The morality of Pick Up Artists

[Pyrian]

Honestly I can't help viewing PUA's as hucksters whose primary mark is gullible men. They make money by selling a snake oil dream cure for people's problems. There's very little else there - in fact, selling advice that actually worked would simply reduce repeat purchases.

 

[dscross]

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.

On what basis do you think this rather than what I put in in the intro? From what you've read, here-say, or assumptions?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

When I think of a "pick up artist" I think of a douchbag who likes to worm his way into women's pants by any means necessary. So things like this "Super Seducer," whose very title BTW does not lend itself to your description of what "pick up artists" might actually be trying to teach, makes me think of psychologically manipulating women to sleep with you. I find that abhorrent. However, as I said in the magical disappearing thread, that was not the reason I thought it should be removed. No, the creator of the game pulled a Digital Homicide and lashed out at anyone who dared criticize his game and I thought he should be punished for that by having his game removed from Steam.

 

[Worgen]

Douche bags who never managed to master their own cocks.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I don't believe they think this - or if it was ever the case, I don't think it is the case anymore.

I don't think you are in a position to say that. Julien Blanc is a pick up artist. Matt Forney is a pick up artist. These people still, to this day, write books, teach seminars or otherwise make money by claiming to teach men how to pick up women, and they also undeniably advocate or teach abusive or manipulative strategies. Heck, Julian Blanc posts videos of himself going up to random women and physically choking them..

Spoiler: Like this

..and yes, not everyone who is affiliated with the "PUA community" or calls themselves a pick up artist does stuff like this, but it's very, very disingenuous to come in claiming that society is creating a false narrative about pick up artistry when you can't be honest in your own narrative. If you want to advocate for the benefits of pick up artistry, I'm listening, but we can all very easily do research. We all know that the bad stuff exists. Pretending that it's all the (wo)man keeping honest pick up artists down is disingenuous to your audience.

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.

Okay, so here is my first problem.

This is what I call "self-help discourse", it's a kind of breezy pop-psychology language rooted in vague metaphors which sounds profound but is ultimately too vague to actually be useful to anyone. Look, I'll do it now.

If you want to get ahead in business, you need to think like a goose. The lead goose in the flock has to work hardest, but by doing so he reduces the air resistance of the geese behind him in the formation. Similarly, a good leader doesn't just focus on his own success, but also creates the conditions for those around him to succeed. When a team works together under a strong avian leader, the benefits are felt by every member of the flock. Also, jet turbines are bad. Avoid that shit at all cost.

See, clearly I am a business guru. Who cares that what I said meant nothing. In fact, it doesn't even work as a metaphor because there is no "lead" goose in a flock and geese alternate their position in the formation, but who cares, it included a distracting metaphor and invoked aspirational concepts like leadership and teamwork without having to give any details.

It isn't just PUAs who rely on this, though. Virtually all self-help literature works on this concept, because while it's very hard (and consequentially very expensive) to actually fix deep seated problems in a person, it's incredibly easy to make people think you can do that by throwing out easy answers and affirmative words.

Really though, what you're saying is just a fancy way of saying "be yourself".

And if being yourself means going to bars and trying to get people to have casual sex with you, that's fine, you do you. To me, it just seems like a sad reminder that heterosexual culture is a broken mess which has stripped the joy from sex to such a degree that you actually feel you need to persuade each other to do it, but hey, baby steps.

No, I think what bothers me is the rather icky idea that pursuing casual sex is somehow a metaphor for being a better person, or maybe being a better person is somehow a metaphor for chasing casual sex. Like, how insecure do you have to be that you can't take life or relationship advice seriously unless it comes from someone who you think is getting mad pussay. If this really was all about being a better person, or a more honest person, or having real relationships with women who you totally see as people, duh, then why would the "marketing", as you put it, exist? Why is it so important that the person you're taking all this deep and meaningful advice about being a better person has supposedly gotten laid a lot.

 

[Avnger]

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.

On what basis do you think this rather than what I put in in the intro? From what you've read, here-say, or assumptions?

