The morality of Pick Up Artists

[dscross]

A while ago, there was a thread about in the gaming forum about the game 'Super Seducer' (which mysteriously got deleted). There was a lot of anger going on. It basically became a political issue that it should be removed because the idea of teaching men to pick up women was so abhorrent.

I was fascinated by people's outrage at what seemed to me like a poorly made game, with some clear marketing tactics behind it, but was essentially just teaching men who weren't very socially adept to understand how to approach strangers and flirt. I think the word 'pick up' automatically conjures up images of overconfidence and trickery.

As far as I can see, it boils down to two core beliefs that society thinks about what modern pick up artists are trying to teach:

1. Pick up artist techniques tend to focus on dishonest emotional manipulation intended to manipulate insecure women with low self-esteem to do what you want them to. As such, they treat women as objects.

2. Many pickup artists have toxic, sexist ideas about women. They believe that women are conniving shrews bent on taking men's money, and therefore it is perfectly justifiable to use tactics such as manipulation and emotional blackmail to get sex from them.

I don't believe they think this - or if it was ever the case, I don't think it is the case anymore. I think maybe when some of them first start learning that stuff they begin with that mindset but then many (not all, I'd guess) end up as genuine people with a good understanding of society as a result of what they learn. The marketing is very questionable though, obviously.

From what I've seen, the lesson that Pick Up Artists try to teach guys, that so many fail to even get close to understanding, is to become the kind of person that women are attracted to and then be able to actually build an honest connection with another human being, in any possible location in a short timeframe.

I feel like this is more in line with the mindset modern pickup artists seem to be trying to teach (and remember some men have a much worse mindset than this, subconsciously):

1. Guys need to understand that they should be a 'bright light' that attract women. Then they can chose the one they want. The bigger and brighter you are, the more that you attract, and the more choices you have. Then you find women who are legitimately attracted to you for being you.

2. No trickery, no lies, no pretending to be something each other is not. No subconscious or conscious con-games set up to trick her to fall for you. No gimmicks or manufactured scenarios to push her into your arms.

Is this any different to what anyone wants? I know this is likely to spark some robust conversation so feel free to comment. However, before you start typing out your outrage, remember men are always going to try and attract women in different ways when they are single, just like women do with men. It's just women and men tend to go about it in slightly different ways owing to both social convention and evolution - we all evolved from animals at the end of the day.

 

[stroopwafel]

we all evolved from animals at the end of the day.

Exactly this. Attraction is pre-cognitive so very little of what you do or say is going to make a difference. Attractive women in the fertile age have every option open to them and don't desire any attention or avances from atleast 80% of men. Men don't have that luxury, and will just have to settle for what they can get. That might not be fair, but it is simply nature picking out the fittest genes through natural selection. If it were the other way around and given the choice, would any guy ever pick an average to below average(let alone ugly) girl over a pretty one? If you are average you can't really attract women above your league unless you're not either famous or exceptionally wealthy. And then 9 out of 10 times it is insincere(case in point Weinstein's ex-wife) but still, you 'got the girl'.

I think this is something everyone intuitively understands but I guess it's a typically male desire that there must be a 'logic' explanation for everything and that women's mating behavior can be logically deducted and subsequently manipulated to the extent that she actually wants to sleep with you. Which is, ofcourse, total bullshit(and in the case of PUA's a financial scam). And if you actually need PUA advice to teach you the basic rules of human interaction you probably have bigger issues to worry about.

More honest advice to any bloke who struggles with dates or getting laid would be to just take a long good look in the mirror and approach more women that are actually within your league. Not that women are any better in that regard, many ugly and/or fat chicks have entire wishlists of demands for potential suitors despite that they have really nothing on offer themselves. But let's face it, men have no standards when it comes to sex and would fuck a dead horse if horny enough. Without the male sex-drive the human race would have become extinct long ago b/c if we have to wait for women to take the intitiative, well, expect to wait a long time.

 

[dscross]

we all evolved from animals at the end of the day.

