Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Low-life teabagger protestor tears up poster of Rosa Parks at health care town hall Previous entry: Epic battle of Nice Guys® vs. common sense at Penny Arcade

Penny Arcade update

Tycho and Gabe, I think, finished the conversation.  Tycho printed a self-serving letter from a friend who makes his money exploiting misogynists, and it really has the classic hallmark of hucksterism—-one narrative for insiders, one for outsiders.  The whole thing is shot through with it (outsiders are told, “We’re just trying to give some poor losers confidence”, insiders are told, “Learn to get any girl in bed!”), but this is my favorite:

The neg gets attention because it SEEMS like an insult, but it’s more a gesture of comfort, a sign that you, the suitor, aren’t going to bend your natural conversational style for the sake of trying to impress a woman. The main reason why assholes get girls is not because girls are just dying to be abused and ignored—although some are for whatever fault of upbringing or genetics—but because women, especially beautiful women, hate the weakness implied when a man bends over backward to impress her. A reactive sign of this is to, um, not bend over to impress her. A proactive sign, a way to signal this in the first few minutes of conversation, is to tease her.

And the neg is just a tiny sliver of what we teach.

For outsiders, it’s about simple teasing, like what you do with friends!  Plus, it’s a small amount of what they teach!  Outsiders should immediately see the problem, which is that it’s not the sort of teasing you reserve for intimates, but insults you deliver in hopes to weed out women with high self-esteem.  For insiders, it’s one of the most important lessons, and they blog and practice it because it fills a need.  It’s presented on the inside as something that you do to take “beautiful” girls—-who all think exactly alike, we’re told—-down a peg.  It’s its own reward.  This is classic hucksterism.  Outsiders to Amway are told it’s about selling products, insiders are eased into realizing they have to sell their friendships.  Scientology is so full of shit that the process of turning an outsider to an insider takes years.  With PUAs, would-be insiders get in the front door by a) paying and b) radiating the sort of misogyny that the code language about “no more Mr. Nice Guy!” that flies over the heads of most of us speaks to them.

Gabe, I think, is beginning to feel weirded out.

While some of their advice is probably fine I think the majority of it is really sleazy. Again, I can’t blame guys for seeking out help. All joking aside though, I just want to make it clear that I don’t think the seduction community is the place to go. I understand how badly you want to believe that there is a system out there that if you can simply master will resolve your problems. Sadly I don’t think that’s the case and if there is such a system, it certainly isn’t this one.

There’s two issues here: the fact that PUA books and seminars are a scam, and the fact that the marks for the scam—-lonely, angry, bitter dudes with ofttimes serious misogyny issues—-have ugly character flaws that make them easy marks.  The marks, because they’re infatuated with the idea of manipulation, are easy to convince to play cover-up for the programs, presenting themselves as so pathetic that you have to feel bad for them and ignore that they objectify women in the most serious way, refusing to take a woman’s will seriously and assuming all women have one personality.  This often works, because people take men’s problems more seriously than we take women’s, and so we’re eager—-due to sexism—-to worry more about some guy who needs to learn to be calm when talking to a woman* than to worry about the fact that women, especially young women (though it’s not limited to that), have to live their lives running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators.  Gabe’s quick brushing aside of the concerns of women who wrote him is indicative of the larger problem, and certainly isn’t just him. It’s hard for dudes to understand what it’s like, but it’s often very demoralizing to have some guy who radiates bitterness, and the process you go through after you extract yourself of making sure that you aren’t being followed, or, if getting away from him (since it’s a small club or something—-though often it’s also a matter of being in line at a grocery store) that you’ve got friends or even strangers who see your predicament and close in to send the signal to go away.  It’s hard to fear some man who is clearly thinking, “All those pretty girls are so stuck up, she’s not as hot as she thinks she is, she probably couldn’t do better than me, her boyfriend’s probably an asshole…..”  And even the ones who aren’t scary?  It’s demoralizing to be reduced, in so many interactions with men, to an obstacle that stands between him and the pussy.  (Of course, even women tend to focus on pitying the under-fucked more than worrying too much about women’s problems, I think in part because we’re so resigned to the idea that we’re not just going to get peace or respect from some men.)

The official line of “we’re just sad sacks who can’t get laid” doesn’t conceal, as well as PUAs think, the narrative they tell each other, which is, “these women are so stuck up, who do they think they are?” You see it in the letter to Tycho I quoted, where you can really see the PUA belief that beauty=bitchy, and that there’s a direct correlation between how good-looking you think a woman is and how stuck up she is. (It’s a matter of faith to PUAs that there’s a single, objective standard of beauty, so if you find a girl to be X amount attractive, that’s exactly how much attention she gets, and therefore exactly how much she’ll be “stuck up” because she thinks she can do better.)  The dialogue around stuck-up-ness reminds me of an incident that happened a couple of years ago to me.  I was walking down the street, wearing the most godawful hot-in-Texas walking clothes, just ratty as hell, and reading a book.  This didn’t stop some guy from trailing me in his pick-up and propositioning me from his window.  I ignored him the best I could, and as soon as I could, cut away down a path that cars can’t go to escape him.  And of course, what did I hear?  “Fine, stuck-up bitch!”  As soon as I thought he couldn’t see me, I dropped the “I just happen to be so into this book/deaf that I didn’t even notice you” act and took off running to my destination, checking (surreptitiously, you never want them to know that they unnerved you, because that’s positive reinforcement that could keep them following you) to make sure I wasn’t being followed.

And that’s why I get so angry when I hear from Nice Guys® that women are scary. 

*Something About Mary had the all-time best advice: masturbate beforehand, so you’re not as tempted to rush past the “believing she’s a human being with worth” part to the “fuck me already, goddammit” part.**
**Because Nice Guys® have a terminal case of taking themselves way too seriously, I want to warn you that the above is a joke.

 

------

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 09:19 AM • (415) Comments

“And that’s why I get so angry when I hear from Nice Guys® that women are scary.”

But Amanda, women are terrifying.  If I had a quarter for every man who wound up in the hospital after being ODed on a combination of flunitrazepam and viagra deposited in their drink by some predatory woman, a dime for every male acquaintance who hesitated to accept a ride from me or give me a ride somewhere, and a nickel for every time I’ve heard a guy run through a careful calculus of whether or not he’d let a woman he didn’t know well into his apartment when he was home alone lest he become yet another victim of sexual violence, I’d be a very rich woman.

Comment #1: preying mantis  on  08/12  at  10:11 AM

Do you think this is legitimate growth, or just caving to pressure?  I haven’t read enough of the site to have a read on it, I think.  I’m always amazed at how much people can change because they’ve never thought about this context before; patriarchal thinking is so incredibly dominant and reinforced.

Comment #2: Billingham  on  08/12  at  10:46 AM

I think, Billingham, that (on Gabe/Mike’s part) it’s legitimate growth from “Thinking about it extremely shallowly” to “thinking about it less shallowly than before.” Which is sort of what you were saying, but with an additional aspect of “he does this a lot.”

Comment #3: Auguste  on  08/12  at  10:52 AM

You know, the “Nice Guy” bullshit is particularly dangerous because its another myth to justify rape and degradation. 1st you have the “guys are so horny they can’t help themselves” myth that let’s the jocks rape with impunity, now you have the “nice guys can’t catch a break so they can only manipulate/lie or use rufies or similar” to rape you myth. And of course you hear tons of people say, yeah, girls only like assholes.

I met a “Nice Guy” a couple weeks ago for a first date, who I wasn’t into, politely rejected him in that it was nice to meet you kind of way, and then of course I got crank calls at 1 a.m. a couple days later from someone with his distinctive accent pretending that “I gave him my number at a bar” trying to prove that I’m such a slut that I must give my number out at bars to random assholes and hence that I wouldn’t even know which guy I gave my number out to or proving that after the coffee date that’s exactly what I did, go to a bar and give my number out. It was total passive aggressive, no aggressive aggressive bullshit to prove that I’m a slut and must be punished (because a slut of course is someone who sleeps with NOT YOU “Nice Guy”). Since I wasn’t interested in him romantically/sexually, I deserve to be punished and in some slut-shaming way. Looking back, I’ve met tons of “Nice Guys”—I just really wish I could meet a decent human being.

Comment #4: Thealogian  on  08/12  at  10:52 AM

For what it’s worth, this is a win for the Internet - it gives the Nice Guy/PUA types a lot more time to talk to each other, but it does get you called out in a way you rarely will in real life.  And sometimes, if you get called out, you actually change your behavior and think differently.

I do think that the NG/PUA problem is solvable, at least in individual cases.  The whole system of “geeky guys who can’t get a date and just gripe about it” is such a self-serving loop it really demonstrates the need to call people out on bullshit wherever you see it, because even beyond a successful conversion, there’s just such a huge need in those kinds of spaces to say “You’re full of shit.”

I think Randall Munroe and XKCD does a good job of this pretty regularly.  There was this, of course (http://xkcd.com/513/) and these guys need to hear it from all sides.

Comment #5: Billingham  on  08/12  at  10:58 AM

Oh, and I forgot to mention that since I am the sex-class, I staid awake slightly paranoid about break-ins, rape, how far was this harassment going to go, etc. because of course for him, the harassment was a joke with friends with some seriously fucked up intent (and depending on the individual it could get ugly, it hasn’t because I reported him to the online dating site and that seems to have scarred him off) but rape-culture isn’t just about actual instances of rape, but about the constant, low level anxiety that alerts me to parking in safe places, not walking at night alone in certain areas, worrying about my windows being locked at my house, etc. So his harrassment is just a stronger trigger for all those cultural instincts to kick in and make my sleep fucked up that particular night, which impacted my job performance the next day, which could have real repercussions for me financially, professionally, and socially though it was “just a tiny thing.”

Comment #6: Thealogian  on  08/12  at  10:58 AM

I doubt it has much of anything to do with “growth” or “change.” People who are superficially aware of a concept or practice (DeBeers and diamond-mining, for example) can take a position that they realize after even a small amount of further research is actually incompatible with their beliefs.  Someone who’s a garden-variety asshole can delve into a community of flaming assholes drawn together by their quest to become weapons-grade assholes and be repulsed without altering (or desiring to alter) their status as a garden-variety asshole.

Comment #7: preying mantis  on  08/12  at  10:59 AM

I can’t believe that somebody with a fake copper nose attached with paste who spends all day recording and transcribing astronomical observations has time for this sort of nonsense.

Comment #8: norbizness  on  08/12  at  11:03 AM

Billingham—Yeah, I read through the whole thread and I really didn’t get the impression that Gabe had any sort of come to jesus, that he was really just shutting down because he’d bumbled into a hornet’s nest and now he wants out.

If you find yourself in the center of a firestorm like that, you’re going to get a shit ton of email that will be pretty well divided between

a) “d00d, you’re so right, the bitches are shallow, no one understands how terrifying it is to talk to them, waaaahhhhhhh” and
b) “WTF is wrong with you—we’re human beings, not points to be scored in a videogame, and if you think talking to women is terrifying, try being a woman and wondering if you can trust the guy who’s hitting on you not to rape you.”

Actually taking b) seriously and not just getting defensing and being an ass, when you’ve got a bunch of people reaffirming you with a) is going to take a lot of personal strength that I think 95%+ of us don’t have.

It’s pretty obvious from his final post that he still “doesn’t get it.” He vaguely understands that he’s pissed a bunch of people off, but he’s also gotten a lot of people who agree with him, and he’s not really going to try to understand how the people who are pissed off might have a point, he’s just going to pay lipservice to the fact that they’re pissed off without actually challenging his own beliefs. He’s still staunchly in the “omg women are so terrifying—maybe a ‘system’ is the way to go, even if this one is a little on the creepy side, the theory is sound!” category.

Comment #9: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/12  at  11:17 AM

Yeah, I think Mighty Ponygirl is right here, despite my optimism upthread.  The “this is a mix of stuff, some good, mostly sleazy” isn’t exactly a ripping condemnation, it’s a sort of bland opinion to resolve the immediate flack you’re taking.  “Sleazy” isn’t the worst thing in the world.

That said, I hope that some of their millions of readers (hundreds of thousands?  That shit is popular) decided to move a little towards humanity through this.  A public calling out, even if it’s debated, is better than unquestioned bullshit.

Comment #10: Billingham  on  08/12  at  11:26 AM

“Negging” is a predatory social strategy. Period. It’s not a thing like affectionate teasing between people who know each other well. It’s intended to establish social control (I have the right to judge you) and to get the target to behave in a certain way—specifically, proving the negative statement wrong.

Tycho’s buddy either knows this perfectly well, or is so immersed in his own bullshit that he can’t and won’t see it.

Comment #11: mythago  on  08/12  at  11:38 AM

Yeah, Gabe clearly is more frustrated at being called a douchebag than he is serious about changing his thinking on this subject. This echoed strongly for me as it mirrored so many “can’t blame men for” threads I’ve seen before. By “not blaming”, they are not tacitly, approving of the behavior they write about, and often clearly are bullshiting from the get go because they not only tacitly but openly approve of and think the behavior is appropriate in the scenario in question.

Also, Tycho’s friend (and his reaction to the friend) is demonstrative of how by constructing those who most egregiously perpetrate the offending -ism as alien monsters devoid of humanity or commonality with people you might know, anyone who does not pass the inhuman monster test is given a free pass to be a complete *ist fuckwit.

Comment #12: de_le_te  on  08/12  at  11:52 AM

The neg gets attention because it SEEMS like an insult, but it’s more a gesture of comfort, a sign that you, the suitor, aren’t going to bend your natural conversational style for the sake of trying to impress a woman.

Which assumes that all women believe that the “natural conversational style” for all men involves casual insults and power games aimed at people they’ve just met. How comforting it must be to assume that every man is a psychopath.

This is playground-level stuff, a tarted-up version of “he’s only mean to you because he likes you.” The PUAs might as well hang out a Little Rascals “He-Man Women-Hater’s Klub” shingle for all the good their courses will do.

Comment #13: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  11:56 AM

That one paragraph about “negging” belies any kind of knowledge about women. “Beautiful women” aren’t perfect ice queens surrounded by humble admirers. Like anyone else, many conventionally beautiful women have body image insecurities and many are targets of hostility and resentment from strangers. And the antidote to bending over backwards is to treat someone someone in a casual, laidback manner; going to insulting just shows up his mean streak for what it is.

“Running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators” is pretty much the most perfect phrase I’ve ever heard. People have no idea of how often some women get hassled, how exhausting it is to deal with. Of how obnoxious and disturbing it can be to have the everyday men you deal with - from maintenance men to the IT guy at work to friends’ husbands to the public - constantly insert a sexual agenda into your interactions, and then get hostile when you don’t comply. Especially because there’s this false idea that only really beautiful women get hassled, and therefore it can’t be that big a problem for more average women.

Comment #14: Veronica  on  08/12  at  12:10 PM

Like anyone else, many conventionally beautiful women have body image insecurities and many are targets of hostility and resentment from strangers.

In fact, a lot of very attractive women have Pretty Girl Syndrome. Guys who aren’t assholes don’t approach them because said guys are convinced that ‘she’s so gorgeous she’d never talk to me’. Assholes, of course, think they’re entitled to have Penelope Cruz beg them for a date, and so the only guys who approach these women are assholes.

Comment #15: mythago  on  08/12  at  12:18 PM

If you read through Gabe’s full comments, his thought process becomes a little more clear—he intentionally took a more firmly pro-seduction line at the beginning of the conversation just to make the argument more interesting, then apparently decided to be more clear about his actual opinion once he had read up on this stuff and received a fuckton of e-mail about it. 

I think it’s also helpful to see where his tentative sympathy for this stuff is coming from—as someone whose anxiety and depression were truly crippling in social situations, especially with women, he empathizes with men who feel bewildered and that they need help learning to be social.

While I think that it is pretty clear that the men directing this stuff, and many (most?) of the men signing up for these classes have serious misogyny issues, it is also true that there are plenty of not-necessarily-misogynist men who are introverted, socially inept, etc and are simply attracted by the promise of learning how to interact successfully with women.  And I would bet that some of the apologists for these seduction scams are coming from this camp—they have experienced the problems that ‘pick-up artists’—claim—to be offering help for, and so they take PUAs at their word rather than looking more closely and seeing them for what they really are.

Comment #16: ladybronwyn  on  08/12  at  12:23 PM

Like anyone else, many conventionally beautiful women have body image insecurities and many are targets of hostility and resentment from strangers.

And if they act like stuck up bitches from the get-go, it’s probably because they just can’t/don’t want to deal with pushy guys who ultimately get angry when rejected.

I’ve heard the occasional complaint that really hot female bartenders tend to be really bitchy.  Assuming that’s true, I can’t blame them.  They work in a service industry (and we all know how that goes) where their clients are drunk and less inhibited.  They’d have to act standoffish and mean just to get through the night.

Comment #17: keshmeshi  on  08/12  at  12:30 PM

And that xkcd comic is the best criticism of the “friend zone” I’ve ever seen.  On Slog the other day, Dan Savage posted a send up of the same thing and it was amazing how angry the male commenters got.  Their complaints basically boiled down to women owing them sex for pretending to be their friends.  I couldn’t even begin to explain why that was so fucked up.

Comment #18: keshmeshi  on  08/12  at  12:37 PM

Delurking. This whole discussion is a lifesaver for me. I was a model and an actor (I hate the word actress) in NYC through my twenties and into my thirties. I always thought that ALL people were mean and weird and crazy, and I also thought I was a bad person, because that’s what everyone told me.

Then, one day, I was in my forties and (for whatever crazy value of) overweight, and all of a sudden people were nice to me—like, really nice—not weird, not crazy, not hateful and full of scary rage, but really, genuinely nice. And, more to the point, I was no longer told I was a bad person.

Not being the Hot Girl(tm) made my life so much better and totally different. I was just another nice smart funny person, surrounded by nice, calm, reasonable people who treated me kindly.

And I remember thinking, “I haven’t changed at all, I am still the exact same person I’ve always been.” The only thing that had changed was my physical appearance (which I had NEVER EVER been confident about) and that changed changed my world. Because now people are OK with me…

I am not complaining about being the Hot Girl (tm)—it got me a lot of jobs and money and interesting anecdotes. But I love love LOVE being “fat” and middle aged. I am free for the first time in my life.

So, this discussion clarifies how I was trained / brainwashed my whole life to consider myself as “an obstacle to the pussy” and how the hatred, fury, and total insanity directed at me ran my life and led to severe anxiety and depression.

And how happy and grateful I am to be allowed finally to just be another person, and not some vicious evil siren who Ruined Good Men’s Lives… for no reason except that apparently I still had some lingering sense that I was actually a human being with my own life to live as best I could.

It’s very difficult to talk about, and I feel like reiterating that I’m not complaining about privilege—only I am so relieved to not have that particular “privilege” anymore. Because my life is so SO much easier and nicer and more fun now. And this discussion clarifies why—it shows me the other side—how I must have looked to people and how they felt about me. And how it wasn’t my fault. Being the Hot Girl (tm) sucks ass and is total hell in many many ways.

OK, relurking now…

Comment #19: mg_65  on  08/12  at  12:43 PM

Sorry, another thing: “Running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators” is the best description of my life I have ever heard, and now that I am apparently allowed to be a human being now that I am no longer the Hot Girl (tm), I Do. Not. Miss. It.

Comment #20: mg_65  on  08/12  at  12:45 PM

It’s not a thing like affectionate teasing between people who know each other well. It’s intended to establish social control (I have the right to judge you) and to get the target to behave in a certain way—specifically, proving the negative statement wrong.

I always thought “negging” was a natural social interaction as interpreted by people with few or no social skills, who don’t realize that friendship has to be earned, and that being teasingly insulted by a friend is socially and emotionally different from getting the same treatment from a stranger. A certain type of socially inept person seems to think all people and all social interactions are interchangeable, and if they just act exactly like they’ve seen other people act in what they assume to be equivalent situations, they’ll get the same reactions. It’s like they’re trying out techniques they learned at a sales seminar. It makes me wonder if they have real friends, or if they just assume their friendships and their genuine relationships are exceptions to the rule.

Comment #21: junk science  on  08/12  at  12:51 PM

“Running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators” is pretty much the most perfect phrase I’ve ever heard. People have no idea of how often some women get hassled, how exhausting it is to deal with.

When I was living in NYC, not three months would go by at a time without a young woman coming up to me out of the blue on the subway and asking to sit with me or escort her to the turnstile at her station because some creepy guy was following her or trying to chat her up or feel her up. I always remember how mortified those girls were (and sometimes they were actual teenaged girls).

Combine that with the regular cat-calls I saw women get when they were just walking down the street, and even then I still can’t imagine how tiring that gauntlet must get for the women targetted.

Comment #22: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  12:53 PM

The “neg” and the “patterns” are pretty objectifying but what gets me more is the entire “collectors club” aspect of it, where members get to compare their stories of “the hunt”.

PUA teachers have a method of how to get any woman into being your “fleshlight” (goggle it). A hole to wet your wick. How can this be good for women ?

FFS, if you need sex that desperately, pay for it rather than paying for a class on how to con other human beings into giving you it for free.

And if it’s not about sex, then you are a jerk and deserve all the rejection you are getting. In spades.

Comment #23: lostmypassword  on  08/12  at  12:55 PM

mg_65:

An interesting story and a cautionary tale to boot.  I’m happy for you.  There is something to the whole “life begins at 40” thing.  It doesn’t, of course, but it does change.  Besides, you are surely wiser and perhaps more interesting now than you ever were.  Delurk more often.

Comment #24: Magis  on  08/12  at  01:05 PM

The marks, because they’re infatuated with the idea of manipulation, are easy to convince to play cover-up for the programs, presenting themselves as so pathetic that you have to feel bad for them and ignore that they objectify women in the most serious way, refusing to take a woman’s will seriously and assuming all women have one personality.  This often works, because people take men’s problems more seriously than we take women’s, and so we’re eager—-due to sexism—-to worry more about some guy who needs to learn to be calm when talking to a woman* than to worry about the fact that women, especially young women (though it’s not limited to that), have to live their lives running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators.

PWNED

Comment #25: asdf  on  08/12  at  01:07 PM

I feel you’re way too generous, lady.  I realize PUAs play the “woe is me, women are scary” card—-and that obviously gets the geeks to flock to defend them—-but if you can swallow the whole “get any woman you want!” line, then you aren’t innocent any longer.  You’ve signed onto the idea that a woman’s will is merely an obstacle, that women are the enemy.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  01:09 PM

mg_65: no, you’re not complaining about privilege. Being on a pedestal so that you’re a clearer target is a very minimal privilege indeed.

I always thought “negging” was a natural social interaction as interpreted by people with few or no social skills

No, “negging” is a predator social strategy. Sure, people with low social skills use insults and teasing because they don’t understand that you need a certain level of intimacy and trust before those become friendly, rather than hostile. But the “negging” PUAs teach is designed as a display of power (Mike almost admits that) and to push buttons.

Comment #27: mythago  on  08/12  at  01:09 PM

And if they act like stuck up bitches from the get-go, it’s probably because they just can’t/don’t want to deal with pushy guys who ultimately get angry when rejected.

I don’t think that women’s actual behavior actually influences the pity party much.  Every time this topic comes up online or I deal with the aggrieved dudes in real life, I contend with their assumption that I’m stuck up.  I really don’t think that’s the case by any objective assessment.  In fact, I’ve generally had the opposite problem, of boyfriends and friends worrying that I’m too friendly and not afraid enough of men’s ill intentions.  It’s true!  I assume in good faith that a man who asks me for the time or what band is playing or whatever is actually just asking, unless he gives off distinct sexual vibes.

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  01:12 PM

mg_65 that is such a sad story!

You shouldn’t have to only feel safe when hidden behind layers of fat and wrinkles.  A lot of women give a blind eye to their growing obesity and let themselves go after marriage, just to force their way out of the “meat market”. It isn’t fair to be treated like a prize to be had, just because you want to look god for yourself and the people who love you.

Comment #29: lostmypassword  on  08/12  at  01:15 PM

@lostmypassword:

please don’t assume that mg_65 is no longer beautiful - she’s just no longer beautiful to a certain category of predators and assholes. Frankly, it’s part and parcel of being an asshole to think that wrinkles and/or fat are not beautiful. The more we see people as human beings, the more we appreciate their appearances.

Comment #30: CassieC  on  08/12  at  01:21 PM

Magis—that’s the funny part—I assure you I am the exact same person I always was.

Mythago, “Being on a pedestal so that you’re a clearer target is a very minimal privilege indeed.” is the frikkin AWESOME and I think I will make this my Facebook status.

Thanks, lostmypassword, it isn’t really sad, you know? I think my story has a very happy ending and I’m glad of it. Remember “fat” is a pretty meaningless word, especially for an ex-model.

I am really back to delurking now, because I am painfully shy and I feel really uncomfortable now—so embarrassing. I just wanted to tell Amanda that she is saving my mental life yet again. I love reading this blog and the comments so very much.

Comment #31: mg_65  on  08/12  at  01:24 PM

What CassieC said. I remember at some point between kids I grew my (dark, blonde) hair long. The first time I wore it down - instead of stuffed up under a hat - I was suddenly getting nonstop catcalls. Not because I was gorgeous or had changed my appearance suddenly, but because I had Long Blonde Hair (TM), which to a certain category of rock-crawler makes you an appropriate target.

Comment #32: mythago  on  08/12  at  01:29 PM

mg_65,

No need to worry, most of us here understand what you’re saying. If you’re happy and healthy at your current weight and age, and people are being nicer to you, that’s fantastic.

And no need to be embarrassed about your comments. Feel free to delurk again on any old topic that strikes you.

Comment #33: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  01:31 PM

I think the thing about manipulation is important, not just because the marks are being manipulated by the people selling them seminars, but because lots of adolescent (and chronologically post-adolescent) guys take manipulation as their default model of human behavior. Manipulating people gets results and gives the manipulator a feeling of power, at least until the people decide they don’t want to be around somebody like that. (It probably explains why the PUA types don’t particulary have guy friends either.)

Comment #34: paul  on  08/12  at  01:32 PM

As the epitome of what the PUA-types would call an “AFC”, I almost fell for the PUA nonsense. Eventually I realized that I absolutely loathe 99.9% of the PUA   stuff out there. Most of it seems to boil down to “Chicks dig assholes, so     here’s how you become an asshole”.

I don’t want to be an asshole.  My stepdad was an asshole.  I grew up seeing   what being an asshole does to a person, to a relationship, to a family.  And my conscience won’t allow it.  While my rational mind keeps saying that PUA stuff makes sense, and may even be effective (the jury’s still out on that), my     conscience screams, “Try it and I shut you down.” (PUA types call that being an AFC.  My psychiatrist calls it severe social anxiety.)

However, it’s unwise to tar every self-help resource for shy men with the same brush as the mass-market PUA stuff. There are “PUA” resources that don’t teach guys to be manipulative dickheads. I’ve been listening to an audiobook called   “Overcoming the Nice Guy Syndrome”, by Ron Louis and David Copeland. It could   be described loosely as a PUA system, but it doesn’t seem to have the “hunting” mentality. Neither does it promise to let you sleep with any woman. In fact,  much of the advice deals with giving women ways to express her lack of interest.

In other words, it appears to be genuinely about giving guys like me the     confidence to do what normal guys, the “good guys”, do naturally.

I really hope I’m not wrong about this.

Comment #35: Benjamin Geiger  on  08/12  at  01:34 PM

What CassieC said. And also: “let themselves go”? Srsly? Freeing up your time and money from the body-altering rituals of normative femininity is so not a defeat. It’s a victory, and quite often a victory of self-esteem: women find worth in their relationships, careers, families, as they grow older. The reason PUAs target the young is exactly because they have very little actual life achievment (usually) to base their self esteem on, and are so easier to manipulate. Your actual dress size or the amount of mousse in your hair really have nothing to do with it.

Comment #36: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  01:35 PM

mg_65, I’m also a very shy person, and was also considered a stunner when I was younger (think Kate Winslet in ‘Holy Smoke’). I never tried the modelling thing at all—I was more of a busty, stripper-looking type, and there was no way I would have done that since it involves way too much interaction with strangers. 

God, the staring really bothered me. And people just assumed that I was stuck up, since I tended to be quiet and avoid people’s eyes—I had several jobs where co-workers just plain didn’t talk to me, and I was way too self-conscious and awkward to try to remedy the situation.

I’m just fine being bespectacled, middle-aged, and chubby. And I’m approached by a much better class of men these days. (Not that it matters—I’ve been married to the same great guy since I was twenty—I got the hell out of the dating pool as soon as possible.)

Comment #37: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  08/12  at  01:37 PM

Lost - the sad part of the story was the constant harassment she received as a young woman, not the fact that she stopped being a slender young hottie. Also, you might consider that women “let themselves go” because the immense effort involved in maintaining patriarchy-approved good looks is no longer worth it. I, for one, consider it a happy event when anyone decides to focus their money and time on things that make them happy instead of trying hard to keep looking good for others.

Comment #38: Denise  on  08/12  at  01:40 PM

Benjamin @35 - such programs do exist, and I hope you found one.

I once went to visit a friend who had a “How to meet women” type of book in his library (I was hanging around the house while he was at work). I was horrified that my friend, who is a decent sort, was reading this book - it had a picture of a woman undressing on the cover, for crissake.

Turned out that the book started off admonishing the male reader that women go through a lot of shit that men don’t, which was important to keep in mind anytime one’s thoughts drifted to ‘man, chicks are crazy’. It spent the rest of the book explaining ways to be confident, considerate of others, and considerate of oneself. In other words, be a mensch, don’t put up with mistreatment, and think of women as people.

Comment #39: mythago  on  08/12  at  01:45 PM

I’ve been the recipient of what I’m sure was “negging” from guys in the past.  Whether or not it was the result of some kind of tutelage the guy got or he just being an asshole is unknown to me.  It made me feel a few different things, but comforted was never one of them.  Usually it either made me feel like shit because it was a guy I was interested in or it was a guy I wasn’t into, in which case I thought “what a douche”.  That said, I did go on to date some of the guys I liked who negged me because I was attracted to them and maybe laboring under some illusion that I’d win them over but, oddly enough, the relationships never went very well or lasted long.  Funny that.

Comment #40: DonnaDiva  on  08/12  at  01:46 PM

Reading these threads I just realized I did give a “neg” to a young woman, although it was almost 20 years ago, long before the term was coined. Also, I didn’t realize I was doing it.

We met on a blind date, and as we were walking to the bar, I commented on a Honda Civic with a leather “bra” on it (remember those?) “Who the hell would put a bra on a Honda Civic? (chuckle)”

Of course, it was her car.

And, of course, the rest of the date went spectacularly badly. Including her (very obviously) giving her phone number to another guy right in front of me at the bar.

Sigh.

All’s well that ends well, though…the next blind date I had was the woman I’ve been married to for 15 years.

Comment #41: Dr. Shrinker  on  08/12  at  01:49 PM

I’ve been listening to an audiobook called “Overcoming the Nice Guy Syndrome”, by Ron Louis and David Copeland. It could be described loosely as a PUA system, but it doesn’t seem to have the “hunting” mentality. Neither does it promise to let you sleep with any woman. In fact, much of the advice deals with giving women ways to express her lack of interest.

I didn’t particularly like the title (nothing wrong with being a genuinely nice guy), so I looked up the blurb on Amazon:

Very often shy men know exactly what they “should” do with women. They “should” say hi. They “should” ask women out. But for some reason, they can’t get themselves to do it. We now understand these reasons, and know how to overcome them—and so can you, with this new audio course.

If you are a shy guy, all the “techniques,” “pickup lines,” or “motivational visualizations” in the world won’t help you. The problem deeper than that, and has to be addressed, or you will stay shy. This course addresses those deeper reasons, and gives you concrete, tested ways to become less shy with women.

Imagine going from feeling guilty, afraid, or ashamed with women to feeling good about showing romantic interest, and having it work for both you and the woman! That’s what Overcoming the Nice Guy Syndrome is about.

This course is for you if:

• You often seem to end up a woman’s “friend” when you would rather be lovers
• You have an especially difficult time showing sexual interest in a woman
• Deep down, you feel like showing romantic or sexual interest in a woman is “using” her in some way, unless you get into a relationship with her
• Women feel safe with you, but then go with “bad boys,” whom you don’t want to be like, no matter what the cost
• You are especially shy with women and feel guilty when you try to talk with them

So it seems it’s mainly about overcoming sexual guilt issues, which is very different programme from what we’re discussing when we talk about PUAs. If anything, the men this product is targetted at don’t have the NiceGuy®‘s sense of entitlement, and are more scared of women than contemptuous and suspicious of them.

Comment #42: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  01:52 PM

Nah, that wasn’t a neg, Dr. S. It was just common or garden variety gaucheness… wink

Which kind of highlights the real awfulness of negs, actually: imagine guys trying to be that tactless on purpose, learning it, practicing it… What kind of people are they? *shudder*

Comment #43: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  01:55 PM

We met on a blind date, and as we were walking to the bar, I commented on a Honda Civic with a leather “bra” on it (remember those?) “Who the hell would put a bra on a Honda Civic? (chuckle)”

Of course, it was her car.

That’s not a “neg,” it’s a gaffe. A “neg” is a deliberate act—the PUAs teach their disciples to pick out something about a woman (hairstyle, voice, etc.) and stick her with a light jab about it within minutes of meeting.

And really, who the hell would put a bra on a Honda Civic? Probably the same sort of person who’d end a blind date by giving her number to another guy in front of her date.

You dodged a bullet there, Doc. Glad to hear things worked out.

Comment #44: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  01:59 PM

You shouldn’t have to only feel safe when hidden behind layers of fat and wrinkles.  A lot of women give a blind eye to their growing obesity and let themselves go after marriage, just to force their way out of the “meat market”. It isn’t fair to be treated like a prize to be had, just because you want to look god for yourself and the people who love you.

lostmypassword, I know mg_65 and others have already addressed this but I have to add that there’s a wide range between the weight where a woman is no longer deemed conventially “hawt” and that which puts her health at risk.  I too have put on some weight and lost some muscle tone since I decided now that I’m 40 that I have better things to do with my life than pull what is essentially a part-time job at the gym.  I’d like to lose a few pounds and get back in some semblance of shape but my blood pressure and cholesterol are absolutely fine.  And please - “blind eye to their growing obesity”?  GMAB.  The day we live in a society when women are not acutely aware of their weight and size at any given moment will be remarkable indeed.

Comment #45: DonnaDiva  on  08/12  at  02:00 PM

Echoing Gracchus: telling someone what you really think (“that car sure looks stupid”) is not a neg, and so your interaction falls under the “discovering mutual incompatibility nice & fast” category.

Comment #46: CassieC  on  08/12  at  02:08 PM

“We met on a blind date, and as we were walking to the bar, I commented on a Honda Civic with a leather “bra” on it (remember those?) “Who the hell would put a bra on a Honda Civic? (chuckle)”

Of course, it was her car.”

Could have been worse, I suppose.  I remember reading a blog post in which the author happened to have gotten an extremely passing bee in their bonnet about wine critics while at a friend’s party.  Managed to spend the entirety of the only time, before or since, they’ve felt the need to talk about wine critics in public ranting rather savagely about what snotty, useless bastards the lot of them are.  To, naturally enough, someone who turned out to be a wine critic.  Not quite as good as finding out that the person you’ve been trying to out-smartypants all night actually wrote the book you’re recommending to them on the subject under discussion, but still.

Comment #47: preying mantis  on  08/12  at  02:08 PM

Reading these comments about negging, and thinking about Amanda’s comment on how she doubts PUAs work on all that many women, I just want to throw in that I know some of these strategies worked on me as a young woman.  Not necessarily being directly negged - if you came up to me acting like an asshole, I could pretty well call you an asshole.  But I’m just reflecting on how in my early twenties I followed both the spurious logic of negging (namely by feeling like I had to prove myself against implicit or explicit criticism - you girl! - and be a hardass, manlike woman by drinking and fucking competitively) and the spurious logic of nice guyism (well, he’s not mean… or ugly… there’s not a ton of reasons to not fuck him, so…).  It took me years to locate my own desire in the offal of everything I had learned my desire should or should not be.

So I think that the PUA junk does work on a significant number of the targeted (young, conventionally attractive) women, if the women have internalized the pertinant narratives.

That’s part of what makes me SO MAD when people unthinkingly excuse PUAistry and its adherents.  They’re vicious, but a different kind of predatory way than shooting giraffes from the back of a jeep.  They’re scavengers, targeting the demographic that are least likely to believe confidently in their own humanity.

Comment #48: Tanglethis  on  08/12  at  02:10 PM

Up-Up-Down-Down-Left-Right-Left-Right-B-A-Select-Select-Start!

Comment #49: jamie d  on  08/12  at  02:12 PM

Honestly this whole conversation about PUAs lately has me terrified.

I married at 18, to my second boyfriend. My first boyfriend was emotionally abusive (unintentionally so, his home life was seriously fucked up, to where our terror of his mom kept me from getting BC pills until it was too late- she claimed to have someone ‘watching’ the PP clinic) and I responded back in kind I am sure in some ways and became almost stalker-ish after he broke up with me on his graduation night, having become so dependent on him I couldn’t “live’ without his validation.