On the basis that, to be completely frank, your intro is complete bollocks. All it takes is a quick gander over to one of the MRA or PUA reddits or youtube channels to see how true that is. Hell, you could just watch even a little bit of the "gameplay" from Super Seducer and realize this.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

...the morality of Pick Up Artists is that they, by and large, tend to be either really Skeevy blokes who give advice which is only really effective at teaching you how to physically/sexually/mentally abuse someone rather than get you sex, or are taking advantage of desperate men to steal as much of their money as possible while giving them completely useless advice.

So, generally, they're pretty poor on the morality scale, fluctuating between 'scammer' and 'rapist'. At best, they're taking your money, at worst, they're a terrible, terrible human being.

regardless, I wouldn't really listen to any of them, since even for the ones who aren't scamming you and are trying to give you genuine advice on dating, it still tends to be very... bad for actual dating advice, or something that only works in very specific cultural circumstances. Pro-tip you won't get from PUA's - treat people like people and not cock-receptacles, you get laid a LOT more that way. Or you make friends, which is also nice.

Plus, frankly, the whole PUA thing is falling to the wayside anyway since there's dozens/hundreds of dating/hook-up apps available from the comfort of your phone. Just fire up Tinder and start swiping, you'll hook up with someone eventually. Hell sometimes you don't even need to fuck around with getting to know each other, you can get conversations that literally boil down to 'Nice, I'm DTF, where and when?', so... yeah.

Ignore PUA's, get in on the mobile apps, it's way more efficient and a lot more morally and ethically sound. Also cheaper.

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.

Jesus.

Someone has a low opinion of people. Or got a lot of dating advice from 90s TV and early 2000s comic books. But still, jesus.

 

[PhoenixKnight]

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?

In one scenario when it is revealed the woman you are trying to "get" (for lack of a better word) has a boyfriend, you are given the option to ask her if her boyfriend would allow her to be talking to you. This is presented as the correct option because it "works psychologically by taking away her independence". The game states, since she obviously isn't going to want to admit that her boyfriend makes her decisions for her, she is therefore forced to continue talking with you.

In another scenario, it is revealed the woman is a model and you can suggest she allow you to take nude pictures of her at your house. While this is treated as the wrong option, he says, in his correction, that you should first get her drunk and then she would be more willing to do it.

There is some minor stuff like him outright stating that if a girl can't cook she should be good at blowjobs, or all women use their vaginas to get what they want. Or the fact that choosing the correct answer presents you with him sitting on a bed with two models in lingerie, who contribute nothing to the game other than to be eye candy.

Probably the worst of it though is the scenario where you're attracted to your longtime best friend, and want to sleep with her (which the game outright tells you is your goal (as opposed to the other ones where the goal is "date" or "get phone number")). The scenario plays out with her having no interest in you romantically and actually having a boyfriend already. However, during the course of the chapter, she breaks up with the boyfriend and comes to you for support. Instead of doing to obvious thing and comforting her when she is upset, you use it as an opportunity to sleep with her when she is vulnerable and not thinking straight.

This game does not teach guys how to flirt better. It teaches men how to manipulate women into getting into bed with them. Regardless of what you think of Pick-Up Artists, this game is not a good example in trying to claim they are not all bad. This game shows that it's creator sees women as nothing more than objects for him to obtain. That any lies or tactics he uses are justified because it's fine as long as the girl agrees to it in the end. The models he uses when you get a right answer perfectly encapsulate how he sees women: as nothing more than objects.

 

[PhoenixKnight]

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'd rather just be myself and if that means no one is ever going to be attracted to me, I am okay with that. I used to lament the fact I rarely go out because it severely limits the number of people I interact with and therefore the potential people I could date. But that just wouldn't be me. I am not the kind of person that enjoys being outside or in huge crowds. I am a lot happier being by myself in front of the television, playing video games, or reading a book.

You say that guys should become the kind of person women are attracted to (which is already a nebulous statement since different women are attracted to different things) but if it means losing who I am in the process that doesn't seem worth it to me. If I ever get into a relationship I want her to want to be with me, not some version of me I've created because I think it attracts women better.

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.

Just because someone doesn't think what they are doing is wrong, doesn't make it the case. The villain of the story very rarely believes what they are doing is wrong.

