The morality of Pick Up Artists

[dscross]

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.

Errr, read any book about the mating rituals with animals dude or watch a David Attenborough and then come back to me because there's no point in talking to you about this otherwise.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Errr, read any book about the mating rituals with animals dude or watch a David Attenborough and then come back to me because there's no point in talking to you about this otherwise.

Then you'll have no difficulty citing an academic resource that says specifically how every animal has a uniform mating ritual. Because I have a pair of eyes and can see how the act of copulation within species is not necessarily uniform, nor within couplings in humans.

Hell, there's even distinct differences between the reason of couplings, or the dynamics they take ... and thus the behaviours and reasons behind mating.

Take for instance behaviour and mannerisms of black swan pairings of 2 male swans, and comparing that to black swan couplings of a male and female.

A pairing of two male black swans will occasionally drive off a female swan from her nest and just adopt the eggs and form a family unit that way as their desire to actually couple and form a monogamous relationship. They have also been seen forming temporary trios, 2 males and 1 female, solely to procure fertile legs to form their own family unit before driving the female away.

Which is quite distinct from the mating rituals of a male and female black swan coupling.

 

[dscross]

Errr, read any book about the mating rituals with animals dude or watch a David Attenborough and then come back to me because there's no point in talking to you about this otherwise.

Then you'll have no difficulty citing an academic resource that says specifically how every animal has a uniform mating ritual. Because I have a pair of eyes and can see how the act of copulation within species is not necessarily uniform, nor within couplings in humans.

Take for instance behaviour and mannerisms of black swan pairings of 2 male swans, and comparing that to black swan couplings of a male and female.

A pairing of two male black swans will occasionally drive off a female swan from her nest and just adopt the eggs and form a family unit that way as their desire to actually couple and form a monogamous relationship. They have also been seen forming temporary trios, 2 males and 1 female, solely to procure fertile legs to form their own family unit before driving the female away.

Which is quite distinct from the mating rituals of a male and female black swan coupling.

When did I try and fit them into an exact uniform pattern that you seem to be trying to force me down? I just said every species has specific types of mating rituals, as do humans (it's just, unlike other animals, we use our brains to do it). Not how many variations there were. You have just confirmed that for me by citing an example. Here are some fun ones for you to read: http://aplus.com/a/12-weird-mating-rituals?no_monetization=true

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

When did I try and fit them into an exact uniform pattern that you seem to be trying to force me down? I just said they said specific mating rituals, as do humans. You have just confirmed that for me by citing an example.

No, you specifically said; "How every animal has a mating ritual" ... I took umbrage with that by saying that there isn't actually uniformity and there isn't necessarily ritual. That there are different reasons for copulation and coupling that we can actually see. You did an appeal to authority, I gave you an actual example which shows otherwise.

Black swans are a perfect example not only of different mating relations within the same species, the different mechanics of their expression. More over, the expression of the reasons for mating are different themselves.

What more do you want?

 

[dscross]

When did I try and fit them into an exact uniform pattern that you seem to be trying to force me down? I just said they said specific mating rituals, as do humans. You have just confirmed that for me by citing an example.

No, you specifically said; "How every animal has a mating ritual" ... I took umbrage with that by saying that there isn't actually uniformity and there isn't necessarily ritual. That there are different reasons for copulation and coupling that we can actually see. You did an appeal to authority, I gave you an actual example which shows otherwise.

Black swans are a perfect example not only of different mating relations within the same species, the different mechanics of their expression. More over, the expression of the reasons for mating are different themselves.

What more do you want?

I didn't say there weren't variants within each species I just said there were mating rituals specific to each species. Follow that link and read some. What more do YOU want.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

FFS. I didn't say there weren't variants within each species I just said there were mating rituals specific to each species. Follow that link and read some. What more do YOU want.

It's not much of a 'ritual' if it isn't ritualistic. Also, your link doesn't ctually challenge my argument. Examples of mating rituals doesn't somehow make the argument every species has a mating ritual ... nor why humans would have evolved a courtship ritual. You know ... because we have empirical proof that we don't have a uniform idea of courtship.

In fact, dare I say, we culturally have evolved courtship rituals, and what was acceptable even only 50 years ago ain't really considered so now.

That's pretty fast concerning evolution. Almost as if psychosocial activity governs it as opposed to some idiotic idea of evo psych.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I didn't say there weren't variants within each species I just said there were mating rituals specific to each species. Follow that link and read some. What more do YOU want.