Seventeen years of marriage later my soon-to-be ex filed for divorce out of the blue. Granted, we had just been co-existing for years, but I am still dealing with the idea that I’m a failure. I became a stay at home mom while he went into the military, got training, etc and after he got out I was expected to get a job though he refused to take a hand in helping find child care etc (I have MDD and bad anxiety and wanted that taken care of so it would be a boost to me getting into school or working). Without going into gritty details about an open marriage and him eventually taking control of all the finances (closing the joint bank account while I was out of town and not telling me for months) my depression got so bad it was all I could do to get up in the morning, get the kids to school, and function a bit. I wanted to get marital counciling; he wanted me to get off my ass and get a job and put out. And of course, it’s all my fault in my mind for NOT getting off my ass and making something of myself, disabled child be damned, clinical depression be damned. It’s all an excuse and I’m a fuckup.

So now over a year after the filing I’m still unemployed, living off his support, and terrified of what’s going to happen when there’s no more alimony. And I still have no clue how to get on the social scene. My social anxiety makes it impossible to make phone calls or ask a salesperson for help a good portion of the time, but I NEED to be around other adults.

I’m terrified I’m going to be an incredibly easy target for these people. I have NO self esteem to speak of. I am scared to even go to a bar alone because it’ll be “wrong” somehow for me to be there. So when and if someone deigns to speak to my size-16 self ... what will happen? Am I going to be so thrilled to even be acknowledged as a human being that I’ll fall into whatever bullshit is thrown my way? It’s one thing to be logical standing back, speaking on a message board, saying “I see what they try to do; I can brush it off” and what will happen when I’m approached in my anxiety-ridden and self-hating state.

Apologies for the self-loathing novel here, but honestly- I truly am terrified.

Comment #50: TheRealistMom  on  08/12  at  02:16 PM

TheRealistMom:

I just posted on the original thread.  I suggest instead of starting with the bar scene you join a political campaign or take acting lesson or volunteer for an animal shelter or some such.  Gives you a chance to get to know people gradually and observe them.  Join something you’re interested in.  It’s a preconsturcted social scene with an instant access to people of similar interests.

Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.  That may sound trite but it’s true.

Comment #51: Magis  on  08/12  at  02:28 PM

“And I still have no clue how to get on the social scene. My social anxiety makes it impossible to make phone calls or ask a salesperson for help a good portion of the time, but I NEED to be around other adults. [...] Apologies for the self-loathing novel here, but honestly- I truly am terrified.”

If it’s just adult company you need, you might want to get your feet wet again with activities and clubs that are traditionally female-dominated or are pretty much women-only for a while.  Not having to deal with psyching yourself out about romantic attention you’re not ready for and aren’t sure you can handle might take some of the anxiety out of it.

Comment #52: preying mantis  on  08/12  at  02:29 PM

Something tells me the Konami code would work better than PUA tactics.

Comment #53: Godless Heathen  on  08/12  at  02:32 PM

TheRealistMom, I would advise simply to always keep in mind whether you’re feeling comfortable with how things are going and whether you’re enjoying yourself and if not, don’t do anything you feel uncomfortable with. You’ll probably run into the odd arsehole who tries to make you feel as if there’s something wrong with you for doing that, but if you don’t know them that well, why the hell should you do anything you’re not cool with?

Course I understand that in your current situation you’ll be uncomfortable with a lot of things, and that’s why the best idea is to, as people have mentioned above, find a hobby you enjoy. Through that you’ll meet like minded people you can talk to about things you have in common, and eventually be friends with. That way you can get used to going out with them in a group situation, and when you meet guys you’ll have that confidence booster at your back. Finally, I know all of that may feel useless to you but if you’re unsure of how you’ll react it probably is best to take things slowly and ease in.

You had the bad luck to get involved with two horrible guys but that’s no reflection on you as person and no reason to self-hate. And there are plenty of men out there with good intentions who want nothing to do with manipulating women into bed, but obviously it isn’t always easy to tell right off the bat, not least if you’re dealing with confidence issues on top. For what it’s worth I really hope things work out for you.

Comment #54: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  08/12  at  02:34 PM

Just an aside- I did make my first real foray a few weekends ago, by working as a volunteer at a Planned Parenthood booth at a Folklife festival. Being part of an organization I feel strongly about was definitely a plus- I need to get back in touch with the organizers to be involved in more events.

Comment #55: TheRealistMom  on  08/12  at  02:36 PM

Ignoring strange men intent on a pickup on the street usually doesn’t work: he has the “excuse” that you may not have heard him, and while repeating gets to work himself up into a lather that you’re being “rude” because you ignored him.

I’m reposting this, because it’s useful information:

It was in New York City as an under five foot girl that I evolved a system that kept me safe while getting rid of the PUAs, harassers, stalkers or whichever strange man was bothering me in a public place. To every approach I’d repeat in a monotone, “I’m terribly sorry, but I never speak to strangers on the street,” (or variation “I‘m sorry, but I never speak to strangers.”) rinse and repeat, move on. (Don’t smile, that can be seen as an encouragement.)

Yelling at the clods to leave me alone only got a psycho screaming at me and following for blocks, ignoring them meant that they could repeat their requests endlessly because, perhaps, they hadn’t been heard. A neutral tone and overtly “polite” line doesn’t give the psychos or PUAs an excuse to abuse you for your disinterest, or to continue to harass you, usually.

A request of any sort is responded to, again, neutrally, “No, thank you.” Rinse and repeat, go on your way. (With a bonus: if the request has been obscene, and the guy has friends around him, they then laugh at him after my “polite” response.)

However, if the clod persists after “polite” neutral-toned dismissals, I discovered how to deflect that too, largely because when someone was rude enough to frighten me, my next, natural response was anger that he’d had the nerve.

Righteous indignation after a line crossed, usually resulted in a PUA or strange man backing away and apologizing, believe it or not, as long as I made it a matter of manners.
“Do you realize how rude it is to follow me and frighten me!” Late at night, followed through empty blocks by drunks, and invariably apologized to.

However, if there were other people on the street and I was being followed, I’d point it out, “That man is following me!” and cross the street. That would end THAT.

(WARNING: If, after your neutral and monotone opening line the harasser immediately cycles into anger or abuse, don’t escalate the situation: repeat over and over in the same neutral tone, “I’m not interested. Please go way, please go away.”)

After I moved to Los Angeles and a guy in some sort of sports car followed me for blocks through Beverly Hills after I’d politely told him, no I didn’t want I ride, I turned once and gave him the frosty librarian, “I said, no thank you!”

Another half block of following, and I finally turned and spat, “Listen buddy, don’t fuck with me, I’m from New York.”

At which point PUA and sports car peeled out.

So that’s the system: overtly polite line in neutral, or monotone, rinse and repeat, usually deflects the harassers—until or unless he crosses the line, and then righteous anger (or threat) backs them off.

I’ve successfuly used this system for over 30 years, and can guarantee the above it works better that the PUA canned lines.

Comment #56: judybrowni  on  08/12  at  02:36 PM

The Realist Mom, meetup.com has meetups for people with social anxiety all over the country. I’m a big believer in the power of support groups, and it’s a good way to meet new people.

Comment #57: samanthab.  on  08/12  at  02:37 PM

no, you’re not complaining about privilege. Being on a pedestal so that you’re a clearer target is a very minimal privilege indeed. - mythago

I (think and hope) I get it:  being on a pedestal is not really a privilege but rather quite a hindrance.

However, to realize this does require a certain amount of empathy.  And it’s hard to muster that kind of empathy when you are Nice Guy(R) wallowing in self-pity.

Moreover, when you are on such a pedestal and getting hit on constantly, at some point you figure—“well, why not?”.  Possibly you are even in the position Tanglethis was in where you had internalized certain narratives and were the exact sort of target of PUA predators.  You end up dating a jerk, perhaps even having a short “relationship” with a jerk.  Of course, then you answer your question of “why not?”.  But still a Nice Guy(R) looking at all of this is gonna see that “a jerk was able to ‘score’ with a Hot Gal(TM) and not me” and resent anybody on a pedestal rather than the pedestal itself.  And they are then easy prey for PUA scammers, who’ll gladly (for a fee) teach you how to be a jerk.

PUAs are just predators, albeit, as we’ve learned, sometimes quite dangerous ones.  The real, fundamental problem, though, is the pedestal and the social roles men and women are supposed to play in the initiation of heterosexual relationships.  What I want to know is how do we promote needed social and cultural changes in these social roles which are really good for neither men nor women?

Comment #58: DAS  on  08/12  at  02:49 PM

TheRealistMom:
I just posted on the original thread.  I suggest instead of starting with the bar scene you join a political campaign or take acting lesson or volunteer for an animal shelter or some such.  Gives you a chance to get to know people gradually and observe them.  Join something you’re interested in.  It’s a preconsturcted social scene with an instant access to people of similar interests.
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.  That may sound trite but it’s true.

I second this type of advice and would add that I think you need friendships with WOMEN right now, most of all.

Comment #59: DonnaDiva  on  08/12  at  02:54 PM

It’s going to be fine, RealistMom—really. Just the fact that you’re aware you’re a potential target for these types means you’re less susceptible to them.

Don’t feel you have to jump back into dating right away (and stay away from the bars). Take some time for yourself (easier if you’re doing joint custody), re-connect with some supportive girlfriends (or make some new ones—maybe a book club?), and get yourself into a good state of mind. Then you can worry about romantic entanglements. A guy is not gonna cure the self-loathing and fear.

At 35, you’re still relatively young. Address the clinical depression (it sounds like you’ve made a start at it), find a low-intensity flexible “Joe job” to pay the bills and feel useful (not easy between your social anxiety and the current economy, but not impossible), and get your life organised and uncluttered to the point where some of that crushing fear is relieved. And do it not because your spouse or anyone else is demanding it, but because you want it, because it’ll make you feel better.

It’s going to be fine.

Comment #60: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  02:56 PM

Ok, I haven’t had time to read any comments yet, but I just want to leave one bit of advice for any man who may happen to read this.  While there are certainly a few women who are attracted to jerks for whatever reason, in many cases when you see women go for assholes, they choose that guy in spite of his jerkiness, not because of it.  I’ve even put up with some minor crap when it comes to casual hook-ups simply because I was so physically attracted to a guy.  For example, one hook-up buddy used to call in the middle of the night even though I told him not to.  However, he did stop calling me when he was drunk.  If I could find an identical looking guy who had a better personality, I would like that guy even more, not less.

Comment #61: bananacat  on  08/12  at  03:01 PM

Also, what mythago said.  People talk around “negging”, but this is what it is and what it’s supposed to do:  It’s taking advantage of the fact that women are expected to be perfect and this gives many low self-esteem.  You walk up to a woman (presumably with practice, you get better at sussing out who has major esteem issues ahead of time), take her down a notch, and dare her to prove that she’s actually got it together like women are supposed to.  Ideally, you do it with a backhanded compliment, because a direct insult gives her an excuse to get out of the situation, but a “compliment” means she has to stay or she’s a bitch.  So, like, “Nice tits, who did them?”  Southern ladies who lunch are the experts at the backhanded compliment, and yes, it’s a sign of social dominance. 

The idea is that if she has properly low self-esteem, she’ll try to win your good opinion by showing off, and if you can keep her along that path, she’ll have sex with you to prove that she’s sexy.  They don’t even really take pains to hide the fact that this is about stalking women with self-esteem issues.  Amanda Hess has a great blog post up about it, and she quotes one PUA manual:

These aren’t magic bullets.  They’re practical, actionable things that you can do to help you snag that gorgeous girl who it turns out has low enough self-esteem to actually go for you.

And it’s sprinkled throughout with reminders that the object here is to squelch your fear of women by hating them and thinking they’re shit:

Depending on exactly how “out of your league” the girl is, she’s probably not interesting either.  Unless she’s Mary-Louise Parker’s illegitimate daughter who got the hot genes from her mom and currently works as a spy for the CIA, chances are she’s just some random bitchy princess you want to sleep with, in which case — pat yourself on the back — she’s even less interesting than you.

Comment #62: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  03:03 PM

Also, mg_65, thanks for your comments.  There’s not a lot of room for discussion about the drawbacks to being pretty.  I think I’m far from the only woman who has done the mental game of wanting to be good-looking and not wanting the hassle.

Comment #63: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  03:05 PM

I assume in good faith that a man who asks me for the time or what band is playing or whatever is actually just asking, unless he gives off distinct sexual vibes.

I do too. 

For a certain number of these guys, anything that is not “yes, take me now” is an insult.  “That’s very nice of you, but I’m going to say no”?  Insult.  “It was lovely meeting you, but I have a boyfriend”?  Insult.  “I’m heading out now, nice chatting with you, have a good night”?  Insult. 

That type wants to get angry as much as he wants to get laid.  Maybe more.

Comment #64: killjoy  on  08/12  at  03:11 PM

Thank you, Amanda. You do great work—important and clarifying. I admire your courage and your smarts.

Comment #65: mg_65  on  08/12  at  03:14 PM

(and your hawtness)

/snark

Comment #66: mg_65  on  08/12  at  03:16 PM

It frustrates me endlessly the tired old trope of nerds needing to utilize these groups because their social skills are so nil, charisma scores so low, what with the D&D;and the video games and whatnot that they will never get girls. It frustrates me because although there are less girls into these items, there are still lots of girls! They may not all be supermodels, because few girls are, and when some vaguely attractive girl shows any interest it suddenly becomes a contest about who gets to fuck her, that all girls get legitimately scared away. I finally stopped hanging out with a lot of the gamer groups because so much devolved into misogynistic prattle* that I came away with less sympathy for the not-getting-a-girl whining.


* That or other tactics that tend to alienate people, like insulting people you’ve just met - and no, I don’t mean in the neg sense, I mean more the “oh hi I’ve just met you, your music/haircut/clothing sucks.”

Comment #67: Tenya  on  08/12  at  03:27 PM

The nerd thing also comes with a healthy case of wanting Playboy Bunnies or Lara Croft from Tomb Raider type girls, but having horrific hygeine, terrible interpersonal skills, regardless of whether or not they cashed in on the 90s tech boom. 

On more than one occasion I’ve had nerdboys say, “I need you to help me find a girlfriend.”  And I’ll point out two or three perfectly cute girls right there in the gaming or comic shop with us, one or more may even find the guy cute.  But he doesn’t want them, he wants Angelina Jolie.  And when I say, “You know pal…” I’m mean, and “they can’t help who they’re attracted to” and blah blah blah… but when a super hot girl isn’t attracted to them she’s a shallow bitch who only cares about looks and money.

:|

I think I get more use out of the straight faced emoticon than any other.

Comment #68: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/12  at  03:34 PM

that gorgeous girl who it turns out has low enough self-esteem to actually go for you.

pat yourself on the back — she’s even less interesting than you.

Are these “shorter” paraphrases, or is this is how they actually talk to their customers? (I’m not going to read a PUA manual; I have more than enough stress in my life right now.) If the latter, that’s kind of awesome, in a horrible, life-hating way.

Comment #69: junk science  on  08/12  at  03:39 PM

TheRealistMom, I know I sound like a broken record, but I can’t recomment The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift enough. They’re not scary OMG DONT GET RAPED books, they’re affirming, thoughtful and discuss how to avoid human predators WITHOUT being afraid all the time.

Comment #70: mythago  on  08/12  at  03:41 PM

And if they act like stuck up bitches from the get-go, it’s probably because they just can’t/don’t want to deal with pushy guys who ultimately get angry when rejected.

I can completely identify with this.  Ever since I was old enough to talk, I was the kind of person who would reach out to anyone who looked lonely or bored.  I ended up with some very close and wonderful friends this way.  Even in the cases where it didn’t become a permanent friendship, I’d help some kid get through a boring afternoon, or even just become more confident.  As I got older, I started growing boobs and became conventionally beautiful, and I ended up with this problem where I’d be very nice to a guy, and then he’d become attracted to me.  I felt really bad about rejecting them, so for several years in high school, I was extremely bitchy and snobby.  I wouldn’t insult the guy, but I’d insult celebrities in front of them so they would just stop liking me.  There was one guy who even said, “I used to have a crush on you, but I don’t like you anymore because you’re so mean”.  He didn’t realize that I already knew he liked me, and I was actually ecstatic to hear him say that.  No, I’m not gonna go off on how it’s so tough to be beautiful or how it’s lonely at the top, but it’s not all rainbows and puppies for conventionally beautiful people.

As for the “friend zone” XKCD comic, I can identify with that too.  During my sophomore year of college, there was one guy who suddenly started following me around like a puppy.  I wasn’t attracted to him in a romantic way, partly because he smelled like urine (fresh or stale, depending on the day) and because he didn’t always have the greatest personality.  Also, I just didn’t want a boyfriend at that time, and he wouldn’t have been interested in any kind of casual dating.  So, he became my Friend(TM), but it was really creepy.  I admit that I might have reached out an been nice to him first (I don’t really remember), but I’m careful not to blame myself for inviting this behavior.  He would go far beyond what any of my real friends would do.  Because we had combined classes for all types of engineering for the first 2 years, we had the same lecture 3 times a day to accommodate so many students, and we were allowed to go to any of them, even if it wasn’t the one we officially registered for.  So, halfway through the term, he suddenly changed his schedule to show up at the lectures I went to.  I strongly suspect that he was missing non-core classes because of this schedule change.  We usually had enough room for students to sit with one seat between them, but he’d sit right up next to me where I could smell him, as if he was afraid someone else would show up and sit between us.  If he had already found a seat in the class and I came in, he would move all the way across the room to sit with me.  When I had an hour in between classes but his classes were over, he’d stick around to sit next me to me while I was waiting, even though my real friends would go home and start studying, because we were all so busy.  He lived in a different direction, but he’d walk out of his way to go my way and walk beside me.  All of this was really annoying because I wanted that time between classes to study.  I ended up hiding out in bathrooms.  Fortunately, one bathroom on campus had a lounge with couches and a table.  Anyway, it was really, really obvious the whole time that he liked me, but he would just never ask me out or admit to it.  I wish he had just asked me out so I could say “no”, but how could I tell him that I don’t want to be friend with him?  I’d seem really heartless if I pretended that he didn’t like me romantically and that I just didn’t like having him around.  If I tried to explain it to him, he would deny that he liked me and then continue on with the sham friendship just to prove it and I’d never get out of it.  One day he told me that he had an extra ticket to a baseball game and that he desperately needed someone to use it.  If he had been a real friend, he would have known that I have absolutely no interest in sports, which I told him.  That’s the closest he ever came to asking me out, but I guess he finally accepted that I wasn’t interested, because he stopped bothering me after that.

Comment #71: bananacat  on  08/12  at  03:46 PM

This is very disappointing. I liked the Penny Arcade guys.

Comment #72: Entomologista  on  08/12  at  03:46 PM

Junk Science, I get the feeling that those are exact quotes.

Comment #73: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  03:47 PM

I, for one, want to also Praise you, Amanda, for the greatness that is the phrase: ““Running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators”.

Nothing could describe my early youth better. THIS should become part of the collective consciousness, a description everyone knows so they will know NOT TO DO THIS TO GIRLS, and also, for the girls, to DESCRIBE ACCURATELY what is happening to them.

(Like many another youth counter-culture type, my reaction was to make myself ugly on purpose with frumpy clothes, bad posture, giant glasses, and PICKING MY NOSE IN PUBLIC (!) so that the assholes would give me a wide berth. Seriously, why should any beautiful young girl have to do that? But that is what it took to stop the harassment. Oh, and I also cultivated, unwittingly, an “intimidating” self-absorbed presence.)

Comment #74: KMTBERRY  on  08/12  at  03:48 PM

GeekGirlsRule,

Very true.  90% of these losers don’t want a girlfriend, they want a magical creation of their ill-defined views of an ideal women.  They can’t even fucking articulate what they want, because they just have a bunch of incompatible adjectives in their minds.

No wonder they get bitter while an equivalent, but more sane, person has fun with a variety of women who appeal to him (and vice versa.)  “Don’t be creepy, admire the other people for who they are, be decent” is so simple it takes talent to fail at it.

Comment #75: gorobei  on  08/12  at  03:52 PM

People keep saying that negging is like playful banter, but it does not resemble playful banter at all to me. Is anyone really that passive-aggressive with their friends? When my friends and I tease each other, it’s usually a sarcastic/outandish straight-up insult. The only way I could see talking like that with one of my friends is if a) it was intended as a genuine compliment but came out wrong, or b) if I didn’t actually enjoy the person’s company. Intentional backhanded compliments are pretty much always power games, IMHO.

Comment #76: Lenina  on  08/12  at  03:57 PM

catgirl:

It would have been better for both of you if you’d have told him to fuck off long before.  Women are often accused by MRA’s and such as being “heartless.”  In my experience if women in general have a fault it is exactly the opposite.  You’ve had it drummed into to always be polite.  Stop it.

Comment #77: Magis  on  08/12  at  03:59 PM

Amen, Tenya.  There’s a lot of complaining about how women avoid certain spaces, and not a lot of talk about why that might be.  My boyfriend plays a zombie game on xBox, and the group he plays with a lot is mostly female.  This would probably astonish a lot of complainers, but it’s simple: He doesn’t assume that they’re less talented than they are because they’re women.  He listens as much as he talks to his teammates, and doesn’t immediately assume the mantle of leader.  He doesn’t use sexist terms or homophobic slang.  All these things are often considered too much of a sacrifice for a lot of dudes, it seems.  I like to play Rock Band online, and that game isn’t even that nerdy, really, but still I’ve grown totally cold to playing with random people because the intense asshole factor.  If guys want women to enter certain spaces, they need to worry more about why they don’t make those spaces appealing and less about winning the biggest douchebag award.

Comment #78: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  03:59 PM

It frustrates me endlessly the tired old trope of nerds needing to utilize these groups because their social skills are so nil, charisma scores so low, what with the D&D;and the video games and whatnot that they will never get girls. It frustrates me because although there are less girls into these items, there are still lots of girls! They may not all be supermodels, because few girls are, and when some vaguely attractive girl shows any interest it suddenly becomes a contest about who gets to fuck her, that all girls get legitimately scared away. I finally stopped hanging out with a lot of the gamer groups because so much devolved into misogynistic prattle* that I came away with less sympathy for the not-getting-a-girl whining.

I joined game club freshman year in college… in less than a year I was avoiding pretty much all of the events except the school dance we threw (lots more people, lots more non-nerds, more room to hide). Whenever I overhear people whining about where are all the rilly hot nerd girls, I want to interrupt them and scream “WE ARE AVOIDING YOU. ON PURPOSE. WE ARE DRESSING LIKE “NORMAL” PEOPLE AND STAYING HOME ON FRIDAYS WITH OUR OTHER-HOT-NERD-GIRL FRIENDS AND WATCHING FIREFLY. Where the HELL else would we be?”

My school is actually extremely liberal and has a very high percentage of both girls and nerds, and therefore lots and lots of nerdy girls. And the drama quotient gets *ridiculous*. And yeah, we end up spending a lot of time learning avoidance tactics. We have to. I end up getting *angry* at the “sad clueless nerd boys” because I believe them to be privileged in being able to remain clueless. I had to learn exactly how f***ed up they were whether I wanted to or not.

Comment #79: thecynicalromantic  on  08/12  at  04:02 PM

Lenina, 

I think a lot depends on how it is delivered.  Is the speaker trying to establish dominance, teasing, or advancing the conversation?  I probably delivered a “neg” last night about a girl’s age, but she brought up the topic, and I gave two numbers in reply:  a little negative, but gave her lots of options as to where to take the conversation.

Comment #80: gorobei  on  08/12  at  04:08 PM

The nerd thing also comes with a healthy case of wanting Playboy Bunnies or Lara Croft from Tomb Raider type girls, but having horrific hygeine, terrible interpersonal skills, regardless of whether or not they cashed in on the 90s tech boom.

The nerd thing (and the geek thing, as I well know) also comes with a love of complex systems—gaming systems, tech systems, stock-trading systems, workflow and production systems, fictional universe continuity systems, etc. They (ok, we) aren’t content to put something in one end of the black box and see what comes out the other end—we want to see how it works, or build our own.

The problem is, we’re susceptible to systems sold by “inside knowledge” hucksters, too—not because they’re any good, not because such a system has any credible place in long-term solutions to beating the casino or getting laid, but mainly because it’s a mysterious black box that the con-artist promises to open (usually on a slowww, pay-as-you go basis) for us.

Don’t even get me started on the hygiene and interpersonal skills these PUA systems are supposed to compensate for—I was a project manager and start-up executive during the dot-com, and saw what went on in the garages and shared houses and offices where coder types dwelt. It wasn’t pretty.

Comment #81: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  04:09 PM

Are these “shorter” paraphrases, or is this is how they actually talk to their customers?

That’s a direct quote from a PUA article.

Comment #82: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  04:09 PM

This is very disappointing. I liked the Penny Arcade guys.

I like them more after this, to be honest.  I thought they were both just garden-variety sexists, but they actually seem to be paying attention to what’s going on around them a bit.

Comment #83: JupiterPluvius  on  08/12  at  04:10 PM

People keep saying that negging is like playful banter, but it does not resemble playful banter at all to me. Is anyone really that passive-aggressive with their friends? When my friends and I tease each other, it’s usually a sarcastic/outandish straight-up insult.

There are certain people who could get away with saying “Nice tits, who did them?” to me, although none of them are strangers. Even heinous passive-aggression can be fun in context.

Comment #84: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:10 PM

I also think that shy humans can benefit from some guidance on how to make conversation with other humans—I know that books like Leil Lowndes’s and even the old Dale Carnegie books have helped me, as a shy human.

Comment #85: JupiterPluvius  on  08/12  at  04:11 PM

It would have been better for both of you if you’d have told him to fuck off long before.

Yes, I desperately wanted to do that and I realize you’re not blaming me.  But, not just as a woman but as a person living in a society, how can I tell someone that I don’t even want to be friends with him?  He didn’t do anything overtly unfriendly.  This would have been a dilemma for any person, male or female, and I think a big part of this situation was that he really did want a friend as much as a girlfriend.  I mean, you can turn down a request for a date, but nobody can turn down a request for friendship without a good reason.  If a man had said “I just don’t want to be your friend”, it would sound bad enough, but it’s even worse coming from a woman.  And on top of that, I really did feel sorry for the guy.

What would have really been best for both of us is if he had just asked me out in the first place so I could say no and then he wouldn’t have missed classes or rearranged his whole schedule for months.  The sad thing is, it was clearly obvious to me that he liked me and he seemed to have no idea that I knew it.  I just don’t like this idea that friendship can turn into something “more”.  Being my boyfriend isn’t necessarily a step above being my friend, it’s more like a step beside.  The two things are just completely different.  It’s not like I rank guys on a scale and they can move up the ladder if they just gain a few points.  I especially hate the idea that being friends with guys is just like interviewing them for boyfriend material, or that it’s impossible for men and women to have a genuine friendship without one of them trying to date the other.

Comment #86: bananacat  on  08/12  at  04:14 PM

Junk science: you’re probably right. I consider “nice tits, who did them” to be more of a regular old insult, and if you say it jokingly it might be sort of fun. The one I was specifically thinking of was, “if you were ten pounds lighter, you’d be a knockout”, which…. I don’t see how you could work that into fun. A lot of the negs also wouldn’t qualify as teasing unless you said them in a sarcastic tone (“don’t you know how unattractive it is when a girl swears?”), and it doesn’t seem like negs are supposed to be sarcastic.

Comment #87: Lenina  on  08/12  at  04:18 PM

“if you were ten pounds lighter, you’d be a knockout”

Oh, never mind. There’s no way I’d be friends with someone who said that shit to me. I’d take “You’re fat, quit eating,” over that.

Comment #88: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:23 PM

chances are she’s just some random bitchy princess you want to sleep with, in which case — pat yourself on the back — she’s even less interesting than you.

Did you see that? The author just negged the reader. Step 3: profit!

Comment #89: cycles  on  08/12  at  04:26 PM

Also, I didn’t realize how witless these “negs” actually were. “You’d be a knockout?” “It’s unattractive when a girl swears?” Are we hitting on women who want to date their fathers’ best friends?

Comment #90: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:26 PM

But friendship, with mutual attraction, can turn into a romantic relationship. I’ve read “describe your perfect relationship” statements on Jdate where they talk about wanting to find a friend and seeing what that develops into.

But arranging a class schedule to spend time with someone? I didn’t do that for my actual friends, it’s more fun to spend time with them outside of class. (Though, I admit, I did continue attending a class I dropped because a friend of mine wanted help understanding the material. But I had only dropped because I had decided that if I wasn’t positive I was going to get an A in the class, I really had no reason to be taking it for a grade.)

Comment #91: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  04:28 PM

Waiddaminute waiddaminute, when did we take it on board that this whole world is made up of guys with social issues? What, there are no women here who’ve ever had their advances humiliatingly rejected? Who’ve ever made advances in the first place? Who have been mooningly in love with a guy, letting him crib all our notes, agonizingly listening to all of his bellyaching about the Amanda Jones character they want to sink their whole college fund for just one date with? If John Hughes made a movie about it, you know it’s true, people!

I was personally part of a tragic and demented triangle of friend-I-was-secretly-in-love with while crying on the shoulder of his best friend who was secretly-in-love-with-me in highschool.

Say it with me one more time: women are people. The agonising shit that boys go through while growing up is agonising shit that people go through while growing up.

The sexual menace young girls and women have to run the gauntlet of is usually from older guys who’ve had plenty of time to have done their growing up via the shortcut of patriachy’s platitudes. Teenage/college geekiness is not a male affliction.

Comment #92: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  04:31 PM

Are we hitting on women who want to date their fathers’ best friends?

Possibly. From what I’ve read, it is something where the men are hitting on women in the 18-29 age group no matter how old they are.

Comment #93: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  04:31 PM

Did you see that? The author just negged the reader. Step 3: profit!

Yeah, it seems that PUA teachers use the same tricks to rake in money from their followers that they suggest those followers use.  Maybe these tricks are more effective than I first thought.  However, the whole thing sounds very much like a mild form of psychological abuse (if there is such a thing as “mild” abuse).  The thing about sending mixed messages was commonly used by my father against my mother, although it was often less subtle than a “neg”.  (Like telling my mom she shouldn’t wear skirts because she’s too sexy to other men, but then later telling her he wouldn’t be seen in public with her unless she wore a girdle.)

Comment #94: bananacat  on  08/12  at  04:31 PM

I just don’t like this idea that friendship can turn into something “more”.  Being my boyfriend isn’t necessarily a step above being my friend, it’s more like a step beside.

I don’t know; I like the idea of just making friends and seeing what it leads to. I agree that a romantic relationship is very different from a friendship, and not a step “above” it, but it really takes off some of the pressure if you treat everyone you meet like a potential interesting person to talk to without deciding what your relationship with them is going to evolve into beforehand.

Comment #95: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:32 PM

js,

“You’d be a knockout?” Horrible line, cuts off conversation, adds no new info, just a stupid insult.

“It’s unattractive when a girl swears?” Weak, but better than the above.  The woman has plenty of ways to respond interestingly, though the PUA has lost a couple of points for “dumb sexism.”  You might actually get a conversation (and thus rapport) going with this.  Still lame, though.

Comment #96: gorobei  on  08/12  at  04:36 PM

But friendship, with mutual attraction, can turn into a romantic relationship.

I didn’t mean to imply that friendship can never turn romantic, because it certainly does happen.  What I meant is that when it does happen, it’s not really a step “up” in the relationship, it’s like a step “over” in the relationship.  It’s just a different kind of relationship, and not something you can really work towards.  On that same thought, it’s not a failure to remain “just” friends because being friends isn’t lower than having a romantic relationship.

Waiddaminute waiddaminute, when did we take it on board that this whole world is made up of guys with social issues? What, there are no women here who’ve ever had their advances humiliatingly rejected? Who’ve ever made advances in the first place?

The difference is, when women have trouble getting a date, people advise them to lose weight, get Botox, use make-up, etc. or tell them to stop being shallow and settle for anything that comes along, or they are just ignored because women aren’t entitled to sex the way men are.  These are all important issues, but that’s a different topic.  While there may be a few classes telling women with poor hygiene how to “score” with a hot man half her age simply by being manipulative, these are rare and still probably emphasize appearance or make-overs over conning someone into thinking you’re interesting.

Comment #97: bananacat  on  08/12  at  04:38 PM

catgirl:

Yeah, but you knew he was doing the puppy-dog routine.  You’re just a nice person; that’s all.  But you can turn down an offer of friendship if the person isn’t being honest with you.  He didn’t want to “just be friends” whatever he said.  I’m sorry, this is none of my business nor is it my right to judge.  You were just trying to be decent.

A man can be friends with a woman UNLESS he doesn’t have an SO and he considers you to be SO material.  Then forget it; ain’t happenin’.

I only mention it because, as a man, believe it or not, if a woman isn’t interested I’d rather hear it sooner than later.  Again, sorry to be a buttinsky.

Comment #98: Magis  on  08/12  at  04:39 PM

What, there are no women here who’ve ever had their advances humiliatingly rejected? Who’ve ever made advances in the first place?

I would, but women are just so scary. I guess I’ll just have to troll bars until I find one bored or desperate enough to fall for whatever bullshit line I give her.

Seriously, yeah. I guess women who are shy or socially awkward or ever get rejected are just too pathetic and freakish to even consider, and probably don’t count as women in the first place.

Comment #99: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:41 PM

What, there are no women here who’ve ever had their advances humiliatingly rejected? Who’ve ever made advances in the first place?

There was a girl in high school who drove over and took me to a movie. I barely remember the incident. It was fun, but only happened once. I’m not sure what that was about.

There was also a woman in college that I did dinner and a movie with on almost a weekly basis for a year and a half or so. We started hanging out after she invited me to be the third wheel on a day out with a guy we worked with that she didn’t want to date. I wonder if she might have wanted a relationship because the moment she got a boyfriend, she stopped talking to me almost entirely.

I wonder if it might be harder for women because guys don’t expect women to ask them out and so some of us are entirely oblivious to any advances they might be making.

Comment #100: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  04:41 PM

Purely for the joy of sharing, some recent negs I’ve had from a variety of guys:

- “don’t you know girls shouldn’t drink pints? It’s unfeminine.”

- “I like all types of women. They’re all beautiful to me. Some are skinny, and some, like you, are a bit plumper. That’s fine with me.”

- “I found you easy to talk to because you’re not attractive enough to be intimidating.”

That last one had the advantage of making me roar with laughter. I still giggle thinking about it.

Comment #101: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  04:42 PM

Magis, if she shut down a guy like that before he asked her out, she’d be a presumptuous bitch who had no right to assume anyone would want to date her. There’s no right answer here.

Comment #102: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:43 PM

TheLady,

Do tell, how was it delivered, and when?  I.e. not a cold call, but after you both sorta indicated interest, or what?

Comment #103: gorobei  on  08/12  at  04:46 PM

*Something About Mary had the all-time best advice: masturbate beforehand, so you’re not as tempted to rush past the “believing she’s a human being with worth” part to the “fuck me already, goddammit” part.**
**Because Nice Guys® have a terminal case of taking themselves way too seriously, I want to warn you that the above is a joke.

really? are we now discouraging people from the stress relieving effects of frequent sexual release? I mean, we can say it’s a joke, but really, it isn’t bad advice. Walking into any attempt at forming a relationship while focused on your own need for sexual gratification means you’re going to be self-centered and impatient.

in fact, I’d actually recommend this outside of dating as well. Going to the bank? masturbate beforehand. heading for a family reunion? masturbate beforehand. Spacewalk to repair the Hubble? masturbate beforehand.

After all, it might help, and even if it doesn’t, it can’t do any harm.

Comment #104: karpad  on  08/12  at  04:51 PM

Junk:

Sorry, I don’t see it.  Or, were you kidding…?

Comment #105: Magis  on  08/12  at  04:51 PM

mythago: Haven’t caught up on all the comments yet, but wanted to comment on your “negs are a predatory social strategy”.

Yes. Absolutely. And like most predatory social strategies, it can work to some degree in some circumstances.  Used car salesmen use predatory social strategies, too.

The idea PUAs have that predatory strategies are the best ones give a lot of insight into how they view women, of course.

The thing is, the whole “I am not going to change my conversation style” thing has a basis in something sound. Being friendly and laid back and not seeming super impressed with someone and a gibbering fanboy is a sign of confidence and such. Assuming the only way to do that is to go right to trying to achieve dominance with something predatory like negging is ugly.

Comment #106: LC  on  08/12  at  04:51 PM

I wonder if it might be harder for women because guys don’t expect women to ask them out and so some of us are entirely oblivious to any advances they might be making.

For a given value of harder.

I honestly don’t know what the rejection rate is for normal, nice, non-freakazoid guys on trying to get somewhere (anywhere from hookup to lurrve) with a girl they like. So it’s theoretically possible that despite my many scars, I’ve actually had a good innings, compared with what guys go through.

However, what’s notable to me is the number of guys who rejected me explicitly because I was coming on to them rather than waiting for them to come on to me.