Exactly this. Attraction is pre-cognitive so very little of what you do or say is going to make a difference. Attractive women in the fertile age have every option open to them and don't desire any attention or avances from atleast 80% of men. Men don't have that luxury, and will just have to settle for what they can get. That might not be fair, but it is simply nature picking out the fittest genes through natural selection. If it were the other way around and given the choice, would any guy ever pick an average to below average(let alone ugly) girl over a pretty one? If you are average you can't really attract women above your league unless you're not either famous or exceptionally wealthy. And then 9 out of 10 times it is insincere(case in point Weinstein's ex-wife) but still, you 'got the girl'.

I think this is something everyone intuitively understands but I guess it's a typically male desire that there must be a 'logic' explanation for everything and that women's mating behavior can be logically deducted and subsequently manipulated to the extent that she actually wants to sleep with you. Which is, ofcourse, total bullshit(and in the case of PUA's a financial scam). And if you actually need PUA advice to teach you the basic rules of human interaction you probably have bigger issues to worry about.

More honest advice to any bloke who struggles with dates or getting laid would be to just take a long good look in the mirror and approach more women that are actually within your league. Not that women are any better in that regard, many ugly and/or fat chicks have entire wishlists of demands for potential suitors despite that they have really nothing on offer themselves. But let's face it, men have no standards when it comes to sex and would fuck a dead horse if horny enough. Without the male sex-drive the human race would have become extinct long ago b/c if we have to wait for women to take the intitiative, well, expect to wait a long time.

I'd argue women, generally, aren't as naturally shallow with what they find attractive as men so working on yourself to become a better person is a totally legitimate way of becoming more attractive to women. It's much more abstract as to what what women are attracted to than men.

I'd argue that, in terms of raw attraction (not logically considering a life partner), for men it's mostly about noticing women look good (i.e. youth and/or fertility). I'd say in evolutionary terms, it's more about 'survival' for what women find attractive (back when we were evolving, rather than suited to now) rather than 'fertility'. That could mean a lot of different things could make a difference - leadership qualities, strength of character, ability to understand, what he wants and have a plan to get it or some physical attributes like big muscles. It could also mean a lot of other things. It's abstract like I said. Humour works as well, so they'll probably be other reasons than that.

These are all things you can work on about yourself if you want to. Arguably, it's more difficult for women as they can only use makeup and beauty products to address how they look.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It basically became a political issue that it should be removed because the idea of teaching men to pick up women was so abhorrent.

No. No, it did not. The idea of teaching men to be manipulative, coercive and abusive to pick up women was deemed abhorrent to some people. That is not remotely the same.

 

[stroopwafel]

I'd argue that, in terms of raw attraction (not logically considering a life partner), for men it's mostly about noticing women look good (i.e. youth and/or fertility). I'd say in evolutionary terms, it's more about 'survival' for what women find attractive (back when we were evolving, rather than suited to now) rather than 'fertility'. That could mean a lot of different things could make a difference - leadership qualities, strength of character, ability to understand, what he wants and have a plan to get it or some physical attributes like big muscles. It could also mean a lot of other things. It's abstract like I said. Humour works as well, so they'll probably be other reasons than that.

Bullshit. Nature cares about none of those things. It's not about 'big muscles' it's about good genes signaling strong health that women attribute the qualities to that they desire. If you think you can compensate that with 'a sense of humor' I hope there is a long list of jokes you can crack cause you'll be busy for a while. Nature selects on variety in immune system and strong health is what we interpret as 'attractive'. A sense of humor is not essential for survival so plays no role in attraction whatsoever. Sure, it might be a nice bonus but if a woman isn't attracted to you already then humor isn't going to help. 'Leadership qualities' are the same thing. You can be the CEO of a big company but if you're a short, scrawny dude then women will still prefer the tall and handsome one in the postal room. Well, except for cougars and golddiggers.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Exactly this. Attraction is pre-cognitive so very little of what you do or say is going to make a difference. Attractive women in the fertile age have every option open to them and don't desire any attention or avances from atleast 80% of men. Men don't have that luxury, and will just have to settle for what they can get. That might not be fair, but it is simply nature picking out the fittest genes through natural selection. If it were the other way around and given the choice, would any guy ever pick an average to below average(let alone ugly) girl over a pretty one? If you are average you can't really attract women above your league unless you're not either famous or exceptionally wealthy. And then 9 out of 10 times it is insincere(case in point Weinstein's ex-wife) but still, you 'got the girl'.