My major problem with so-called "Pick-Up Artists" is they act like their techniques are guaranteed to get you women. That if you follow their advice, you will get the woman no matter what. The idea of "Pick-Up Artists" is misguided in the first place because what works for one woman won't necessarily work for another. There is a point in time when it becomes obvious that a woman just isn't going to be interested in you, but these "Pick-Up Artists" act like if you wear her down long enough, she will eventually become interested in you.

Putting aside basic grooming (i.e. showering) you want to know the only things you need to get women interested in you. To be able to approach her and initiate a conversation (however the reverse can also happen) and to be passionate about the things that interest you. You don't need to make up some persona about yourself, or pretend to be interested in things you aren't. If you and the person you're talking to aren't interested in at least some of the same things, it's going to be extremely difficult to maintain the relationship in the long run. As cliched as it sounds, just be yourself. If they are not interested in who you are, they are not the one for you.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Pickup artistry is basically a scam, and one that has an unfortunate tendency to rely on mental or emotional abuse.

 

[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?

In one scenario when it is revealed the woman you are trying to "get" (for lack of a better word) has a boyfriend, you are given the option to ask her if her boyfriend would allow her to be talking to you. This is presented as the correct option because it "works psychologically by taking away her independence". The game states, since she obviously isn't going to want to admit that her boyfriend makes her decisions for her, she is therefore forced to continue talking with you.

Nope you completely misunderstood this. I've seen that bit on YouTube. It's his lousy way of communicating that's throwing you. What he's saying is that if she answered in any other way than saying it's ok to keep talking to him it would be like her boyfriend would be taking away her independence, which is why she has to answer that it's ok to talk to him. That's fine.

In another scenario, it is revealed the woman is a model and you can suggest she allow you to take nude pictures of her at your house. While this is treated as the wrong option, he says, in his correction, that you should first get her drunk and then she would be more willing to do it.

You are phrasing this in a certain way, but it sounds like a partial joke to me after you answer a question incorrectly and partially saying to creepy guys it's only ok once know her better further down the line and she's alright with it - which it is. I'd need to watch it to get confirmation.

There is some minor stuff like him outright stating that if a girl can't cook she should be good at blowjobs, or all women use their vaginas to get what they want. Or the fact that choosing the correct answer presents you with him sitting on a bed with two models in lingerie, who contribute nothing to the game other than to be eye candy.

The models sitting on the bed is nothing to do with what he's teaching. It's just a dumb marketing ploy to entice a certain type of guy. It's stupid but it has nothing to do with the actual advice. The other stuff I don't believe he said in the way you are phrasing it. I haven't watched it in enough detail to see all these bits, but, judging off the other 2 it sounds like you are watching expecting him to say bad things so you are hearing them in a certain way.

Probably the worst of it though is the scenario where you're attracted to your longtime best friend, and want to sleep with her (which the game outright tells you is your goal (as opposed to the other ones where the goal is "date" or "get phone number")). The scenario plays out with her having no interest in you romantically and actually having a boyfriend already. However, during the course of the chapter, she breaks up with the boyfriend and comes to you for support. Instead of doing to obvious thing and comforting her when she is upset, you use it as an opportunity to sleep with her when she is vulnerable and not thinking straight.

I don't think this 'friend' is supposed to be his 'real' friend because he clearly wants something more and that happens to people of both genders in real life. Whether people want to admit it or not, it happens to some people when they are young and it's probably caused some people heart ache for years.

The girl in this scenario seems to have realised that he is attracted to (or in love with?) her and she's taking advantage of that. You can see he;s trying to portray that scenario in the earlier scenes. That also happens to people, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. For real friends, attraction shouldn't be in the equation at all on either side or it changes the dynamic. He's clearly trying to get a certain type of guy to break out of this predicament for his own self respect.

This game does not teach guys how to flirt better. It teaches men how to manipulate women into getting into bed with them. Regardless of what you think of Pick-Up Artists, this game is not a good example in trying to claim they are not all bad. This game shows that it's creator sees women as nothing more than objects for him to obtain. That any lies or tactics he uses are justified because it's fine as long as the girl agrees to it in the end. The models he uses when you get a right answer perfectly encapsulate how he sees women: as nothing more than objects.