The guy from the “not too attractive” comment above? He ended up sending me an email after we met up a couple of times, telling me that he can’t see himself dating me because I’m too bossy and take over social sotuations in a way he can’t deal with. (for the record, it wasn’t on the table for him - he was doing the whole rejecting a non-come-on thing, but then he was several shades of crazy so maybe not the best example)

As far as I know guys don’t get the whole “I refuse to sleep with you just because you’re the one who voiced the idea first” thing. I’ve actually had guys tell me they’re too scared to sleep with me. Which, you know, self deprecation aside, is a little bit unfair. Last time I checked it didn’t have teeth.

Comment #107: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  04:53 PM

So it seems it’s mainly about overcoming sexual guilt issues, which is very different programme from what we’re discussing when we talk about PUAs. If anything, the men this product is targetted at don’t have the NiceGuy®’s sense of entitlement, and are more scared of women than contemptuous and suspicious of them.

Well, anyone who’d self-describe as a nice guy is probably nothing like what’s typically called as such in feminist discussions.  It’s really common for men/boys (straight ones anyways, but most are) to have no idea why anyone would date a man, or have any nonplatonic interest in a man.  They don’t.  There’s no real societal narrative for it, beyond maybe as a reward for providing someone with stuff/making them feel good about themselves.  (See http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/05/04/of-never-feeling-hot-the-missing-narrative-of-desire-in-the-lives-of-straight-men/ for more)  And so nice guys never ask women out directly because they can’t imagine her actually saying yes.  They put it off, hoping in the future circumstances will change.  I was definitely there (and still am, a lot).  I didn’t ask women out because holding the idea that they might agree to it was far too insulting to them to allow it to be verbalised.

One might say “think of women like they’re people”, but that’s not really meaningful (or necessarily not already being done.)  We come back to most straight men having no answer to the question “Why would someone want a non-platonic relationship with a man?”  Since they have no answer, they’ll take any answer over no answer at all, they don’t know any better.  Gabe demonstrates that pretty clearly with his “we have nothing they want” comment.  No reason to date a man.  Having no answer is a lot more widespread than nice guy-ness, and I think it’s a mistake to conflate the two.

Comment #108: Brian  on  08/12  at  04:53 PM

Yeah, but you knew he was doing the puppy-dog routine.  You’re just a nice person; that’s all.  But you can turn down an offer of friendship if the person isn’t being honest with you.  He didn’t want to “just be friends” whatever he said.  I’m sorry, this is none of my business nor is it my right to judge.  You were just trying to be decent.

Don’t worry; I never thought you were judging me.  The thing is that if I said I don’t want to be friends, he would ask why.  If I tell him it’s because I know that he likes me, he would be embarrassed and deny it, and then he’d continue to hang around me even more just to prove that he really didn’t like me that way in the first place, and also say that I’m arrogant for assuming that he liked me.  If I didn’t give him a reason for ending the friendship, I’m just a stuck-up bitch who is too good to be bothered with his presence.  Junk science is right; there was just no way to handle the situation well.

Comment #109: bananacat  on  08/12  at  04:53 PM

Magis, I meant that no matter what catgirl did, including assuming the guy wanted to date her and discouraging the friendship, the Nice Guy way of thinking would consider her a bitch and insufficiently considerate of the guy’s feelings. The only “right” and “considerate” thing would be to be his girlfriend like he wanted.

Comment #110: junk science  on  08/12  at  04:55 PM

“if you were ten pounds lighter, you’d be a knockout”

how about this as a response: “if you had 20 more IQ points, I might want to talk to you”!

on another note, just saw that Dan Savage is suggesting that a prostitute may have solved Sodini’s prob. Which is crazy. This wasn’t a case of the mythical “blue balls” (wev) but a case of sociopathic misogyny - the guy shot a bunch of women because women wouldn’t do what he wanted them to.

You think someone like that wouldn’t kill a prostitute? Or if he was married, his wife? that kind of stuff happens all the time, and suggesting any kind of partner for him, I think, is basically just suggesting another kind of victim.

This PUA stuff is not to suggest all desperate guys might be “driven to kill” but rather that PUA misogynistic stuff is dangerously enabling to women-hating sociopaths. (and women haters in general…)

Comment #111: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  04:55 PM

in fact, I’d actually recommend this outside of dating as well. Going to the bank? masturbate beforehand. heading for a family reunion? masturbate beforehand. Spacewalk to repair the Hubble? masturbate beforehand.

After all, it might help, and even if it doesn’t, it can’t do any harm.

Hell, why limit yourself to beforehand?

Comment #112: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/12  at  04:56 PM

I am really disappointed with the number of people who believe that the fact that he hadn’t had sex in a while had anything to do with the murders.

Comment #113: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  05:02 PM

Seriously, yeah. I guess women who are shy or socially awkward or ever get rejected are just too pathetic and freakish to even consider, and probably don’t count as women in the first place.

It’s the flip side of the “men will fuck anything female/women aren’t into sex” myth.  If you’re female and you can’t get the man you have the hots for to even look at you, you get defeminized in service to the myth.

Comment #114: killjoy  on  08/12  at  05:03 PM

The only “right” and “considerate” thing would be to be his girlfriend like he wanted.

Yes, this is exactly it!  He may not have even realized he was doing it, but he set up a situation in which any action besides marrying him would not fit into proper social behavior.

Comment #115: bananacat  on  08/12  at  05:06 PM

gorobei @103:

They were all different. #1 was completely cold, while I was ordering a round of drinks at the bar, and got sniggered at then ignored. #2 was an obvious sleazoid (gold bracelet, hair plugs, paunch, half-unbutoned shirt - textbook) trying to chat up my at the time very young sister, and me drawing his “game” onto myself to protect her, which worked better than anticipated because she didn’t want to even sit next to him after he insulted her big sister. #3 was after an hour long, very engaging conversation that was actually going somewhere. I think that guy just got scared at how much we were hitting it off and wanted to reassert his feeling of control of the situation by buying himself some cheap power. So yeah, the wondrous versatility of negs!

Comment #116: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  05:08 PM

i had a pretty horrific run of Nice Guys (TM) in early college (it took me a long time to figure out how to spot the red flags soon enough to get out early and resulted in my avoiding all straight male friendships for years afterward, unfortunately).  at one point, later in college, when i was calling a Nice Guy out on said behavior, said guy actually painstakingly explained (in his defense i guess) to me how no straight man would WANT to have a platonic friendship with me (because they’d all really just want to get in my pants).  gee, thanks for telling me how smart and funny i am, but that paradoxically, no guys are interested in reaping the benefits of said personality traits because somehow dudes only want to be friends with other dudes.  *headdesk*

[/random anecdote]

“negging” makes me want to brick a dude’s face.  let it be known that there is no faster or more obvious way to incur my unadulterated wrath (likely magnified by drunkenness) than that shit.  even when i was young and naive and more insecure, it just made me angry and hate the guy, even if he hit a nerve and i went home and ruminated about my poor jukebox/outfit choice, etc.

Comment #117: chareth cutestory  on  08/12  at  05:09 PM

“I am really disappointed with the number of people who believe that the fact that he hadn’t had sex in a while had anything to do with the murders.”

totally. In fact, I was just thinking that if he had had better “success” with women, he may very well have been a murderer much sooner! Probably just would’ve killed women one by one as they displeased him, rather than a mass shoot-out.

Again, that happens ALL THE TIME! He would have been a more “normal” murderer.

Comment #118: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  05:09 PM

Gabe demonstrates that pretty clearly with his “we have nothing they want” comment.  No reason to date a man.

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I don’t think you’re wrong that people think this way, but I don’t get it. Straight women like men. Why wouldn’t they? They like sex with men. How is that anything but self-evident? Even brainless sitcoms acknowledge it. I don’t want sex with men, but I don’t extrapolate from that that no other woman does either. I understand the irrational thinking that goes with low self-esteem, but this goes beyond wallowing in self-pity to a heroic level of denial.

Comment #119: junk science  on  08/12  at  05:10 PM

I kind of negged my wife when we started dating.  We were in a social group together that went out a lot (I’d say we were friends, but I don’t want to give the Nice Guy impression – we were friends, but it was a casual friendship).  Lots of guys find my wife attractive, and you can’t go anywhere with her without noticing guys going out of their way to check her out.  One night we were out, and everyone else in the group had gone home, and I told her “I don’t get all these guys treating you like you’re super hot.  You’re pretty normal looking to me.”  In a weird way, I think she liked hearing that.  I think she liked that I saw her as she saw herself – as a normal person – and I think she liked that I wasn’t relating to her solely as an object of beauty, which I think she had recently been growing tired of, with guys asking her out because they wanted to be with someone beautiful rather than because they wanted to be with her.  The conversation then turned to how we were always the last two out, and then segued jokingly to how we should start dating, and it is now what we look back on as the night our romantic relationship started.  And it’s something we laugh about, how I told her that night that I didn’t think she was that hot.

Of course, that’s not real negging.  It wasn’t calculated, wasn’t intended as manipulative, and really wasn’t intended to do any harm to her self esteem.

Comment #120: Wallace  on  08/12  at  05:11 PM

Heee.  Well, my coffee breaks aren’t that long, Mighty Ponygirl. So sad.  I think I’d be more productive at work. In fact, I know I would.

Comment #121: lonespark  on  08/12  at  05:11 PM

We come back to most straight men having no answer to the question “Why would someone want a non-platonic relationship with a man?”

I am continuously surprised that so many men still struggle with the concept that straight women often want the exact same things that men do (in the area of physical attractiveness, we still want it but not the specific things, like boobies).  I remember a guy that I used to hook up with actually said about our sexual encounters, “Wow, it’s like you want exactly what guys want, only the reverse!”.  I was amazed that he was amazed by this.  The guy was just shocked that I actually wanted to see him naked, and was genuinely surprised that I don’t enjoy giving oral as much as he enjoys receiving it.  It seems like this concept should be amazingly obvious to men, but I’m always amazed at how many just don’t get it.  I think this is a perfect example of how sexism can hurt men too, because the myth that women just don’t like sex makes it difficult for them to ever find out what women actually like.

Comment #122: bananacat  on  08/12  at  05:13 PM

I’m more or less willing to believe that when he wrote “there’s nothing that we [men] have that they [women] want” that he was being willfully obtuse for the sake of the Devil’s Advocate role he admitted he was playing.

Otherwise, he just admitted on his blog that he’s never been able to bring his wife to climax.

Comment #123: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/12  at  05:14 PM

on another note, just saw that Dan Savage is suggesting that a prostitute may have solved Sodini’s prob. Which is crazy. This wasn’t a case of the mythical “blue balls” (wev) but a case of sociopathic misogyny - the guy shot a bunch of women because women wouldn’t do what he wanted them to.

Afuckingmen.  Sodini’s blog is full of complaints about “hoez”.  I can’t see someone with that attitude being “cured” by a visit to a sex worker.  I see him as more of the type who hates sex workers because they’re “exploiting” men’s “need” for sex, and because they have sex with men who aren’t him. 

Not to mention, hello, he didn’t have any friends.  He claimed he hadn’t had a friend in decades.  His problems went way deeper than celibacy.

Comment #124: killjoy  on  08/12  at  05:14 PM

chareth @117:

Yeah, same here. All through highschool and into my mid twenties I kept losing one “best friend” after another because they’d always end up resenting me for not sleeping with them. It got lonely. Eventually I “solved” the problem by sleeping with all of my male friends straight away to get it over with. This only worked until I got married, after which I really did stop making new male friends. Kinda sad.

Comment #125: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  05:17 PM

“The only “right” and “considerate” thing would be to be his girlfriend like he wanted. “

This.

It’s like Tanglethis’s comment about “well, he’s not mean… or ugly… there’s not a ton of reasons to not fuck him, so…”

The old version of the patriarchal myth where the girl has to marry the guy because he rescued her from a dragon or won her as a prize from her father the king or whatever has devolved into “You have to sleep with me because there are no compelling reasons against it other than your complete lack of interest.”

And that narrative starts so damn early. Already our 4-year-old wants to hear about Snow White at bedtime, and I only hope to have him immunized before he reads or sees the official version where SW keeps house for the dwarves instead of having a job and marries the prince instead of just being good friends who visit occasionally…

Comment #126: paul  on  08/12  at  05:18 PM

HELLS YES and thank you Amanda! smile

Comment #127: Danica Lefse Queen  on  08/12  at  05:22 PM

It’s really common for men/boys (straight ones anyways, but most are) to have no idea why anyone would date a man, or have any nonplatonic interest in a man.

This particular audiobook product seems to be addressing something deeper than that” the idea that “nice guys” (as opposed to NiceGuys®) shouldn’t want to have sex with a woman, because sex is (for one messed-up reason or another) a “not-nice” thing that girls don’t like. So perhaps that’s what Benjamin G. needs.

The idea you’re discussing is a natural outcome of that kind of sexual guilt, but it can also emerge without it due to what you correctly identify as a lack of societal narrative beyond the patriarchal “sex in exhange for security and baubles” one that these PUAs (and, unfortunately, many others) buy into.

One key revelation for me when I was 18 was that just because I look at myself and my fellow males and think “shaved ape,” it doesn’t necessarily follow that women will take the same view.

Hell, why limit yourself to beforehand?

During?! Houston, we have a problem.

Comment #128: Gracchus.  on  08/12  at  05:26 PM

haha thelady—that’s sort of how i got out of my no straight guy friends funk as well.  it’s easier sort of now that i have a serious boyfriend, because people often meet us together or it comes up in conversation soon (i always make it a point to mention it to new male acquaintances, just in case) that i’m attached, so that fends some of the worst offenders off.  i also think it has gotten better with age now that i’m in my late 20s. 

but it does make me wary still when a friend type guy wants to spend much time with me.  i don’t go around thinking i’m hot shit and that every dude wants to have sex with me, and i don’t want to believe that most guys are Nice Guys, so it’s really sad that i’m conditioned to be afraid of this every time i make a new male friend, but i can’t help it based on my experience.  my hope is that as we get older people chill out a bit more and more guys have the confidence to express their feelings for a woman sooner instead of doing the pathetic stealth friendship Nice Guy routine.  i really, really hope i’m right.

Comment #129: chareth cutestory  on  08/12  at  05:27 PM

“The old version of the patriarchal myth where the girl has to marry the guy because he rescued her from a dragon or won her as a prize from her father the king”

well, that wasn’t a myth (except for the dragon part). Princesses were ALWAYS forced to marry way way older men they had never met for political alliances, etc.

Women had zero choice in the matter.

So those fairy tales were reflecting reality (many many women died in childbirth, fathers remarried, stepmothers out of their own need, tried to wrangle the family resources), and served a purpose in their original context. Nowadays I would suggest telling the tales as is, and using it as a teaching tool to explain how sad it was that women had no choice back then. Stories are useful. Explain it from the “wicked stepmother’s” point of view.

Comment #130: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  05:28 PM

One key revelation for me when I was 18 was that just because I look at myself and my fellow males and think “shaved ape,” it doesn’t necessarily follow that women will take the same view.

Well, at least you had the courtesy to shave.

Comment #131: bananacat  on  08/12  at  05:30 PM

That’s one nice thing about being queer; straight men can relax and joke about how they want to “turn” you, and don’t take it personally when you make grossed-out faces at them.

Comment #132: junk science  on  08/12  at  05:31 PM

Catgirl/JunkScience:

I get it now (dense man that I am), you think he’d think you/her a bitch.  Got it.  Fuck him.  You are not required to hide in bathrooms to be the owner of non-bitchiness.

Think of it this way.  The sooner you cut him off/out the sooner he can start looking for someone who is interested. 

Men get away with all sorts of shit because they know how ‘nice’ women are.  If we are interested in manipulating you; it’s our #1 weapon.  Life is too short for this sort of shit.

Comment #133: Magis  on  08/12  at  05:33 PM

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I don’t think you’re wrong that people think this way, but I don’t get it. Straight women like men. Why wouldn’t they? They like sex with men. How is that anything but self-evident? Even brainless sitcoms acknowledge it. I don’t want sex with men, but I don’t extrapolate from that that no other woman does either. I understand the irrational thinking that goes with low self-esteem, but this goes beyond wallowing in self-pity to a heroic level of denial.

I’m pretty sure this is an experience that mostly happens to straight males, which is why I linked Hugo’s blog, as it explains it better than I could probably do.  But “Why wouldn’t they?” isn’t enough.  “I have no specific reason to not be attracted to you, so I am.” is not a very plausible attitude.  I look at women and they’re attractive, I look at men and they’re not attractive.  Nobody really tells me differently.  Women’ll have relationships with men, but they’ll (typically) frame it as “He makes me laugh” or “He’s very kind/caring/considerate” or whatnot.  The straight male homophobia that gets drilled into you by culture also puts a lot into “attraction to men on a sexual level isn’t right/normal/acceptable”, and it bleeds across really well, since women are “supposed” to want to made to feel good by romancing or telling good jokes or providing for them or whatnot.  Why they’d then date men, when they could date women who can do all those things and be attractive while doing it, I can’t honestly answer (I mean, I know the answer intellectually, but I’ll never be able to make myself believe it)

Comment #134: Brian  on  08/12  at  05:36 PM

Already our 4-year-old wants to hear about Snow White at bedtime, and I only hope to have him immunized before he reads or sees the official version where SW keeps house for the dwarves instead of having a job and marries the prince instead of just being good friends who visit occasionally…

Get him Roald Dahl’s fairy tales.  Not only are they entertaining on their own, but the endings are far better.  IIRC, Cinderella deems Prince Charming a brute and goes off and marries a baker.

Comment #135: keshmeshi  on  08/12  at  05:37 PM

“Cinderella deems Prince Charming a brute and goes off and marries a baker.”

that’s adorable, but totally anachronistic, if it IS supposed to be set in pre-modern times.  smile  One of the reasons I like fairy tales is BECAUSE they’re old, and they can teach us about history, if we look at them in context.

Comment #136: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  05:42 PM

Nobody really tells me differently. 

I guess you already know this, and just need to work on believing it, but: straight women think men are hot. Men turn them on. It really is true. If they don’t say so, it’s because they’re afraid of looking slutty or shallow, because society tells them that’s unfeminine. But penises really, honestly do the trick for them.

Why they’d then date men, when they could date women who can do all those things and be attractive while doing it, I can’t honestly answer

As someone who’s heard “I’d totally fuck you if you were a guy,” a few times too many, I have to respectfully tell you to come the hell on.

Comment #137: junk science  on  08/12  at  05:44 PM

I get it now (dense man that I am), you think he’d think you/her a bitch.  Got it.  Fuck him.  You are not required to hide in bathrooms to be the owner of non-bitchiness.

Ugh, I realize that I’m not required to put up with his crap, but it’s ridiculous to think that social rules don’t influence people.  Not only would he think I’m a bitch, but I guarantee you that many other people would too.  I mean, it’s really easy to be mean and bitchy to a guy who is rude or a jerk, but nobody, regardless of gender, can just say “I don’t want to be friends with you” without a good reason.

Think of it this way.  The sooner you cut him off/out the sooner he can start looking for someone who is interested.

He would never find anyone else.  I’m sure he’s the kind of guy who picks women that aren’t interested because he’s afraid of a relationship even more than he’s afraid of rejection.

Men get away with all sorts of shit because they know how ‘nice’ women are.

This really isn’t even about women being taught to be nice.  This goes far beyond that to the point of where everyone is expected to be nice.  Obviously he liked me because I’m a woman, but even men are expected not to refuse a friendship for no reason.  If he had been bothering a guy in a strictly platonic way, that guy would have faced many of the same problems I did, without the sanctuary of the bathroom.  Of course, he probably wouldn’t have a bugged a guy in the same way, so it is certainly a feminist issue, but this isn’t just about how society expects women to act, but how society expects everyone to act.  I don’t care if people disapprove of how I act as a woman, but I do care about how people think of me as a person.  It’s really easy to say that it shouldn’t matter, but it does.

Comment #138: bananacat  on  08/12  at  05:46 PM

I am continuously surprised that so many men still struggle with the concept that straight women often want the exact same things that men do (in the area of physical attractiveness, we still want it but not the specific things, like boobies).

Well, no, you don’t want quite the same things, or you’d be lesbians.  Certainly if I imagine what it’d be like if I was a woman, I more or less have to be a lesbian, I just can’t force myself into a mindset where I’d be attracted to men.  I’ve seen men, the mind boggles that anyone’d want to fuck them.

Hugo’s bloglink I left initially I think explains it better than I could, I think, but if you refer to what’s often called “the male gaze”, it should be clear why straight men just don’t get the message that anyone finds us attractive. (And quite frankly, even typing that sentence makes me feel dishonest.)  Though we both downplay how much physical attractiveness matters to us, women downplay it even more than men, and it’s easy to miss, especially over the blaring horns of “men are unattractive” both from within and without.

Comment #139: Brian  on  08/12  at  05:47 PM

I wonder if it might be harder for women because guys don’t expect women to ask them out and so some of us are entirely oblivious to any advances they might be making.

That certainly can be true. I always thought, “This can’t actually be happening. I’m misinterpreting it somehow.” Women had to be pretty direct for me to get the message. But many man really are freaked out out by a woman taking charge of these things, just because, you know, women aren’t supposed to do that.

One might say “think of women like they’re people”, but that’s not really meaningful (or necessarily not already being done.)

Yeah, if you’re over, say, 20, and that idea hasn’t occurred to you on its own yet, a helpful suggestion from a friend isn’t going to help much.

I, for one, want to also Praise you, Amanda, for the greatness that is the phrase: ““Running through a gauntlet of assholes and predators”.

Nothing could describe my early youth better. THIS should become part of the collective consciousness, a description everyone knows so they will know NOT TO DO THIS TO GIRLS, and also, for the girls, to DESCRIBE ACCURATELY what is happening to them.

Have none of these morons ever been on the receiving end of this kind of attention? It wigged me out for weeks. And this was a petite woman. When it’s someone who could beat the crap out of you, that’s got to be even worse.

I just posted on the original thread.  I suggest instead of starting with the bar scene you join a political campaign or take acting lesson or volunteer for an animal shelter or some such.  Gives you a chance to get to know people gradually and observe them.  Join something you’re interested in.  It’s a preconsturcted social scene with an instant access to people of similar interests.

The key is to do something that already interests you, not something you came up with because you feel you have to “get out there and do something.” Not that there’s no urgency to this, but if you create an interest rather than following the ones you already have, you won’t like it and you won’t meet anyone, male or female, you truly like.

Comment #140: RickMassimo  on  08/12  at  05:49 PM

because you can explain that it’s all about resources - marrying a prince is a happy ending because it WAS THE BEST THEY COULD POSSIBLY HOPE for - meaning they wouldn’t starve on the street. Only other option was the convent. That’s it.

It doesn’t literally mean they were happy as we see it today, just not starving/worrying about where their next meal would come from.

and there is a fairy tale that directly talks about marrying a brute you didn’t know:

it’s called Beauty and the Beast, and the message is to just make do with your lot in life, make the best of your beast. It may have meant specifically that (re marriage) in 17th cent France, but today still serves as a METAPHOR! I just think you can’t just read fairy tales to kids, you also have to have a discussion.

sorry everyone this has been off topic. Don’t you dare call me a troll asdf!

Comment #141: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  05:50 PM

@Brian: I’m an ace girl and it happened to me. When I was younger I assumed I’d grow up to be a lesbian, because that was the only thing that made logical sense. Now that I’m 21 and the “desire to have sex with girls” bit hasn’t kicked in I’ve revised that theory a bit, which has prompted me to do all sorts of reading on human sexuality, from which I have learned a lot (it EXISTS. Like, in MOST people, not just the really weird ones. How bizarre is that?), but there is still a part of me that is continually just lost and astounded when my straight girl friends express interest in boys. Especially if I can actually see who they’re talking about.

Comment #142: thecynicalromantic  on  08/12  at  05:55 PM

“Well, no, you don’t want quite the same things, or you’d be lesbians.  Certainly if I imagine what it’d be like if I was a woman, I more or less have to be a lesbian, I just can’t force myself into a mindset where I’d be attracted to men.  I’ve seen men, the mind boggles that anyone’d want to fuck them.”

you’re being deliberately obtuse. #1 don’t tell US what WE want.

#2 you’ve never seen a pic of Hugh Jackman? Brad Pitt? Antonio Banderas?

yeah, why oh why wouldn’t anyone want to fuck such ugly lumps, huh ladies?

Comment #143: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  05:55 PM

I mean “would anyone want to” not “wouldn’t” oops

I’ve got a much longer list of hot men as evidence, if it continues to be necessary….

Comment #144: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  05:56 PM

What junk science said @137, except: it’s not just the penises. Like women are not just vaginas, or boobies, or any of that, you know. If you wantto get a handle on the realty of how het women see men, then think about all the things you like in girls that porn stars don’t get surgically enhanced: the curve of their neck, they way they smell, the sound of their laugh, how tiny their feet are… Whatever floats your boat. Well, guys have lots of stuff that only guys have, and women totally dig: strong hands, killer pecs, sexy deep voices, strong shoulders, cute butts… We dig men, see? The whole package.

Comment #145: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  06:01 PM

No, Brian, if you were a lesbian, you’d assume every woman really wants sex with men, no woman could really be attracted to another woman, and the only reason women have sex with each other is to titillate men. Your brain would rationalize that you were the only exception, or you’d figure only “ugly women” like you would consider yourself to be wanted sex with women, or some such excuse. You’d think of something.

Comment #146: junk science  on  08/12  at  06:02 PM

#1 don’t tell US what WE want.
#2 you’ve never seen a pic of Hugh Jackman? Brad Pitt? Antonio Banderas?

yeah, why oh why wouldn’t anyone want to fuck such ugly lumps, huh ladies?

I don’t aim to tell you what you want, only to say it’s a choice I can’t fathom.  I’m being a little bit obtuse, but only because it comes back to the point.  That people with different perspectives won’t always be able to able to get into every other mindset shouldn’t come as a surprise.  That Gabe’d express a very common straight male sentiment that we have nothing to offer women wouldn’t be surprising if one have complete empathy for what it’s like to be a straight guy.  And that we often fail to get that women (or gay men, and whoever else) could find us attractive is a failure of our empathy.

Comment #147: Brian  on  08/12  at  06:04 PM

OMG, liviaclaudia, don’t put Hugh Jackman and Antonio Banderas so close to each other, even in text. I might have some sort of hotness induced aneurism or something.

Comment #148: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  06:07 PM

I’ve seen men, the mind boggles that anyone’d want to fuck them.

Our species isn’t that sexually dimorphic.  You’ve really never seen a hot guy who worked at being good-looking and realized why someone, somewhere might want to hit that?

Comment #149: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:07 PM

OMG, liviaclaudia, don’t put Hugh Jackman and Antonio Banderas so close to each other, even in text. I might have some sort of hotness induced aneurism or something.

I’m at work, stop giving my brain ideas!

Comment #150: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:11 PM

Brian, I’m not buying any of it, mostly because so much popular culture is predicated on the idea that gorgeous women are just desparate for cock, or at least can’t wait to get into their tinyest thong and pose on the cover of Stuff Magazine. How can anyone who’se seen any porn think that women aren’t eager for sex with men, wherever, whenever, however? Riddle me that.

Comment #151: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  06:14 PM

They’re not getting up to anything that I’m not in the middle of, lonespark!

wink

Comment #152: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  06:15 PM

lonespark

Presumably it’s mostly a good ingraining of the societal narrative that men aren’t attractive.  Little boys growing up don’t get told they’re attractive, but that they’re useful.  Throw in very strong homophobic training, and a media that generally revolves around displaying women’s bodies and covering up men’s, and yeah, it’s real easy to get into a mindset where it’s just impossible to think men’re attractive, or can be.

There’s obviously something wrong with that, on an intellectual level, but the training is (or at least can be) very, very good, and merely going “Huh.  People seem to be attracted to men, and some say they are.” slams into your training before you can really bring yourself to believe “I guess they are.”  Presumably I could tear out all that with enough work, as could all the other men who believe it (and there’s a fair number).  More likely, we’ll wander through life bewildered until we die.

I mean, I’m not trying to advocate what I believe is true.  It pretty obviously is not.

Comment #153: Brian  on  08/12  at  06:17 PM

Well, no, you don’t want quite the same things, or you’d be lesbians.

Are you trying to be funny or do you just not read things that you copy and paste?  I specifically said that while women want attractive men, we don’t want exactly the same physical attributes that men want, such as boobies.  If you really have such a problem paying attention, then I’m not surprised that you’re confused.  Geez, I specifically said something, you quoted it, and you still managed to miss it.  Congratulations!  I mean, it’s really not a difficult concept and you’ve still managed to ignore your way out of it.

Comment #154: bananacat  on  08/12  at  06:19 PM

You know, Brian, this type of reasoning, very common amongst men has always deeply puzzled me and I think you’re quite spot on when you link it to homophobia. But honestly, don’t you think the reason why you don’t find men attractive is because… you’re a straight male?

Comment #155: Scarlet  on  08/12  at  06:21 PM

TheLady

Please look at Hugo Schwyzer’s explanation here: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/05/04/of-never-feeling-hot-the-missing-narrative-of-desire-in-the-lives-of-straight-men/ which really explains it better than I can, I think.  But it’s certainly widespread.  I’m sure you could pretty easily get a fair number of straight men you know to cop to believing it, or something very similar.  Getting them to say that men are gross, or unpleasant, smelly, hard on the eyes, whatever, should be easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Comment #156: Brian  on  08/12  at  06:24 PM

ok but scarlet, being attracted exclusively to one sex doesn’t preclude seeing aesthetic appeal in the other.  i see beautiful women i do not have an interest in having sex with all the time and i recognize why people would be sexually attracted to them even though i am not.  i realize women are socialized differently and that mean aren’t socialized to think of other men as beautiful, but some of this straight guy “i have NEVER SEEN A PHYSICALLY PLEASING MALE BEFORE EVER!!!” sentiment seems a teensy bit overkill to me. 

really, you can’t look at a hatof brad pitt and say “oh, i see how he embodies many qualities common to the widely perpetuated ideal of male attractiveness”?  really though?  i’m not buying that most straight men can’t tell the physical difference between brad pitt and danny devito as it relates to the male physical ideal.

Comment #157: chareth cutestory  on  08/12  at  06:30 PM

Catgirl

No, I mean, you skipped over where my mental disconnect is, which is why I came back to it.  You can say “We want the same thing, well, similar things, but in men.” and it’s still “but men don’t have any corresponding property, so far as I can see.” Obviously something is different.  Just saying “well, account for that difference” doesn’t really explain anything.

Scarlet

Yeah, obviously the reason I don’t find men attractive is because I’m a straight male. (Well, okay, that’s backwards.  I’m a straight male because I don’t find men attractive.)  But the anti-finding-men-attractive young boys get growing up as part of our homophobic training plays a big role in why we (often) don’t get why anyone’d find men attractive, while the overwhelming “women are sexy, let’s look at sexy women” message carried by media and whatnot (combined with much weaker homophobic training for young girls) makes it much easier for straight women to “get” that straight men could find them attractive.

Comment #158: Brian  on  08/12  at  06:30 PM

I’ll admit, I don’t see myself as particularly attractive. I need to lose about 50 pounds I think. But there are men that are quite attractive. I wouldn’t want to sleep with any of them, but I can still look at people like Jude Law or Robert Downey Junior and think “I wouldn’t having a physique like his.”

Comment #159: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  06:30 PM

Also, men’s physical attractiveness is not praised by society the way women’s is simply because they are seen as proper individuals, PEOPLE, unlike women, who are generally praised MOSTLY or ONLY for their looks.  Men are not routinely objectified the way women are.

Comment #160: Scarlet  on  08/12  at  06:31 PM

I didn’t say it’s a rare opinion, Brian; I just said I don’t buy it. It smacks of “I’m not an X-sit, but” to me. Basically, protesting too much about something which is demonstrably the case. As a het woman, I’m not that eager to, for example, come face to face with a vagina. I have one, I like mine, I don’t find them gross, but sticking my face into one is something I’d have to have a good reson for doing. I don’t find the idea so viscerally repulsive as to be unable to empathise with people who do enjoy doing that, though.

Comment #161: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  06:34 PM

I totally agree with you, Chareth, that’s why I said this line of reasoning completely puzzles me and I do believe it is linked to homophobia.
I am a straight woman, but there are very handsome men I do not feel sexually attracted to (like the aforementioned Antonio Banderas, for instance). However, I do not deny their physical qualities.

Comment #162: Scarlet  on  08/12  at  06:34 PM

This discussion about straight men not being able to see that men are physically attractive is fascinating to me. I think it’s the same attitude we often see on feminist blogs where men are refusing to acknowledge that women experience the world in a meaningfully different way from men, which of course comes from a deepseated reluctance to acknowledge that women experience the world at all, ie objectification.

It’s “the straight white male experience is universal experience” carried to its logical conclusion. It’s mindboggling.

(this isn’t an attack on you, Brian. It’s people who are unaware they have these attitudes who are the problem)

Comment #163: daisyparker  on  08/12  at  06:38 PM

but some of this straight guy “i have NEVER SEEN A PHYSICALLY PLEASING MALE BEFORE EVER!!!” sentiment seems a teensy bit overkill to me.

really, you can’t look at a hatof brad pitt and say “oh, i see how he embodies many qualities common to the widely perpetuated ideal of male attractiveness”?  really though?  i’m not buying that most straight men can’t tell the physical difference between brad pitt and danny devito as it relates to the male physical ideal.

From about the time we’re six, men’re being taught we must never, ever find anything pleasing about a man’s appearance.  Is it really so surprising a lot of us do a decent job of internalising it?  Average build girls often think they’re fat because that’s the message they’re internalised - do you think they’re just compensating, and really know they’re of an average build?

In fact, it shines through pretty clearly, because even when we can’t see attractiveness in men, we can still pick out ugliness pretty easily.  If I’d never heard of him, and you put Brad Pitt in a lineup with my friends Gord and Andrew, asked me to tell you who’s the most attractive, it’d be easy to say “Well not Gord, ‘cause he’s fuck-ugly”, but yeah, I get stuck when I’m at “well, neither of the other two is specifically offensive.”

Comment #164: Brian  on  08/12  at  06:38 PM

women are sexy, let’s look at sexy women” message carried by media

That would be the “women fitting certain physical parameters are sexy” message carried by the media.  Women outside those parameters are gross and sexless and worthy of mockery.

I can’t think off the top of my head of a medium that presents acceptably attractive women that doesn’t also present templates for acceptably attractive men.  I know there are some, and I know men aren’t treated as sex objects generally.  But hot lifeguard shows have hot male lifeguards. Superhero movies have hot male superheroes.  It’s acknowleged that women like a man in uniform and old rich dudes should worry about the pool boy.

Comment #165: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:39 PM

(this isn’t an attack on you, Brian. It’s people who are unaware they have these attitudes who are the problem)

Yeah.  Not trying to deny your experience.  But now I’m musing about the messages about male attractiveness that are acceptable to the patriarchy.

Comment #166: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:42 PM

From about the time we’re six, men’re being taught we must never, ever find anything pleasing about a man’s appearance.

Okay, now you’re making stuff up. There is nothing like that. You see attractive men used to sell products to other men all the time. If we didn’t recognize attractive men, that wouldn’t work at all.

Comment #167: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  06:44 PM

The Most Interesting Man in the World!

Comment #168: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:46 PM

sorry everyone this has been off topic. Don’t you dare call me a troll asdf!

What the hell is wrong with you? Leave me alone.

Comment #169: asdf  on  08/12  at  06:48 PM

The Most Interesting Man in the World!

To be fair, they never say anything about how big his cock is or how defined his pecs are, just what a great conversationalist he is. He does have a deep voice, though.

Comment #170: junk science  on  08/12  at  06:48 PM

it’s actually totally sad that some men are completely out of touch with their own gender’s attractions, or potentially, their own personal attractiveness. You guys miss so much being so closed off! I don’t mean sexually, I mean aesthetically speaking.

There is so much beauty in the world that apparently you’re ignoring for the sake of being like, “ultra-straight”. what a waste.

You don’t have to be gay to appreciate Greek art, for example. Expand your horizons!

Closing yourself off to beauty is a fucking tragedy.

Comment #171: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  06:48 PM

Really Ben?  When you were a little boy everyone told you it’d be hunky-dory if you thought other boys were pretty and wanted to make kissy-faces with them and so forth? 

And even if you were, you don’t believe that any of the rest of us could’ve had a different experience?

Comment #172: Brian  on  08/12  at  06:51 PM

He has a deep voice and and good hair and is muscley and well dressed and well groomed yet rugged.  Totally attractive in a refined masculine way.  I was just at a training session where the instructor was overjoyed that people think he looks that guy (except with a beer gut).

Comment #173: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:53 PM

“Getting them to say that men are gross, or unpleasant, smelly, hard on the eyes, whatever, should be easier than shooting fish in a barrel.”

and actually, I think this is probably, to a large extent, a case of “doth protest too much” : men feel like they HAVE to say that stuff, or risk being “misunderstood as finding men sexually attractive” (gasp). The extent to which men really truly believe that is probably much less. Come on. y’all have eyes. You’re not that blind. again:  Hugh Jackman!

I. rest. my. case.

Comment #174: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  06:53 PM

Never mind, I’ve only ever heard the radio ads.