That you stop comparing humans to animals? I am pretty certain most of us know a bunch of animal mating rituals, ranging from the fairly tame, like budgies grooming each other, to incredibly complex, like the dancing of seahorses that lasts for almost 2 days.

However, Humans don't have species wide "mating rituals" or even courtship rituals. How courtship and sexual relations are initiated vary wildly by culture and humanity is probably one of the few (if not the only) species where not engaging in sexual intercourse when the individual is ready to procreate (which for men is "almost always" and for women is "about a week a month") is actually the norm.

Humanity has cultural mores that determine how we go about courtship and sexual relationships, and those vary wildly with which country you are in. That's not to mention that humans tend to have sex for fun, which is very different from the "mate to procreate" of many animals. So this is one of those cases were referring to animals doesn't tell us anything about how and why humans do something.

On topic: Maybe there are nice PUAs, but when you're MO basically is that of a con artist but with the intention of getting someone to sleep with you, instead of stealing their money you are already pretty far down on the morality meter. When you are all about abject manipulation to get someone to give you something they normally wouldn't give you, you are pretty scummy. Doesn't matter if it is money or sex.

 

[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.

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.

If what you say is true then maybe they shouldn't call themselves "pick up artists," maybe they should call themselves "social coaches" or something. "Pick up artist" implies picking up a woman to sleep with her and then dump her on her ass.

 

[PhoenixKnight]

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.

How exactly is that fine? Even if your version was accurate (which it is not) it's still manipulating the women into giving the answer you want by tricking her into believing that if she answers otherwise she is negatively impacting herself as a person. The game says, "This works psychologically because you?re taking away her independence".

That is said to you, the player. You are taking away her independence. I don?t know where you got the idea that he was talking about her boyfriend in that scenario because it's clear if you watch the clip. Regardless, as soon as you bring psychology into this, it goes from harmless flirting to using tricks and deception to get women to do what you want.

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.

What he says in the clip is "Not the way to do it. You want to offer just some normal photos and when she's on the actual shoot just try and get it a little bit more racy step by step. Give her some drinks and see what happens".

You can tell me I'm phrasing it however I want but I really don't see how you could read that as anything other than "use alcohol to affect her judgement and maybe she'll take her clothes off and let you photograph her". There is nothing in the clip that suggests he is joking or not to be taken seriously at this point. He delivers the "advice" the same way he delivers all the other advice.

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.

This is where your argument loses any weight it might have had. You admit you haven?t seen the parts I'm taking about, but then state I must be wrong because you can just tell apparently. As I said in my original post, these were just minor instances I noticed that came off to me as suspect.

Whether he was joking when he said them or not it's hard to say, but the fact it's hard to say is a problem in it of itself. If you're trying to teach something to people, especially a sensitive subject such as this, using jokes is probably not the best idea. You need to be clear and concise to avoid any confusion.

As for the models on the bed having nothing to do with the advice, I'm pretty sure that?s what I said in my original post. That was the exact point of my statement. The models in lingerie contribute nothing to the advice he is giving or the game itself. As far as I'm concerned it is a perfect metaphor for how the game sees women. That they are nothing more than objects to be won. Congratulations, you selected the right answer, here is your woman you will obviously get since you followed our advice.

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.

I've watched the scenario and there isn't anything in the video to suggest she is aware of his feelings towards her, and if she is, there isn't anything she does to suggest she is consciously taking advantage of him. The closest you could argue is how she asks him to take care of her cat while she is away, but that is something that a friend could ask another friend to do. It also shows that at least she considers the friendship to be real.

Yes, the scenario is trying to portray a situation where the guy is interested in the friend romantically. However, it is clear throughout the scenario that she does not reciprocate those feelings. You know what you do in that situation? Either accept the fact you?re just going to be friends or leave. You don't stay friends with someone on the hopes they'll eventually become sexually attracted to you. That is a sleazy thing to do and is unfair to the person in question.

You neglected to address the main point of my example in this scenario. That he only scores the girl after she has broken up with her boyfriend and has come to him feeling vulnerable. Let?s put aside the moral implications of that scenario for a moment and looks at how this stacks up as advice. I use the word advice very loosely.

The scenario is far too specific to be useful. Unless you find yourself in the exact same scenario as the one presented, anything in that section is useless. Anyway, you know what you do when your friend is upset and coming to you for support, you support them! If your reaction when your friend is hurt and vulnerable is "this is the perfect chance to make a move on them" you are a horrible person!