As I said, for the most part, it seems like he's just giving advice to men, who don't have very good social and/or flirtation skills, about how to be more confident and have normal conversations. The only bits that appear suspect in any way in what he's advising is when he phrases things strangely in the bizarre sections when he's sat on the bed. As I've said, I really can't see as much 'manipulation' here as everyone is making out.

 

[dscross]

I'd rather just be myself and if that means no one is ever going to be attracted to me, I am okay with that. I used to lament the fact I rarely go out because it severely limits the number of people I interact with and therefore the potential people I could date. But that just wouldn't be me. I am not the kind of person that enjoys being outside or in huge crowds. I am a lot happier being by myself in front of the television, playing video games, or reading a book.

You say that guys should become the kind of person women are attracted to (which is already a nebulous statement since different women are attracted to different things) but if it means losing who I am in the process that doesn't seem worth it to me. If I ever get into a relationship I want her to want to be with me, not some version of me I've created because I think it attracts women better.

That's fine, attract people how you want. I wasn't denying anyone anything. Everything is entitled to their beliefs on the best way to go about things. I was just saying I think there are some deep misconceptions about what they are trying to teach people.

Just because someone doesn't think what they are doing is wrong, doesn't make it the case. The villain of the story very rarely believes what they are doing is wrong.

Wooooo Mr, I am just talking about this for the sake of discussion because I think the way society views these things is fascinating and incorrect. I don't do it myself. I think calling me a villain is a bit much!

My major problem with so-called "Pick-Up Artists" is they act like their techniques are guaranteed to get you women. That if you follow their advice, you will get the woman no matter what. The idea of "Pick-Up Artists" is misguided in the first place because what works for one woman won't necessarily work for another. There is a point in time when it becomes obvious that a woman just isn't going to be interested in you, but these "Pick-Up Artists" act like if you wear her down long enough, she will eventually become interested in you.

Putting aside basic grooming (i.e. showering) you want to know the only things you need to get women interested in you. To be able to approach her and initiate a conversation (however the reverse can also happen) and to be passionate about the things that interest you. You don't need to make up some persona about yourself, or pretend to be interested in things you aren't. If you and the person you're talking to aren't interested in at least some of the same things, it's going to be extremely difficult to maintain the relationship in the long run. As cliched as it sounds, just be yourself. If they are not interested in who you are, they are not the one for you.

So you don't like the 'idea' of a Pick Up Artist'. Understandable. I don't think most of them believe in building a 'persona' as you think. They believe in self development - as well developing their social skills and having a greater understanding of people. They want you to be yourself, just to develop yourself into someone more confident, better at flirting and more comfortable with their sexuality. That's allowed. I don't think it's their underlying ideas you like, which, I'd argue, you have misinterpreting, as I tried to summarise in the opening para.

 

[dscross]

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.

On what basis do you think this rather than what I put in in the intro? From what you've read, here-say, or assumptions?

On the basis that, to be completely frank, your intro is complete bollocks. All it takes is a quick gander over to one of the MRA or PUA reddits or youtube channels to see how true that is. Hell, you could just watch even a little bit of the "gameplay" from Super Seducer and realize this.

I really don't think you've thought about this other than a quick Internet search.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

On the evening from 2015 to 2016 the worst case of gang rape shook Germany. Only a few weeks later Roosh IV showed up in the very same country, spouting platitudes about how rape should be legalized. Frankly, I think people like him should be locked upt with the very same rapist they would insist are only "taking what belongs to them" or whatever stupid bullshit they use to justify their inhumane worldview.

 

[dscross]

I don't believe they think this - or if it was ever the case, I don't think it is the case anymore.

I don't think you are in a position to say that. Julien Blanc is a pick up artist. Matt Forney is a pick up artist. These people still, to this day, write books, teach seminars or otherwise make money by claiming to teach men how to pick up women, and they also undeniably advocate or teach abusive or manipulative strategies. Heck, Julian Blanc posts videos of himself going up to random women and physically choking them..