Comment #175: junk science  on  08/12  at  06:54 PM

I mean, are we only talking about the “sextastic” version of attractive?  But even so, TMIMITW and James Bond and such are shown to be attractive to women.

Comment #176: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:54 PM

I think what is really telling about these “nice guys” is that they expect you to have as much capability for introspection and self-awareness as they have.  So they will try to make out that your motivation for doing something is x and y, when you really know it is z.  But then they won’t take your refutation for an answer, because they believe they can look into your soul and actually SEE x and y.  Your z doesn’t mean a thing compared to what they can simply SEE by looking.  And if you’re not convinced by their assertions as to your true motivations you are evil, simply evil, and lack any human redeeming qualities, quite evidently.

Comment #177: scratchy888  on  08/12  at  06:56 PM

Basically, protesting too much about something which is demonstrably the case.”


oh, y’all already said that. My bad. Should finish reading before posting.

Comment #178: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  06:56 PM

Okay, now you’re making stuff up. There is nothing like that. You see attractive men used to sell products to other men all the time. If we didn’t recognize attractive men, that wouldn’t work at all.

It could work unconsciously.

I’ve actually always wondered about the results of a fairly well-known economics study on the impact of physical attractiveness on wages. Long story short: there is one, it’s substantial, they did a reasonably good job of controlling for other variables. It’s called The Returns on Beauty or something and you should be able to google it from that if you’re curious.
The interesting part to me is that the returns on attractiveness were significantly higher for men.  And the penalties for male ugliness were higher too. Eventually I decided that male attractiveness was influencing the men who were making the salary decisions on a purely unconscious level, while they were consciously aware and able to compensate for the effects female attractiveness might be having on their judgement. Like they just couldn’t admit it to themselves in the case of the men. Sorry that’s so tangential but it’s sort of relevant if you can be bothered to follow the thought patterns, and, well, I thought it was interesting.

Comment #179: daisyparker  on  08/12  at  06:57 PM

and actually, I think this is probably, to a large extent, a case of “doth protest too much” : men feel like they HAVE to say that stuff, or risk being “misunderstood as finding men sexually attractive”  

Yes, this. 
Plus in some situations there bi Nice Guys who will shamelessly hit on their friends if they get a hint of interest.  (Or maybe that’s just my social circle.  I do understand in most places they’d be afraid to do that.)

Comment #180: lonespark  on  08/12  at  06:57 PM

Really Ben?  When you were a little boy everyone told you it’d be hunky-dory if you thought other boys were pretty and wanted to make kissy-faces with them and so forth?

Your approach to this is fallacious. You’re giving a false duality. It is not a situation where either they tell you that it’s okay to find men attractive or that they tell you that men are not attractive. There is an entire range of options. You’re being deliberately stupid with your response.

And even if you were, you don’t believe that any of the rest of us could’ve had a different experience?

If your individual experience is one thing, then you’re out of place to use the blanket phrase “men are taught”

Comment #181: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  06:58 PM

they expect you to have as much capability for introspection and self-awareness as they have.

I don’t understand. Isn’t the problem that they don’t expect you to know yourself and what you want, at least not as well as they think they know you?

Comment #182: junk science  on  08/12  at  06:59 PM

Really Ben?  When you were a little boy everyone told you it’d be hunky-dory if you thought other boys were pretty and wanted to make kissy-faces with them and so forth?

And your $guardian never dressed you up in a little suit to go to $special_occasion and people never cooed over you, “Oh, how handsome!  What a good looking boy!  Sure to be a lady killer!”

I mean, I totally buy that many straight men are so disinclined to do anything that may be thought of as gay that they honestly believe that they find it impossible to find anything about a man attractive.  But I can’t think of a single person who, even if they believe this, actually live in accordance with that belief.  Even the cavemen among us know they look better after taking a shower and putting on a nice suit.

Comment #183: Denise  on  08/12  at  07:01 PM

“From about the time we’re six, men’re being taught we must never, ever find anything pleasing about a man’s appearance.” 

-maybe so, that’s harsh, but then you grow up, and develop your own common sense.


“Is it really so surprising a lot of us do a decent job of internalising it?”

-internalization is different from saying “i just have NO IDEA why women would find men attractive!”  That’s just being obtuse on purpose.

Comment #184: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  07:02 PM

Exactly, thank you Denise.

Comment #185: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  07:03 PM

The conversational turn towards men being oblivious to the fact women find certain qualities attractive and have sexual needs is quite odd to me considering how many dudes are obsessed with the adequacy of their penis size, the endless marketing of impotence drugs and “sexual enhancement treatments” on cable news networks.  :p rolleyes

Comment #186: exholt  on  08/12  at  07:03 PM

Brian:

There’s a hyooooge difference between knowing a man is attractive intellectually and feeling emotionally stirred by him.  I mean I can look at a guy and say “I bet he has to beat women off with a stick” and feel absolutely unmoved myself.  I think tigers are pretty too, but I don’t want to sleep with one.

Comment #187: Magis  on  08/12  at  07:05 PM

by the way Brian, I hope your friends aren’t aware that you find them so gross and repulsive. Because, ....ouch! In my world, that’s totally mean.

Comment #188: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  07:06 PM

I think tigers are pretty too, but I don’t want to sleep with one.

I’m having so much fun with this thread. I miss troll-free Pandagon discussions.

Comment #189: junk science  on  08/12  at  07:06 PM

Exholt, at least a number of those ads focus on impressing the other men with your size. Enzite’s “Natural Male Enhancement”, for example, has at least one ad with a couple of guys checking out the product user’s golf club.

Comment #190: BenYitzhak  on  08/12  at  07:07 PM

I think I know the kind of thinking Brian is trying to put across so I’ll try and explain it if I can. I think that while all men know women can find men physically attractive, the threshold for wanting to date/sleep with someone for that reason alone is thought of as being much higher for women than men. Therefore the average guy has to use personality, charm, status, etc. to overcompensate in the hope they can be seen as attractive in that way. Unless they’re devastatingly attractive, men have to make the first move because in dating women hold all the cards and the power. Women enjoy sex, but only if you do it exactly right otherwise they’ll think you’re less of a man and will dump you for someone else. 

These attitudes are believe it or not, quite prevalent even among romantically ‘successful’ guys. And to an extent it is backed up by society, partially through the things mentioned above and partially by an idea that women’s bodies are objectively more aesthetically beautiful (you’ll probably scoff but I’ve heard it from many women over the years - Germaine Greer even wrote a book trying to counter the auumption) Take this kind of thinking, combine with cultural gender tropes equating power and male attractive ness and you have the ingredients for a good deal of the nastier side of the PUA culture.

Comment #191: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  08/12  at  07:09 PM

@Rick Massimo: 

You said, “Have none of these morons ever been on the receiving end of this kind of attention? It wigged me out for weeks. And this was a petite woman. When it’s someone who could beat the crap out of you, that’s got to be even worse.”

Many of them haven’t.  We used to have a 6’7” bouncer at the club where I worked.  When a guy got aggressive with girls by getting up in their personal space and not taking no for an answer or being pushy, this particular bouncer would do the same thing to them.  And when a 6’7”, hairy, tattooed, pierced freak pushed them up against the bar and ground his hips against them like they’d been doing to women, they would freak the fuck out, and generally there was a lot of begging and pleading once they realized he probably COULD have his way with them right there, and they couldn’t stop him. 

Then he would very patiently explain that he was just treating them like they’d treated that girl over there, and they didn’t like that so much, now did they?  So how did they think it made that girl feel?

We had very few repeat offenders.

Comment #192: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/12  at  07:11 PM

huh, #186, I think you’ve substantially bolstered the case for male obliviousness right there.

Very few women would list “having a massive penis and staying hard all night” as the qualities they want most in a sexual partner.

In fact, the staying hard all night thing… I had a partner who was into Tantric sex, at least, the “I can go all night” version of Tantric sex, and… no, really. WE DO NOT WANT THIS, MEN.

Comment #193: daisyparker  on  08/12  at  07:12 PM

Daisyparker:  AGREED! 

So not a size queen.

Comment #194: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/12  at  07:15 PM

are we now discouraging people from the stress relieving effects of frequent sexual release? I mean, we can say it’s a joke, but really, it isn’t bad advice.

No, of course not.  I meant it was a joke, because I could just hear the Nice Guys® saying, “I did masturbate and she still turned me down!  IT DIDN’T WORK.  JUST TELL ME WHAT WORKS.” 

But it’s actually good advice, if you can tell that you’re getting that creeping desperation/pathetic vibe, to find a way to not be desperate.  If at all possible.  People are, like it or not, attracted to people who seem to have it together.  That’s why it seems you get hit on more if you’re taken.  If masturbation helps, go for it.  I just know that it’s not the bulletproof method, and if a guy is desperate for validation, then it won’t help.

Comment #195: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  07:19 PM

“Oh, how handsome!  What a good looking boy!  Sure to be a lady killer!”

Denise,

There are men and boys who would take such comments as disparaging ones belittling their masculinity, especially when it can be associated with metrosexuality and homophobia. 

Even the cavemen among us know they look better after taking a shower and putting on a nice suit.

There’s a reason why formal suits are known as “monkey suits” to some, especially those of us in the IT/engineering/tech field who feel they are often worn by corporate professionals and others to compensate for a mediocre level of intellect and a lack of creative imagination.

Comment #196: exholt  on  08/12  at  07:21 PM

One might say “think of women like they’re people”, but that’s not really meaningful (or necessarily not already being done.) We come back to most straight men having no answer to the question “Why would someone want a non-platonic relationship with a man?”

Actually, “because women are human” is the answer.  A man would do well to say, “I am a human being.  I want X, Y, and Z. Perhaps if I empathize with women, I’ll realize they ALSO want someone that sexually satisfies them, makes them smile, and understands them.”  Women have to be desirable if we want to be desired.  We have to have a general idea of what men want and be that.  It’s only fair that men take on a similar duty.

In all honesty, they are.  As the expectations for women become more reasonable—-we’re no longer expected to spend 2 hours getting pretty for men, nor are we expected to anticipate and fill men’s needs without ever being asked, nor are we expected to be all things to a man—-expectations on men are rising.  They are supposed to be caring, listen, take care of themselves physically.  Equality is meeting in the middle.

Comment #197: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  07:24 PM

I think that while all men know women can find men physically attractive, the threshold for wanting to date/sleep with someone for that reason alone is thought of as being much higher for women than men. Therefore the average guy has to use personality, charm, status, etc. to overcompensate in the hope they can be seen as attractive in that way. Unless they’re devastatingly attractive, men have to make the first move because in dating women hold all the cards and the power.

Well, at least men can compensate for less than ideal looks with personality etc. For women, if you’re not perfect (and nobody is ever perfect) you can’t do anything about the fact that nobody in their right mind would want anything to do with any part of you rather than the little hole the salami goes in. As the old joke goes: what’s the gross bit around the vagina called? A woman.

Having a personality is seen as emasculating; being outgoing gets you a reputation as slutty, or a tease; interests and education make you a boring old nerd. For the majority of womne, there is no getitng out of the trap of passively waiting for a man to validate ther existence by wanting to use them as a wank puppet. Not their attractiveness, mind - their right to exist.

That’s why so many - I don;t know maybe even most - women put up with years of unsatisfactory, sometimes even painful sex. Because they are taught that their bodies are flawed and disgusting and their minds are superfluous and evil. So how can they possibly accept that the demands those bodies and those minds make are valid and deserve to be met?

The only “power” invested in women socially is the power of refusal, and that wears pretty thin pretty quickly when the guy really wants to push his case. That’s what these PUA manipulations are playing off of.

To say that people whose only safe and socially noncontroversial input into their love lives is to hope to avoid being raped have “all the power” is nothing short of delusional. Learn some empathy already.

Comment #198: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  07:25 PM

Brian, I’m not buying any of it, mostly because so much popular culture is predicated on the idea that gorgeous women are just desparate for cock ... How can anyone who’se seen any porn think that women aren’t eager for sex with men, wherever, whenever, however?

That can be explained, TheLady. The thing you’ll notice about that is that in the porn you’re thinking of, it’s all about the cock, specifically, and actually not so much about women finding the man attached to it attractive. It is as if the woman in question just had some illness or mental condition which caused her to crave the appendage, which this guy was lucky enough to have on hand.

The average porn user probably prefers it this way precisely because it’s more believable that there are women out there with some crazed desperation for a penis - any one! It could be theirs, if they’re lucky! - than to believe that women would be just as interested in their bodies more generally.

Frankly, I’m amazed that many of you are amazed that men can’t think of themselves in terms of physical attractiveness. I’ll vouch for the notion that there are lots and lots and lots of men out there for whom it never occurs to them that a woman might be interested in their physical being. Maybe they can see a woman being interested in Brad Pitt’s body, or some other select handful of men that we’re all told are clearly obviously attractive, but their bodies? Unthinkable. It was certainly a strange idea to me.

Comment #199: ballast  on  08/12  at  07:31 PM

huh, #186, I think you’ve substantially bolstered the case for male obliviousness right there.

Not saying I agree with it….but that it is a flawed perception of “what women want” that I’ve seen many male teens and adults hold if the many overheard conversations on college campuses and sports bars are any indication.

Comment #200: exholt  on  08/12  at  07:32 PM

In all honesty, they are.  As the expectations for women become more reasonable—-we’re no longer expected to spend 2 hours getting pretty for men, nor are we expected to anticipate and fill men’s needs without ever being asked, nor are we expected to be all things to a man—-expectations on men are rising.  They are supposed to be caring, listen, take care of themselves physically.  Equality is meeting in the middle.

Positivity, how refreshing.

Comment #201: Magis  on  08/12  at  07:32 PM

This is a little off topic, but it occurs to me that Paul Bettany’s character in Dogville is the ultimate Nice Guy.  I might have to (somewhat) reevaluate my assessment of Lars von Trier now.

Comment #202: keshmeshi  on  08/12  at  07:33 PM

“they are often worn by corporate professionals and others to compensate for a mediocre level of intellect and a lack of creative imagination.”

man, that is sooo harsh! You guys are so hard on each other for trying to look nice! what, are you “metrosexual” if someone trims their nose hair?

reeeelax!  Now, I totally think the hairless thing has gone too far in our culture, (esp. for women), but I have fashion sense, and appreciate a man who also has fashion sense. Give your bros a break!

Comment #203: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  07:36 PM

Maybe they can see a woman being interested in Brad Pitt’s body, or some other select handful of men that we’re all told are clearly obviously attractive, but their bodies? Unthinkable. It was certainly a strange idea to me.

That would make sense to me, and it would be a sad but understandable result of low self-esteem. The actual argument of such men is that no woman finds any man attractive, including Brad Pitt, because those men themselves aren’t attracted to Brad Pitt, so how could anyone else be?

Comment #204: junk science  on  08/12  at  07:37 PM

Balast, you’re not so much splitting hairs as julienning microfibres here. You explanation is frankly fantastical, as are the lengths to which you’re prepared to go (men genuinely beueve that women in porn have an undiagnosed mania for appendages? Really?) to avoid inserting the word “people” into a sentence dealing with sex, body image and self esteem.

There are lots and lots and lots of people out there to whom it never occurs that other people may be interested in their physical being. For all kinds of fucked up reasons, many of them to do with patriarchy and religion.

This special pleading for teh poor menz is wearing really thin, you guys.

I’ll say it again: women are people. What you can feel, they can feel. Learn some empathy. Damn.

Comment #205: MarinaS  on  08/12  at  07:39 PM

Junk science: That is what I said.  They expect you to have as much capability for introspection and self knowledge as they are capable of having.

Comment #206: scratchy888  on  08/12  at  07:40 PM

TheLady, like I said, I was trying to explain the feeling Brian was communicating, I never indicated anywhere that I remotely agreed with it, so go easy on me. Also, as I’m sure every man on the board would agree, it’s also a myth that men are only interested in looks, even if they are what attracts you to someone in the first place. A good personality is very sexy if it gels with yours, likewise someone who’s physically attractive, but obnoxious or unpleasant to be around is going to be less desirable.

And before everyone jumps in, saying that is a long, long way from saying: “Them stuck-up bitchez, who do they think they are, etc.”. Just pointing out that a bad personality is a turn-off all round, just as there’s a wide range of physical types that can be attractive to either sex.

Comment #207: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  08/12  at  07:42 PM

man, that is sooo harsh! You guys are so hard on each other for trying to look nice! what, are you “metrosexual” if someone trims their nose hair?

reeeelax!  Now, I totally think the hairless thing has gone too far in our culture, (esp. for women), but I have fashion sense, and appreciate a man who also has fashion sense. Give your bros a break!

liviaclaudia,

If you think the mentality among tech professionals I worked with are bad, you should have seen the attitudes at my politically progressive radical-left undergrad. 

Wearing a formal suit/dress there would have signified three things: one was a conservatory student with the associated stereotype of being snobby because s(he) is gifted musically, an economics major who is looking to sell out to the evil capitalist corporate machine, and/or a bland conformist obsessed with observing right-wing establishment politics….with that being defined as anything to the right of the socialist/green party. 

There was a good reason why one parent interviewed for a college guide said my undergrad campus’ student body went out of their way to dress as ugly as possible.

Comment #208: exholt  on  08/12  at  07:47 PM

That would make sense to me, and it would be a sad but understandable result of low self-esteem. The actual argument of such men is that no woman finds any man attractive, including Brad Pitt, because those men themselves aren’t attracted to Brad Pitt, so how could anyone else be?

Nah, I don’t think that’s really what those guys are thinking. When they say that no woman finds any man attractive, I think they’re actually saying that no woman finds normal men attractive. “Normal” meaning “not a male model or someone obviously presented as an Adonis.” Physical attractiveness is just not what they’ll ever have, so they have to compensate with ... well, something. Maybe money. Or trickery (as promised by the PUAs).

Now, I’m sure plenty of women grow up thinking they’re not part of the Attractive Class, either. The difference, if any, is that such women will still often get approached in a way that reminds them (sometimes in a very obnoxious and undesired manner, as described ad infinitium above) that they are being looked at in that way. Your average guy doesn’t necessarily get approached that way, ever, so it’s perhaps easier to think that’s just not something that applies to you.

Comment #209: ballast  on  08/12  at  07:47 PM

You explanation is frankly fantastical, as are the lengths to which you’re prepared to go (men genuinely beueve that women in porn have an undiagnosed mania for appendages? Really?) to avoid inserting the word “people” into a sentence dealing with sex, body image and self esteem.

TheLady, there are entire genres of porn in which the men are chosen specifically for being “ugly”, average schmoes. Why do you think this is? Part of it is perhaps the notion of seeing a hot girl humiliated by being with some guy considered beneath her; I’m sure plenty here will latch on to that explanation, and it probably often applies. But part of it is also that many of the porn viewers are average schmoes themselves who love the notion that women really aren’t just looking for hot guys per se.

And yes, I think that there are guys out there who want to believe in the existence of cock-crazy women. I don’t see, at any rate, why this seems more ridiculous than some of the other beliefs that many guys clearly hold about women are.

Comment #210: ballast  on  08/12  at  07:57 PM

“It frustrates me because although there are less girls into these items, there are still lots of girls!”

Also, the implicit assumption that there are no shy or socially awkward girls either. (Which The Lady and several other beat me to.)

“I consider “nice tits, who did them” to be more of a regular old insult, and if you say it jokingly it might be sort of fun.”

Really? cuz I would be pissed no matter how it was delivered or by whom.  But then, the thing about having really big ones is that most conversations/media images of them makes you feel like a freak/slut/inhuman simply for having them, so people suggesting that they are “not real” tends to push a lot of my buttons no matter what.

Comment #211: jennygadget  on  08/12  at  07:58 PM

When they say that no woman finds any man attractive, I think they’re actually saying that no woman finds normal men attractive.

I’m going by this comment:

I’ve seen men, the mind boggles that anyone’d want to fuck them.

Nowhere does that say “normal men” or exclude Brad Pitt types. The argument is that maleness itself is unattractive, and only women could arouse anyone sexually. It’s a stunning lack of empathy.

Comment #212: junk science  on  08/12  at  08:00 PM

exholt: wow you really went to a school full of haters! I am so curious as to which….


a myth that men are only interested in looks”

we know this, because often a woman objectively less attractive is NEVER without a man…this is why we’re always told to cultivate that “inner sexy confidence” because it’s just another requirement…

But like theLady was saying, why do guys think they’re the only ones held to impossible standards and face painful rejection? Hello???

Remember Seinfeld? They used to do awesome send-ups of this crap:

Jerry would reject women who ate their peas wrong. Being described as having a “good personality’ was the kiss of death. George REQUIRED (though he’s bald) a “healthy head of hair”. they always dated gorgeous women, but they were never good enough for one reason or another.

Dudes, this is what we deal with. It was funny because it’s TRUE!!!

oh, but yeah, yeah, WE’RE the “gatekeepers”. Pul-eeze already.

Comment #213: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  08:10 PM

Junk Science, I think that was an exaggerated hypothetical point, meant for rhetorical purposes. I’ve never met, or heard of anyone who thinks that literally.

Comment #214: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  08/12  at  08:10 PM

Oh gee, 212 comments!

I just want to say I didn’t mean to imply that being “fat” is bad. I am a bit fat too. I just got the wrong impression that m_65 was somehow unhappy with the way she looked but kept it that way because that allowed her to go “under the radar” for the predators that plagued her earlier life.

Of course being happy with the way you look is a healthy goal. My mistake, I thought she lamented that the only way for her to be treated was a person was to look “bad”

Comment #215: lostmypassword  on  08/12  at  08:12 PM

why do guys think they’re the only ones held to impossible standards and face painful rejection? Hello???

I don’t see anyone here who said that, actually, or even anything close to that. At all.

Comment #216: ballast  on  08/12  at  08:16 PM

ballast:

no one may have said that, but the thread’s been about how “women are scary’ it’s so hard for guys!!

Comment #217: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  08:25 PM

In the interests of recycling, I’m re-typing below a comment which was originally made on another thread a few days ago (it was number 674 following the last Sodini-related post, but came pretty late in that discussion).  I think it’s still quite relevant for this thread as well (and likely others, though I think this will be its last appearance). 

So, get your righteousness on!  As the sign says, these things aren’t going to criticize themselves….

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

This is my first time reading Pandagon, and I have to say I’m really taken aback at the willful obtuseness and casual cruelty being displayed by the women here, including your glorious bloggers.  Is this the way you always talk when you’re among friends?  Honestly, if the writing here represents “feminism,” then it’s no wonder that so many young people, women and men, don’t want to be associated with the word.

To take but one example, attention has come around again in a number of conversations, and not just because of the Sodini tragedy, to the idea that “nice guys finish last”.  The response that now shows up over and over on the “feminist” side, as say in the post by La Lubu just above and also widely attributed to Amanda M. herself, is a clever kind of jujitsu: any man who claims to be “nice” actually isn’t nice, by any definition.  (Shades of Monty Python’s Life of Brian: “Only the true messiah denies his divinity!”.) If you boil it down, what this comes down to is that no man can ever legitimately complain about having had bad experiences at the hands of women in general: if you complain, that alone proves you have a “bad attitude” which has brought on all your problems.  See how easily this works?  Men’s complaints automatically convict the complainer, and so women as a group are always blameless.  Kafka would be proud.

Reading Pandagon brings back to mind a quote I heard once: feminism is the creationism of the left.  The central feature of creationism is that it holds to a fixed idea and is cannot be moved by any evidence from the real world.  The feminism on display here has that same quality.  The “fixed idea” is that everything that’s bad or regrettable in women’s lives can be traced to the bad behavior of men as a group (or to women following men’s dictates, which also traces back to men), while the reverse is never true: nothing bad about the world, or legitimately bad in men’s lives, can ever be traced back to the behavior of women as a group.  In addition to denying significant agency to women, a problem on its own, this wildly asymmetric view cannot possibly comport to reality.  But if you read here (and I have read every one of the comments on this thread) and be honest, you will see that every remark by a “feminist” fits squarely within the “men bad, women good” cosmology.  The clever jujitsu described above is just another brick in the wall: de-legitimize men’s complaints in advance, and you will never have to be confronted with uncomfortable evidence that might challenge your fixed idea.

Personally I’m saddened that the word “feminism,” which once stood for an idea and movement of world-historical importance, has now been appropriated by the rigid and sterile ideology on display here.

Comment #674: Esau on 08/11 at 11:03 AM

Comment #218: Esau  on  08/12  at  08:29 PM

My hesitance in saying a guy is good looking has two parts.  The first is my sense of what makes a guy good looking is way off from what women think.  I’ve always thought Justin Timberlake, for instance, had below average looks.  Same with the young guy in the Transformers movie.  Yet women, apparently, think they’re hot.  I’d never guess Hugh Jackman was in the top 10, let alone the sexiest man alive.  Ryan Phillipi had pretty features when he was younger, but was he hot?  For real?  Are Gael Garcia Bernal and Jake Gyllenhall good looking guys?  I have no idea, leaning towards “they’re just average”, but I know my wife thinks they’re attractive.  But you can generally guess if someone is famous, they’re considered good looking.  It’s even harder with people I know in real life.  There have been instances where it has been completely beyond me that women I knew found that one guy was attractive, but found a guy I’d have thought was attractive gross.  So I can identify guys I think are good looking, but I have little idea whether I’m right or not.

The other thing is that there’s kind of a lack of participation in it.  One of the dads in my son’s class drives a Maserati that I can look at and think, “Man, now that is a beautiful car.”  I don’t look at Brad Pitt and think, “Yeah, he really is beautiful.”  I can see and understand what you like, but I don’t share any sense of appreciation for it.

Comment #219: Wallace  on  08/12  at  08:29 PM

Women’ll have relationships with men, but they’ll (typically) frame it as “He makes me laugh” or “He’s very kind/caring/considerate” or whatnot.

This can be a leading cause of sexual attraction.  For all genders and sexual orientations.  I’m not the hottest girl in the world, but when I’m being funny, I can seem like it to the right guy.  Women have more about them that’s attractive other than our looks.

I do think you accidentally stumbled on something.  A lot of guys who fall into the “what would women want from me?” might have a problem with whole-person attraction, and think of sex strictly as an appearance-related issue, and that leads to wondering what women get out of sex.  Straight women think about men’s bodies more than you’d think, but we’re culturally conditioned—-because our sexist culture wishes to shield men from objectification—-to focus on personality when talking.  And men are conditioned to objectify and not talk about whole-person women.  But what people talk about isn’t necessarily all they feel.  Men fall in love because women are funny, kind, creative, whatever—-all the time.

Comment #220: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  08:32 PM

I just found this on Jezebel:

Women More Picky Than Men About One Night Stands
British researchers report that men are more likely than women to agree to casual sex, whether the woman is attractive or not. However, most women said they’d only have a one night stand with an exceptionally attractive man. [Science Daily]

totally. For me to risk my personal safety with someone I don’t know, he’d better be slammin’ hot

Again PERSONAL SAFETY….something men don’t really need to worry about when hooking up with women.

Comment #221: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  08:33 PM

Or not even just love.  Lust, even.  I think I’m witty in general.  I’ve seen men move from the “barely noticing me” to “clearly thinking I’m cute” column after I make the funny.

Comment #222: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  08:33 PM

The first is my sense of what makes a guy good looking is way off from what women think.
We don’t all think alike.  Or even mostly alike.  I don’t know what other women see in Brad Pitt, or lots of guys.  But we can mostly appreciate the possible appeal and general good looks of someone who doesn’t particularly turn our personal crank.  Can’t you do that with women?

I’ve always thought Justin Timberlake, for instance, had below average looks.
He’s not really ugly, though.  Plus he can sing and dance, so that ups the whole package.

Comment #223: lonespark  on  08/12  at  08:42 PM

How can anyone who’se seen any porn think that women aren’t eager for sex with men, wherever, whenever, however? Riddle me that.

To defend Brian on this one, the whole point of porn is that it’s a fantasy.  For men who watch it, it’s all about what women aren’t in real life.  Men who think women don’t like sex are often the ones most addicted to porn, because they love that this is the world how it should be, with women hungry for it.  There’s no moderation there, no sense that sexuality happens in the real world in the middle ground, where there’s physical attraction + horniness, sure, but it’s also a function of personality chemistry and whether or not there’s fun to be had.  One can be horny in real life without jumping the first available person, for instance.  Maybe they’re gross or you don’t want to bother, and so you masturbate instead.  In porn, this isn’t really how it works.  In real life, you may not be that horny, but then you go out with someone you discover is smoldering hot after a heady discussion of shared hobbies, and suddenly, you’re horny.  In porn, it’s just horny, apply cock, any cock.

Comment #224: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  08:42 PM

Esau, if you feel a particular comment is especially unfair then say why. Don’t try and frame everyone’s opinions into some narrative about how awful feminim is meant to be. Everyone agrees that there are still serious problems in society that affect women disproportionately and that we need to work together to sort them out. Yes, occasionally someone will post something that’s unfair or which infers something that wasn’t there or which attacks a strawman, but how are you anything but a hypocrite by being self-righteous about it then doing the exact same thing?

Comment #225: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  08/12  at  08:42 PM

All in all, I think Brian’s right that homophobic pressures on men encourage them to internalize the idea that women don’t really like sex.  Certainly, that’s a widespread cultural message that you see on everything from bridal shows to sitcoms to relationship advice books like “The Rules” or “Men are From Mars”, etc.  Also, abstinence-only classes teach that women don’t really enjoy sex, but it’s something we exchange for love.  (Men are assumed to be unable to truly love women, and will only pretend to love for sex.) 

Women don’t like sex/men don’t like emotions is the message that creates the narrative about how male/female platonic relationships are impossible.  It also extends to stereotyping gays and lesbians, with the former slurred as unable to create loving relationships and the latter slurred as unable to maintain hot sex lives.

Comment #226: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  08:47 PM

Esau, your opinion of your own intelligence and worthiness of being pitied is far, far, far beyond reality.  Seriously.  That may actually be the most narcissistic, whiny comment I’ve ever read, and I’ve been blogging for a long time.

Comment #227: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  09:04 PM

Esau, if you feel a particular comment is especially unfair then say why. Don’t try and frame everyone’s opinions into some narrative about how awful feminim is meant to be.

He’s not interested in a discussion.  He’s interested in reinforcing his own hatred of women, full stop.  The comment could have been nothing but women writing, literally, “Yadda yadda yadda”, and he would have c/p’d the same thing.  Misogyny isn’t something that you just have for dudes like that.  It requires constant upkeep.

Comment #228: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/12  at  09:08 PM

The “fixed idea” is that everything that’s bad or regrettable in women’s lives can be traced to the bad behavior of men as a group (or to women following men’s dictates, which also traces back to men),

Esau, stupid comments like that are why God hates you.

Comment #229: asdf  on  08/12  at  09:09 PM

asdf brings the funny.

Comment #230: lonespark  on  08/12  at  09:14 PM

oh! exholt, i wasn’t accusing you personally of cluelessness, sorry if it came off like that. I just reread and spotted the ambiguity. I meant that the ads you cite are another example of men not being able to distinguish between what men want, (and sometimes project onto women) and what actual, real women might want in a sexual partner. I think it matches up eerily well with what someone said above about porn presenting female desire as nothing but a strange craving for nonspecific cock.

Comment #231: daisyparker  on  08/12  at  09:22 PM

exholt: wow you really went to a school full of haters! I am so curious as to which….

liviaclaudia,

Keep in mind that at my undergrad, this hatred of formal businesswear including suits or blouses was applied toward both genders, especially considering the campus had a slight female majority with a progressive radical left student body that has been very supportive of feminism.

The campus hatred towards fashion…especially corporate conformist fashion like businesswear I saw there was mainly derived from the fact formal businesswear was seen as a symbol of establishment conformism, adherence to their perception of right-wing politics, and materialistic excesses from corporate capitalism.

Comment #232: exholt  on  08/12  at  09:26 PM

Amanda, you’ve illustrated and proven my point perfectly, and more efficiently than I could have done.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.  It’s a real service to your readers.

Comment #233: Esau  on  08/12  at  09:29 PM

Southern ladies who lunch are the experts at the backhanded compliment, and yes, it’s a sign of social dominance.

This reminds me of a guy I met in college who tried to give me advice on how to meet women when I was a freshmen. The advice was not “be an asshole to the woman.” It was “be an asshole to everyone else,” because it shows you’re dominant and attracts attention. There was some added complexity to his whole explanation, but that was basically the starting point.

Wearing a formal suit/dress there would have signified three things: one was a conservatory student with the associated stereotype of being snobby because s(he) is gifted musically, an economics major who is looking to sell out to the evil capitalist corporate machine, and/or a bland conformist obsessed with observing right-wing establishment politics

Those are all reasonable assumptions among college students. Formal dress is for formal occasions. Wearing a suit to class is generally limited to those adopting some kind of foppish affectation.

Even in the workplace, suit-wearing is generally limited to those who have to have meetings with clients or other formal business-type meetings. The IT guys need to wear clothes that they can get dirty while crawling around the back of the server rack, and the software developers would feel that a work dresscode that required them to wear a tie would be a sign of being treated as a low-level monkey. And anyone who dressed like that of their own volition was trying to be some kind of suck-up. It’s one thing to dress nicely at a casual workplace (though you may become known as “the snappy dresser”). It’s quite another to wear an outfit that is completely out of place for the environment, in the same way you don’t show up to a business meeting wearing a tuxedo.

Comment #234: Tyro  on  08/12  at  09:36 PM

exholt - I get what you’re saying and I know people who have that mentality to some degree, myself included.  But my point is that men know they look better when they dress nice.  This goes to show that men are aware that they have such a quality as “attractiveness” and how to change it.  The fact that they’ve also gone as far as to assign moral value to whether you put effort into “attractiveness” just underscores my point, in my opinion.

Comment #235: Denise  on  08/12  at  09:37 PM

It was “be an asshole to everyone else,” because it shows you’re dominant and attracts attention.

Weird. I wouldn’t want a date to see me being an asshole to anyone, especially if we didn’t know each other that well. Why wouldn’t she assume I’d just be an asshole to her too?

Comment #236: junk science  on  08/12  at  09:38 PM

I wouldn’t want a date to see me being an asshole to anyone, especially if we didn’t know each other that well. Why wouldn’t she assume I’d just be an asshole to her too?

The next step along the way of this longwinded explanation that was given to me was to then “do something nice” for a drunk friend or break up a fight because this shows that you have a “nice side” which will come across as intriguing. It’s embarrassing that I remember this all these years later, but some people are attracted to the loudmouth who draws attention to himself, and there are personality types whose “social persona” is one in which they are very nice to a certain inner circle but standoffish to “outsiders.” They might even consider such an attitude a demonstration of loyalty to their friends.

Comment #237: Tyro  on  08/12  at  09:43 PM

Tyro:

god, why don’t you just stage a play? That’s fricking ridiculous.

Comment #238: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  09:53 PM

The next scene is where you kick a homeless guy in the ribs and then rescue a starving kitten from a gutter.

Comment #239: junk science  on  08/12  at  10:05 PM

I’ve known many men who claim not to be able to recognize good looks in another man. Fine, I can buy that although I don’t understand how you can’t see the difference between Johnny Depp and your average Joe. And I suspect it isn’t always true, because most of the naturally pretty men I’ve known have come in for serious mocking by other guys as being gay, cruel, stupid, weak and so on.

What blows my mind is when men express disbelief and scorn that women are attracted to good-looking men. As in, they’ll say “what does she see in him” and when the answer is “he’s smokin’ hot” they act like that’s the most outrageous, silliest criteria in the world for a woman to have. I even fell into that trap in my youth, when men would make fun of a pretty boy and I would vehemently deny that was why I liked him. Only when I got older did I realize most men own their appreciation of beautiful women without shame and I should do the same.

Comment #240: Veronica  on  08/12  at  10:14 PM

Esau, I’m going to be young and naive here and assume good faith.

When I was a newcomer to Pandagon, I was similarly resistant to the harshness towards “nice guys”, but that was because I didn’t realize what it meant. It doesn’t mean any guy who is nice but has a problem with dates. It doesn’t even mean any guy who SAYS he is nice but has a problem with dating. A Nice Guy is someone who has trouble with dating and then concludes that it is because women are idiots who are only attracted to jerks. A Nice Guy believes that being nice/friendly towards a woman entitles him to sex (or romance) with her. The most important feature of a Nice Guy is that he blames all his dating failures on the whole female gender.

And that’s the important thing. You can be a man who has trouble with dating, and you can think it sucks. The problem is when you start to blame women as a whole for that trouble. That’s what Sodini did.

Comment #241: Lenina  on  08/12  at  10:36 PM

I’ve known many men who claim not to be able to recognize good looks in another man. Fine, I can buy that although I don’t understand how you can’t see the difference between Johnny Depp and your average Joe.

For probably the same reasons why most of the female co-workers in one office I worked at couldn’t understand who most of their male co-workers were so obsessed with certain female celebrities like Paris Hilton some years back.

Also, aren’t standards of what constitutes “good looking” may differ dramatically depending on the individual making the assessment?

Comment #242: exholt  on  08/12  at  10:39 PM

Oh, and Esau?

There is a difference between saying a problem is caused by the system that has men in power, and saying that it’s caused by an inherent flaw in men.