What exactly is 'pre-cognitive' in this aspect? Also, no ... on so many fronts. I know plenty of peole that have sex for ... wait for it ... fun. Plenty of fetishes out there fror people of whom it's a marriage between what their ideal partner is, and the exact occasioning and specific activities of sexual conduct.

I think this is something everyone intuitively understands but I guess it's a typically male desire that there must be a 'logic' explanation for everything and that women's mating behavior can be logically deducted and subsequently manipulated to the extent that she actually wants to sleep with you. Which is, ofcourse, total bullshit(and in the case of PUA's a financial scam). And if you actually need PUA advice to teach you the basic rules of human interaction you probably have bigger issues to worry about.

Well, intuitively lies to themselves ... also wrong. Sexual attraction is complex because sexual activity is really fucking complex. We actually do know that pleasure and sexual attraction has multiple inroads to active aspects of thought. Mainly because we see it. It doesn't matter how pretty a person is, anyone can douse sexual attraction by simply how they act. If anything it's at the core of the manipulative garbage people in the PUA community use.

We also know there is a high degree of enculturation concerning aspects of beauty. Because we see that, too.

More honest advice to any bloke who struggles with dates or getting laid would be to just take a long good look in the mirror and approach more women that are actually within your league. Not that women are any better in that regard, many ugly and/or fat chicks have entire wishlists of demands for potential suitors despite that they have really nothing on offer themselves. But let's face it, men have no standards when it comes to sex and would fuck a dead horse if horny enough. Without the male sex-drive the human race would have become extinct long ago b/c if we have to wait for women to take the intitiative, well, expect to wait a long time.

This sounds like terrible advice.

MY advice would be what exactly would you want out of a sexual partner and maybe, I don't know, take whatever this 'league' nonsense is and toss it in the bin? Fun fact, the people you see going out to a party won't probably look like that the rest of the week. They have to do things like go to work, or uni, or both. They won't spend an hour or two in a mirror, or carefully apply concealer, eyeliner and mascara in their day to day life.

More over, it turns out women have things like hobbies, and like to do things other than look pretty for others. Like I like design and patternmaking, and I like hiking, and camping, motorcycles, and I trade on thew marketplace for my daily scratch. I hate cooking, and I am talentless at it ... so if you'd like to pursue a longterm relationship, make peace with the idea that I'll likely burn something if it requires more than 5 ingredients and more than 5 minutes preparation.

So, you know ... if the idea of engine grease, or spending weeks of the year navigating a stretch of the wilderness turns you off we're probably going to have problems. But hey, if you like camping, hiking, machines, and you like the idea of having takeout 4-5 days a week (particularly if you like Indian food) ... well we could find a lot to gel over.

Biggest sexual organ is the brain, and not 'pre-cognitive' for whatever you meant by that ... there is such a thing as purposeful romance. I mean my idea of romance is a nightscape desert backdrop, a horizon to horizon long starlight display with a surprise bottle of Shiraz that a potential partner had managed to hide in their kit somehow.

Turns out 'effort' and 'character' mean something.

Fuck me ... is romance dead? It's almost as if people read shitloads of those trashy, sappy novels for a reason...

Sure, the burly, hunky piece of man meat is attractive, but if the book didn't spend 70% of his content doing things like horseback riding, or being sensitive to a protag's feelings, and other big romantic gestures it would make for dull, disinteresting reading. Yes, there is physical attraction ... but then again, as romance novels quite obviously show, women are looking for mor than just physical attraction. So much so romance novels aren't just pictures of manmeat.

Turns out passion, romantic gestures, and active investment in mutual happiness is a big part of any surviving relationship.