Spoiler: Like this

..and yes, not everyone who is affiliated with the "PUA community" or calls themselves a pick up artist does stuff like this, but it's very, very disingenuous to come in claiming that society is creating a false narrative about pick up artistry when you can't be honest in your own narrative. If you want to advocate for the benefits of pick up artistry, I'm listening, but we can all very easily do research. We all know that the bad stuff exists. Pretending that it's all the (wo)man keeping honest pick up artists down is disingenuous to your audience.

I did make a generalisation and say not all PUAs were created equal. I don't think this is a particularly good thing to do no, and it's a fair point. But then again, I've not really looked into this at all other than what you've just showed me, so I can't really comment. You have to ask, why does this work on any women at all? It sounds ridiculous to me. I mean, I assume that's his opener to get their attention maybe? If it was me I'd run off. Has the specifics of what he's been doing been changed by the press / editing? I mean, it must work for him or he wouldn't do it. Weird.

Okay, so here is my first problem.

This is what I call "self-help discourse", it's a kind of breezy pop-psychology language rooted in vague metaphors which sounds profound but is ultimately too vague to actually be useful to anyone. Look, I'll do it now.

If you want to get ahead in business, you need to think like a goose. The lead goose in the flock has to work hardest, but by doing so he reduces the air resistance of the geese behind him in the formation. Similarly, a good leader doesn't just focus on his own success, but also creates the conditions for those around him to succeed. When a team works together under a strong avian leader, the benefits are felt by every member of the flock. Also, jet turbines are bad. Avoid that shit at all cost.

See, clearly I am a business guru. Who cares that what I said meant nothing. In fact, it doesn't even work as a metaphor because there is no "lead" goose in a flock and geese alternate their position in the formation, but who cares, it included a distracting metaphor and invoked aspirational concepts like leadership and teamwork without having to give any details.

It isn't just PUAs who rely on this, though. Virtually all self-help literature works on this concept, because while it's very hard (and consequentially very expensive) to actually fix deep seated problems in a person, it's incredibly easy to make people think you can do that by throwing out easy answers and affirmative words.

Really though, what you're saying is just a fancy way of saying "be yourself".

And if being yourself means going to bars and trying to get people to have casual sex with you, that's fine, you do you. To me, it just seems like a sad reminder that heterosexual culture is a broken mess which has stripped the joy from sex to such a degree that you actually feel you need to persuade each other to do it, but hey, baby steps.

No, I think what bothers me is the rather icky idea that pursuing casual sex is somehow a metaphor for being a better person, or maybe being a better person is somehow a metaphor for chasing casual sex. Like, how insecure do you have to be that you can't take life or relationship advice seriously unless it comes from someone who you think is getting mad pussay. If this really was all about being a better person, or a more honest person, or having real relationships with women who you totally see as people, duh, then why would the "marketing", as you put it, exist? Why is it so important that the person you're taking all this deep and meaningful advice about being a better person has supposedly gotten laid a lot.

Sort of. Except 'be yourself' doesn't work for a lot of people. They need to get their improve their confidence (and 'practice' flirting with people) to actually present their real selves to people. Some people subconsciously put on personas when talking to people too. Some people benefit from the help more than others. Modern Pick Up Artists are just a sub culture of self help people. Many of them are in relationships or are married actually, but they would claim they had the pick of the litter.

I wasn't necessarily saying it was the best way to go about it, I was just saying I don't think PUAs are as bad as everyone makes out. Not worse than any other self help guru. The difference is everyone gets all touchy about the idea of picking up women, even though guys do it in real life and it's fine. I'd actually say that, generally, PUAs seem to go about it in a more socially acceptable way that how guys normally do it without help.

 

[dscross]

On the evening from 2015 to 2016 the worst case of gang rape shook Germany. Only a few weeks later Roosh IV showed up in the very same country, spouting platitudes about how rape should be legalized. Frankly, I think people like him should be locked upt with the very same rapist they would insist are only "taking what belongs to them" or whatever stupid bullshit they use to justify their inhumane worldview.

Source?

 

[dscross]

When I think of a "pick up artist" I think of a douchbag who likes to worm his way into women's pants by any means necessary. So things like this "Super Seducer," whose very title BTW does not lend itself to your description of what "pick up artists" might actually be trying to teach, makes me think of psychologically manipulating women to sleep with you. I find that abhorrent. However, as I said in the magical disappearing thread, that was not the reason I thought it should be removed. No, the creator of the game pulled a Digital Homicide and lashed out at anyone who dared criticize his game and I thought he should be punished for that by having his game removed from Steam.