Comment #243: Lenina  on  08/12  at  10:58 PM

liviaclaudia:

The myth part is that the prince (or sometimes the commoner) had to succeed at some complicated quest to get the princess. You know, like hitting enough bowling pins on the midway gets you the kewpie doll. The reality was that the only quest was choosing the right parents (or occasionally killing enough neighboring nobles to expand your own domain).

Comment #244: paul  on  08/12  at  11:23 PM

Here’s how it progressed for me.

Stage 1 (childhood/teens):  Internalized the message that women aren’t interested in sex and het women don’t find men attractive.

Stage 2 (early to mid twenties):  Realized that yes, they do, but since almost all direct observation of that involved celebrities, wrote it off as het/bi women being attracted to extremely good-looking men but indifferent to the appearance of 99% of the men they’d meet in real life.  Heck, since there seemed to be more freedom for women to disagree about male celebrities’ attractiveness, even that 1% wasn’t certain.

Stage 3 (late twenties to present day):  Realized that it’s not just celebrities, and concluded that the lack of sexual interest in me even after I overcame shyness, learned to socialize and flirt and be a good and interesting person is evidence that I’m especially ugly/unattractive.

I’m still stuck at stage 3.  Maybe because it’s accurate; my partner tells me she finds me physically attractive, but I can often find it difficult to believe as (a) nobody, not even former partners, ever has (whereas people have told me I’m ugly), and (b) we’re in a long-distance relationship and communicate primarily by telephone (so it’s not often reinforced in a way I can’t manage to doubt).

This is an extreme case, perhaps (both in terms of being slow to figure this out and personal body/appearance issues), but I think a lot of guys *do* go around thinking that het/bi women don’t find men (at least men like them, who aren’t celebrities) good-looking, and think that women’s attraction must work in some different, unfathomable way.  That’s where the PUA gurus seduce their marks; they claim to have the answer to that question.

Comment #245: jfpbookworm  on  08/12  at  11:24 PM

I actually think it’s good that “The Game” is getting so much attention, because it’s like Sacha Baron Cohen: less and less effective the more popular it gets. Women aren’t blind and deaf—the more people talk about Game, the more likely women are to be aware of the phenomenon and how to avoid the sad sacks who try to use it, and the less it will work. Guys will be disgruntled that it doesn’t work, and stop trying to use the pickup artists’ tactics. Right?

(PS. Hi! First-time caller, long-time listener.)

Comment #246: alexandria  on  08/12  at  11:40 PM

Amanda,
Jerry’s friend here.

If there’s an insider/outsider feel to the whole thing, I’m sorry our marketing or our materials aren’t clear. We are definitely selling a product designed to help men get women into bed. We are also selling a product that helps men understand their own role in relationships and understand the pattern of behaviors that have resulted in their various successes and failures. If you honestly believe that guys don’t pursue romantic or intimate relationships with the intent of eventually arriving at sex in those relationships, I would urge you to reconsider your position.

I am aware that our methods are an easy release valve for misogynists. I cringe when I read some of what’s out there on the dirty, dirty internet. I think almost everything you’re saying about real, mature, successful human relationships is right. I just disagree that every guy who tries to get a handle on this area of his life is a sad sack of woman-hating shit, and I disagree that there are channels better than ours. We get results, and we let our students define what results mean for themselves.

It’s easy to say that the solution is human connection and relating on a personal level and being confident. It’s not so easy to direct people in how to do that. People come to us and say, “Tell me what you can for $3k. You have a weekend. Go.” And we try our damnedest to give them their money’s worth. You may not like what we do, and some students have more trouble than others, but there is no doubt whatsoever that we change lives. I’m sorry more people don’t take away the ethical or moral groundwork I try to include in my teaching, but it’s not because it is not presented as part of the materials. What’s more, we at Love Systems are learning more about how to communicate the path to a successful romantic/love/sexual relationship all the time, becoming better teachers all the time, learning all the time how to work within the constraints of a three day program. We’ve come a long way from the time when The Game was written, and I hope Love Systems, in what we teach if not our image necessarily, has distanced itself from the likes of The Pickup Artist.

I don’t mean to make this sound too touchy-feely. We definitely have a shortest-road-to-sex approach to our courses. That is what some guys want. It is what a LOT of guys, if not most guys, want. It doesn’t mean that all guys want only sex, nor does it mean that all guys want sex immediately. It means that most guys, when they are ready and eager to have consensual sex, would like to do it as soon as possible. It’s not some PUA conspiracy.

I can hear your gears grinding about pressuring girls into sex… I’m so ready, but this is already too long, so I’m gonna skip my response to something you haven’t said yet…

Oddly, the vast majority of our students no longer seem to come from the community at all but from… everywhere else (we ask how they found us at the beginning of every seminar). And no guy sees himself leering in a corner trying to score with a coed come fifteen years from now. They want to find the right girl—and, sure, maybe they want to go through a few or a few dozen to find her—and they have no idea how to even start the conversation. I don’t know what to say about guys who are too aggressive. That scares the shit out of me. A close friend of mine was recently in a foreign country and was cornered by a guy who wouldn’t let her leave, so she just crumpled in the corner and tried not to pee herself. I almost started hyperventilating with rage when I heard that. I hope and pray that our method, a huge element of which is teaching social savvy (i.e. if a girl is whimpering and about to pee, she does not want to sleep with you and will never want to), will help guys understand why that sort of behavior is awful, evil, and does the opposite of solving their difficulties with women.

Finally, you are flat-out wrong if you accuse us of charlatanry. Read our negative reviews in the media. When people write nasty things about Love Systems, they accuse us of being bastards, not that our methods won’t work. If you want to see for yourself, check the schedule at our web page and let me know when you might be within shouting distance of us. Sit through all three days of what is actually TAUGHT in my classroom before you assume I’m a huckster selling snake oil and telling men to insult women. Even if you reply with bile, know the invitation is always open.

Peace be with you
Thompson/ Future
Love Systems Lead Instructor

1,2,3, FLAME!

Comment #247: Future_LS  on  08/12  at  11:45 PM

jfpbookworm:

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

your assessment doesn’t jibe with reality. Do you guys just ignore all the evidence that doesn’t fit your world view or something?

I find this boggling.

Comment #248: liviaclaudia  on  08/12  at  11:51 PM

1,2,3, FLAME!

Translation: “I’m a fucking troll and won’t listen to anything anyone says. Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.”

Comment #249: asdf  on  08/12  at  11:58 PM

you ARE the troll police! lol.

but in this case asdf, you’re totally right. That was maximum trollage.

Comment #250: liviaclaudia  on  08/13  at  12:06 AM

If you honestly believe that guys don’t pursue romantic or intimate relationships with the intent of eventually arriving at sex in those relationships,

Oh my GOD! Men want to have SEX with us? I had no freaking idea. Thank you, thank you for revealing this deep, hidden secret of men to us dumb-ass women.

Comment #251: mythago  on  08/13  at  12:07 AM

Wallace,

I think a part of it is that people natually have quite varying tastes in what they find attractive, but we all all influenced by the media, which tends to by very homogenous.  And since the mass media focuses on the male gaze, men’s sexual tastes tend to be more influenced by media images than women’s sexual tastes are.

There are plenty of guys I consider to be incredibly sexy, but that most women I know only sort of find asthetically pleasing at best.  And vice versa.

I’ve seen this happen with guys too, but it tends to still be within the narrow confines of what the media considers to be an attractive woman (or, at least, that’s what they admit to in my presence, anyway) and their reactions tend to be much more…violent, really.  In my experience, women are more likely to tease each other in a friendly way about their differences.  Guys actually seem to get angry at the idea that there is a woman out there being told she is sexy when they disagree.

I’ve always figured it was mostly a huge chunk of entitlement (if I find Julia Roberts unsexy, everyone else should too - or at least have to hear me complain about her) mixed with just a little bit of annoyance at having to deal more with the media telling them what they should find sexy.  (Unlike women, who have to deal with the media acting as if they don’t like sex to begin with.)  It might also have something to do with them talking to me, a woman, and not another man.

Comment #252: jennygadget  on  08/13  at  12:09 AM

liviaclaudia, I wish you would look at my last post to you in the contentious thread. I really don’t think you were being fair. And I did not call you a troll either. I don’t mind having enemies, but I like my antipathies to be based on more than a misunderstanding.

Comment #253: asdf  on  08/13  at  12:09 AM

my comments above were meant in fun, just relax.  you do call people trolls a lot though, you surely realize that. I’m just joshing you on it.

Comment #254: liviaclaudia  on  08/13  at  12:24 AM

I’m relaxed. I just did not appreciate your earlier implication that I am violently dangerous. I’m not. But I ought to be allowed to feel emotions, and even get angry, like anyone else, without it being assumed that I’m anything but a normal person with emotions. Thanks for listening.

I called one person a troll controversially—who later proved me right—and you’ve focused on this. Well, you are entitled to your disagreement. But I’d hardly call it a pattern. The rest like Future_LS are indisputably trolls and I call this a public service. smile

Comment #255: asdf  on  08/13  at  12:40 AM

If you honestly believe that guys don’t pursue romantic or intimate relationships with the intent of eventually arriving at sex in those relationships, I would urge you to reconsider your position.

Women call you sexist, and your immediate response is to condescend to us as if we’re stupid! Way to put your best foot forward, dude.

Comment #256: killjoy  on  08/13  at  01:18 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), I assumed that that the basis of those relationships must have been something other than mutual sexual attraction.

Comment #257: jfpbookworm  on  08/13  at  01:22 AM

I am not sexist. I know we do not teach our students to berate or hate women. I try very hard to find the good in people. I pray I impart that respect for every person’s individual dignity on my students, and I refuse to accept that I somehow view my female friends or lovers or ex-girlfriends as less than people, glorious and flawed and human, just like the other half of the species.

Whatever else I know, I know I’m not sexist. Here’s why:

What Love Systems teaches works. No system can teach any man to get Every Single Girl All The Time. We are not wizards. I am not Professor X. Some guys want that, and we explain in very clear terms why they need to reign in their lunatic expectations. Regardless of the inherent limitations of our product not being Spanish fly, we consistently provide vast improvements in men’s ability to pursue the kind of relationships they seek with the kind of women they’re seeking. Best of all, since our students are all people, they don’t all want Playboy Playmates and strippers and porn stars. Some want politically active girls or geeks or heavily tattooed bikers. As varied as people can be, so are our students’ tastes and desires. I don’t teach my students to berate women, but I do explain a path toward a braver stance on being playful with women, on testing the waters without fear of rejection or attachment to outcome.

And it works. Love Systems works on women who respect themselves and women who are looking for a real relationship and women who have heavy, unresolved baggage and women who only want sex for one night. It works on women I have loved, and it will work on women I will never meet. Our stuff works because it caters to how humans are built. We teach men how certain behaviors are perceived by other people and we try to explain why those perceptions and attitudes work in the larger context of choosing a partner.

I feel like further discussion of the argument demands a consistent stance. I don’t mean to be a shit and harp on it, but it’s important. Either what we teach works, and it works on a lot of women, or it doesn’t and we’re charlatans. Clearly I believe the truth is closer to the former based on our refund rate, our 100% guarantee, and the reviews of our products… to say nothing of the changes I have personally seen in my students’ (and my own) romantic/sexual/love lives over time. We teach men to become more attractive to women and get corresponding results, so the more important questions are why people are the way they are, why otherwise sane, successful men do or don’t do the things that ought to work when selecting a sexual partner/potential mother of his child, and why do women respond to it? I am in awe of our work because if women respond to it across so many personality types and IQ levels and socio-economic backgrounds and physical appearances and ethnic backgrounds and geographic backgrounds and levels of ambition and life experience, then whatever these women are responding to is something very close to what it means to be a human, or at least a human in developed countries in 2009.

I apologize and apologize again if I sounded condescending in my comment above. I swear I’m not trying to be a troll, no matter how much I might end up pissing you off. I suppose too many more of such unconscious gaffes will prove your point for you, no? I am almost certainly defensive, given the nature of the post on which I am commenting and the general atmosphere surrounding this whole conversation.

Comment #258: Future_LS  on  08/13  at  04:16 AM

Can I just say that I find Future_LS’s posts to be an irresistible mix of MeMeMe oscillating between bravado and fear (“I am in awe of our work”, “I am almost certainly defensive”) and othering of women (“omen respond to it across so many personality types and IQ levels ...” , “sexual partner/potential mother of his child”)?

Yo, your mind is all tied in knots. Let me simplify.
1. You are selling a bag of tricks to help your clients interact with women from a “stance” of social superiority, where they learn confidence from belittling and not caring about the other person. As many have pointed out, this is a shitty thing to do in any case, but in our society, to women, it’s downright scary.
2. Your feel threatened for your livelyhood and self-perception by the discussion on this thread and elsewhere on the feminist internets.
3. And yet you’re unable to see how lumping women into “sex dispenser and/or reproduction receptacle” with simplistic characteristics, who “respond” (like a sample in a petri dish!) to your tricks is not super fucking insulting.

Women are people, not targets. One doesn’t need a “stance of bravery” or other fuckneckery to approach a woman. One needs to be a decent human being without a hidden or overt agenda of manipulation. Which would imply approaching women as interesting people, potential friends, colleagues, what have you, not as enemies who guard the pussy.

Comment #259: CassieC  on  08/13  at  07:32 AM

Maybe delete future_LS’s advertising? I know you have all kinds of dodgy advertisers here but usually they’re paying for it!

Comment #260: daisyparker  on  08/13  at  09:15 AM

America is a culture of salesmen. Millions of people have some kind of job in sales, which involves approaching strangers and convincing them to buy something, day in and day out.  And Americans are constantly listening to self-help tapes and reading self-esteem books to keep their spirits up after they get rejected day in and day out and reminding them to focus on “closing the deal.”

It doesn’t surprise me at all too see someone trying to sell “how to meet women” classes in the same way. I have higher aspirations for myself than becoming a used Tyro salesman.

Comment #261: Tyro  on  08/13  at  09:28 AM

Let me say that I know the mindset I’m discussing requires a lack of empathy.  I don’t deny it, I don’t think it’s a good thing, but I can’t just walk down to Zeller’s and pick up some empathy, so that’s that. 

Quite frankly, that on a feminist website people would tell me “I know you say that’s your experience, but I don’t believe you, let me tell you what you actually think.” is a little surprising, as is the (apparent) lack of belief that socialisation is a powerful force that can very strongly impact the way we think. 

There’s a lot of talk about porn, and how we can miss that, but I’m not sure it’s quite like that.  Porn isn’t supposed to be realistic, but a fantasy, but beyond that, there’re certainly parallels where it might be understand.  I don’t find myself attractive, but I enjoy masterbating.  I’ve done it before, and almost certainly will again. But getting out of the shower this morning, looking in the mirror didn’t turn me on in the slightest.  It’s not really a prerequisite to find some physically attractive to enjoy sex with them.

But I think the point I really want to come back to is entitlement.  I’ve no doubt there are a lot of men who feel entitled, but I don’t think Gabe is displaying that, nor do I think “true” Nice Guys really experience it at all, but quite the opposite.  I am ... not so bad anymore ... but when I was pretty bad in the Nice Guy mentality, I would steadfastly refuse to ask women out because I found it far too insulting to propose something like that where I was so obviously taking advantage of them.  Gabe says we (collectively) have nothing to offer, and it’s the same mentality.  How can you justify asking someone (and someone you like/care for/respect/whatever, after all, Nice Guys are usually interested in their friends) for something of value, and give them nothing of value in return?  (For fuck’s sake, I’m not claiming this is true, so please don’t tell me “but a relationship with a man has value!”, I’m just talking about a mindset)  That seems really insulting.  Frankly, even wanting a relationship with a woman seems pretty insulting, and probably usually makes one feel pretty guilty (I always did, anyhow).

Entitled or not, it should be pretty obvious a lot of straight men have no idea why women would want to have sex with them.  Above mentioned is penis enhancement.  Few women are looking for men with fifteen inch dicks as hard as tungsten carbide that stay that way for a week, but a huge number of men are interested.  If penis enlargement surgery didn’t result in diminished or eliminated function three quarters of the time, they’d have lines around the block.  Why the cluelessness?  When no reason makes sense for why women’d be attracted to men, any nonsense is as good as any other, if you can keep a straight face.

For questions of problematic misogyny and whatnot in this, I think it’s much more interesting to try and separate two groups, Nice Guys and Pick Up artists.  If you’re terrified of women (and this’s usually just in non-platonic contexts, I think.  I’ve personally never been afraid of women, though I might’ve voiced it as such, but been terrified of trying to propose/initiate non-platonic activies with women.  That certainly strikes me as Nice Guy-ish.  The idea that someone terrified of approaching women would want to be a Pick Up artists is absurd, why would someone terrified of approaching women want to do it again and again and again? (I’m pretty sure the answer is “They wouldn’t.  They’d want to do it as few times as possible, then develop a relationship where they’d eventually be able to relax.”)  But Nice Guys want the same thing as Pick Up Artists with respect to being able to approach women in a non-platonic way (and no, “treat them as people” isn’t meaningful information, since it just sends you back to developing platonic relationships, and then saying they’ll automagically convert into non-platonic ones. That advice relies pretty strongly upon denying a lot of denying the experiences we’re talking about.)  There is a need to bring women down off a pedastool sometimes.  (Certainly, sometimes a “women are not so much better than you that showing interest in them is an unforgivable insult” kick in the bum is needed,)

Okay, I’ll stop rambling.  But if you’re going to tell me off, I won’t be convinced by arguments that rely on “Brian, that’s not what you really think” or “Brian, that’s not how you really feel.”

Comment #262: Brian  on  08/13  at  09:38 AM

Future_LS:

And it works. Love Systems works on women…

The operative word is “on”  That suggests a target or mark not a new friend to find.  So…ummm….yeah, it’s evil bullshit.

Comment #263: Magis  on  08/13  at  10:05 AM

@Brian

I think I get it now. You’re problem used to be my problem and is often something that occurs very strongly in teenagers, and then people get out of it, or not.

I used to think no one could be interested in ME - and I extended that to a pretty dismal view of women. I’m gross, women are gross, how could any one ever be interested in women, their bodies are squishy and their private parts are icky. Never mind what the rest of the world was telling me.

The big change that happened was that I came to terms with being myself. I stopped being overcritical, I started seeing other people as people just like me, with insecurities and ups and downs, I started appreciating myself AND others. It all sort of came together. Now I can admire human bodies pretty generally, I lust after men and understand why they would lust after me.

I don’t know how this could help you or someone in your situation, but definitely the problem is with self-perception: if men see themselves as gross and unlovable or undesirable, they are quite likely going to have a tendency to be assholes to women. The following things are true, the question is whether or not you can get yourself to believe them:

1. you are just like everyone else, more or less. Really.
2. straight women are attracted to men _because_ they are men. Seriously.

I’ve slept with women: they’re soft and smell nice and don’t snore so loud, but guess what, I still like sleeping with hairy smelly snoring men better. Women don’t give me razor burn, but I still like kissing men better. Women’s private parts are usually not as funny looking as men’s, but I still prefer sex with men. And I really like male necks and shoulders and chins and butts and so on. Heck, some people lust after toes and belly buttons. We’re silly, but also attractive. Hard to tell the difference, often.

Comment #264: CassieC  on  08/13  at  10:26 AM

Cassie C #264,

nice. More of that, please, really helpful. smile

Women are people: It’s an attitude, not a conversational strategy.

And it doesn’t automatically create attraction. I think it’s dangerous to even implicitly suggest such, as it will lead to nice-guyish (hide your sexuality) approaches and frustration that will lead to jerkish behaviour when it won’t work. The difference between attitude towards women and the conversation skills needed to be attractive to a woman cannot be overemphasized.

Comment #265: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  11:58 AM

Oh, I don’t really think it’s worthwhile for people to try and “help” me over it.  I’m not nearly so bad as I was when I was younger.  I mean, I still don’t “get” why anyone’d be involved with a man, but I’m content enough to sort of shrug and say “Well, that’s your decision to make, eh?”, even if I can’t really get why they’d make that decision.

It comes back, I think, to the point that a fear of women isn’t about entitlement, or misogyny, but more or less that women have a lot more to offer men than the reverse.  It’s not really about how they’re thinking about women, but how they’re thinking about men.  The reason I don’t go into a car dealership and offer them five dollars for a new car is the same reason as a Nice Guy I don’t ask women out.  I think the car dealer, and the woman, are perfectly reasonable people who’d be completely insulted by my offer which completely undervalues (the car, the relationship).  Nice Guys are hiding their sexuality (and often denying they’re interested if confronted) because they think it’s insulting to the woman they’re attracted to.  This isn’t what Pick Up Artists are doing at all.

And so Gabe very offhandedly relates to the “difficulty in approaching women non-platonically” without really looking at the rest of pickup artistry, and when he’s later pressed backs off a lot, as he figured at first “I understand guys who need help trying to pursue non-platonic relationships”, but looks deeper and says “Okay, this looks off from what I expected”.  And so I want to pry apart Nice Guys and Pick Up Artists, who are outliers in their opinions of women, but in more or less opposite directions.

Comment #266: Brian  on  08/13  at  12:38 PM

One of the really striking things that sank in for me about reality was the extent to which social self-segregation determines with whom we pair, EVERYONE gets good sex—but WITH WHOM is determined by commonalities of appearance, social status, and sociolect, unless you begin looking at attraction as a knowable process and begin exploring the possibility of experiencing it with different people.  In my mind, that is what PUA implies.  Of course, I’m a lot more sanguine about the possibilities attached, since I find that I get outright rejection a large proportion of the time, a lot more than more conventionally-attractive men, and am not very pushy even with pick-up, to the extent that I’m not terribly interested in arguing a woman into having sex with me.  The result is a weird sort of sexual ghettoization, which is hellish for men who regard their partners’ appearance as a status symbol, and may find that the “type” they naturally draw is not useful as a sexual status symbol, but if you’re dehumanizing your partner to that extent already you really shouldn’t be fucking people.

Comment #267: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  01:07 PM

Brian, for a long time I thought I was less straight than I am because - I finally figured out - living in our culture, absorbing our media, everyone is constantly and consistently taught how to look at women with desire. Our advertising, our movies, our camera angles are all about how straight men look at the parts of women with desire. It is entirely possible that straight women don’t think about men the same way, how could we? We don’t have an entire culture behind us teaching us how to reduce men to ribcages and thighs, or teaching us that we have any kind of inherent, explicit right to men’s ribcages or thighs. But you know, if there’s any hope for you at all romantically you probably are actually attracted to people whose thighs and ribcages are not advertising standard, or towards bodily features that aren’t made into perfume ads. And that kind of undeclared, quirky lust is a lot more of what I hear women express towards men, honestly, when they’re not trying to establish in this kind of conversation that They Too Like to Have The Sex.  My lesbian best friend is super-attracted to clavicles; I think dude’s hipbones are super-attractive and thank god for hipster jeans. These are the kind of things that wouldn’t make it into T&A;-type media anyway, which I am glad for, because quirks are more interesting.

Comment #268: purpleshoes  on  08/13  at  01:07 PM

Also, I am always struck down by wonder in Nice Guy threads because 1) I don’t think I’ve ever had a successful relationship with a guy who wasn’t at least a serious gamer on the geek scale 2) my most successful relationship so far is composed of a long-friendship-and-sudden-coupe-de-foudre progression but I don’t think it ever veered into Nice Guy-ism, because of clear communication and a lack of jerkiness. (Though I have never stopped making fun of my SO for the several conversations over the years composed of “I’m not attracted to you!” “Well, I’m not attracted to you!” followed by mutual sulking and an eventual return to friendship. In the meantime we dated other people, went to other countries, had interesting life experiences - maybe it’s the hanging all your hopes on one relationship that really makes a Nice Guy.)

Comment #269: purpleshoes  on  08/13  at  01:13 PM

find that I get outright rejection a large proportion of the time, a lot more than more conventionally-attractive men, and am not very pushy even with pick-up, to the extent that I’m not terribly interested in arguing a woman into having sex with me.

To the extent that you’re not interested in browbeating an unwilling woman into sex?  You poor thing!  How this must handicap you in your pick-up artistry.

Comment #270: killjoy  on  08/13  at  01:22 PM

You know, to people who don’t know my husband very well, he comes off as a big jerk.  The kind of guy who probably fosters the “women only like assholes” opinions of Nice Guy (tm)s all over the world.  He’s big, he’s kind of scary looking, if you piss him off he will tell you all about it and he can be a total dick to people he doesn’t know well. 

However, he also has a heart as big as they come, turns to goo when confronted by kittens or puppies, is kind to children, helps little old ladies cross the street and loves his mother.

He also loves me unconditionally, the only person in my life to ever pull that off. 

So, just maybe women don’t like assholes.  Maybe women like multi-dimensional human beings who treat them respect, have wicked senses of humor and care more about their partners’ orgasms than their own.

Comment #271: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/13  at  01:27 PM

And what about the guaranteed refund?

Quatloos Financial & Tax Fraud Associates, Inc. explains: The worst programs will promise you some sort of refund if it all doesn’t work out. These are the worst programs because the refund programs are usually contingent on this-or-that, require long forms and long waits, often the refund is only 30% or so of what you spent, and usually the refunds are illusory (meaning that they company will never pay out the refund to you). The MLM programs which offer refunds do this to create the illusion that there is “no risk” to you—and this is a 100% fraud because as discussed, your odds of actually getting your money back is infinitesimally small. At least the companies which don’t offer refunds tell you this up front so that you are not suckered into believing this nonsense.

Now wait a minute, asdf. Aren’t you being unfair? What’s wrong with offering a refund? If there were no refunds, wouldn’t you use that as an argument against Love Systems? Seems like they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Well, a real honest refund would indeed be a relatively positive thing. It wouldn’t deal with the pride issues of spending $3000, but it would benefit those few marks who can get over their pride and take the refund. So let’s look at Love Systems / The Mystery Method’s refund terms:

3. For live programs (for example, but without limitation, seminars, workshops, bootcamps, individualized training, personal shopping) refund requests must be made in person on the final day of the program. Your money back guarantee will be voided if you did not attend every scheduled program activity in its entirety, if you did not participate in all program exercises, or if you did not earlier communicate a Love Systems representative the circumstances of your dissatisfaction and provide an opportunity to cure.

You have to ask for your refund before you even leave the seminar. You don’t get the chance to go home first and try out what you’ve learned for a few weeks or months to see if it really works. How are you even going to know whether you’ve gotten your money’s worth? Only by “defining what results mean for yourself,” right there during the seminar. Boy, that sounds promising.

And look at the last clause: “Your money back guarantee will be voided ... if you did not earlier communicate a Love Systems representative the circumstances of your dissatisfaction and provide an opportunity to cure.”

What does “earlier” mean? Does that mean you have to go speak to the instructor on the first day and tell them that you feel like it’s bullshit so far? Prepare to be singled out by the instructor as a doubter (a bad situation in a white collar cult) for the rest of the seminar.

What does “provide an opportunity to cure” mean? The details depend on the consumer protection laws in the state where you take the class. But I’ll tell you what it means from a high-pressure sales standpoint. It means you have to sit there and listen while the sales representative tries to talk you out of the refund. And you have to sit there as long as they want to keep talking, for hours and hours if necessary. If you feel berated or insulted or angered, and if at any time you get up and walk out, then you’re the one who broke the contract, and you forfeited your opportunity for a refund.

If you sit through the entire hard sell and it doesn’t work, then you may be required to take another seminar, or buy a bunch of videos and books, in order to give Love Systems “an opportunity to cure.” If you have to go to another seminar, you might have the fee waived this time, or discounted, but you might have to double down and pay full price. Either way you have to get another weekend off from work, on the schedule that Love Systems demands, and you may have to fly across the country if the next seminar isn’t in your area.


Good luck getting a refund from these charlatans.

Scientology would be more effective at helping you get laid. At least there are women in the cult with you.

Comment #272: asdf  on  08/13  at  01:57 PM

Amanda, that was a two-part post and the first part is stuck in moderation.

Comment #273: asdf  on  08/13  at  02:00 PM

If most of you (women) were honest with yourselves, you would admit that the majority of the time you are not open to approach or actually interested in learning anything about some random guy hitting on you.  They only time things seem to happen are when said guy is EXACTLY what you find attractive OR he manages to overcome your initial lack of interest by charm or being otherwise intriguing.

Unfortunately, most of us average guys do not possess those skills innately and we either learn them by trial and error, some kind of mentoring, or not at all.  Granted, there are those who would use those same skills for evil. They should be shot for making it that much harder for the rest of us. 

The point being that your average guy isn’t in it for the conquest, but unless he manages to intrigue you enough to actually give him the time of day, he’s not going to get anywhere.

Obviously there are exceptions, but by and large this is the way of things.  After 20 years of dating life, I have yet to personally experience anything to the contrary.

Comment #274: PA Enthusiast  on  08/13  at  02:16 PM

I love that an apology given in earnest was treated as me oscillating from bravado into fear.

“1. You are selling a bag of tricks to help your clients interact with women from a “stance” of social superiority, where they learn confidence from belittling and not caring about the other person. As many have pointed out, this is a shitty thing to do in any case, but in our society, to women, it’s downright scary.”

Not investing immediately in a conversation with a stranger and treating said conversation lightly is not the same thing as belittling and insulting. You don’t invest with every human you meet, don’t give them the core of your emotional being every time you interact. In my experience people make priority switches and judgment calls as a matter of survival. Humans don’t have the mental capacity or energy to care about people who are ghosts from their high school or grade school or old job pasts the way they did when those people were in their day-to-day realities. In most (all?) people, that same shorthand shifting and ordering of priorities occurs when you meet new people, male or female. Many of our students are perfectly lovely human beings, but they have acquired poor habits throughout their lives when it comes to interacting with women they desire, habits marked by fear responses that do not accurately reflect their excellence of character. When their interactions with women reach a certain level of mutual investment, we help men understand how to take the next steps.

I don’t think belittling women or shielding one’s self from the prospect of caring is very effective. What we teach works. That means all this stuff that you’re maligning MUST be a little grayer than you seem to be allowing for because otherwise all these women would not be making the choices they do when they consent to (or in some cases, demand) a guy to have sex with her. We help men actually listen to women and learn to better establish rapport and find meaningful commonalities. All this is taught very much with the intent of helping our guy attract a girl, i.e. honestly, directly, and confidently behaving in such a way that a woman wants to have sex with him.

“2. Your feel threatened for your livelyhood and self-perception by the discussion on this thread and elsewhere on the feminist internets.”

My self-perception is fine, thanks. I love what I do, and I know what we have here is a failure to communicate, a trouble of perception, and an argument spanning a chasm of belief, hence my continuing to bloody my forehead against the wall of this comments section. When I was younger, I wore a hair shirt about my work, but nowadays I recognize the value of what we teach, and I think we should charge more. My livelihood will not suffer from this at all.

“3. And yet you’re unable to see how lumping women into “sex dispenser and/or reproduction receptacle” with simplistic characteristics, who “respond” (like a sample in a petri dish!) to your tricks is not super fucking insulting.”

I feel like you’re being unrealistic. Men and women both respond to certain traits and behaviors in each other and the opposite sex. Sure, like a sample in a petri dish. Or any other living organism. Isn’t this self-evident? If such an animal response wasn’t possible, where would we get emotions like fear or love? Why in the world would you take umbrage at such an idea when even the most basic involuntary emotion—your anger at my post, perhaps—proves it for me? Moreover, I don’t lump all women into two categories; you’re taking my words out of context. I said “when selecting a sexual partner/potential mother of his child”, i.e. while he is engaged in that specific activity. I hope our man in this case uses different strategies than those taught by my company while, say, hiring a new employee or addressing a courtroom. It’s a mystery of nature and a secret to our species why men (and women), when they are selecting partners to fulfill innately sexual categories, don’t naturally go about a course of action with a greater chance of success than whatever society has trained in them.

And asdf, we most definitely grant refunds, in some cases long, long after the student has taken the course, and they are always paid quickly and in full. One of my two refund requests came after the first day. He said it wasn’t for him, and I instantly put him in touch with the office and wished him well. I’ve seen the same thing happen with other instructors. Money out of our pockets. Sure, we’ll usually try to sell the guy on not walking away with his money, but we never, ever, ever refuse, even when they’ve signed the document to which you’re referring, even on the second or fiftieth day. I appreciate your caution, but it doesn’t jibe with the reality of what or how we teach. With that in mind, our refund rate is not 0% but it’s damned close.

Comment #275: Future_LS  on  08/13  at  02:17 PM

Again, killjoy, I’m drawing a bit of a blank, because enthusiastic consent is kind of an easy test to meet.  The more one’s “Game” is simply drawing people out and building natural rapport, the more respect for their agency.  The problem is that most men naturally have rapport only with a limited subset of women, the women who select those men specifically as “their type”.  Pick-up is, at its best, rapport-creation, and the idea is to be able to get attraction, rapport, comfort and sexual interest with at least some women who might, initially at least, not desire you, expanding one’s romantic/amatory/sexual possibilities.  “Treat women as people” is an attitude, not a technique, as noted above.

Comment #276: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  02:28 PM

@PA Enthusiast:  “If most of you (women) were honest with yourselves, you would admit that the majority of the time you are not open to approach or actually interested in learning anything about some random guy hitting on you.”

Yes, because we spend our entire lives dealing with all of the abovementioned bullshit from guys who are just hitting on us.  Seriously, read everyone’s comments about what we deal with on a regular basis.  Actually read them.  It’s like living in a state of seige, constantly being on your guard, particularly if you’ve already been raped by a “Nice Guy.” 

You just don’t fucking listen, do you?

Comment #277: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/13  at  02:30 PM

You know, future_ls, I’m a guy who is not always the most sympathetic to the feminist point of view. 

I think the key conflict here is that your system approaches dating like it’s an adversarial exercise.  It’s men versus women, and you have to watch out for getting played, and you need to know how to play them, and there are cons and deceits both that you need to look out for and that you need to employ.

The key concern for this community isn’t whether or not it works.  It’s what it reinforces and perpetuates.  It’s the tone and the attitude.

Comment #278: Wallace  on  08/13  at  02:39 PM

Brian:

I don’t know if you play chess or not.  But, if you do, think of things this way.  You can’t be so obsessed with the end game that it affects your ability to play the opening game.  In the beginning you’ve got to go into things neutrally.  You’re both making these insignificant little moves trying to figure the other person out.  Are they bold?  Are they timid?  Are they clever?

l don’t want to put it in a competitive light because that isn’t correct.  But still, pre-conceptions limit one’s ability to relate over a broad spectrum of emotions.  I will agree with you in so far as this.  When I was young I had soaked up the whole “suger and spice” thing and when I first encountered full-on female lust I was a bit taken aback, delighted, but shocked a bit.  Maybe I was just lucky to get over it early.

Women always have security issues but other than that they are almost identical to men in their desires only with different target identification software.  Women aren’t scary and don’t want to be scary.  You don’t need PUA tactics.  All you need is an ability demonstrate your humanity and a healthy interest in lust (hers and yours).

Comment #279: Magis  on  08/13  at  02:44 PM

“If most of you (women) were honest with yourselves, you would admit that the majority of the time you are not open to approach or actually interested in learning anything about some random guy hitting on you.”

No.  I am almost never interested in that.  That’s why it’s so frustrating when said random guy refuses to accept it and move on when I say “I have a boyfriend” or “I never hook up at bars” or “No, thanks, I don’t want you to buy me a drink” or “It was nice meeting you, but I’m going to re-join my group.”  And why it’s so creepy and irritating when some other guy purports to be able to teach random guys a “system” for MAKING me interested in one-night stands when I’m not and I never have been.

Comment #280: killjoy  on  08/13  at  02:56 PM

@future_LS

I wasn’t angry at your post: I was delighted by its sheer, exuberant display of inner conflict. And you keep delivering!

Your answer to my first point is “yes, and?” (although a bit more convoluted, to match your guilt or whatever it is at what you do for a living).

Listen. I (and everybody) have different levels of caring for people. That doesn’t mean that I treat anybody I come across as a lesser pawn in my game. I treat them as a full human, no matter if old, ugly, annoying, whatever. Sometimes I fall short and am rude or impatient, but I’m never less than aware of their humanity. This means you may be teaching your students a whole new set of habits, but not the right ones.

And your mechanistic view of people is a little short on real understanding of human nature, and long long long on evo-psych type bullshit. If one treats other people as humans (I sound like a broken record but it’s as true as the first time!), one can see them as individuals with universal desires, for love, companionship, respect, fun, independence, health and on and on. The point of being an individual means that different things work for different people. The pre-packaged means of establishing contact (or participating in a pervasive culture of harassing women, wev) you sell your poor customers are, well, stale.

Comment #281: CassieC  on  08/13  at  03:08 PM

And asdf, we most definitely grant refunds, in some cases long, long after the student has taken the course, and they are always paid quickly and in full. One of my two refund requests came after the first day. He said it wasn’t for him, and I instantly put him in touch with the office and wished him well. I’ve seen the same thing happen with other instructors. Money out of our pockets. Sure, we’ll usually try to sell the guy on not walking away with his money, but we never, ever, ever refuse, even when they’ve signed the document to which you’re referring, even on the second or fiftieth day. I appreciate your caution, but it doesn’t jibe with the reality of what or how we teach.

