diaspora ironists.  I do read more than just Kishon, you know.  That being said, I like a certain model of Sabra masculinity I don’t necessarily incarnate much more than Hershele or Tevye or any of the great fools of Yiddish literature, which I do read, however poorly, however closer they may be to my experience.  And while I may be unimaginible, I would say that it was a failure to communicate desire on their part that left me high and dry, not the unreality of that desire—as Brice would have it.

Comment #225: Eurosabra  on  08/16  at  10:00 PM

Hershele,

“I literally cannot imagine a straight man who has adequate social skills to form relationships, does not discriminate by gender in applying these social skills. and reaches the age of 25 or so without finding one single woman…”

http://www.incelsite.org/

And again, saying hi to say hi for any other reason is something entirely different from saying hi after realizing she’s sexually attractive for you. I’m certainly not claiming you can’t control yourself in that situation, but it will definitely cause your brain to need to deal with that additional information from your limbic system. Why on earth is that so difficult to understand…

Comment #226: jayjay323  on  08/16  at  11:38 PM

hershele

““I literally cannot imagine a straight man who has adequate social skills to form relationships, does not discriminate by gender in applying these social skills. and reaches the age of 25 or so without finding one single woman…”

do you really think that women dont act differently with men they are attracted to? compared to men they are only platonically interested.

and if they do act differently with those men, do men really care about it as much as women.

you say “the fact that you don’t think women have to “augment themselves” is part of the problem”
why is that a problem? why cant YOU accept that maybe thats what natural to a large number of men. why do you have to put all the onus on men. because when you say that “its a part of the problem” you are saying that this sexuality standard is the deviation from what should be the norm.

why dont you simply accept the difference…maybe men really dont want to consider social skills of women as much as women do… now demonize men for that too. you clearly have a gender feminist agenda..you are seem so threatened going to such a conclusion.

Comment #227: Timothy Brice  on  08/17  at  03:50 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.