The morality of Pick Up Artists

[dscross]

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.

Hmm maybe the tangent we went off on got some crossed wires. I wasn't really trying to say that we are exactly the same as other animals in every way - just we can take lessons from what animals are doing in terms of looking at here we came from. There are definite similarities in lots of ways we act - and, along with survival, mating is definitely something important for passing on genes (which at the end of the day, is all nature really cares about).

I'd go as far as to say the following though 'attraction (which is a feeling) is nature's way of taking over our mind and bodies just long enough to mate with someone with good genes'. This could work in the same way as anxiety works in a sense - putting our bodies in danger mode to help our genes survive.

I'm not trying to shut down your argument though either as i know this is only part of the picture. There's other higher function and society stuff going on over the top of this. But I definitely think it's worth considering this when talking about it. It's very complicated. But I also think it's worth thinking about when discussing it.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You have to ask, why does this work on any women at all?

Now, that strikes me as an interesting but very naive question..

See, I never mentioned it worked, only that it's part of what Julian Blanc teaches and puts out. Julian isn't putting this stuff out as a public service, he's doing this to make money, like all people who own PUA "teaching" companies or who write books. The point of his material and "techniques" isn't to get women to sleep with him at all, if that works its a convenient side effect, it's to get men to buy his books and products.

So the real question isn't "why does this work on women", it's "why does this work on men". Why do men ("not all men", of course) see another man going around choking random women while claiming (emphasis on claiming) that they are getting a lot of sex by behaving like this, and feel like this is a thing they want to get in on?

Could it be because it perhaps it's not really about teaching effective communication, but is actually just appeals to an audience with a deep seated hatred of women and a desire to punish them, put them in their place or assert male superiority over them under the guise of "natural" sexual dynamics and "exploiting loopholes in female psychology".

I mean, it must work for him or he wouldn't do it. Weird.

Yeah, I'm sure it's "working" for him. He's making a living off it.

Sort of. Except 'be yourself' doesn't work for a lot of people.

Right, but if that's the case saying "be yourself" using a profound-sounding metaphor still won't work for a lot of people.

See, the reason people say "be yourself" is not because they genuinely think the person they're talking to is a perfect, beautiful snowflake descended from heaven. They're doing it because they're trying to improve a person's confidence so they don't come across as desperate or ashamed of themselves.

This is exactly the same, it's effectively a placebo. You think you're trash, so when you talk to people you come across as lacking in confidence, therefore I'm going to tell you you're not trash and build you up a bit so that you feel better, then next time you talk to someone maybe you'll come across more confident. It's a basic self-help thing, you don't need to actually fix someone's problems, just trick them into thinking their problems are solved and they will do the rest themselves, because they always could have done. The difference between me telling you to be yourself and a pick up artist telling you to become a 'bright light' is that I'm not charging actual money for my lame platitudes.

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.

Okay, so I've been glazing over on this one but it's become impossible to ignore.

Bonobos, one of our closest living relatives, do not have a mating ritual. They will literally start fucking each other if a tree falls over nearby. Bonobos, like humans in many ways, are sociosexual. They have sex primarily to create social bonds with other members of the group and to deal with things like stress and social tension. Like humans, they are not confined to having sex during a specific fertile period and sex is not tied to reproduction. Like humans, bonobos seem to find sex enjoyable.

Now, there are also key differences between humans and bonobos, but I hope I've illustrated the problem. Some animals have "mating rituals" because they only have sex within very specific reproductive contexts. Often, animal sex isn't particularly enjoyable, it isn't something animals do because they find it pleasurable or because it helps them feel close to each other, they do it because they respond to basic animal communication, "mating rituals" are part of that communication.

Humans are different. In many ways, humans are different to every animal on the planet when it comes to sex. We have a unique degree of conscious engagement and control with our sexual functioning. We react not just to animal communication, but also to interior psychological stimuli. We have sexual fantasies, something no other animal does. We can be aroused by just thinking about sex. In comparison to other animals, sex is incredibly pleasurable for us, and that's because as we became more intelligent we needed an actual incentive to have sex, we needed a way that we could be taught to respond to sex, and because (unlike all other animals) that response is learned it can sometimes have completely unexpected effects. Humans are the only animal which can become aroused by specific things, like shoes, or cars, or the act of defecating.

Comparing humans and animals works with a lot of things. Sex, it really doesn't. Humans really are unprecedented in the whole history of evolution when it comes to how our species handles sex. We are not ordered little machines who always work in a certain way, we are like nature doing a weird science experiment.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

A list of 12 animal mating rituals is not proof that each and every animal has a mating ritual, as there are more than 12 animals.