There is absolutely no reason to believe you when the Terms and Conditions as written directly contradict everything you’re saying now.

This is another tactic of high-pressure sales: “don’t look at what the contract says, that’s all legal boilerplate with no relevance. Just listen to what I’m telling you right now.”

Even if you do sometimes give refunds later, under the contract as written you have no legal obligation to do so, and anyone who feels they are not treated fairly has no legal recourse. Your mark has signed the contract and is at the mercy of your whims. Your mark is at a strategic disadvantage. The only thing that might compel you to give a refund is the potential for a public relations incident, so the fewer connections a guy has, the less chance of a refund he has.

If you were operating an honest business, you’d just put fair terms into the contract in the first place.

Comment #282: asdf  on  08/13  at  03:31 PM

Thank you both killjoy and GeekGirlsRule for illustrating my point.

I can’t help that you were mistreated by previous guys you’ve met (women in general that is, not a personal assessment of you).
I don’t want to “MAKE” you do anything.

What I want is for you to decide to give me a shot if I approach you instead of dismissing me offhand.  A “no” is a “no” and I walk away as I always have.  But if I were to say or do something differently in that instant that results in you saying yes, should I not try to learn it?  Afterall, your not dismissing me based on any deep knowledge of who I am.  To you I’m just another asshole until I prove otherwise.

And this is why it sucks for me, because its a lose - lose situation. 

Now, this is not an endorsement for “Love Systems” or being a PUA, as frankly I find the mentality and focus of both far from acceptable.  But I also recognize that there must be some truth to what they are shilling that can be used in a positive way.

Comment #283: PA Enthusiast  on  08/13  at  03:35 PM

What I want is for you to decide to give me a shot if I approach you instead of dismissing me offhand.

PA Enthusiast:  Even as a not-very-attractive guy, the only time I would have given some random woman who hit on me “a shot” without some other indication of compatibility was when my self-esteem was so low that I thought it was impossible that anyone else would find me attractive, ever.  (And even then I’d be suspicious.)

Why do you think you’re owed other people’s time and consideration?

Comment #284: jfpbookworm  on  08/13  at  03:43 PM

@jayjay232: “Women are people: It’s an attitude”

err. No. It’s a core belief.

Comment #285: CassieC  on  08/13  at  03:46 PM

Then how about approaching me not as a potential conquest, but as a fellow human being.  If you can’t keep your eyes off my tits long enough to figure out what color my eyes are, then no, I’m not interested.

Or how about talking to women who demonstrably share your interests, say who are doing something you also do, like a wine tasting, or RPG convention, maybe a book club?  If all you’re interested in is scoring some pussy, that’s really fucking boring.  Seriously, as stated before, women are into multi-dimensional guys with interests they feel passionate about.  Hell, I don’t even like baseball, but if I meet someone who’s really, really into it, I’ll listen to an impassioned speech about it because enthusiasm is infectious. And if you are really into baseball or hockey or something else, go where other fans go.  There will probably be some women there. 

You know what else is really novel?  When a guy just says, “Hi, how are you?” and MEANS IT.  Not because it’s part of the dance to get to the poon tang, but because he’d actually like to talk to you.  When you approach women with sex as your sole goal, you’re sunk before you’ve begun.  At least for most of us.

And when you get through the small talk and decide to buy her a drink, when she says No, accept that.  Don’t be all, “Oh, come on, it’s just a drink.”  Or, “just one?”  You can certainly keep talking to here, and that might score you points.  But when she definitively turns you down, don’t call her a bitch or a dyke.  This just points out to all and sundry what a classless lowlife you are. 

I have never seen a “line” work on anyone.  Mostly it just makes everyone in range giggle like loons.  And that “negging” crap?  Two can play at that game, and I am a master, but only if provoked.

Comment #286: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/13  at  03:53 PM

What I want is for you to decide to give me a shot if I approach you instead of dismissing me offhand.  A “no” is a “no” and I walk away as I always have.  But if I were to say or do something differently in that instant that results in you saying yes, should I not try to learn it?  Afterall, your not dismissing me based on any deep knowledge of who I am.  To you I’m just another asshole until I prove otherwise.

I’m perfectly willing to have friendly chats with men I meet in bars; I do that all the time.  What I’m not willing to do—ever—is hook up with them immediately.  That’s not how I approach sex or relationships.  I get pissed off when men won’t believe me (like when you want to do something that “results in me saying yes” when I’ve made it clear that NOTHING results in me saying yes). 

Other women feel differently about one-night stands and that’s fine.  I’m happy to have you walk away from me and try your luck with other women if that’s the kind of interaction you’re looking for. 

Part of this is phrasing, I suppose—I don’t mind the idea of you learning how not to frighten me or piss me off, if you’re having trouble with that.  What I do mind is someone selling you the idea that if you learn the right set of tricks you’ll be able to get women into bed even when we don’t want to be gotten.

Comment #287: killjoy  on  08/13  at  04:05 PM

What I want is for you to decide to give me a shot if I approach you instead of dismissing me offhand.  A “no” is a “no” and I walk away as I always have.  But if I were to say or do something differently in that instant that results in you saying yes, should I not try to learn it?

*mumbles under breath “God give me strengh”*

PA Enthusiast:

There isn’t anything to learn.  She is probably there for the same reason you are.  There are no magic phrases.  What is it that you think you’re going to learn?  A method; a system?  There ain’t one.  Don’t be a sucker.  How about coming off as a sincere guy who is obviously interested in her.  If she didn’t tell you to fuck off in the first five seconds before you could deploy your ‘rouitine’ there is a fair chance she’s already decided to give you a chance to say your piece.  Every woman in the world has different ‘buttons’ you can’t possible learn something that works on all women because there isn’t anything. 

Not only that *revs up* but have you thought about this scenario?  She’s looked at you and thought ‘he’s kinda cute’ and you open your yap and come out with some sort of “what’s your sign baby” or whatever these PUA assholes teach you and she instantly assigns you to asshole hell.  Meaning, have you ever considered that this canned bullshit might drive away more women than it attracts?  Save your money.  Listen to the women.  They’ll tell you what they want.

If all of this guy’s instructors were women and the program was written by women it might be worth a shot.  Why on God’s green earth would you listen to men trying to explain women and pay for it to boot.  /rant

Comment #288: Magis  on  08/13  at  04:07 PM

@ PA Enthusiast. 

I am a huge fan of PA.  I own all of the comics compilations that they put out via Dark Horse.  I’ve listened to all of the podcasts.  I read all of Jerry’s posts.  I read and (very occasionally) post on the forums.  I’ve been a gamer, both electronic and table top, my whole life.  I met my husband in large part because of Magic the Gathering.

But Gabe was just plain wrong here and I will explain why:

PUAs hide behind this idea that women are mean to them “for no reason” when they try to pick them up.  For example: when a guy approaches a girl in a bar and she gives him a cold-to-rude brush off.  The guy feels slighted because he acted “nice.”  So he feels that more aggressive tactics are justified.  Places like Love Systems provide templates for that kind of behavior, such as “negging” and using “compliance tests” (I will explain if someone is curious) to weed out those who say “no” easily and misleading or sometimes flat out lying about their intentions in order to “get” (read: sleep with) the women that they want.

I want to pick on the “for no reason” portion of this scenario and explain why it is incorrect.

This viewpoint fails to take into account the context of living under a patriarchal SYSTEM that all women experience.  You as an individual might not have done anything to offend.  But the woman is defensive because she interacts with a SYSTEM of male dominance all day, every day.  I think a fair metaphor is the white guy who can’t understand why black individuals are “so angry” even though they didn’t do anything to directly offend.  This point of view ignores an important piece of context: the SYSTEM of racism that such an individual endures, which keeps them on alert, feeling tense and distrustful and on guard.

Future_LS, I understand that you believe that your individual enlightenment on the subject of the personhood of women excuses the fact that one of the primary customer bases of your product are guys who want “revenge” for being treated poorly “for no reason” and that it is not your fault if these flawed individuals use your strategies to bring about harm.  But the fact remains that the philosophy and the tactics that you teach serve to reinforce the SYSTEM that causes women to constantly put up walls to protect themselves from men and thus causes individual men (who either cannot or will not empathize with these women because of their male privilege) to seek ways to act out against them, etc etc, the circle goes on.

Comment #289: madavis4  on  08/13  at  04:31 PM

sorry for all of the scare quotes, but I want to be careful about distinguishing the language used by PUAs as separate from my own

Comment #290: madavis4  on  08/13  at  04:33 PM

I love this thread.  It’s been a fun exercise. 

Ladies, treat the guy hitting on you as a person too.  We’re not all out to get you for a one night stand.

Some of you should probably re-read everything I said.  I should probably work on being a little more clear when trying to convey my opinions.

Comment #291: PA Enthusiast  on  08/13  at  04:53 PM

Ladies, treat the guy hitting on you as a person too.

Unless he has a huge sense of entitlement like PA Enthusiast, who thinks strangers owe him something. Then you should get out the pepper spray.

Comment #292: asdf  on  08/13  at  05:03 PM

If most of you (women) were honest with yourselves, you would admit that the majority of the time you are not open to approach or actually interested in learning anything about some random guy hitting on you.

Shocking, I know, that we women don’t really look forward to having random people interrupt what we are doing just so we can focus on what they want us to focus on, but thems the breaks.

Comment #293: jennygadget  on  08/13  at  05:05 PM

Privilege on a platter:

“Some of you should probably re-read everything I said.” : go gaze at my navel, bitchez! You can’t even read properly!

“I should probably work on being a little more clear when trying to convey my opinions.” : although really I can’t even write, to be honest!

Comment #294: CassieC  on  08/13  at  05:24 PM

That is the thing, PA Enthusiast.  We WISH that all we had to contend with was the individual.
But when the individual is *willingly* acting as a cog in a system that oppresses us by paying money to learn how to trick us into having sex with him or her (or even when he simply expects us to stop everything that we are doing in order to take the time to explain to him why we aren’t interested in being hit on rather then spending our time out at the bar having fun with our friends) then we ARE NOT simply contending with an individual.  We are contending with a system of thought that is backed up and enforced by numerous systems, political, economic, familial, religious, etc etc. 

YOU might not be out to get us for a one night stand.  But plenty of guys are.  And the difference between yourself and those predators is indistinguishable in the first 5 min of interaction.  *And* if we act politely to every guy that approaches us, then we *invite attention* from that small subset that does wish us harm, that won’t take no for an answer, that will tell us we are giving off “mixed signals” if we speak politely for a few minutes before indicating that we aren’t interested in sex or a relationship.  In fact, some of us have experienced a rape or sexual assault that started off as a simple conversation in a bar.

Many guys would respond to the above by saying “just because you had a bad experience in the past doesn’t mean that you should be dismissive of all guys.”  But let’s turn that statement around and think about what it means:

It means, “I don’t care what has happened to you in the past, what kinds of strategies makes you feel safe or even about how you are feeling right now.  What is important is that you soothe my ego and make me feel good by giving me some of your time and attention simply because I asked for it.”

To quote Jerry at PA (admittedly in an entirely different context), such a request might as well say, “In order for me to have everything that I want, you are going to have to give up a few things.”

That is the definition of entitlement and privilege.  You don’t have to deal with the kinds of problems that women do, so they don’t matter, they shouldn’t factor into the social decisions that women make every day.  Apparently, the only thing that should matter is whether or not you feel as though your feelings were hurt.

Comment #295: madavis4  on  08/13  at  05:51 PM

@PA Enthusiast: “If most of you (women) were honest with yourselves, you would admit that the majority of the time you are not open to approach or actually interested in learning anything about some random guy hitting on you.  They only time things seem to happen are when said guy is EXACTLY what you find attractive OR he manages to overcome your initial lack of interest by charm or being otherwise intriguing. “

I fail to see why this is at all surprising or contradictory to anything anyone has said. In general, people aren’t open to being approach by strangers. Women are people, so duh ...

It is, if you don’t mind my saying so, really fucking obvious why women aren’t interested in “some random guy hitting on them”. He’s just some random guy - someone they don’t know from Adam - and he’s hitting on them. The very fact that he already wants to have sex with them before they’ve even spoken more or less guarantees that he’s not someone anyone in their right mind would want to get to know better. He doesn’t think he’s an attractive, worthwhile human being who women should be interested, so why should she?

This is the fundamental problem the pickup businesses face: The right answer to “How do I get women to want to sleep with me?” is “There is no answer to that question because women are not an undifferentiated mass and the very fact you’re asking means you’re at best you’re scared of your own sexuality and at worst positively dangerous”. Unfortunately, while I think some people in the business actually know this, saying it up front wouldn’t exactly be a winning marketing strategy. The framework they’re operating in more or less forces them to teach men how to pretend to be confident, discriminating people who don’t try to sleep with absolutely everyone with breasts, and just hope that ultimately the ones who aren’t dangerous develop some real confidence and the ones who are don’t do any real damage.

Comment #296: SimonK  on  08/13  at  06:02 PM

Well put, madavis4.

Comment #297: asdf  on  08/13  at  06:19 PM

Hear, hear, madavis4!!!!  Yay!!!!

For PAEnthusiast and some others,

Women have developed the defenses we have for a reason, not just ‘cause we’re mean and stuff. 

Repeatedly women in this thread have offered suggestions for how to approach women, but certain guys (I’m guessing) just keep focusing on “but you aren’t giving us (me) a chance!” 

We are.  We’re telling you how to approach women as people, but you don’t want to hear it.  You want a “snap your fingers and have pussy falling out of your pockets” approach.  It doesn’t exist.  You’re going to have to learn to deal with us like we’re actual people.

Comment #298: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/13  at  06:27 PM

Future_LS said, without a hint of self-awareness:

Whatever else I know, I know I’m not sexist.

And yet we can know for certain that this is false.

Because right there on the Love Systems front page is this:

Love Systems levels the playing field; money and looks don’t matter since everything is based on female psychology.

Looks don’t matter. No matter how ugly you are, looks don’t matter. Love Systems claims they will make women want to have sex with you.

Yet there is no equivalent suggestion that men should have sex with women who they think are too ugly.

That’s a tremendously sexist double standard, right there. And if Thompson Future_LS doesn’t understand that, then he doesn’t even know what sexism is. He obviously doesn’t know what male privilege is. So he can’t be trusted to know, even for himself, how sexist he really is.

Comment #299: asdf  on  08/13  at  06:42 PM

Also, the very idea that *he* can say something like “I am not sexist” and we are all just supposed to accept it while *our* thoughts and opinions, such as, for example, “this system is sexist” need correcting that only he can come in and provide.

That smacks a little bit of sexism imho

Comment #300: madavis4  on  08/13  at  06:46 PM

madavis4, I would be interested in a brief explanation of PUA “compliance tests” if you have the time.

Comment #301: asdf  on  08/13  at  06:51 PM

And I’ll point out before your hatchet job arrives that someone who accepts mere compliance rather than enthusiastic consent as a standard is a predator who would probably be that way no matter what “system” they subscribe to.

Comment #302: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  07:11 PM

I am working on a paper for a class in television studies, so I will quote from The Mystery Method:How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed (note: Love Systems was previously known as the Mystery Method Corp. according to a google search, but I couldn’t tell ya if this book is related to this company or not.  It was written by the PUA Mystery, the one who had 2 seasons of the VH1 show called “The Pick Up Artist.)

From the glossary: “Compliance Testing: Asking a target to do something in order to gauge her interest in you.”

an example of the rhetoric from page 142-144:

“One concept central to the Mystery Method is compliance testing.  Request your target do something for you, be it hold your drink, hold your arm, scratch your back, kiss you, *or spread her legs.* (emphasis mine)

If she complies with your move, several things are accomplished: First, similar to kino pinging (according to the glossary: “An expression of growing attraction between two people that starts with verbal jousting back and forth and escalates to light, playful pushing.” ... WTF?) it is an IOI (indicator of interest) ping and also creates attraction.  Second, you have escalated—she is now more comfortable with your touch.  Third, her frame has been further influenced and absorbed by your own.  Reward her with an IOI, but do so intermittenly.  You might do a compliance test with her hands and then throw them away.  But then her next compliance might be rewarded with a compliment or another touch or by turning to face her more with a smile, etc.  This might be followed by another IOD (indicator of disinterest) to create more sexual tension.

If she defies your compliance test, give her an IOD, followed by a DHV (demonstration of higher value, ie: making yourself look important) and then another compliance test.  For example, if you ask a girl to stand up, she may not.  She has refused your hoop.  This doesn’t look good; it’s a DLV (demonstration of lower value) to the group.

Don’t blame her—maybe she’s just not attracted enough yet, or maybe the hoop was too big, too early.  So just be unaffected, do another DHV, and try another, smaller compliance test: “Show me your hand” (which can always be followed up by taking her hand and saying, “OK, now stand up for a sec…”)

There are hundreds of compliance tests.  Tell a girl to sit closer.  Kiss a girl.  Ask her any question.  Hold her hand.  Rub her neck.  Put her hand on your cock (WTF???).  Every escalation, every bounce or move, every touch, even sex itself is a compliance test.  (AAAH!)  When you’re wondering how things are going with your current target, ask yourself: Where is her compliance threshold at now?”

page 145

“There are deeper levels of compliance than sex—but they are not the subject of this book.”  (I shudder to imagine.  Sounds like abusive controlling behavior)

In other words, you give the woman little tests to see if she is obeying you, following your leadership, willing to go out of her way for you.  When she says “no,” you punish her by acting like you aren’t interested in her, then try to make yourself look more attractive/important before testing her again. If she says yes, you reward her *sometimes* but not every time lest you get boring/predictable/start to seem like a fawning suitor (since indicating that you are not trying to get them in the sack is an important strategy to get women into the sack).

Lest you think that the “treat for good behavior” language is lost on them, they explicitly compare this method to animal training on page 136:

“Animal trainers know that it’s much more effective to reward intermittently than consistently.  Likewise, IOIs given to the target as a reward should not be delivered predictably…. When she is being rewarded in this manner, she is more likely to chase you and to comply with compliance tests.”

or page 172

“In this way, the punishment is actually just a quick, sharp correction, like in dog training.”

If anyone actually reads this material, it is difficult to say that it is not outright woman-hating invective.

Comment #303: madavis4  on  08/13  at  07:19 PM

And I’ll point out before your hatchet job arrives that someone who accepts mere compliance rather than enthusiastic consent as a standard is a predator who would probably be that way no matter what “system” they subscribe to.

And if the PUA hucksters cared about any such distinction, they wouldn’t teach “compliance tests” in the first place. Nobody needs to “test” for enthusiasm; it’s obvious on its own.

Comment #304: asdf  on  08/13  at  07:28 PM

Thanks, madavis. That’s a weird look into some dark shit.

Comment #305: asdf  on  08/13  at  07:31 PM

I wish I could afford the $3000 to take a seminar (or could get the school to pay for it) because I would love to talk to some actual participants.  I’m sure I could get some really juicy quotes acting as a female supporter “undercover.”

Comment #306: madavis4  on  08/13  at  07:37 PM

I dunno.  I’ve only rarely had women initiate touch, while I have had quite a few respond enthusiastically to an exploratory hand squeeze, which is a basic “compliance test.”  So we still have the problem that heterosexuality is performative and its burdens not very equal.

Comment #307: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  07:39 PM

Don’t know whether to giggle or puke.  The funniest thing to me is that this is kind of like alchemy.  All these fancy but worthless formulas.  Only this time instead of making gold out of lead they’re trying to make Cary Grant out of Harpo Marx.  I’m waaaay too visual but I can almost see some inappropriately dressed doof, armed with the magic formual (only $900!), setting off in full confidence that he is going to conquer this ravishing beauty and then getting shot down in flames in about 3.5 seconds.

But, ya know, it’s heartbreaking.  Here’s some poor ultra-shy fellow who really just wants a nice girlfriend getting sucked into the this shit.  It is criminal, it really is.

Comment #308: Magis  on  08/13  at  07:50 PM

I’ve only rarely had women initiate touch, while I have had quite a few respond enthusiastically to an exploratory hand squeeze

Feet work as well, it’s just getting the circumstances right that’s so damn hard…..................

Comment #309: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/13  at  07:50 PM

insults you deliver in hopes to weed out women with high self-esteem.

My partner and I were talking about the “Seduction Community” weeks ago, possibly even before the shootings, and I used that exact same phrasing.

ladybronwyn (16):

I think it’s also helpful to see where his tentative sympathy for this stuff is coming from—as someone whose anxiety and depression were truly crippling in social situations, especially with women, he empathizes with men who feel bewildered and that they need help learning to be social

I sympathize with the search for a system or method that will make it easier to talk to women. It can be hard to remember in the moment that the fact that you want to sleep with someone doesn’t make them suddenly not a person and doesn’t make the conversation suddenly more important than any other. Again, the media is sufficiently clear that women’s power derives solely from their control of access to sex and women are fundamentally different from men that a guy with poor social skills who doesn’t really talk to people much can easily falll into believing it at least a little bit, and letting that model influence his thinking.

But that’s no excuse for not saying “hm, this book/class is telling me to be douchey and manipulative, so I’m going to find a dfferent approach.”

gorobei (80):

I probably delivered a “neg” last night

It’s by definition deliberate; either you did or you didn’t.

BenYitzhak (91):

I’ve read “describe your perfect relationship” statements on Jdate where they talk about wanting to find a friend and seeing what that develops into.

And that’s fine; the Nice Guy™ pretends to offer friendship with the sole and specific intent of developing it into a Relationship. That’s not quite the same as falling in love with a friend.

Comment #310: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/13  at  07:50 PM

It is not the “test” that is the problem exactly.  It is the fact that the test is used to gauge whether or not one should give out rewards or punishments.

And I agree, in our everyday lives we give our time and attention to those who we enjoy and we withhold it from those that we do not. 

But that is quite a bit different from the mindset that says it is okay to manipulate women by trying to mimic that natural form of interaction in order to “push her seduction buttons” or whatever the hell stupid terminology is being used.

Go read the Gift of Fear.  People who are intent on robbing or kidnapping or raping or abusing or killing others use similar types of manipulating in order to both subconsciously acclimate the “target” (a word that PUAs use all the time) to accepting the leadership/authority of the player and to weed out targets that won’t put up with bullshit and therefore might put up a fight.

@ Eurosabra - how was my “hatchet job?”  Your comment @307 is the perfect definition of “patriarchy hurts men too,” so shouldn’t you attempt to alter the sexist system that passes out those burdens unevenly rather than simply giving up and joining up with that system?

Comment #311: madavis4  on  08/13  at  07:52 PM

Again, it’s the language that indicates the mentality.  Taking someone’s hand to see how he or she responds is a pretty benign move.  I’ve done it to men I was interested in before when I had a sense they were flirting with me and wanted to confirm it.  It’s not a compliance test, it’s an interest test.  If he doesn’t squeeze back I have my answer and nobody has to be overly embarrassed.

You might say, what’s the difference if the behaviour is the same, but the language has implications.  If your goal is getting women to obey you rather than getting them to like you, your overall attitude and behaviour will reflect this.

Comment #312: killjoy  on  08/13  at  08:03 PM

^^^ YES

Comment #313: madavis4  on  08/13  at  08:09 PM

Well, if you don’t know the corporate history of LS and MM, and you’re planning to infiltrate the seminar to do an exposé, I’m reassured that you’re stunningly ill-equipped to do so.  I can be as non-compliant with patriarchy as I want, but within my social circle I’m much more likely to meet with women who are well-ensconced within a feminist system (doctors, lawyers, Ph.Ds of various stripes) who are also likely to be beautiful and benefiting from THAT type of privilege, and they are going to demand men who are effective within the power system established by patriarchy (“confident” is the euphemism of choice for that, “successful” is another one) such that I and my big brain are going to be left high and dry, with intelligence, humor, and compassion strictly not-good-enough selling points unless and until I monetize them.  It’s not that I dislike my partner, or past partners, but the fact that I generally had to outrank them within the PAT in order to inspire interest without my fantastic suckduction mynd-control techniques, and that I *don’t* get interest from my social or intellectual equals when I try naïvely to build rapport, is somewhat disheartening.

Comment #314: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  08:11 PM

GeekGirlsRule,

“We’re telling you how to approach women as people, but you don’t want to hear it.  You want a “snap your fingers and have pussy falling out of your pockets” approach.  It doesn’t exist.  You’re going to have to learn to deal with us like we’re actual people.”

ahm, sorry, again, “women are people” is the attitude not a conversation strategy. The only person I’ve seen who’s actually tried to be helpful was La Lubu in the first of these threads.

Really, I can see that treating women as peolpe is a core value, something that everything an interaction is about would be based on, but it doesn’t tell me anything about the interaction itself. It doesn’t make it easier to talk to women, it doesn’t change any of the awkwardness when you’re approaching someone. Well - i think it doesn’t. But maybe you are actually able to explain how women are people can actually be broken down to the level of information that is actually helping guys approach woman (as people) with a romantic/sexual intention. I’m asking seriously, what would a “women as people” approach look like *in detail*?

Comment #315: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  08:15 PM

Well, you just talk to them like you would talk to a regular person. You DO talk to people from time to time, right?
The problem is that you start off seeing it from a strictly sexual/romantic/whatever perspective. If you’re attracted to a woman (and I’ll say superficially attracted, since you don’t know anything about her personality at that point), why not just say hi and strike up a regular conversation with her rather than go straight to flirting? I can tell you your success rate would be much higher. Believe me, we can see pick-up lines a mile away and it’s generally not well-received.
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse, lots of people have been telling you that the easiest way to go is to hang out at places where you are liable to meet people who share your interests: e.g. if you like painting and you go see an exhibition, you can strike up a conversation about art… As far as meeting people go, I don’t think “hitting on strangers in bars” is the best strategy for anyone.
The advice (which has been repeatedly given upthread) sounds quite straight-forward to me, but you insist on having some sort of “universal formula”. But there is no such thing because, once again, what works with one person is not going to work with another…

Comment #316: Scarlet  on  08/13  at  08:24 PM

Eurosabra, you may want to consider a few possibilities:

(a) many of the people you hang out with are assholes

(b) You’re not as smart or as interesting as you think you are
  i) Corollary: The people you think are your social and intellectual equals actually aren’t

(c) Within your social circles, your lack of professional accomplishment means you’re not as attractive to those who are very professionally accomplished

PUA classes aren’t going to help with those things. You need a new set of friends or a career change. The PUA classes are just going turn you into that guy everyone in your social circle knows as “the one who keeps hitting on and asking out everyone we know.”

Comment #317: Tyro  on  08/13  at  08:31 PM

madavis4 - Yuck! I must keep that comment and reread whenever I start to feel that some of this stuff isn’t so bad, to remind myself that while that might be true in parts, there’s definitely stuff that really is bad. “Compliance test”. Ick.

But its not only icky, but weird too, like a description of human sexual behavior written for alien anthropologist field workers, its so incredibly lop-sided. Its teaching men to pretend they’re not in fact indiscriminately trying to sleep with every woman they meet, where in fact they are (or close enough).

Comment #318: SimonK  on  08/13  at  08:35 PM

@ jayjay

I have one anecdote on how I approached my guy. My point of view, with some added details from his point of view.

Venue: college dorm tv room
Occasion: 2004 election night
Ostensible General Activity: everybody was watching the numbers come in

I was laughing. I was laughing because I noticed for some absurd reason that Ralph Nader blinked one eye at a time and that was hilarious to me.

My guy noticed my laughter and was intrigued by the sound (I’m rather like a hyena) and look of me. And he made his move: gradually working his way around the room to the space next to me and sitting down a polite distance away, not crowding me.

He passively hoped that I would notice him. Should I not have, I assume he would not have been completely devastated, since he did not directly engage me.

I smiled, greeted him, he greeted me back.

And then I asked him a question specific to him: Why are you wearing a hat?

He was wearing a hat. Indoors. At night. It seemed like a perfectly innocuous opening question.

His response: another smile and “It’s not a hat. It’s a beanie.”

Which made made me (given my personality) engage with him in a light argument on semantics regarding headgear. The topics jumped from place to place, and at no point did he come across as a self-absorbed asshole and at no point was there any pointed sexual undertones. At multiple points, both of us lulled in conversation and it would’ve been fine to disengage and walk away. Neither of us did. Our energy fed one another in conversation and I felt immediately comfortable and attracted. We arranged to see each other again.

The conversation was not full of stilted lines or superficial questions or statements meant to suss out his chances of getting me into bed. He made no mention of himself in regards to status, no preening, no fussing. He had opinions and didn’t lord them over me. He allowed me to take the lead in conversation if I wished.

The conversation flowed and neither one of us was bored.

That’s what it means to treat a woman as a person. I felt, correctly, that he was interested in ME. And I was allowed time to evaluate whether or not I was interested in him. And a lot of it was because the both of us separately as people worked on our conversational skills. We were not lecturing, preaching, or otherwise bragging. And that is something that isn’t absurdly difficult to cultivate; active listening and speaking with another.

And our conversational topics? Hats. Who would win in a fight; Smurfs or Keebler elves, why Ralph Nader blinks one eye at a time, what we had for lunch, our favorite foods, what our majors were, why we were in our majors, what we thought of the dorm, who we knew in the dorm, what we did for fun… A lot, a lot.

Comment #319: Norvegica  on  08/13  at  08:39 PM

lol

I have just begun my research.  I am a student who is interested in the topic, so “expose” is probably a little extreme for the type of project that I would be creating in order to complete a class assignment. Since I don’t have the $3000 to spend, you can rest assured that I won’t be sneaking into your secret He-Man Woman Haters Club.

I notice that you haven’t refuted any of the points of my “hatchet job.”  You’ve just complained that relationships are hard without asshole tactics. 

Your post implies that you feel that compliance with the directives of the patriarchy is wrong (or at the very least yucky) but that you stick with it in order to get partners.

Do you think that women don’t feel the same pressure?  That there are no ideals imposed upon us by such a decision?  That we don’t agonize daily about which we should put first: our own success in every realm of life or our understanding of right and wrong?

Sorry, but “immediate gratification” is not an excuse to act as an accomplice to such a system.  You say that the women inside your social circle don’t react to your charms.  Apart from the obvious criticism (maybe you aren’t as awesome of a dude as you think), the second-most-obvious piece of advice is to change social circles. 

Also, if you think that medical school, law school, and academia are feminist utopias in which women never face discrimination, where they never get passed over in favor of men, where they are never judged by their looks instead of their abilities, where they are never dismissed as “ball busting bitches” by jealous co-workers… well then you live in a fantasy land where your own delusions of martyrdom justifies mean, manipulative, and cruel behavior.

If you care to enlighten me on the corporate history of LS and MM I’d be happy to hear it.  You’ll note that I admitted my ignorance and pointed out the fact that the name switch only implied and did not prove a connection.  Real duplicitous of me.

Comment #320: madavis4  on  08/13  at  08:43 PM

@jayjay

Which means, at base, that you shouldn’t be a dull stick in the mud with no range in subject manner when it comes to conversation and the inability to laugh at yourself.

Comment #321: Norvegica  on  08/13  at  08:46 PM

According to Wikipedia,

Love Systems is a corporation that markets dating seminars teaching men how to have successful relationships with women. The company is based in Los Angeles, CA, USA. It was established in 2004 as the Mystery Method Corporation (founded by Erik Von Markovik and Nick Savoy)[1][2] and renamed Love Systems in 2007. The company is led by Nick Savoy and has no outside investors.[3]

Love Systems teaches a method of seduction and provides advice on dating from former Mystery Method dating coaches and other instructors, about 20 in total. With their three-day dating workshops, or “bootcamps” as Love Systems calls them, they teach and train men to become more successful around women and to improve the dating lives of men. Workshops take place on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday with five-hour instructional sessions supplemented by four-hour field sessions on Friday and Saturday night.[4] Thousands of men have taken a workshop and workshops have taken place over 13 countries and over 35 cities.[5][6]

Erik Von Markovik is “Mystery” from the VH1 show, the author of the book.

If this is wrong, please correct me.

Comment #322: madavis4  on  08/13  at  08:51 PM

I’m asking seriously, what would a “women as people” approach look like *in detail*?

Since women are human, at any given time some women are trying to meet men. Looking for those women is a better use of your time than targeting women who’ve just gone out to the bar to enjoy a few drinks with their friends and see a band play.

I’ve suggested speed-dating, but a dating website is also going to connect you with women who are seeking.

If you’re nervous talking to women in general, others here have suggested acting classes, as a way of meeting people and overcoming anxiety. Of course, you have to go into that with the understanding that while it’s possible you’ll meet someone there and there will be mutual interest, it’s not a dating service and most people are there just because they’re interested in acting.

If even that is too terrifying, you may have an anxiety disorder, and in that case you need to talk to your doctor for medication and/or a referral to a psychiatrist.

Comment #323: asdf  on  08/13  at  08:55 PM

madavis4 , your examples from The Mystery Method actually remind me of a guy I know. He was always convincing is friends to go along with his silly ideas, and the way he would do it would be to get them to do some small, reasonable thing, and then convince them to escalate into going along with a slightly sillier idea until he dragged his friends along with him to whatever he wanted to do. The idea is that you ask them do something they’re pretty much comfortable with, and then asking them to do “a little more” doesn’t seem like a big deal.

The only thing is that people who’ve been through this drill before shut the whole thing down.

For those that fall for these PUA classes ($3000? really?), we already have an established set of norms for “compliance” and “escalation.” You greet someone in a social situation where people are familiar to each other (friends of friends, gatherings of strangers who share a common interest, etc.).  You make small talk (“So how did you end up here?” / “Wow! Great shoes! Where did you get them?”). You converse with someone to see if they’re the sort of person you like talking with and is the sort of person you would hang out with. If you’re still hanging out conversing after a little bit, you get their contact info. A couple days later, you invite that person out to an event or just to hang out somewhere. After a few repeats of this pattern, if the person keeps returning your phone calls or emails, there will likely be physical affection involved. The only two important social skills involved in this process are the ability to be friendly and make conversation with people (of either sex) and the ability to understand when someone is no longer interested in you (when they beg off to “get another drink” at a party or when they don’t return your call/email). Those sorts of skills are much less expensive to learn than the $3000 Mystery classes.

Now, how to go up to a stranger at a night club and get her to come back to your place for sex that night? Really, I have no idea. But is that really your goal in life?

Comment #324: Tyro  on  08/13  at  08:59 PM

Scarlet,

I’m not being deliberately obtuse. I just think that “women are people” isn’t specific enough to be useful advice for people who are struggling to communicate their sexual/romantic interest. People usually don’t have problem asking other people for directions if they’re interested in the directions. But it would be completely different if they only wanted to talk to someone because they *like* that person. I completely agree with most of what you say with respect to better places to meet people than bars and not being overtly sexual in the beginning of a conversation. But that’s still a question of conversational strategy and not one that is in any way questioning that women are people. So, sticking with that point - what would you consider a “regular” conversation and what would you consider “flirting”? Because I certainly agree that it’s never a good idea to demonstrate romantic/sexual interest before you know she’s also interested.

I don’t insist one formula, I was just asking for *one* specific example that would demonstrate the difference between an approach that is based on the principle “women are people” vs one that would not be based on that “principle”. By the way, I’m not asking for myself, but because I’m seriously interested -

My personal success rate really can’t be much higher - I’m thinking of “success” as some form of female interest in continued contact - email/facebook/phone/date/makeout/sex - and I’m getting that in about 80% percent (makeout/sex in about 20% of the cases). Some girls are in a relationship and don’t want to stay in contact, and that’s cool, sometimes it just doesn’t fit. Measuring successful initial conversations - from “hi” to half an hour of conversation - it would be about 95%. This year, I’ve probably met about 50 women and I can only remember one occasion where the conversation didn’t get to the two minute mark, and one occasion where the woman used me to make her whatever it was jealous without telling me only to blow me out in front of him later (she apologized indirectly via a female friend of mine whom she met on the toilet later, so much for women always taking the high road…).

So, yeah, I do talk to people from time to time and I also talk to women from time to time.
They usually seem to enjoy it. But I know so many people who need serious coaching when it comes to talking to the opposite sex, and they need help on a more specific level than “just be yourself” or “treat women as people”. Again, I even think the latter is potentially dangerous if shy/nice guys interpret it as “don’t ever exose your sexual interest” on a specific conversational level, which they are likely to do more often than not. In that case, they won’t get anywhere, ever, and will become frustrated, and potentially turn to problematic behaviours, not because they want to, but because they will start to believe that it’s the only way to get anywhere with women.

And I think the level of detail of advice is where there is a serious disconnect here. It’s not that guys believe that one size fits all, but that they have no clue how to appropriately express their sexual interest at the right point in conversations. And a lot of other street-level communication skill questions, starting from storytelling to being able to take body language clues.

We’re the first generation that is almost completely without social mediation of human mating, we’re completely on our own, and so many people don’t know how to deal with that, both women and men.

Comment #325: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  09:05 PM

How do you even know you have a romantic/sexual interest in someone if you haven’t spoken to them yet?

I think you mean to say “attraction,” but ironically enough, “sexual interest” is a more accurate description.  Just as insurance companies have an “interest” in health care reform (they want something specific out of Congress and they employ gambits in order to get it) the men you are describing have an “interest” in women that they see across the room (they want something specific OUT OF HER and they employ gambits to get it.)