 

[dscross]

I'd argue that, in terms of raw attraction (not logically considering a life partner), for men it's mostly about noticing women look good (i.e. youth and/or fertility). I'd say in evolutionary terms, it's more about 'survival' for what women find attractive (back when we were evolving, rather than suited to now) rather than 'fertility'. That could mean a lot of different things could make a difference - leadership qualities, strength of character, ability to understand, what he wants and have a plan to get it or some physical attributes like big muscles. It could also mean a lot of other things. It's abstract like I said. Humour works as well, so they'll probably be other reasons than that.

Bullshit. Nature cares about none of those things. It's not about 'big muscles' it's about good genes signaling strong health that women attribute the qualities to that they desire. If you think you can compensate that with 'a sense of humor' I hope there is a long list of jokes you can crack cause you'll be busy for a while. Nature selects on variety in immune system and strong health is what we interpret as 'attractive'. A sense of humor is not essential for survival so plays no role in attraction whatsoever. Sure, it might be a nice bonus but if a woman isn't attracted to you already then humor isn't going to help. 'Leadership qualities' are the same thing. You can be the CEO of a big company but if you're a short, scrawny dude then women will still prefer the tall and handsome one in the postal room. Well, except for cougars and golddiggers.

I would argue genetics is very concerned about the things I initially said because they are 'fitness indicators' to women. But you are using silly examples. Leadership qualities could just mean confidence and assertiveness. It doesn't mean you have to have a high powered job. I was talking about internal qualities. It's also an abstract thing, so depending on the person, they could find other qualities attractive.

I also find it interesting how you took the most shallow 'survival' quality I put in there (big muscles) and used it as an example, because that's only a thing you can see just by looking and I actually think generally women find/found those other qualities I mentioned much more attractive for keeping them and their children alive when we were running around wild (we haven't evolved enough for that to have changed).

I also wasn't saying that women aren't completely unconcerned with looks, just MUCH LESS SO than men. Look around at the couples you know. Are all the attractive women with really good looking men or the ugly women with the ugly men? I know in my circle of friends this isn't usually the case.

Also, when I said humour, I didn't just mean reeling off loads of jokes at someone. That's stupid and not funny. I meant become a naturally funny guy but not in a clown sort of way. To illustrate it, I'd also second the below as a good way to show my point because I think they made it well...

Biggest sexual organ is the brain, and not 'pre-cognitive' for whatever you meant by that ... there is such a thing as purposeful romance.

I agree with this (to an extent anyway). Just as males in the animal kingdom try to entice females using whatever unique qualities they have (such as baboons with their blue behinds, those insects that dance in front of females etc), the human male uses his brain, because that's the most evolved quality humans have over other other animals. That's much more complex than with other animals.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I agree with this. Just as males in the animal kingdom show off using whatever unique qualities they have (such as baboons with their blue behinds, those insects that dance in front of females etc), the human male shows off using his brain. They are right in that it's a very complex thing. This is what romance is.

I think you have the wrong idea, however.

'Fitness indicators' aren't actually a driver of sexual activity. Primarily because sexual activity isn't for the conscious act of procreation. So much so copulation and procreation was actually kind of a mystery if archaic symbols of fertility of different cultures around the world means anything.

Just like cultures develop enculturated ideas of beauty and status, so too does the human brain imagine the confluences of their design as part of active sexuality.

Humans didn't evolve with a pair of tweezers, make up brushes, wax strips, a mirror, and a wardrobe of trendy outfits. The biggest problem of the debunked ideas of psychosocial activity in things like evopsych is the tautological basis that explains psychosocial activity as if inherent to evolutionary processes, even while failing to take into account the idea that all of it is missing in terms of our fossil record and cultural evolution.

There are core critical functions to why 'effort' and 'character' mean something in sexual promiscuity and sexual interest.

It's simply because people want to be valued. It is core to our happiness that other people find us worthy of attention and are emotionally invested in wanting us to be happy. Ultimately, the idea of a romantic gesture is less reward, and more the genuineness of seeking to understand and be allowed greater intimacy of that romantic gesture.

Hence why we call it a romantic gesture.