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.
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.

It might help your argument a bit if you actually provided some examples of "Pick-Up Artists" giving advice that isn?t just how to trick women into sleeping with you. All you?ve done throughout this whole thing is say "guys Pick-Up Artists are really nice people and everyone is just treating them unfairly. I have no proof of this statement but I just feel it?s correct so everyone has to agree with me".

I'm not entirely sure where I ever said I believed Pick-Up Artists believed in building a persona. It feels like you?re just making up arguments to refute against at this point.

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!

Where did that come from? If you follow the context of my statement, you would see I was referring to the "Pick-Up Artists" not you. You stated that you believe most "Pick-Up Artists" don?t see themselves as doing anything wrong and my point was just because they see themselves as good doesn?t mean they are. I?m not sure where you got the idea I was targeting you directly with that statement but I apologise for the confusion.

There are people out there who genuinely want to help others with their confidence and social skills. However, if you want to improve on these skills, you should do so because you feel it would better yourself as a person. If your only changing who you are because you feel it will make other people like you more, that?s kind of pathetic in my opinion.

The problem I have with "Pick-Up Artists" is they suggest you can get any girl you want if you follow their advice. That is not true. There are going to be times when you?re not compatible with another person, and no amount of techniques or advice is going to change that fact.

As I said earlier, you keep claiming that "Pick-Up Artists" are just getting unfairly treated by society and the press but you've done nothing to back up your claim. You just talk about what you think "Pick-Up Artists" believe (which, as I've stated, intention doesn?t always equal result), and finish with some weird comment about how we all evolved from animals. I'm not even sure what you were trying to get at with that comment.

 

[dscross]

I didn't say there weren't variants within each species I just said there were mating rituals specific to each species. Follow that link and read some. What more do YOU want.

That you stop comparing humans to animals? I am pretty certain most of us know a bunch of animal mating rituals, ranging from the fairly tame, like budgies grooming each other, to incredibly complex, like the dancing of seahorses that lasts for almost 2 days.

However, Humans don't have species wide "mating rituals" or even courtship rituals. How courtship and sexual relations are initiated vary wildly by culture and humanity is probably one of the few (if not the only) species where not engaging in sexual intercourse when the individual is ready to procreate (which for men is "almost always" and for women is "about a week a month") is actually the norm.

Humanity has cultural mores that determine how we go about courtship and sexual relationships, and those vary wildly with which country you are in. That's not to mention that humans tend to have sex for fun, which is very different from the "mate to procreate" of many animals. So this is one of those cases were referring to animals doesn't tell us anything about how and why humans do something.

We ARE all animals dude. It's definitely a factor in all this - though it's not the be all end all of it, but it's just true. Yes we've evolved but there are also things going on under the surface. I'm not saying society isn't also a factor with everything and that there isn't any higher functions at work but to completely take it out of the argument I don't think is fair. It's totally fair to it view it from this perspective as an argument, as well as from the higher levels of consciousness which is also a factor.

 

[dscross]

snip

There are too many things to respond to here. I'll just leave it at that we are obviously fundamentally not hearing the same things in terms of the meaning of what he's trying to communicate. You obviously have some deeply held views about this subject. Can I ask by the way, are you the one who started the other thread I referred to, then deleted it? I recognise the username. You seem to to starting accounts just to discuss this single topic. lol.

 

[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.

If what you say is true then maybe they shouldn't call themselves "pick up artists," maybe they should call themselves "social coaches" or something. "Pick up artist" implies picking up a woman to sleep with her and then dump her on her ass.

Yeah I think that's true. I reckon it's for marketing purposes tbh to entice a certain type of guy, who then is suppose to change as a person as a result of the experience. I don't actually think they call themselves 'Pick Up Artists' in their material a lot of the time actually. I think that's what others call them in the press and within the sub culture thing.

 

[PhoenixKnight]

snip

There are too many things to respond to here. I'll just leave it at that we are obviously fundamentally not hearing the same things in terms of the meaning of what he's trying to communicate. You obviously have some deeply held views about this subject. Can I ask by the way, are you the one who started the other thread I referred to, then deleted it? I recognise the username. You seem to to starting accounts just to discuss this single topic. lol.

In other words, you actually have no counters to my arguments but are trying to save face by claiming we are interpreting things differently. Even though you?ve failed to offer up any sort of alternate interpretation to my examples, and the one you did I proved was manipulative even if I agreed with your interpretation.