What is required is an adjustment of expectations.  Women can tell when men want something (be is sex or a relationship) just like everyday people can usually quickly figure out when someone wants them to buy something or wants a favor.  It is off-putting.  It makes the interaction feel like a bargaining session.

This adjustment in expectation is what is meant by “treat women like regular people.”  Don’t go in with any expectations at all, just be curious and open to what comes.

You ask for specific advise.  The system that LS/MM provides has lots of steps and graphs and stuff in it to make it look attractive to guys who are more at ease with information systems then with people.  But it fails the “treat women like people/don’t have expectations of them going in” test by (a) assuming that all women work in the same way and that if you enter in the right code then you will get a treat to come out and (b) by employing individual mechanisms like “negging” and “compliance tests” that attempt to extract the desired outcome from her.

Here are my own pro tips for meeting women in a non-douchy way, speaking as a nerdy married woman:

1 - Be open to the advances of the women around you!  The PUA is often so wrapped up in the supermodel he glimpses from afar that he is unaware of the women around him who are attempting to make HIM notice THEM!

2 - Begin with a question.  Questions that relate to pop culture or to the venue in which you meet (song on the radio, movie poster on her t-shirt, etc) are ideal in that they provide indicators of potential shared interests.  If you feel you need a gambit, try watching the jukebox and complementing the girl on her taste when it comes on. 

3 - Seek out group activities that require conversation.  For example, join a club or a political group that throws you into projects with women.  If you are organizing a rally in a group, then you will find yourself talking with women, if only about business.  Not only do these interactions provide good practice for overcoming social anxiety, you might also find a partner at one of these events!  A good opening “gambit”: If you were in charge of this project, what would you do?  Expresses interest in her habits of mind/respect of her opinion.

4 - Don’t do any of this if it is not true!  A girl can smell a condescending prick from a mile away.  For example, if you try #3 with a girl that you have no respect for/view as a sex machine then it will come off as patronizing.  Once again, the attitude adjustment comes in.  If you really do see women as pussy passer-outers then you will not be attractive to them as an individual unless you are running some manipulative game on women with low self-esteem. 

Only true tools (by which I mean jerks who think of women as fuck toys and not the merely socially unadept) really need the toolbox that Mystery sells.  PUAs prey upon your insecurity and tell you that they need your system and prevent you from making the attitude adjustments that are necessary by describing women as animals in need of training rather than people who deserve respect.

In truth, it is the shy guys who are being gamed into being reliant on PUA systems.

2 -

Comment #326: madavis4  on  08/13  at  09:29 PM

Tyro,

(a) tell me something I don’t know already.  Unfortunately, many of those people are beautiful women, and it’s been pointed out that people will put up with HOT assholes for a little bit of hot lovin’.
(b) Possible, but unlikely.  Actually, if I didn’t have absolutely sociopathic levels of entitlement, I’d never have it through the roughly 250 approaches I had to make PER YEAR to find a woman who is interested in my personality on the basis of what I have called “naïve rapport”, and which is outlined in the “hat” example above.  YMMV, not being a short man with multiple visible disabilities and a chronic illness.  Basically, I make it out so seldom that I have to maximize my opportunities in a way quote-unquote normal people may not.  Pick-up, such as it is, nets me about 1 in 50 and abbreviates my time commitment by a factor of five.
(i)That implies that the capitalist-patriarchal pecking order is right, and that as a relatively low-dominance man I’m expected to to agree to renunciation of things that more conventionally better-looking, richer, more dominant men have handed to them, and to the social preferences of women who, on paper, have managed to better meet the demands of large capitalist organizations, and whose mating preferences thus reflect their economic success and general social climbing.  As a committed sociopath, someone who can’t bring himself to “strongly disagree” with the proposition “My life is better when I get what I want”, I really can’t stomach that.  Sorry.

I talk like a madman, but I live like a sane one, and my actual relationships are somewhat functional, despite the wackiness of the participants.  I don’t really want to deny women their agency, despite a consciousness that nothing in my life has really changed since high school.  I am, however, cognizant of a certain social and sexual ghettoization, which is characterized as “assortative mating” in a shorthand which accounts for why I seemingly always end up with someone as short, fat, smart, geeky and relatively disabled as myself.

Comment #327: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  09:35 PM

Tyro,

Yes, it IS one of my goals in life.  Partying is such a wonderful thing, and sex is such a wonderful thing, that I’d really like to segue from one to the other with a willing, attractive partner without the complicated folderol of exchanging phone numbers, and dating, and meeting the parents.  Of course, I’m also kind of a skeptic in that the party circuit in the clubs here hasn’t really brought me into that range of human experience, to put it simply, I am not (yet?) ANIMAL enough to really appeal to those women who arrive at the club with that agenda, and one is not likely to move smoothly from a discussion of the social effects of the 100 Years’ War to a red-hot makeout session, to say the least.

Comment #328: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  09:42 PM

Norvegica,

thanks for sharing your story - I could still feel the vibe between the two of you, I think. So, yeah, great conversation.

“He was wearing a hat. Indoors. At night. It seemed like a perfectly innocuous opening question.”

LOL, I keep wearing hats. They’re great conversation pieces wink, plus they give women an excellent opportunity to open innocent conversations.

“The conversation flowed and neither one of us was bored. That’s what it means to treat a woman as a person. I felt, correctly, that he was interested in ME. And I was allowed time to evaluate whether or not I was interested in him. And a lot of it was because the both of us separately as people worked on our conversational skills. We were not lecturing, preaching, or otherwise bragging. And that is something that isn’t absurdly difficult to cultivate; active listening and speaking with another.”

I think it’s more difficult for a lot of people than you think. But it’s well worth the effort, of course. That said, everything you described could be a demonstration of how it should be done in “the Game” (read the book, if you haven’t, it’s an interesting insight into the male psyche, also have a look at the link to Elana Clift’s gender studies thesis about the community I linked to above). Your boy may be a natural, but so many people are not. But I don’t see what’s wrong with attemps to help learn that - there’s the good, the bad, and the ugly, and PUA isn’t a term that’s helpful.

Have a look at this blog that is part of the “community”, in a way, but also very much attempting to give more people the opportunity to enjoy genuinely wonderful conversations like yours -

http://blog.authenticmanprogram.com/

Comment #329: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  09:47 PM

It sounds as though you are saying that the women you are attracted to are not the women who are attracted to you, that you don’t want to settle.

That is fair.  I am attracted to Brad Pitt and George Clooney and they most likely would not be attracted to me.

However, once you start to believe that you DESERVE the attention and affection of the women you are attracted to and that manipulative and sneaky methods (ones that, were they used to, say, sell someone a car instead of a night of sex, would be impugned as bad form or even outright lies)... well you have then gone off of the rails imho

Comment #330: madavis4  on  08/13  at  09:47 PM

“you” being Euro btw

Comment #331: madavis4  on  08/13  at  09:49 PM

(a) tell me something I don’t know already.  Unfortunately, many of those people are beautiful women, and it’s been pointed out that people will put up with HOT assholes for a little bit of hot lovin’.

At point (a), you were supposed to make the logical inference of, “Ah…. maybe I shouldn’t hang out with assholes!” Yes, even if some of them are beautiful. If you’re at the point where you realize that many people in your social circle are huge assholes and then decide that your best strategy is to figure out how to get them to like you, that just makes you kind of a sad toady.

Your problem, clearly, is that you simultaneously want those things which are at the top of the “capitalist-patriarchal pecking order,” but at the same time don’t want to be held to its value systems.  Not a good formula for success. People who are smart, accomplished, and successful are obviously big priorities for you. Why is it such a surprise that it’s a big priority for them, too? And maybe you’re not as smart, witty, and have as high a social stature as you think you do.

Comment #332: Tyro  on  08/13  at  09:50 PM

madavis4,

I’d be hard pressed to find any disagreement between me and you with respect to what you write above - including the more specific tips. Even on this one -

“In truth, it is the shy guys who are being gamed into being reliant on PUA systems.”

That said, I still think that there is a significant part of “the community” that is aiming to provide exactly the kind of help you’re talking about. There’s guys like David Wygant (who was the role model for “Hitch”) who fight, yell, and scream at people selling “systems”. Call it attraction self-help movement or whatever you like, but don’t lump everything together. There’s a lot of useful stuff that can honestly help guys and girls to have better conversations and enjoy each other more. Call out what’s wrong, but be fair to what’s right.

Comment #333: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  10:04 PM

Your problem, clearly, is that you simultaneously want those things which are at the top of the “capitalist-patriarchal pecking order,” but at the same time don’t want to be held to its value systems.  Not a good formula for success.

Indeed. 

Partying is such a wonderful thing, and sex is such a wonderful thing, that I’d really like to segue from one to the other with a willing, attractive partner without the complicated folderol of exchanging phone numbers, and dating, and meeting the parents.

...You could say “Sometimes I just want to hook up.”  No need to sniff at people who want to have relationships.

Comment #334: killjoy  on  08/13  at  10:06 PM

Good point, jay.  There are self-help/self-esteem building groups and dating advice givers etc. that are all legit. 

I suppose, in my own mind, I don’t think of them as “pick up artists,” (or PUAs) a term which, in my opinion, implies that one is a master practitioner *of* a system or a game.

I am interested in getting straightened out on the terminology.  By “the community” do you mean “the seduction community?”  Is that a wider term, a term that encompasses both systems *and* what you call attraction self-help?  Are the terms/styles of program differentiated within the community?

Comment #335: madavis4  on  08/13  at  10:17 PM

(a)actually, they’re probably really nice people, to those who make the cut.  I realize that not everybody’s social circles are remarkably constant like this, but I HAVE branched out, and there I run into the same problems/challenges as anyone trying to move into a new social circle.

(b)most of my relationships have been long and complicated in the early stages, although not involving the type of passive-aggressive pining that Nice Guys(tm) are blamed for.  So that’s actually my main model for relationships and I’m trying to get away from it.  Again, my “failure” within the capitalist system is mainly an accident of birth, in that psychiatric meds suddenly *stopped* helping my condition right when I got my auto-immune disorder AND people became serious about the whole tenure-track thing requiring massive publication.  So if I *don’t* have a massive sense of entitlement, I’m going to wind up like those British veterans from the WWI poem who will “spend a few sad years in institutions/ and do what things the rules consider wise/.”  Nein, danke, danke sehr.  I suppose few people here have as extensive an experience in staying mentally and physically well enough to hold a job, any job, or pacing themselves so as to retain the maximum number of spoons.

Comment #336: Eurosabra  on  08/13  at  10:21 PM

I don’t really understand what that has to do with entitlement OVER OTHER PEOPLE.  They still don’t deserve to be manipulated and lied to no matter how bad things are going in other areas of your life.  They don’t owe you sex or love in order to make up for the admittedly rough set of obstacles that you face.

And that is what the pick up artistry (as distinguished from legit self help ideas *wink*) is.

Comment #337: madavis4  on  08/13  at  10:26 PM

@jayjay

The thing is, I did not once describe the way my guy looks. He is foreboding in appearance. Really. His eyebrows are thick and turn down naturally and his default expression has been described charitably as remote or cold, to downright murderous. Until he smiles. But until that moment, most people avoid him.

He has had to adapt to that aspect of himself. He is aware of himself and of what he can’t fix about his first impression. So his initial approach to me is definitely no different from his general approach for people because he has to work harder to be nonthreatening.

A lot of the time, the guys I know and who whine and moan about their lack of success don’t do a damn thing. And they include my younger brother’s peers in high school. They refuse to take advice to SHOWER REGULARLY of all things. They scoff and dismiss and make excuses instead of genuinely trying to fix themselves.

And when they resist easy cosmetic changes, how much more do they resist up and down when being told they are being creeps and STOP IT? A lot. A whole-foot-dragging-lot.

I don’t care why they do it, only that they DO and it annoys the shit out of me and my brother because we have to listen to their nonproductive whining.

The Game doesn’t do anything useful because they don’t come from a place of wanting to figure out how to be less automatically repellent. (Which is not quite the same as wanting to improve attractiveness) The Game focuses on how to sell a crap deal to mostly unwilling women.

Comment #338: Norvegica  on  08/13  at  10:27 PM

if I didn’t have absolutely sociopathic levels of entitlement, I’d never have it through the roughly 250 approaches I had to make PER YEAR to find a woman who is interested in my personality ... Pick-up, such as it is, nets me about 1 in 50
...
I seemingly always end up with someone as short, fat, smart, geeky and relatively disabled as myself.

Isn’t this basically an admission that “pick-up” doesn’t work? All it does is give you a sense of entitlement that allows you to persist in using pick-up techniques in the face of repeated failure.

Granted, plenty of times I’ve commisserated with my friends over a beautiful woman, asking ourselves, “how to he end up with her?” I’m sure he has something going for him. But in your case, you’re basically telling us that you get heavily involved in using the “pick-up” techniques, and that it doesn’t actually work for you, because all the people you want to get involved with are assholes, and you end up with people who have similar status/attractiveness attributes as yourself.

As I said, if these PUA classes worked, then you’d find out that people who were particularly successful with dating and finding what might have been considered “unattainable” women had a significant background and involvement with PUA classes and groups. As far as I can tell, people who are heavily involved with PUA are people who don’t have a lot of success with women.

actually, they’re probably really nice people, to those who make the cut.

Seriously, this is coming across as sad pining away for what you imagine it must be like among the “wealthy, beautiful people.” In my experience, people who are assholes to “outsiders” are assholes to “people who make the cut,” too. It’s just that in the latter case, people who are assholes have a social/financial/professional incentive to be superficially polite to those they prefer to socialize with (that’s the reason ALL of their friends seem to be rich or very successful: because they view their friends as accessories. They’re assholes,  remember?), rather than letting loose their inner asshole that they do with everyone else. When you’re around people who are complete assholes, the worst thing you can do to yourself is to spend your time trying to figure out how to ingratiate yourself with him in a desperate bid for social validation. That kind of class desperation isn’t attractive.

Comment #339: Tyro  on  08/13  at  10:33 PM

madavis,

I recommend Elana Clift’s thesis “Picking up and and Acting out - politics of masculinity in the ‘seduction community’ for a broader perspective (https://webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf?uniq=-wk7fye), but I’d say - yes. Here’s one “Guru” - Zan Perrion - explicitly making that point (and a lot points you made above - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTekIXjeRx8).

In the end, every guy can get out of “the community” what he wants - women can get out of the community what they want. But I, personally, think that the good part of the community and feminism are natural allies, because helping men to be happier by being better around women and becoming more rounded personalities will be, in my opinion, be the best way to deal with so many of the male behavioral problems feminists are so often concerned with. Those who are flat out Assholes will pick asshole stuff, others, particularly those who may listen to the women on a board like this, may not.

That’s why I think it’s important to be careful not to lump everything together.

Comment #340: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  10:50 PM

I agree, jay I totally agree.

EXCEPT I don’t see why asshole stuff need even be taught!

In a lot of cases, it is the rhetoric that makes it upsetting.  When a system comes out and says it is about making women “spread their legs” (see the extensive quotes from Mystery’s Method above) then it is hard to pull out anything good, even if it gives the occasional good tip, because that one poisonous frame pollutes everything.  At least in my opinion.

Thanks for the links.

And thanks for being willing to really engage.  I think a lot of problems come about when people see the label “feminist” and refuse to listen (I suppose in a manner which is analogous to seeing the label PUA and shutting down, refusing to listen or learn).

Comment #341: madavis4  on  08/13  at  11:04 PM

actually, let me rephrase as that came out weird.

I agree with you, jay, that only assholish behavior need be mocked and condemned.  I think it is tough to suss out the “good” in a PUA system that uses rhetoric comparing women to animals that need training, as any good tips would be poisoned by the meanness that surrounds them.

But guys interested in learning about relationships and romance are not automatically dicks. 

Sorry if the above formulation is strange.

Comment #342: madavis4  on  08/13  at  11:09 PM

Animal trainers know that it’s much more effective to reward intermittently than consistently.

I’m pretty sure that is, at best, horribly outdated information.  When I worked at an animal park (not directly with animals, though) the trainers were pretty much always rewarding the animals for doing what they were supposed to- every animal, from cats to dolphins.  It’s an important part of keeping the animal from getting confused or upset, and keeping it on track.  Otherwise it has no idea what behaviors lead to delicious treats and love and which don’t. 

So not only are they selling an overpriced bag of misogyny, they’re selling incorrect overpriced misogyny.  You can get outdated books on animal psychology for a dime in any sufficiently large church basement sale.

Comment #343: Kyso K  on  08/13  at  11:16 PM

“It’s not that guys believe that one size fits all, but that they have no clue how to appropriately express their sexual interest at the right point in conversations.”

That is at least approaching a specific question that can actually be answered with (slightly) specific tips and anecdotes.  The general question you keep asking, not so much.  That’s why you keep getting a generic answer.

Comment #344: jennygadget  on  08/13  at  11:23 PM

I agree with this part of the comment #274 by PA Enthusiast: “The only time things seem to happen are when said guy is EXACTLY what you find attractive OR he manages to overcome your initial lack of interest by charm or being otherwise intriguing.” Yes, PA, you just described one hetero woman- ME. I admit it. That sentence was talking about me. I’m not being sarcastic. Just being truthful.

For the record, I don’t want/need/desire a male model with a 7 inch schlong as a one-night stand or husband…yet I also don’t want/need/desire a badly balding, overweight, sports fanatic with an unattractive face & 3 inch penis.

For the record, my body looks better than my face; I’ve been told my legs and eyes are my best features. My face has been described by others as “plain” & “average-looking”.

I only registered to make this comment. I’m not going to reply to anyone, whether they’re admitting to this as well or flaming me. Remember: I’m speaking for myself!

Comment #345: quickname  on  08/13  at  11:26 PM

feminist system (doctors, lawyers, Ph.Ds of various stripes)

Bwaaa haa haa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I’m sorry, it’s just I’m halfway through my PhD, and while I have no complaints about overt discrimination, I’d hardly accept merely the possession of professional credentials as an indication of a ballbusting feminist.  Maybe 20 or 30 years ago, but today you’ll have to do better than “some of my best friends are women with careers!” to prove your bonafides.

Comment #346: Kyso K  on  08/13  at  11:30 PM

madavis: They draw the link to animal training, but it is also well known in psychology. Intermittent reward is incredibly effective and motivating humans. It’s the basis for things like slot machines, which can be incredibly addictive. As with all such things, it does not work equally effectively on all humans, but it is a well-known effect.

Comment #347: LC  on  08/13  at  11:41 PM

Norvegica,

“And they include my younger brother’s peers in high school. They refuse to take advice to SHOWER REGULARLY of all things. They scoff and dismiss and make excuses instead of genuinely trying to fix themselves.”

Well, with teenagers I don’t know, there’s a lot of things that aren’t reflected, just intuitive and peer group driven. Difficult to help them improve because that alone requires to reflect onself independently of the popularity pyramid that schools are. That said, here’s a specific advice from a late bloomer who has seen both the bottom and the top of high school popularity (call me Veronica Mars, if you want). Not showering is probably both a real men stink thing as well as a cheap ego-protection device - as long as they don’t shower they can keep the impression that girl would be all over them if they did. So, next time they whine, tell them a story of a late bloomer (virgin after college, sigh) who, in the last year, met 8 women who passed by in a club and approached him by sniffing his neck and sigh “you smell so good”. Bulgari probably deserves most of the credit, but I got to keep the ego boost anyway. Probably won’t happen in High School - but it may illustrate that showering may be a risk well worth taking wink

Comment #348: jayjay323  on  08/13  at  11:41 PM

Norvegica: Smurfs would annihilate Keebler Elves. That’s not even a contest - it’s a massacre. smile

Comment #349: LC  on  08/13  at  11:47 PM

So if I *don’t* have a massive sense of entitlement, I’m going to wind up like those British veterans from the WWI poem who will “spend a few sad years in institutions/ and do what things the rules consider wise/.” Nein, danke, danke sehr.

That’s interesting but I have no idea why you are applying it to matters of sex. 

At bottom you seem to want to “trade up” within the “capitalist-patriarchal” standards you claim to dislike (in other words, *you* want to be a “social climber”), and to be terribly offended that the women you want don’t want to “trade down.” 

I don’t see why other people should be interested in, or sympathize with, your hypocrisy.  If you want to hit on lots and lots of woman until you find a “perfect 10” who digs short, fat geeks, more power to you, but whining about how women are shallow social climbers for not liking you?  Useless and off-putting.

Comment #350: killjoy  on  08/13  at  11:48 PM

Okay, it’s time to try reposting part 1 of my Love Systems explanation. Part 2 is above up at 12:57 PM.

I have had previous experience interacting with white collar cults; I have not fallen in, but friends have. And I am a little ashamed to admit that I worked in high-pressure sales when I was a less ethical person. So I became suspicious when Future_LS wrote:

I disagree that there are channels better than ours. We get results, and we let our students define what results mean for themselves.

People come to us and say, “Tell me what you can for $3k. You have a weekend. Go.” And we try our damnedest to give them their money’s worth. You may not like what we do, and some students have more trouble than others, but there is no doubt whatsoever that we change lives.

Finally, you are flat-out wrong if you accuse us of charlatanry. Read our negative reviews in the media. When people write nasty things about Love Systems, they accuse us of being bastards, not that our methods won’t work.

There’s no definition of success by which the <strike>student</strike> mark is supposed to measure his own possible failure; the mark is just supposed to walk away feeling successful. That’s a tried-and-true way to set up the mark’s personal defense of the system. Here’s how it works:

What Love Systems teaches works. ... And it works. Love Systems works on women ... It works ... Our stuff works ... Either what we teach works, and it works on a lot of women, or it doesn’t and we’re charlatans. Clearly I believe the truth is closer to the former based on our refund rate, our 100% guarantee, and the reviews of our products…

Oh, Love Systems works. Of that I am sure. It works like big-dick pills work. It works like Scientology works. The mark invests money in something that he would be afraid to admit didn’t work. So rather than admit he was scammed, he redefines success. This effect is most famous from multi-level marketing, but it happens in all high-pressure sales.

At consumerfraudreporting.org/MLM_ethics.php Consumer Fraud Reporting explains: Pride plays a role in the ethics of MLM’s. “Mr. Prospect, now you aren’t required to buy more than three product units, but why bother joining unless you plan to succeed? Besides, all of our products are 100% money back guaranteed.” “Hmmm… To ask for a refund, then, is to admit defeat. Others appear to be doing O.K. at this. I’m no failure! Perhaps I should go to another motivational seminar or strong-arm and alienate one more friend to join. I wasn’t fooled! I’m no failure!”

Love Systems / The Mystery Method works on the principle of the Big Lie, and $3000 is a very Big Lie. It’s no big deal to demand a refund for $10; everyone’s bought something for $10 and felt they didn’t get their money’s worth. But if you get ripped off for $3000, you must be a complete tool (not my personal opinion, but it’s how the self-justification works). Scam me for a few bucks, shame on you; scam me for a few thousand, shame on me. Future_LS knows this, and admits as much at futuristicwords.com/2009/08/the-penny-arcade/

It’s unrealistic for me to expect a different stance from Gabe. If it wasn’t difficult to beam this stuff into students’ heads, Love Systems couldn’t justify the cost of a program. When we stand up at our comprehensive bootcamps, we do not stare into the eyes of true believers but skeptics, men who are a little embarrassed they are in our class to begin with. Whatever moral foundations a given student has or lacks, our refund rate and reviews speak for themselves. The cognitive dissonance is grating: on one hand Gabe opposes dating science on moral grounds, saying it’s “sleazy”, but on the other he says “if there is such a system,** it certainly isn’t this one.” Even our offended detractors agree that what we teach will indeed get you the girl.

I agree with him on one point though: the seduction community is not the place to go. Most of Love Systems’s competition are second-rate or outright charlatans, and the wild, wild internet is often home to blind men leading each other around.

You, the mark, are right to suspect that everybody else in this business is a bunch of charlatans. On that suspicion, you should follow your gut. But we’re the real deal. We’re different than all the rest.

Obviously Future_LS is lying when he says “Even our offended detractors agree that what we teach will indeed get you the girl.” Right here in this thread, and in the earlier Sodini thread, the offended detractors are over and over again expressing their pity for the fools who fall for Mystery’s bullshit. Right here in these threads, we tell you for free what actually works, and we tell you why PUA like Love Systems don’t work.

Comment #351: asdf  on  08/13  at  11:51 PM

Good. That didn’t post properly the first time because I mentioned a particular brand of dick pills, I think.

Anyway, jayjay323 is being scammed, or about to be scammed, or (I hope not) here scamming others, into a group that is just as much bullshit:

We discovered that our 5-stage model (now called the “AMP Holarchy”) was also supported by models of Eastern spirituality and Western psychology, as well as Somatic Therapy, Buddhist and Zen philosophies, Gestalt Therapy, ancient yoga embodiment systems and the Enneagram.

For fuck’s sake, man, can’t you smell bullshit?

And how much does it cost?

This is the same no-B.S., concrete, real-world training material that we reveal to our students in our $2,400 in-person AMP Intensives. The insights and breakthroughs you’ll receive from this will impact your interactions with women, IMMEDIATELY.

Dude. It’s called a white collar cult. It’s a money pit. It’s a trap.

Comment #352: asdf  on  08/13  at  11:58 PM

asdf: I’ve often draw the parallel between the PUA-style stuff and high-pressure sales systems.  Thanks for writing that.

Comment #353: LC  on  08/14  at  12:05 AM

LC - its not the psychological principle, its the rhetoric.  If you tell lonely, frustrated men that women are like dogs, they, more then likely, hear the connotative meaning as well as the psychological denotative meaning.

They pick up the attitude that “women are less then human,” that “women should be obedient.”

Isn’t that a dangerous, or at the very least, fucking asinine attitude to cultivate if you want to be near/have relationships with/fuck women?

Comment #354: madavis4  on  08/14  at  12:09 AM

madavis4: Sorry. I thought that part was self-evident and so wasn’t disputing it. My bad.

I was just commenting on the intermittent-response effect. The fact that they choose to phrase it specifically in the animal-training frame is just more evidence of the general dickishness and misogyny at play.

Trust me, not trying to defend PUA.

Comment #355: LC  on  08/14  at  12:17 AM

Ah I c. 

Sorry about that, it is often tough to interpret plain text without the tone of voice!

smile

Comment #356: madavis4  on  08/14  at  12:22 AM

Here’s a great example of refusing to respect a woman’s boundaries, refusing to take no for an answer, and feeling entitled to push one’s way past clearly articulated defenses, defenses which are a woman’s prerogative to establish for herself and not your prerogative to dismiss:

http://blog.authenticmanprogram.com/2009/08/11/when-women-resist-appreciation/

Did you think that because they hired a woman to tell you to ignore other women’s boundaries, that that makes it okay, or not misogynist?

Comment #357: asdf  on  08/14  at  12:27 AM

And oh, wow, the entitlement in using a woman’s discomfort to make the conversation all about you and how her discomfort with you hurts your feelings.

However tone-deaf you are already, this AMP shit can only make you worse.

Comment #358: asdf  on  08/14  at  12:30 AM

TCR’s How Not To Be A Giant Asshole Guide for Dudes:

1. Leave her an easy out
2. Shower
3. Leave her an easy out
4. Leave her an easy out
5. Leave her an easy out

Some of the pick-up apologists here seem to be moving quite seamlessly from language that clearly indicates that this is a game played using women as the playing pieces, to painstakingly explaining that it’s really just a game where the woman is another player. Which ignores a basic rule of gaming: in order to be in a game, you have to decide to play it and sit down at the table and start bloody playing.

Trying to work around someone’s *obvious desire to not be hit on*—or “bitch shield”, as Love Systems so classily calls it—is something akin to asking someone if they want to play Monopoly, and when they say no, they’re busy, deciding that that means they forfeit and now they have to buy you ice cream, because the loser buys the winner ice cream. And then following them around all day demanding your damn ice cream.

If a dude, for some particular reason, like having something else to do, does not feel like playing The Game at any point in time, he can pretty much just decide not to hit on people. It’s not too hard to ignore someone touching their hair at you from across the room. Maybe occasionally someone will actually hit on them, but generally speaking, a dude can be like “I don’t feel like actively engaging in pickup games right now” and still leave the house. Girls cannot do that. We are assumed to be always in-game any time we are not locked in our bedrooms with the curtains drawn, furtively texting our chick friends because random people could find you on AIM or Facebook, too.

I am twenty-one years old, and I do not date, have never been interested in dating, and *have still not completely mastered NOT dating*. I don’t know how hard Playing The Game is but it can’t possibly be any harder than NOT Playing The Game.

If a girl has her “bitch shield” up, that is not A Fun And Challenging Obstacle to get past to get to the next level. That means she is Not Playing. Leave her the ever loving fuck alone. Otherwise you are a creep, plain and simple.

Comment #359: thecynicalromantic  on  08/14  at  12:32 AM

To be fair:

Just watched the vid and it came across to me as answering a concern about how to appreciate women with whom you are already in a relationship, women who the man is genuinely trying to express appreciation for (and not women that he is trying to pick up)

The examples that she uses are cooking and singing a tune while doing the dishes.  Sounds like people who are already together, who are perhaps working through some sort of issues together.

I agree that if you tried that shit with a stranger, it would be creepy.  But that is not the vibe that I got from that video.

Comment #360: madavis4  on  08/14  at  12:36 AM

madavis4: No harm, no foul. 350 comments in, I think you’re allowed to err on the side of caution. smile

asdf: That was… kind of odd. The whole “push past her boundaries” is creepy, and linking it to the “learn to take a compliment” thing was fascinating.

Comment #361: LC  on  08/14  at  12:42 AM

asdf,

“Anyway, jayjay323 is being scammed”

no worries, just found that blog and thoughts it’s quite a bit different from much of the rest.

“Here’s a great example of refusing to respect a woman’s boundaries, refusing to take no for an answer, and feeling entitled to push one’s way past clearly articulated defenses, defenses which are a woman’s prerogative to establish for herself and not your prerogative to dismiss:”

Interesting. I watched the video with your statement in mind and absolutely didn’t get that impression. I think they’re talking about deflecting compliments - as in not being able to genuinely accept it for whichever reason. So in my interpretation she says a) it’s ok to tell her if you feel she’s being unfair or misunderstands. And that is fair enough. Being equals in a conversation means that, too. And b) she makes the point that everyone here has been making: that women have been socialised to be nice and modest and to occasionally diminish even compliments they receive in order to appear modest.

Where do you get the “not respecting women’s boundaries”?

Comment #362: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  12:46 AM

It sounds to me like it’s both. “I like your eyes” is one of cliched stupid pickup lines.

And even if you are in a relationship, if a woman is made uncomfortable by a man’s compliments, the solution is not to lay the guilt on her even thicker by “calling her out on the deflecting” because “whoa, hello, your experience matters too” and you feel “disappointed and unreceived.”

Comment #363: asdf  on  08/14  at  12:47 AM

thecynicalromantic: is something akin to asking someone if they want to play Monopoly, and when they say no, they’re busy, deciding that that means they forfeit and now they have to buy you ice cream, because the loser buys the winner ice cream. And then following them around all day demanding your damn ice cream.

HAH! I like that image.

And yes, leave a way out. Really.

madavis: I actually think the video sort of blurs the line. It seems to be in response to another post or something, which might clarify whether it is about accepting compliments in a relationship or pushing during a pick up. Given AMP’s general page, I would assume the latter, but it might not be.

Comment #364: LC  on  08/14  at  12:47 AM

I think they’re talking about deflecting compliments - as in not being able to genuinely accept it for whichever reason.

It’s no one’s obligation to accept compliments.

If she’s refusing compliments that she suspects are part of a bullshit pattern, then that’s not her problem.

If she genuinely cannot believe good things about herself, then she needs professional therapy, and making her feel guilty for not making you feel “received” is only going to make matters worse.

Comment #365: asdf  on  08/14  at  01:00 AM

asdf,

OK, I’m assuming we’re talking about a real interaction of two people who are both interested in the interaction and not a random “nice ass” “compliment” at the bus stop.

“It’s no one’s obligation to accept compliments.”

Of course not, but who said so? The questions seems to have been “how to deal with the non-acceptance/deflection?” If I’m on a date with a woman, and, at some point, say “I love your sense of humour” because I think she has a great sense of humour (and there are women who do have a great sense of humour) and she replies with “ah, well, I don’t know, nothing special” then I’d probably be a bit confused about such a display of lack of self-confidence. I wouldn’t say “hey, it’s cool, it’s an honest compliment, you better accept it or something”, not to overstep boundaries, you know, but I think it’s absolutely ok to ask what made her weary of just saying “thanks” at that point. It’s part of getting to know each other.

Comment #366: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  01:15 AM

jayjay, you’re doing apologetics for a video that doesn’t exist. The one I referred you to suggests instead that you turn the conversation around to make it all about you and how you feel “disappointed and unreceived and it doesn’t feel good over here on my end.”

That does put an implicit obligation on the woman. Instead of lifting the burden of being nice and looking out for your feelings, she’s just going to feel like she has to look out for you in yet another new way.

It’s hard for this to end well. Asking her why she won’t accept the compliment is asking her to talk about her perceived flaws. That’s not a good way to make her enjoy her time with you, but it’s probably an effective way of making her more emotionally vulnerable.

Really, if it’s an honest compliment with no strings attached—not something from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear—and she’s unenthused, the best thing you can do is just let it go.

Comment #367: asdf  on  08/14  at  01:49 AM

Tyro,

Again, as long as I’m respecting the woman’s agency, there’s going to be slippage, miscommunication, matters of personal taste, etc.  I averaged 1 in 250 with totally unstructured conversation as a needy nerd, and about 1 in 50 now structuring my communication to build rapport with pick-up.  Of course, I’ve heard pick-up described as “BDSM without safewords”, which was nothing if not a creative description.

Again, my experience of academe was that it was one of the most pro-women environments possible, that everything was done to make women and minorities feel at home, and this may have had something to do with the fact that women were the majority of faculty, staff, and students in the department.

Comment #368: Eurosabra  on  08/14  at  03:20 AM

You know what?  I am going to share with you my secret dating advice, absolutely guaranteed to find you your dream date:

Go to a convention.

Whatever you’re into, find a con, find a club, and go.  I went to a small convention for my incredibly dorky niche hobby a while back, and was surprised to find that the attendees included a lot of hot guys in my age group.  They were also brilliant and easy to get along with, because we spoke the same language.

The base assumptions of the PUAs - that all attractive people meet in bars, that women are interchangeable except for their looks, that the “system” will prevail over all other variables - ignore the fact that once you narrow your sexual prospects down to people you have something in common with, you usually find that the people you’d think of as “put of your league” actually ARE your league.

Comment #369: realityfighter  on  08/14  at  03:50 AM

I feel a bit bad about registering to comment this late in such a long discussion, but not bad enough to refrain, so here goes. I had heard of R. Don Steele before and had been totally indifferent to him and anything related to PUA. Looking at his website it wasn’t what I expected though, because honestly, a LOT of what he has to say is very similar to advice given here. In fact, it reminds me a lot of having suggested to a guy I know that he try taking a shower and putting on a clean, new shirt before he goes out. He even mentions Toastmasters there someplace. Part of what he teaches is apparently recognizing body language so you DON’T approach women who aren’t interested. That’s supposedly the idea anyway.

This is the point at which my train of thought derails as far as the “Steel Balls Principles” are concerned. I can’t fathom anyone looking at that and not saying “Gee, to the extent that this makes sense, I can get a much better book on body language used for a few bucks off Amazon and not give my money to some pompous blowhard who’s got the ego to call showering, dressing up, and cleaning the house in case a woman comes over a set of principles, AND the “steel balls” to charge 900 dollars for it.” I suspect I’m probably part of the target market for these programs but it’s hard for me to imagine that guys are paying that kind of money to be told that saying hi to a woman who’s smiling at you can’t hurt, and my reading of his website suggests that once you cut out the bullshit that’s basically what he’s selling. I almost wonder if there’s a mindset with these things where people think “I paid a lot of money for it, so it MUST work!!!”

Comment #370: mtbv1  on  08/14  at  08:00 AM

Eurosabra @ #327 & #328:  While you’re at it, do you want a pony, too? Go back and read what you wrote, and explain to me why the average women reader shouldn’t interpret that as “I want sex! I want pussy! I just don’t wanna have to deal with that excess flesh around the pussy (i.e., “a woman”)!!” Really, most people get over this outrageous sense of entitlement as toddlers. And while you’re at it, quit trying to imply evo-psych motives to the alpha-hotties in the academic savannah: this is straight-up classism, pure and simple. You’ve noted this yourself in passing both here and at Hugo’s. If that’s the value system you want to live under, then you better get busy making yourself more attractive under its confines. Or, pick a different value system and stop beating yourself up.

I suppose few people here have as extensive an experience in staying mentally and physically well enough to hold a job, any job, or pacing themselves so as to retain the maximum number of spoons.