It's not the same as some complex male bird dancing to attract a mate ... it's the fact that humans aren't birds, but we're gregarious pack animals who desire contact, affection and meaningful connections to people.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the PUA community is that it atively undermines the happiness of people in order to illicit self-sabotage, self-doubt, and reduced feelings of self-worth. That's apparently their playbook. And they think that's fine. It's not fine ... it's fucking awful. I'd go so far to say it's anti-social behaviour ... and while hardly worthy of the justice system to deal with, certainly I won't shed a tear if someone knowing what they're doing threatens to loosen their teeth for being downright awful people with few if any redeeming characteristics.

The same tactics these PUAs use are those eerily similar to the systems of emotional sabotage in domestic violence we see. And frankly, it's imperative society hold itself to some higher standard, if only for the sake that we value ourselves as decent people with decent ideas as to the value of others.

 

[stroopwafel]

It doesn't matter how pretty a person is, anyone can douse sexual attraction by simply how they act. If anything it's at the core of the manipulative garbage people in the PUA community use.

No. No matter how hard some post-menopausal lady tries to waggle her dilapidated ass in front of you it will never ''douse sexual attraction''. Similarly how your average male otaku isn't going to make the blood of any hot girl run faster. There are definitely limits to these kind of things. Not that men can't manipulate women to sleep with them, but there is still a degree of attraction present which rarely to never happens between attractive women and men who try to reach way above their league. Again, the exception being money or fame but even here 9 out of 10 times the reasons are insincere.

In that whole MeToe scandal give me one person that was accused that look like that ''Fifty Shades of Gray'' bloke or whatever. There aren't any. All old and/or ugly. That Fifty Shades of Gray bloke don't have to push himself on women or intimidate them. It are only the usual suspects: those too old and ugly to have any reasonable success with attractive women.

Though again, even the benefits of being a very attractive woman will start to fade between 35-40. There is no winning, the game of life after all.

 

[dscross]

It's not the same as some complex male bird dancing to attract a mate ... it's the fact that humans aren't birds, but we're gregarious pack animals who desire contact, affection and meaningful connections to people.

Why isn't it is the same as other complex mammal mating rituals, initially, though? How are humans different if we are basically animals? Are you saying we're so far evolved that we've grown above mating rituals, or is it that it's going on somewhere under the surface, which is what I was trying to say. How do you explain attraction in humans?

(I changed the quote slightly btw, when I rethought).

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Though again, even the benefits of being a very attractive woman will start to fade between 35-40. There is no winning, the game of life after all.

Then you musn't get out much, because I know a shit ton of older cougars and I personally have had relationships with much older women on that basis. She was exciting ... had lead a life of adventure. Explored Papua New Guinea on foot, boat and helicopter. Was part of numerous Australian government medical fact-finding missions to chart the health of native communities in the region in ongoing vaccination programs and humanitarian missions, and the like.

Spoke 9 different languages.

I kind of pity you ... you do understand you're going to get older right? And old people still have sex?

In fact it's one of the bigger concerns in modern medicine is the rates of STI r0s in older demographics of society, and not just in terms older men. It turns out the young'ens aren't necessarily the most at risk groups of things like genital herpes.

 

[stroopwafel]

And old people still have sex?

Sure, but even here it proves how much sexuality is linked to the evolutionary purpose of reproduction. As women age their estrogen production will cease and(most of the time) sexual desire will become much less, natural vaginal lubrication will decrease and the vaginal wall will become thinner. Men don't have a sudden cessation of hormones but even here sexual desire will lessen over the years and with advancing age erectile function will decrease and require medication to still get it up. In the pleistocene people never got as old as we do so these issues didn't really exist. You matured, maybe reproduced and died. Modern society and medical science allows us to outlive our evolutionary purpose(which is ofcourse a great luxury) but also means facing at greater length that all good things must eventually come to an end.

 

[dscross]

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the PUA community is that it atively undermines the happiness of people in order to illicit self-sabotage, self-doubt, and reduced feelings of self-worth. That's apparently their playbook. And they think that's fine. It's not fine ... it's fucking awful. I'd go so far to say it's anti-social behaviour ... and while hardly worthy of the justice system to deal with, certainly I won't shed a tear if someone knowing what they're doing threatens to loosen their teeth for being downright awful people with few if any redeeming characteristics.