This was my whole point though. That this is what people instantly think of but it's not necessarily the case. I think there's more going on here than society and the press would have us believe.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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).

I missed this post.

Because there's no specificity for it. Different cultures have different ideas of beauty and conduct. Historically ideas of coupling and copulation are not uniform. This is inherently the problem with evo psych ... it becomes tautological given evolutionarily speaking the predications it makes aren't actually there.

I can see the mating rituals of, say, Satin bowerbirds from Southern Queensland to Central Victoria ... largely the same. And it's probably been largely the same for tens of thousands of years if not longer.

But then again, I can look at my friends both within my culture and outside and see no real similarities for their couplings. There is no unform displays, there's no uniform reasons for copulation, and there's no uniform tastes or qualities of the mates they share lives with. It's almost as if with higher intelligence and vastly different environmental conditions leads to vast displays of psychosocial activity and sexual interest.

Some of them met while working/studying together. Some met at a club. Some met over a mutual interest forum board. Some met at a pop culture convention. Some met at a store.

It's almost as if evo psych is junk science when it comes to explaining individual behaviour.

Believe it or not, humans are complex. Shock horror, I know.

 

[dscross]

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).

I missed this post.

Because there's no specificity for it. Different cultures have different ideas of beauty. Historically ideas of coupling and copulation are not uniform. This is inherently the problem with evopsych ... it becomes tautological given evolutionarily speaking the predications it makes aren't actually there.

I can see the mating rituals of, say, Satin bowerbirds from Southern Queensland to Central Victoria ... largely the same.

And it's problem been largely the same for tens of thousands of years if not longer.

But then again, I can look at my friends both within my culture and outside and see no real similarities for their couplings. There is no unform displays, there's no uniform reasons for copulation, and there's no uniform tastes or qualities of the mates they share lives with. It's almost as if with higher intelligence and vastly different environmental conditions leads to vast displays of psychosocial activity and sexual interest.

It's almost as if evo psych is junk science.

You said yourself sexual attraction is very complicated and difficult to understand, and that includes how humans date. Just away from the whole PUA thing for a minute, I do agree with you that humans have to make a connection with people and it's important. But I don't think that's connected with attraction to a stranger, which you surely must have experienced before. It's perfectly logical to assume that we've still retained a lot of our evolutionary make up.

You also have to ask yourself why EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL HAS A MATING RITUAL. We are animals so it's logical we should as well. It's really not been that long in evolutionary terms for that to change. Unless you don't believe in evolution. It's food for thought anyway. It's definitely not worth completely dismissing or that's very closed minded.

I also don't think the many evolutionary psychologists at Universities everywhere would be very pleased with your closing statement

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You said yourself sexual attraction is very complicated and difficult to understand, and that includes how humans date. Just away from the whole PUA thing for a minute, I do agree with you that humans have to make a connection with people and it's important. But I don't think that's connected with attraction to a stranger, which you surely must have experienced before. It's perfectly logical to assume that we've still retained a lot of our evolutionary make up.

No, it's not logical. We don't live in the same world as our ancestors. Your average human beyond simply anatomical similarities isn't going to act like those people 100,000 years ago.

You have to ask yourself why EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL HAS A MATING RITUAL.

But they don't. So ... no, one needn't ask that question. They have means of copulation, but that doesn't suggest ritual nor that they're uniform in terms of their species. Even the act of copulation can be different within a species.

I also don't think the many evolutionary psychologists at Universities everywhere would be very pleased with your closing statement

And we can toss them in the dustbin of time, at least in terms of pretending to understand human psychosocial activity, along with Lamarckism and other theories of evolution.

Hell, we can throw Darwinism in that dustbin too given we know horizontal gene trasfer is a thing. Turns out mutation and accidental genetic acquisition is a thing between microbes and host cells. Virus fragments, and the like. All of us run around with alien genetics just through our daily lives being exposed to the world. Or more so we have to rewrite Darwinism.