 

[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.

A list of 12 animal mating rituals is not proof that each and every animal has a mating ritual, as there are more than 12 animals.

I can't really present you with an academic paper via the Internet but there are lots of books on the subject. This one is quite good: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Connection-Animal-Courtship-Relationships/dp/1616149469

You can buy it on Amazon for 50p on Kindle. She's an animal behaviour biologist. I read it years ago. It's very interesting.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

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.

Tbh it's pretty clear that you're just invested in defending PUAs. You act like emotional manipulation is okay so eh, not much weight to your claims the poor little PUAs are just misjudged. Someone challenged you, you flopped and apparently think trying to elicit a certain response through manipulation is okay

 

[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.

Tbh it's pretty clear that you're just invested in defending PUAs. You act like emotional manipulation is okay so eh, not much weight to your claims the poor little PUAs are just misjudged. Someone challenged you, you flopped and apparently think trying to elicit a certain response through manipulation is okay

I wouldn't say that dude. I'm just countering a commonly held view. I'm not acting like emotional manipulation is ok, at all - i'm challenging the underlying premise that it IS emotional manipulation and that most people haven't actually looked at it with unbiased eyes, which is a completely different argument. It's difficult to reply to every single point in this thread made to me because the views are so strong and there's so many of them. I'd go mad if I did. The thread was basically because I was so intrigued that people got so outraged at the premise of it when the majority of people, I'd argue, haven't really looked into it and are just going off what society is telling them because it's 'pick up'. I admit it's a hard argument to make because there are lots of people against me on it, but there you go. I don't do it myself and I've no investment in the subject other than interest in how society perceives things. I'm much more interested in other things.

 

[sageoftruth]

I think you'll be fighting a losing battle trying to defend people like the Super Seducer.

You've emphasized over and over on this thread that you're not here to prove that all pickup artists are stand-up guys. Your goal is to show that being a pickup artist doesn't automatically make you a scumbag.

With that said, you're wasting your time by trying to defend the worst of them. Instead, try showing us some of the best of them. The ones who actually counter the widely-held beliefs about PUAs. Show us the lessons they teach that aren't as manipulative, sex-obsessed, and morally-objectionable as we'd expect them to be.

Then, hopefully we can finally start delving into the argument you were trying to make all along.

 

[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.

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.

Tbh it's pretty clear that you're just invested in defending PUAs. You act like emotional manipulation is okay so eh, not much weight to your claims the poor little PUAs are just misjudged. Someone challenged you, you flopped and apparently think trying to elicit a certain response through manipulation is okay

I wouldn't say that dude. I'm just countering a commonly held view. I'm not acting like emotional manipulation is ok, at all - i'm challenging the underlying premise that it IS emotional manipulation and that most people haven't actually looked at it with unbiased eyes, which is a completely different argument. It's difficult to reply to every single point in this thread made to me because the views are so strong and there's so many of them. I'd go mad if I did. The thread was basically because I was so intrigued that people got so outraged at the premise of it when the majority of people, I'd argue, haven't really looked into it and are just going off what society is telling them because it's 'pick up'. I admit it's a hard argument to make because there are lots of people against me on it, but there you go. I don't do it myself and I've no investment in the subject other than interest in how society perceives things. I'm much more interested in other things.

See that?s the problem. You?re so convinced your argument is correct you refuse to even entertain the notion that any differing opinion could be valid. You?ve offered zero evidence to your argument and just expect people to agree with you because you feel you are correct. Then you claim that everyone who thinks ?Pick-Up Artists? are bad people have simply never looked into it and are just being manipulated by society. Again, you have no proof of this claim but it fits your narrative and makes you believe you don?t actually have to counter anyone?s arguments because ?they?re just misguided?.

If it seemed like I was getting defensive in my last post, it?s because I took your post as an attack on myself, rather than any argument I was making. You accused me of making multiple accounts to talk about this topic, and laughed at me for doing it. You asked if I had anything to do with the last thread, and started throwing your accusations at me before giving me a chance to respond. You couldn?t counter my arguments so you tried to find something else to attack me directly.

I am curious how much of Super Seducer you?ve actually seen or played. I will admit that a lot of people have overblown how bad the advice is. I?ve seen playthroughs were people get angry at the ?advice? he is giving when said advice is the game telling you what not to do. However, there are moments throughout the game where he gives advice that is manipulative and creepy. The game does not offer advice on confidence or social skills when approaching women, but rather techniques like ?approach directly in front of her so it?s harder for her to escape and she?ll have to stop and talk to you?. That?s a manipulation technique.