Then because you have no way to counter by arguments you move onto baseless accusations about how I?m making multiple accounts just to talk about this one topic. I hate to spoil the narrative you?ve concucted but I had nothing to do with any previous thread on this site. This is the first thread I?ve posted on, and honestly it?s left a bad taste in my mouth. I?m sure you?ll come up with some argument on how I must have created that other thread because you can just tell or something.

Anyway I am done with this thread. It?s clear you have no desire for an actual discussion and are only looking for people to blindly agree with you. You make baseless claims and just expect people to agree with you, and when it doesn?t work you resort to attacking the person personally.

 

[CaitSeith]

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.

After watching a couple of hours of Super Seducer, the author comes across as a light-weight amalgam of both points (specially during the lecturing parts). You're free to believe what your want, but half of his lessons there don't help to build honest connections (unless by honest you mean based in lies).

 

[Avnger]

Yeah I think that's true. I reckon it's for marketing purposes tbh to entice a certain type of guy, who then is suppose to change as a person as a result of the experience. I don't actually think they call themselves 'Pick Up Artists' in their material a lot of the time actually. I think that's what others call them in the press and within the sub culture thing.

Have you or have you not actually watched a playthrough or played through the game yourself?

 

[stroopwafel]

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.

I haven't read the other replies as it's a wall of text that makes my head hurt but yeah, there is nothing wrong with people(men or women) receiving training to be more assertive. But the thing with ''PUA's'' or any other kind of related dating coaches is that the notion itself is very juvenile aimed specifically at the gullible adolescent demographic who really believe(or rather are frustrated enough to believe) they will become master seducers afer giving their money to some kind of self-proclaimed guru. It's snake oil. If you are too shy or awkward to even approach women and you sabotage yourself with every attempt by all means get some help. However don't give your money to morons promising you success with women as this is just ridiculous.

I also find it funny how easy people think it is to manipulate someone. It requires an intuitive understanding of someone's thought and emotional processes not 'saying the magic words'. Turning from a shy and socially awkward virgin into a shrewd manipulator that women can't say no to is so far beyond the realm of plausibility. While ofcourse simply being more assertive(and thus less awkward) is something everyone can learn.

 

[dscross]

snip

There are too many things to respond to here. I'll just leave it at that we are obviously fundamentally not hearing the same things in terms of the meaning of what he's trying to communicate. You obviously have some deeply held views about this subject. Can I ask by the way, are you the one who started the other thread I referred to, then deleted it? I recognise the username. You seem to to starting accounts just to discuss this single topic. lol.

In other words, you actually have no counters to my arguments but are trying to save face by claiming we are interpreting things differently. Even though you?ve failed to offer up any sort of alternate interpretation to my examples, and the one you did I proved was manipulative even if I agreed with your interpretation.

Then because you have no way to counter by arguments you move onto baseless accusations about how I?m making multiple accounts just to talk about this one topic. I hate to spoil the narrative you?ve concucted but I had nothing to do with any previous thread on this site. This is the first thread I?ve posted on, and honestly it?s left a bad taste in my mouth. I?m sure you?ll come up with some argument on how I must have created that other thread because you can just tell or something.

Anyway I am done with this thread. It?s clear you have no desire for an actual discussion and are only looking for people to blindly agree with you. You make baseless claims and just expect people to agree with you, and when it doesn?t work you resort to attacking the person personally.

Dude that was very defensive. There is just a lot to reply to here with everyone so I can't reply to everything everyone says constantly otherwise I'd constantly be typing and not doing anything else, especially with huge posts. That's forums for you. If it mean that much to you I'll get back to you on some of the points when I can - but there's A LOT to reply to there.

It's only left a bad taste in your mouth because you don't like that I'm disagreeing with you as well - it works both ways, in case you haven't noticed. The other thing was just an observation - I thought I'd recognised the username from last time. It seemed like you might particularly care about just this topic for some reason. If that's incorrect I apologise. I meant no offence.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

We ARE all animals dude. It's definitely a factor in all this - though it's not the be all end all of it, but it's just true. Yes we've evolved but there are also things going on under the surface. I'm not saying society isn't also a factor with everything and that there isn't any higher functions at work but to completely take it out of the argument I don't think is fair. It's totally fair to it view it from this perspective as an argument, as well as from the higher levels of consciousness which is also a factor.