The same tactics these PUAs use are those eerily similar to the systems of emotional sabotage in domestic violence we see. And frankly, it's imperative society hold itself to some higher standard, if only for the sake that we value ourselves as decent people with decent ideas as to the value of others.

I said right at the top in the introduction to the thread that I don't agree that this is their mindset from what I've seen and that it's a misconception. I've already written what I think their goal is with teaching that stuff. I don't know what else I can say.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Sure, but even here it proves how much sexuality is linked to the evolutionary purpose of reproduction. As women age their estrogen production will cease and(most of the time) sexual desire will become much less, natural vaginal lubrication will decrease and the vaginal wall will become thinner. Men don't have a sudden cessation of hormones but even here sexual desire will lessen over the years and with advancing age erectile function will decrease and require medication to still get it up. In the pleistocene people never got as old as we do so these issues didn't really exist. You matured, maybe reproduced and died. Modern society and medical science allows us to outlive our evolutionary purpose(which is ofcourse a great luxury) but also means facing at greater length that all good things must eventually come to an end.

But then again, sex isn't for procreation... there is no evolutionary desire solely for procreation. So much so cultural ideas of fertility itself were confused about just how copulation worked and what were true symbols of fertility. And precisely for those reasons of decreased libido do we find the idea of sexual activity being driven by sexual agency and personal intimacy. Not merely the act of having sex. The act of merely having sex is boring. I would rather slump in a comfy chair after 4 lines of blow and (attempt) to play Mario Kart on my Switch than just wake up next to a stranger in the night.

As I was saying in my (admittedly edited) comment above. Plenty of older cougars out there. And many of them have stories to tell. I don't really give a shit as to the gender of my partners, but what I do like is the narrative I create in my head about its interlude. This nurse-turned-doctor had seen active conflict, she had explored the world. Suffered periodically from malaria due to her explorations and activities across the South Pacific.

She was exciting and one of the most rewarding people I have ever met in my life.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I said right at the top in the introduction to the thread that I don't agree that this is their mindset from what I've seen and that it's a misconception. I've already written what I think their goal is with teaching that stuff. I don't know what else I can say.

Just adding my thoughts to it as well. It's destructive, and honestly it typifies a distinct lack of decency and basic self-awareness of moral conduct.

 

[Silvanus]

I was fascinated by people's outrage at what seemed to me like a poorly made game, with some clear marketing tactics behind it, but was essentially just teaching men who weren't very socially adept to understand how to approach strangers and flirt.

Have you actually watched gameplay of Super Seducer?

I have. It is not just teaching men how to flirt. It goes way beyond that; it's some pretty skeevy stuff.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

So you wouldn't mind your sister, mother, daughter, niece, an ex partner you respect, friend or any female person you actually maybe care for being the subject of a person using these wonderous tricks to convince them how much of a "nice guy" they are then?

 

[dscross]

I was fascinated by people's outrage at what seemed to me like a poorly made game, with some clear marketing tactics behind it, but was essentially just teaching men who weren't very socially adept to understand how to approach strangers and flirt.

Have you actually watched gameplay of Super Seducer?

I have. It is not just teaching men how to flirt. It goes way beyond that; it's some pretty skeevy stuff.

Example?

 

[dscross]

So you wouldn't mind your sister, mother, daughter, niece, an ex partner you respect, friend or any female person you actually maybe care for being the subject of a person using these wonderous tricks to convince them how much of a "nice guy" they are then?

I think the fact that you think they they are all just trying to trick people we are thinking on completely different lines here. I've tried to show that in the opening para.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I think the fact that you think they they are all just trying to trick people we are thinking on completely different lines here. I've tried to show that in the opening para.

These people are literally teaching deception. To guys who are wanting sex. Not to be yourself, but to be someone who follows the sold formula. It isn't confidence in themselves, it's confidence in the sold formula and that these female sexual encounters are a prize to be awarded after enough effort and deception. Any person lacking confidence and wanting sex is better off seeking therapy, it isn't that scary, or a bad thing. Well, anyone that cares about the ethics of courtship.