That’s a hell of an assumption. You must be reading the comments pretty damn selectively, because several disabled women have replied, even more poor women have replied, and you don’t even wanna know my fucking story, though I’ve got what other’s have called the makings of a Lifetime network movie special. There are women reading this thread who’ve dealt with recovering from rape, who’ve had cancer, who’ve been left with nothing after their husbands left them—-for fuck’s sake, over half the people I know, I look at in awe and wonder how the hell they get through the day after Dealing With All That. I guaran-goddamn-tee you whatever story you have couldn’t hold a candle to my mother’s (who’s dying of cancer by the way. my father just got diagnosed yesterday too, ain’t that a groove?). Save your lectures. We’ve all got stories.

jayjay323: so, you want to know what treating women like people looks like? wink I’ve got some answers (and co-sign to what others have already said), but I have to get to work. I’ll try and get back to this thread later, if it hasn’t already died a natural death.

Comment #371: La Lubu  on  08/14  at  09:46 AM

asdf,

I’m not apologizing for anything, I just told you what *my* impression was.

Here’s a question for you though, because your recent replies confuse me a little and suggest things that have, in my opinion, far more in common with putting women on a pedestal than with a conversation between equals. To me, the kind of disrespect for one’s own emotions regarding her reactions that you suggest, would be the opposite of talking to her “as people”. If I think I’m being misunderstood or a reaction is unfair, I think it’s the mark of an equal discourse that my feelings are *just as valuable* as hers. And that implies to not simply brush over it if it’s actually undeserved (we’re getting a bit into the hypthetical here, I know).

The way I see it, you’re suggesting treating the woman not as “people” but as a delicate flower who cannot possibly be exposed to your side of the discourse lest she’d be even more confused. Well, again, assuming we’re in a date-/relationship situation, that’s part of getting to know each other. And that most certainly includes sharing vulnerabilties, my vulnerabilities as well as hers.

Brushing over hers would be infantilizing her (again, just to be sure - I’m talking about a real conversation, not some “nice rack, baby, you better believe it” thing), would be suggesting she can’t deal with my emotions, would be “othering” her, would be strategic, and, possibly even manipulative - taking notes of potential weaknesses without addressing them.

Your suggestion come across as the discoursive equivalent of “What about ze menz” in a personal setting. Sure, everything can be used to *make it about you* and derail the conversation. But it’s just as well possible that it’s an honest question. In a way, I have the impression that you have trouble accepting that, in such a setting, there are moments where it is a requirement, not just a possibility that *it* be about him. It’s give and take. If you don’t accept that I think in the end you’d be suggesting a similar kind of conversational asymmetry you’re critizising with respect to some of the pickup methods.

Comment #372: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  11:35 AM

jayjay323:

Y’all are making this waaay too complicated.  Consider the implications of this:  It is a different thing for you to laugh at one of her jokes than to tell her she has a good sense of humor.  One is oblique and demonstrably true while the other may or may not be an insincere attempt to score points.

Let me take a shot at this treating her like a person thing.  How do you converse with your guy associates?  Study that dynamic.  Study the difference between a situation where sexual tension is present and when its not.  Your discourse with a new person should lean to the former not the latter.  Put sex totally out of your head.  Don’t force or game the conversation; let it ebb and flow naturally.  Spend at least as much listening as you do talking.  If you aren’t considerate in the conversation you aren’t going to give someone confidence that you would be a considerate lover.  Jesus, this isn’t hard and it sure doesn’t cost $3,000 to learn.

Comment #373: Magis  on  08/14  at  12:11 PM

It’s a standard bit of intellectual judo:  “You people complaining about PUAs are really the ones disrespecting women, because you think they are delicate flowers [it’s almost always that exact phrase] who can’t handle this attention!  Why can’t you respect their autonomy to do what I want them to do?”

Comment #374: jfpbookworm  on  08/14  at  12:37 PM

jfpbookworm,

careful - not what I wrote. I suggested that it’s potentially disingenous to suggest that in a conversation of equals the man should be particularly careful not to burden the woman with his emotions, as per asdfs suggestion. Apart from that - if it’s a “standard bit” of intellectual judo - how do you untangle the issue?

Comment #375: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  01:08 PM

I’m not apologizing for anything, I just told you what *my* impression was.

Apologetics doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. Anyway, I think you ought to listen to Magis, because you are overcomplicating this. But I’ll answer you as written, if it helps.

To me, the kind of disrespect for one’s own emotions regarding her reactions that you suggest, would be the opposite of talking to her “as people”. If I think I’m being misunderstood or a reaction is unfair, I think it’s the mark of an equal discourse that my feelings are *just as valuable* as hers. And that implies to not simply brush over it if it’s actually undeserved (we’re getting a bit into the hypthetical here, I know).

If she says you ought to lose ten pounds, or that you have poor taste in music, and this hurts your feelings, feel free to say so.

But you aren’t entitled to know why any person, man or woman, is setting up defenses of their own emotions. It may indeed make you feel a little shut out, like they’re not letting you get close, but too bad. If you feel like you deserve to push further, then that feeling of yours is coming from an unearned sense of entitlement. And in that case, your feeling is not legitimate, and ought not to be valued by others.

When somebody says to me “you need to let your feelings out, you need to open up, you need to trust other people,” I immediately and very conspicuously change the subject. But in my head, I’m thinking “and you need to mind your own fucking business.” I know how to trust other people, there are many people I do trust, and I have my own standards of when to trust, thankyouverymuch.

So yeah, your feelings are as valuable as hers, but if she feels entitled to push past your defenses, then her feeling of entitlement is about as valuable as a dead muskrat. And yours likewise.

The way I see it, you’re suggesting treating the woman not as “people” but as a delicate flower who cannot possibly be exposed to your side of the discourse lest she’d be even more confused.

No. But knowing that women are socialized to do the emotional work of two people—as you appear to have acknowledged earlier—you ought to lighten her workload rather than adding to it.

Asking her to care about your unearned feelings of entitlement is unfair. Expecting that you can throw caution to the wind, because she’ll easily be able to turn down unfair requests anyway, is unrealistic given what you know about women’s socialization under patriarchy.

In a way, I have the impression that you have trouble accepting that, in such a setting, there are moments where it is a requirement, not just a possibility that *it* be about him. It’s give and take. If you don’t accept that I think in the end you’d be suggesting a similar kind of conversational asymmetry you’re critizising with respect to some of the pickup methods.

You have very little information on which to base that assumption. Let’s hope you aren’t letting slip your stupid opinions about feminists. As I am a man who has romantic and sexual relationships only with men, you’d better believe I care about men’s feelings.

But there is going to be some asymmetry in heterosexual relationships, because you have male privilege and she doesn’t. You need to learn about your privilege and you need to learn how to consciously account for it if you’re ever going to have any hope of a symmetrical relationship.

Comment #376: asdf  on  08/14  at  01:20 PM

I almost wonder if there’s a mindset with these things where people think “I paid a lot of money for it, so it MUST work!!!”

mtbv1, yep, you nailed it.

Comment #377: asdf  on  08/14  at  01:23 PM

@371 La Lubu,

Yes, a pony as well.  And considering that sex figures sometimes fairly marginally in my actual relationships, I do an awful lot of dealing with the woman (which, in the French joke, is “the ball of fat surrounding the clitoris.”)  And, well, putting myself and my sexuality out in to the world to find a partner is how I retain a sense of agency, and my actual behavior often errs on the side of “too little interest” rather than “too much.”  As for the hardship and the classism, I agree in the abstract, but in practical terms it’s rather hard to bear.  My life is nicer when I get what I want, you see.  I’m unwilling to step on toes to get there, but I like to gripe about the failures.

@374 Bookworm: The flip-side is that most PUA teaches that you respect a woman’s choice to be a total non-participant, considering the popularity of the Blank Stare as a response.

Comment #378: Eurosabra  on  08/14  at  01:43 PM

Aah, so annoying, some replies just get eaten.

asdf,

“Apologetics doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.”

Possible, English is not my native language.

I think your reply is valuable in that it makes the assumptions for your recommendation of asymmetry explicit. So yeah, classic conundrum, individual equality and assumed or real social difference. I’m not saying that privilege isn’t an occasionally useful tool for self-assessment, or that yours isn’t a potential way to look at reality. But that view logically excludes the notion of an equal conversation “as people” since it’s impossible for her to ever leave the pedestal in that case -  she’s up there either because of patriarchy or because of assumed patriarchical privileges for the guy: the conversational result will be similar, the only difference being the reason for her assumed relative weakness.

So, in the end, talk to women “as people” would in that context mean, don’t treat her differently because you think women *are* delicate flowers, but because women have been made *delicate flowers” under patriarchy and you need to be aware of that, right?

Comment #379: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  02:00 PM

No. I really don’t know how you found that interpretation of my words.

I’m telling you you aren’t entitled to push past anyone’s defenses, man or woman. This has nothing to do with putting anyone on a pedestal. It’s entirely about treating another person as you deserve to be treated.

Women tend to do the emotional work of two people. In this sense they are heavy laborers, not delicate flowers.

Understanding of male privilege is not a potential way to look at the world. It’s acknowledgment of demonstrable fact.

How is that I say “you are talking about unearned feelings of entitlement” and you hear “ah, women are delicate flowers”? Really, how does that happen?

Comment #380: asdf  on  08/14  at  02:16 PM

The flip-side is that most PUA teaches that you respect a woman’s choice to be a total non-participant

Except what we’re seeing here is that it doesn’t.  (Telling guys “don’t waste time on her if you can’t get her to put out” isn’t the same thing.)  It may pay lip service to that when it’s trying to represent itself as something other than misogynist douchebaggery, but a lot of these techniques are about breaking down that choice.

Comment #381: jfpbookworm  on  08/14  at  02:28 PM

I am going to share with you my secret dating advice, absolutely guaranteed to find you your dream date:

Go to a convention.

I picked up a girl at a convention, and I thought I was straight before I went!  (There was a lot of previous internet flirting, however.)

Comment #382: lonespark  on  08/14  at  02:32 PM

@381 Bookworm:  Your post of January and the related links are very good.  And asking someone WHY she won’t/can’t accept a compliment is textbook what-not-to-do.  One might try to spin it as “What would have to happen for you to be comfortable accepting that compliment?” or “Can you remember a time when someone gave you a compliment that touched you?” but that’s fishing for rapport/intimacy and she’ll probably disengage.  C’est la vie.

Comment #383: Eurosabra  on  08/14  at  02:45 PM

Of course, I’ve heard pick-up described as “BDSM without safewords”, which was nothing if not a creative description.

Funny, as a longtime kinkster, I was thinking that it sounded exactly like BDSM without safewords—or CONSENT.

Comment #384: kristin  on  08/14  at  04:31 PM

asdf,

“No. I really don’t know how you found that interpretation of my words.”

“I’m telling you you aren’t entitled to push past anyone’s defenses, man or woman. This has nothing to do with putting anyone on a pedestal. It’s entirely about treating another person as you deserve to be treated.”

The thing is that I don’t see anyone pushing past anyone’s defenses in the context that I was referring to, but you suggested asymmetry as a de facto element of heterosexual interactions and sugested that men need to be aware of their privileges. Again - different justification for not treating women as equal, but the conversational consequences will likely be similar, and similarly infanitlizing.

“Understanding of male privilege is not a potential way to look at the world. It’s acknowledgment of demonstrable fact.”

You really want to get into a debate about the limits of feminist epistemology? I’d recommend to use these kind of things as potentially useful on a practical level of introspection and behavioral control, not in a serious epistemological sense, because if you begin that, elusive concepts like privilege, oppression, etc, won’t withstand any kind of intellectual scrutiny. I mean, for crying out loud, if feminists took their own assumptions about epistemic privilege and situated knowledge seriously and wouldn’t just use it as a rhethorical device when it’s useful, 80% of what has been written about the assumed male experience in this thread would be inadmissible to any kind of discussion. Again, I think the concepts *are* useful in a lot of situations, and they have practical value, but only as long as they aren’t abused to allege something like a “demonstrable fact”. I mean, really.

“How is that I say “you are talking about unearned feelings of entitlement” and you hear “ah, women are delicate flowers”? Really, how does that happen?”

Simple. “unearned feelings of entitlement” isn’t actually saying a lot about the interactions
- we’re trying to abstract from what would be specific, and different, interactions that probably should not be lumped together - but a lot about implicit assumptions about the people in that interaction and about who should be defining which feelings actually are ok and which are not. The end result for specific interaction would be the same though - you assume asymmetry for one reason or another, patriarchy or privilege. So, say, where’s the difference here: classic patriarchy - men can’t control themselves, women need protection, so we’ll have socially accepted rules for men that means treating women differently - feminist assumptions: men have male privilege so they are going to behave differently than they would otherwise which means that they should be aware thereof and treat women differently than would be necessary if there were no male privilege.

Whatever you do - you won’t get to “women as people” in either of those paradigms.

Comment #385: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  04:35 PM

jayjay323:

Let us say that I’m going to introduce you to someone but before I do, I tell you they just got back from a war zone.  Well, you might be a little more reticent about making loud noises around them than you otherwise would.

It is suggested that the more you know about what women’s experiences in the dating world the more that might influence how you interact with them; i.e., empathy.  Even if you want to think about it coldly from a ‘tactical’ viewpoint; these are good things to know and, to the extent you are able, internalize.

They are not delicate flowers nor are they Ice Bitchez nor are they Godesses Incarnate of All that is Pure.  They put on their undies one leg hole at a time and are just people looking for a little pleasant human companionship.  At the same time, as women, they probably have had experiences that guys just don’t have; i.e., having a target painted on their back.

Comment #386: Magis  on  08/14  at  05:04 PM

Magis,

absolutely, I know a guy who’s had bad ptsd due to his experiences in a combat zone. But what you’re talking about are indivdual psychological differences between individuals, male or female. Being able to read people right is paramount, and *not* just from a cold psychological point of view, actually, I think particulary when you’re able to read people that puts you in a position of power that requires responsibility.

But asdf wasn’t referring to individual experiences but to assumptions about genedered experiences.

“At the same time, as women, they probably have had experiences that guys just don’t have; i.e., having a target painted on their back.”

A lot of them have. And yeah, that’s an experience I wish a lot of men could have to know what it feels like (in *both* the good way and the bad). Likewise I wish women could experience the feeling of powerlessness many men are experiencing with respect to their abilitiy to talk to women they are attracted to - would also do a lot of good in this world. Thing is - I’m not denying different experiences, but I’m saying that you can’t really have both at the same time: Demand both differential *and* equal treatment at the same time (as asdf does). So if it should be the case that all women are back from a combat zone then this isn’t an individual experience but a gendered one, and one that you say requires guys to “make less noise” around them. In that case - the interaction would not be one of equals, it would be an asymmetric one. One in which one participant is required to monitor his behaviour around the other in a way the other is not, regardless of what the other may do.

Again, this may all be well and right, but there’s no way to have the cake, and eat it, too - referring to gender assumptions, not individual psychological variables.

Comment #387: jayjay323  on  08/14  at  05:52 PM

Likewise I wish women could experience the feeling of powerlessness many men are experiencing with respect to their abilitiy to talk to women they are attracted to

We do, you know.  We fucking do.  Because we’re people, too.  Christ.  We aren’t born with little “comfortable communication with people you want to fuck” modules installed, anymore than men are .  We have to <i><b>learn. <

Comment #388: lonespark  on  08/14  at  06:33 PM

jayjay323:

You don’t have to read anyone in this case.  Just assume if she’s female she’s had enough assholes to last for ever.  It’s a fairly safe bet.  What I’m trying to tell you is that you don’t need any special ability to read some one or powers of persuasion.  Now maybe this woman on this night doesn’t want to be approached but then there are times when I don’t want to talk to anyone much less a stranger.  But on other nights I’m craving some human interaction.  Aren’t you the same?  If you were in a blue funk would you want somebody fuckin’ with your head?

Of course the relationship, however brief, is asymetrical.  But only a little bit.  Just like a black person is always black but is still a person so a woman person is always a woman but still person.  You share 90+% commonality.  I know many men feel “powerless” as you say but why?  They aren’t any harder to talk to than anybody else.  By the way equal ≠ same.  Woman ~ Man, not, Woman = Man.

Comment #389: Magis  on  08/14  at  06:46 PM

D’oh!  I screwed up the tag.

Comment #390: lonespark  on  08/14  at  06:55 PM

jayjay, I see jfpbookworm had you pegged accurately. You’re an antifeminist tool. Shame on me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The thing is that I don’t see anyone pushing past anyone’s defenses in the context that I was referring to,

The whole damned video was about how to get around a woman “resisting appreciation”. What do you think resistance is? http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/defense

but you suggested asymmetry as a de facto element of heterosexual interactions and sugested that men need to be aware of their privileges.

Yeah…

Again - different justification for not treating women as equal, but the conversational consequences will likely be similar, and similarly infanitlizing.

No. That’s a non sequitur. You need to check your privilege in order to treat women as equals. By default you will not, because your behavior is already normalized to a patriarchal culture.

By saying that women already tend to do the emotional work of two people, I’m not saying they can’t handle that extra work. Emotionally and physically, women have always done more work than men, and for less compensation.

Give a woman more than her fair share of the emotional work to do, and she’ll probably do it. She usually won’t even complain about it. But that doesn’t make it fair.

You really want to get into a debate about the limits of feminist epistemology? I’d recommend to use these kind of things as potentially useful on a practical level of introspection and behavioral control, not in a serious epistemological sense, because if you begin that, elusive concepts like privilege, oppression, etc, won’t withstand any kind of intellectual scrutiny.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/21/gender.pay ‘Men and women get very different responses when they initiate negotiations. Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women’s reluctance was based on an accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalise women who asked for more. The perception was that women who asked for more were “less nice”. “What we found across all the studies is that men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not,” Bowles said. “They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate.”’

That’s male privilege, a measurable, demonstrable fact. It’s reality, jayjay, and if you don’t acknowledge it, then you’re contributing to it.

feminist assumptions: men have male privilege so they are going to behave differently than they would otherwise which means that they should be aware thereof and treat women differently than would be necessary if there were no male privilege.

What a flagrant misrepresentation. Because of male privilege, women are already treated unequally. Men will have to change their habitual behavior to begin to start treating women equally.

Comment #391: asdf  on  08/14  at  07:22 PM

First, La Lubu, I’m really sorry to hear about your parents.  You won’t remember me because I used a different name back then, but I remember reading some of what you wrote about your story and your experiences several years ago at Alas and when Amanda was new to Pandagon.  (Feministe as well, I think.)  It was really inspiring and I always appreciated you sharing stuff about about your life and your career and how you got to where you are now.  I hope that your dad is all right and that your mother gets to stay with you as long and as painlessly as possible.

*****

It’s hard for this to end well. Asking her why she won’t accept the compliment is asking her to talk about her perceived flaws. That’s not a good way to make her enjoy her time with you, but it’s probably an effective way of making her more emotionally vulnerable.

And you know what else it reminds me of?  Some of what Harriet Jacobs has been saying recently about rape jokes and how to respond to them and why she doesn’t always respond to them, especially by disclosing personal information.  Because that’s a lot to ask, you know?  To expect someone to explain why what you said bothered them rather that first demonstrating that you are trustworthy by ceasing to do the thing that bothers them.  Because do you really need a reason other than knowing it bothers them before you decide to stop?  And do you really think that right at the moment that they are most uncomfortable (and possibly consider you to be not-nice and/or untrustworthy) is the best time to ask them to confide in you? Regardless of whether or not the act that made them uncomfortable was a rape joke or simply a compliment that they didn’t respond well to?

If I think I’m being misunderstood or a reaction is unfair, I think it’s the mark of an equal discourse that my feelings are *just as valuable* as hers.

In the context of general conversations, this comment might make sense, but since we are talking about attempting to compliment someone, it makes no sense at all. That’s like whining about not being thanked when you do someone a favor. (an unasked for favor at that)  I mean, yeah there are times when the person who received the favor acted like a jerk, but generally the people that complain about not being thanked (enough, correctly, at all, etc.) are the kind of people who do stuff like this so they can be recognized as “nice ” people, not to actually be nice.  Everyone else either figures they have their reasons (being in the vulnerable position of needing a favor and all) or just stops wasting their time on the jerk.

(and here is where I roll my eyes and laugh at the fact that the conversation I pointed you to earlier touches on this, but that you would have absolutely no idea about that despite having claimed to have read it before I even mentioned it, because you didn’t even bother to do more than skim over I wrote, much less follow the link, and self-servingly assumed that I was talking about a completely different piece.)

How is that I say “you are talking about unearned feelings of entitlement” and you hear “ah, women are delicate flowers”? Really, how does that happen?

Isn’t the answer in the question?

lonespark - sadly, this cannot possibly be a new idea, as it’s been pointed out already.  multiple times.  perhaps it simply isn’t sticking? because golly, it surely couldn’t be willful ignorance.

Comment #392: jennygadget  on  08/14  at  07:32 PM

We do, you know.  We fucking do.  Because we’re people, too.  Christ.  We aren’t born with little “comfortable communication with people you want to fuck” modules installed, anymore than men are .  We have to learn

Yup. No doubt about that. But it weighs heavier on guys, just as the burden of emotional heavy lifting weighs heavier on women. We’re taught that we have to take the initiative in romance, and we’re taught that women find confidence attractive in men, and more importantly that lack of confidence is unattractive. So we feel we have to take the initiative, but we’re not comfortable doing it, especially if those of us who aren’t very confident to begin with. It can become a sort of self-defeating spiral. The closest analogy I can think of is the way many women feel about their appearance.

Comment #393: SimonK  on  08/14  at  08:36 PM

I do get that SimonK, but that’s not about how hard it is to talk to women you’re attracted to.  Are you arguing that it’s harder for a random nervous guy to talk to a woman than it is for a random nervous woman to talk to a guy?  I think there are pressures on both of them that make it hard.  Fear of failing in the socially prescribed gender role is among those pressures.

Comment #394: lonespark  on  08/14  at  08:47 PM

Really, I can see that treating women as peolpe is a core value, something that everything an interaction is about would be based on, but it doesn’t tell me anything about the interaction itself. It doesn’t make it easier to talk to women, it doesn’t change any of the awkwardness when you’re approaching someone. Well - i think it doesn’t. But maybe you are actually able to explain how women are people can actually be broken down to the level of information that is actually helping guys approach woman (as people) with a romantic/sexual intention. I’m asking seriously, what would a “women as people” approach look like *in detail*?

this

Comment #395: scratchy888  on  08/14  at  09:23 PM

lonespark - No. I think its probably equally hard. Its just that the problem probably seems more important to guys. If we can’t get up the courage to talk to women, and to take the initiative in relationships, there’s a very good chance we’ll never find love/marriage/sex/romance/whatever. Or at least that’s the way it can seem. Women have almost the opposite problem in fulfilling their socially-prescribed gender role.

Comment #396: SimonK  on  08/14  at  09:26 PM

SimonK are you sure you’re not assuming women don’t have just as high standards as you do? Many women have to beat assholes off with a stick. That doesn’t mean they’re constantly being propositioned by people they like.

Comment #397: banisteriopsis  on  08/14  at  10:36 PM

asdf,

“jayjay, I see jfpbookworm had you pegged accurately. You’re an antifeminist tool. Shame on me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.”

cheap shot. I’ve been around “the blog”, though not usually commenting, I’m on holiday, and if I remember correctly, I’ve seen jfpbookworm (or someone using that nick) very critical of the kind of epistemology I was, and I think you were referring to. I’m not sure I consider myself a feminist, but I’m definitely very sympthetic to feminist objectives. I’m not here to look for a fight, if that’s what you think.

“The whole damned video was about how to get around a woman “resisting appreciation”. What do you think resistance is? http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/defense”

Well, in my opinion, the video was about how to deal with the fact that a woman who was complimented didn’t appreciate it. Not how to get “around” anything, whatever that may imply, but how to deal with the emotional consequences thereof (rejection, a particular kind of).

“Emotionally and physically, women have always done more work than men, and for less compensation.”

What are you talking about?

“Give a woman more than her fair share of the emotional work to do, and she’ll probably do it. She usually won’t even complain about it. But that doesn’t make it fair.”

Again, I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing.

“That’s male privilege, a measurable, demonstrable fact. It’s reality, jayjay, and if you don’t acknowledge it, then you’re contributing to it.”

Are you freaking kidding me, asdf? Please, really, I’m not looking for a fight, but please do read up on the epistemological concepts I referred to (plato.stanford.edu has an extensive collection on feminist epistemology). Yes, on the level you’re referring to (the Guardian article) that’s fair enough and I certainly won’t argue with that. But that’s not what I was talking about, and I’d suggest it’s generally *not* what the terms I referred to as feminist epistemology refer to. If we’re just talking past each other, fair enough.

Jennygadget,

“To expect someone to explain why what you said bothered them rather that first demonstrating that you are trustworthy by ceasing to do the thing that bothers them.”

That’s a fair point. The benefit of the doubt. Personally, I’ve never had to deal with this problem, but whenever I’m in a similar conversation I need time to understand the extent to which I am not given the benefit of the doubt. Expecting to be given the benefit of the doubt certainly is a privilege. This is a fair point.

“And do you really think that right at the moment that they are most uncomfortable (and possibly consider you to be not-nice and/or untrustworthy) is the best time to ask them to confide in you?”

No I don’t. I think it would be exceedingly stupid. But that said, I still think it’s important to start from the assumption that my feelings are as important as hers if we’re to have a conversation of equals.

“That’s like whining about not being thanked when you do someone a favor.”

Again, fair point.

In the end I don’t think we disagree, but I think that it’s hard work to agree on mutually acceptable vocuabulary.

Comment #398: jayjay323  on  08/15  at  01:15 AM

banisteriopsis - Yes, that would be the opposite problem I referred to. Or part of it anyway.

Comment #399: SimonK  on  08/15  at  02:50 AM

No. I think its probably equally hard. Its just that the problem probably seems more important to guys. If we can’t get up the courage to talk to women, and to take the initiative in relationships, there’s a very good chance we’ll never find love/marriage/sex/romance/whatever. Or at least that’s the way it can seem. Women have almost the opposite problem in fulfilling their socially-prescribed gender role.

So when you said that, you meant something else?

Comment #400: banisteriopsis  on  08/15  at  07:11 AM

Wenn ich “Epistemologie” höre, nehme ich meine Pistole. Feminists have no need of special pleading. I gave you an example of the factual existence of male privilege, in terms a Popperian could love. Pandagon is full of such examples. Yet you persist in implying that all this is invalidated because somebody somewhere is a postmodernist wanker. You are being willfully dense, jayjay, so you deserve no further reply.

Comment #401: asdf  on  08/15  at  09:44 AM

Simonk, if “failing at one’s percieved gender role” *seems* like a bigger problem than men than for women, it’s because they don’t have *even bigger fears overshadowing it*, like their personal safety.

Comment #402: thecynicalromantic  on  08/15  at  10:00 AM

(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 many men know what im talking about.

Comment #403: Timothy Brice  on  08/15  at  03:54 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. because you will get no where by bashing these PUA’s endlessly unless you get to the ROOT of the issue.

Comment #404: Timothy Brice  on  08/15  at  04:02 PM

What a fucking nutbar. Jesus. There are so many fallacies and unfounded assumptions in there, but what’s the point of dissecting it? Dude communicates like a flat Earth creationist.

TAKE A WRITING CLASS, BUDDY, AND WHILE YOU’RE AT IT, LEARN TO USE HTML ITALICS TAGS INSTEAD OF YELLING.

Comment #405: asdf  on  08/15  at  05:58 PM

0.3 Time Cubes.

Comment #406: asdf  on  08/15  at  06:00 PM

“To expect someone to explain why what you said bothered them rather that first demonstrating that you are trustworthy by ceasing to do the thing that bothers them.”

That’s a fair point. The benefit of the doubt. Personally, I’ve never had to deal with this problem, but whenever I’m in a similar conversation I need time to understand the extent to which I am not given the benefit of the doubt. Expecting to be given the benefit of the doubt certainly is a privilege. This is a fair point.

THIS is why you keep driving me fucking crazy jay.

NOTHING I SAID HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH GIVING YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT OR NOT

Bothering to listen when you say hello is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You, however, are taking privilege to an even higher level and assuming people (even ones that barely know you) should somehow be able to divine that you really are a nice guy and didn’t mean to put your foot in your mouth/insult them/make them uncomfortable.  And then you have the audacity to act as if you are still talking about the saying “hello” scenario, making it seem like the people that are reacting to you/random guy are doing so purely on supposition, ignorance, and emotion rather than mostly based on observation, experience, and logic - ie logically reacting to someone’s actual actions.

Also, “I’ve never had to deal with this problem?”  What? You never talk to people you haven’t previously met?  No one you just met has ever made you feel uncomfortable?  Or made you just completely uninterested in them?  Instead of drawing from your own experiences in order to understand how women might feel in similar situations, you keep acting like the Venn diagram of “men” and “women” would be one of two circles that are completely unrelated to each other.

Comment #407: jennygadget  on  08/16  at  02:45 PM

Jenny,

your first paragraph? What are you talking about? I actually don’t understand.
your second paragraph?

“Instead of drawing from your own experiences in order to understand how women might feel in similar situations, you keep acting like the Venn diagram of “men” and “women” would be one of two circles that are completely unrelated to each other.”

Sorry, but the second half of that sentence contradicts the first. If they aren’t completely unrelated then I *can* logically draw from my experiences to the extent of the overlap. Just saying.

The whole reply - I agree with you and you start shouting? Trying to prove to me how I should no longer give you the benefit of the doubt? Well done.

Comment #408: jayjay323  on  08/16  at  11:24 PM

you arguing that it’s harder for a random nervous guy to talk to a woman than it is for a random nervous woman to talk to a guy?  I think there are pressures on both of them that make it hard.

In isolation, it’s probably the same (in fact, it’s probably harder for the woman, since gender roles, life experience, training/education for the man has probably equipped him better. 

The bigger picture is somewhat different, since far more often for men than women whether we have a romantic/sexual life depends upon approaching women/initiating relationships.  (As is common with differing gender expectations, it isn’t immeadiately obvious which’s worse, though they’re certainly different.)

Comment #409: Brian  on  08/17  at  11:10 AM

Jillions of electrons expended and the question still comes down to this (for men).

Do you like women, really like them, and want to have them in your life or do you simply see them as life support systems for pussies and maliciously over-protective life support systems at that?

Your controlling paradigm will determine everything else.

Comment #410: Magis  on  08/17  at  12:33 PM

Magis,

“Do you like women, really like them, and want to have them in your life or do you simply see them as life support systems for pussies and maliciously over-protective life support systems at that?”

again, right now, I’s say my best friend is a married woman, and if she’d strap herself naked on my body I’d try to not have sex with her - because I do value our friendship too much. I’ve definitely got more female friends than lovers in my life and most lovers will stay friends, BUT I still think that’s the wrong level of analysis: I’ve always had a lot of female friends but I wasn’t always successful at making women attracted to me sexually. Those *are* different levels. Again, I think it’s even dangerous to give the impression that “everything else will follow” if you just like women in a non-sexual way. That’s just not true. A man needs to be able to communicate his sexual interest in the right way at the right time and allow her to appreciate this offer in similar fashion - and that ability is not really related to his fundamental attitude with respect to women… if anything, being better on the “operational” level will allow them to look beyond their own immediate problems.

Comment #411: jayjay323  on  08/17  at  04:39 PM

jayjay (411):

I’ve definitely got more female friends than lovers in my life

I don’t doubt that; if your friends are split 60%/40% and you don’t have more female friends than lovers, either you’re fucking an awful lot of women or you have basically no friends.

A man needs to be able to communicate his sexual interest in the right way at the right time and allow her to appreciate this offer in similar fashion - and that ability is not really related to his fundamental attitude with respect to women

There’s some guy who’s posting in this thread—I didn’t catch the name, something reduplicative with a number at the end—anyway, he’s been suggesting that the PUA way is complicated, and requires finesse and an eye for social cues at least as sensitive as is needed to communicate ones sexual interest in the right way at the right time.

Comment #412: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/17  at  06:14 PM

jayjay323:

She knows you’re interested, she can tell.  She’s interested too or she wouldn’t still be talking.  I’m not saying you never have to be overt.

What I’m trying to get across is that you don’t have to mind fuck her with bullshit.  You don’t have to use formulas.  If she’s interested there are signals boiling out of her consciously or unconsciously.  When it comes time just ask for christ’s sake.

Comment #413: Magis  on  08/18  at  12:21 PM

Hershele,

“and requires finesse and an eye for social cues at least as sensitive as is needed to communicate ones sexual interest in the right way at the right time.”

Absolutely correct. But as opposed to those who say that it’s all in the attitude, they do offer advice on the “operational” level. That’s what I’m saying: Offer some operational advice that is compatible with what you think is the required and appropriate attitude instead of merely saying “everything will happen if it’s meant to be, just let it flow.” Bein able to socially interact, and sexually interact, are skills that are actually teachable. Help people develop “inner game”, or a sense of self-worth that allows them to no longer believe that their value is dependent on either job or the women they talk to. Help guys believe they are *worthy* of a womans attention instead of either believing they deserve it or they’re unworthy by default because of her beauty. If you can give “operational” advice that is based on a better attitude, go write a book, it will probably sell a lot of copies.

Magis,

“What I’m trying to get across is that you don’t have to mind fuck her with bullshit.  You don’t have to use formulas.  If she’s interested there are signals boiling out of her consciously or unconsciously.  When it comes time just ask for christ’s sake.”

Well, formulas help reduce complexity. That’s why people love formulas, including women - and not just in dating. You don’t have to look further than McDonalds to see the importance of complexity reduction through formulas - a Big Mac Meal will be a Big Mac Meal all over the world, you know what you’re looking for, you know what you get. No, that’s not an ideal to strive for in human interaction, but it’s an example useful to explain why people love formulas - they help deal with things in unknown circumstances. So, “hello” is a formula, a convention, a smile is a formula - the two combined will indicate “I’m not a threat, and I’d like to talk”. That’s a formula, a pretty successful, usually. You don’t have to “mind fuck”, but you do have to be more interesting for her mind (and her body) than the other guys who may be interested in talking to her and in which she may be interested (and she needs to be more interesting than the other girls I may be interested in). So, whatever you say, this is a complex mutual “infotainment” ritual. So yeah, at some point, there are signals boiling out of her consciously and unconsciously, but most men *can’t read* those signals. Some guy wrote his phd in sociology about mating rituals and mutual understanding - women always thought their signals were clear, but only one in 25 or so men were able to pick up what she actually wanted to say. So - yeah: signals are cool, but guys need to be taught what they are - for their own good, and most certainly also for the good of the women giving those signals. See, I may be rationalizing these things more than a lot of people, and I know body language quite well. Still, one of my last girlfriends was too annoyed asked me why on earth I wasn’t kissing her already as she was running out of signals to use. I mentioned that I prefer to err on the side of caution when I’m not entirely sure, at which point she just did it to end the awkwardness. So, that went well, luckily, and I certainly agree with “when comes time, just ask”. “Just” asking is never “just” asking in this respect even though it needs to look exactly like it’s “just” asking. And that’s the “operational level” I’m talking about - this isn’t about “mind fucking” her, it’s about “mind fucking” (don’t think that’s an appropriate term, but I’m using it here anyway) yourself into being able to “just ask” at the right point.

This is about “social technology” that will, hopefully, in the end, give peolpe a level of confidence and a sense of self-worth that will allow to “just ask” and not be so worried about potential emotional and social risks associated with the reply that they will “just not ask” (or be in other non-threatening ways CLEAR about their intentions).

I just can’t understand why most of my female friends are absolutely aware of how many guys with a lack of basic social/attraction skill are walking around on this planet, while this seems to be almost impossibly hard to understand for those arguing on here…

Comment #414: jayjay323  on  08/18  at  05:38 PM

It is impossible for me to understand how someone lacking basic social skill is going to be any more successful at relationships by being manipulative than by being direct. I don’t get the impression that manipulative is easier, though I suppose I can’t deny that it’s marketed as easier.

I have anecdotal but extremely reliable evidence that someone with piss-poor social skills can form a relationship without resorting to bullshit NLP brainwashing.

Comment #415: Hershele Ostropoler  on  08/18  at  07:35 PM

Hershele,

here’s why, no one lacking basic social skill is going to be any more successful doing what you say and doesn’t it when he *has* those skills. But that’s because you only look at “manipulative” and “NLP” (and call it *both* bullshit and manipulative at the same time) and not on basic training of social skills (in a specific context, but also applicable elsewhere).

What you seem to mean by “direct” is something like “just be yourself” and at same time, a certain resignation to the assumed fact that romantic talent is something people either have or have not, that cannot be learned by emulation. And that’s just not true. That said, being good at *attraction* has not much to do with being good at *relationships”. In fact, the skills required are, occasionally, even mutually exclusive. That’s the moral of “The Game”. Style almost loses the woman he loves due to using what he came to believe will work everywhere, everytime. But it doesn’t. And that’s another level of comprehension of human interactions.

When people don’t know each other, they rely on codes, and these codes can be learned and emulated, and can help people become attractive to strangers. But once the former strangers got to know each other, they will need to develop their own codes, or everything will fall apart.

Have a look at this (critical) documentary from Channel 4 (UK) - 25 minutes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6159680253621883092

“AFC Adam” is married by now.

Comment #416: jayjay323  on  08/18  at  08:46 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.