Well, duh. Obviously we are all still animals in the sense that we evolved from animals. That, however, does not mean that we can look at other species of animals and somehow make meaningful discoveries about humans. Not even a lot of species that have something in common (mating rituals, preferred food source, color preference or whatever). Because at the end of the day we are not those animals and even when you compare humans to our closest genetic cousins, we are still a massive distance from them in cognitive functions and behavior. So let's not pretend as if the "other animals do THIS" is a valid argument when discussing human interactions.

I also find it funny how easy people think it is to manipulate someone. It requires an intuitive understanding of someone's thought and emotional processes not 'saying the magic words'. Turning from a shy and socially awkward virgin into a shrewd manipulator that women can't say no to is so far beyond the realm of plausibility. While ofcourse simply being more assertive(and thus less awkward) is something everyone can learn.

Shit no. Manipulation is easy for most of us, in fact we do it all the time without thinking about it. The act of dressing up is a mild form of manipulation (and I doubt there are many people who have never thought about which shirt to wear to a specific occasion), for example. The things PUAs do is generally a little more advanced, and a lot more sleazy, but it is hardly some master-class in manipulation.

Just from the examples in the game mentioned in this thread we have two simple manipulative tricks that many of us have done or been subjected to at some point:
1. The rhetorical question to threaten autonomy or integrity. "Is your boyfriend ok with you taking to me?" is functionally identical to "Your parents won't let you do it?", which is a tactic that a lot of pre-pubescent and adolescent boys have employed to pressure their friends into bad behavior. It is an attack on the other persons autonomy, to which pretty much everyone will react by asserting that they are indeed their own master, even if it means doing something they might not want to do.
2. The whole "start with normal photos then suggest more racy stuff" is simple boundary pushing. This is also something most of us do or have done regularly. Whether it is trying to get into the pants of our first boyfriend/girlfriend, trying to get a friend to egg a neighbors house or have someone borrow us their set of power tools, it is a classic manipulation technique. It is all about limiting the other persons options by constantly upping the ante and not providing a clear way out. "I gave you your screwdriver back, but now I really need a drilling machine." turns into "Hey your drilling machine was as good as new when I brought it back, can I borrow your chainsaw next?", and because you DID bring that drilling machine back, it is kind of hard to say no to lending you the chainsaw.

What PUAs do is that they simply codify these common manipulation techniques and tell you how to use them to get girls to sleep with you. We all use simple manipulation in our every day social interactions; rhetorical questions, baiting statements ("Oh man, you will not believe what I saw this weekend!") and what not. The difference is that PUAs codify and systematize them for the express purpose of forcing girls to sleep with them, even when that includes repeated physical aggression (see previous example by Evilthecat) or downright domestic abuse shit like separating the woman from her friends. The problem with PUAs is the unscrupulous goal of their manipulations coupled with the aggressive manipulation techniques that many of them advocate to reach that goal.

 

[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.

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.

If what you say is true then maybe they shouldn't call themselves "pick up artists," maybe they should call themselves "social coaches" or something. "Pick up artist" implies picking up a woman to sleep with her and then dump her on her ass.

Yeah I think that's true. I reckon it's for marketing purposes tbh to entice a certain type of guy, who then is suppose to change as a person as a result of the experience. I don't actually think they call themselves 'Pick Up Artists' in their material a lot of the time actually. I think that's what others call them in the press and within the sub culture thing.

I find that highly dubious. If they don't call themselves that then what do they call themselves? Also how often does that actually work? Also we all know that there are people who do consider themselves pick up artists and practice the lifestyle of picking up women just to sleep with them and then dump them, like the dick who made that stupid game for example.

 

[Silvanus]

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?

Well, let's take a look at a playthrough [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1QozD6l5ZM] (not the playthrough I've watched before, but the content is there, at least).

The scenario is the first flag: how to approach a woman who's just walking down the street on her way somewhere. So, not a bar, not a social situation. Stopping people who're just trying to get somewhere in order to hit on them is not something to recommend.

La Ruina explains all this while sitting on a bed while two silent scantily-clad women are on either side of him, of course.

Shortly afterwards, he explains that you could "probably get away with" touching this woman (you've only just met) on the side of the face.

In the follow-up [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHKgK1l1Whg], La Ruina quite specifically says that if there are two girls together (prior to your approach), you should give less attention to the one you're not interested in boning, to ensure they understand. That sounds like a recipe for ruining somebody's night out with her friend, frankly.