You keep telling me I?m wrong without offering any proof on how I am wrong. I disagree with you so I simply must be hearing things differently to you, and am biased because I am wanting to hear the negative. Never mind the stated goal of the ?Friend to Girlfriend? segment is sex, and it plays out by your friend breaking up with her boyfriend and coming to you for support. Never mind the fact the game then tells you it?s okay to use the fact your friend is hurt and vulnerable to get into her pants. Never mind the fact the game tells you it?s okay to use psychological tricks to convince women doing anything other than agreeing with you is removing her independence. I don?t see how anyone could see those as anything other than manipulative and sleazy.

If you want to argue not all PUAs are bad, actually try arguing it. Don?t just pick one of the worst recent examples and try and force it to fit into your argument. A game like Super Seducer showcases the worst of PUAs and the more you try to convince us otherwise, the more you hurt your argument rather than help it.

 

[LS40]

You know, I've been trying to find some way that I could empathize with those PUA types, mainly because I feel like I cannot go a day on the internet without having to listen to all this crap. I get that a lot of dudes are out there have trouble finding women to have the sex with and, yeah, that sucks for them. The most I can come up with is that the feelings of having all of these intense sexual urges combined with feelings of powerlessness to find some woman to sex all up with must really be overwhelming. When some apparently successful dude comes along and tells them something like, "Things could be different! Just follow my advice!" it might attracts such people. So I try to see this as someone praying on vulnerable dudes with severe self worth issues to make a buck. So that's about as much sympathy as I can give and upon reflection is really is more pity than anything.

My main disgust comes from two major groups of people here: the scammy dudes trying to pitch this shit and the sheer amount of dudes who view women as an end result to their sexual urges. I imagine (at least hope) that the majority of dudes are just naive and honestly want to develop a relationship with a woman as long as she satisfies all of their sexual and emotional desires and also completely perfect and ideal, which is pretty gross motivation honestly too. Like a best friend/mother/sex object for every need and want. At least there is the incel community to adopt in these poor waifs from the street once the realization that their innate creepiness is terminal. You know, like those dudes who apply game theory to women and think they can game the system to win sex or those dudes who constantly blame women and project their own insecurity for all of their own shortcomings.

I have some questions to dudes who see these guys and have some degree of self-awareness. What exactly are you idealizing here? Do you see these PUA sex these women through lies and psychological manipulation and think "Hell yeah!"? Are you only interested in just casual sex? A relationship? Friendship doesn't seem significant desire in the PUA community unless sex is included. Are you looking for women who just want casual sex? How far would you go to obtain sex?

 

[dscross]

If it seemed like I was getting defensive in my last post, it?s because I took your post as an attack on myself, rather than any argument I was making. You accused me of making multiple accounts to talk about this topic, and laughed at me for doing it. You asked if I had anything to do with the last thread, and started throwing your accusations at me before giving me a chance to respond. You couldn?t counter my arguments so you tried to find something else to attack me directly.

I'll respond to all your points one by one at some point this week dude when I'm less tired (it's really late here) and I have some free time but, off topic, I do think you need to get used to forums. I never felt like I threw any accusations or attacked you like you in the way you think I have been, and I even apologised for that observation I made, which wasn't even that mean.

It was partially a question because I was genuinely interested as to where the thread went because I was following it and interested in the answers so I wanted to see whether you started and deleted it (since it looked like you had the same username). I was also interested because I had all the arguments you were putting forward about Super Seducer in that thread already and I didn't want to repeat myself to you if it was the case. I think you are being a bit unreasonable. We'll have a civilised non-defensive argument about this without using harsh language at each other when I go through your arguments at some point. ok?

I'll say sorry again because I obviously unsettled you. It wasn't my intent. I post quite a lot on these forums on many different topics and I'm not a nasty person. People sometimes get testy on forums (including me) when they disagree with each other. I try not to - it's usually to do with either mine or the other person's mood at the time or if one party is communicating some intense feelings the other sometimes starts mirroring.

 

[PhoenixKnight]

If it seemed like I was getting defensive in my last post, it?s because I took your post as an attack on myself, rather than any argument I was making. You accused me of making multiple accounts to talk about this topic, and laughed at me for doing it. You asked if I had anything to do with the last thread, and started throwing your accusations at me before giving me a chance to respond. You couldn?t counter my arguments so you tried to find something else to attack me directly.

I'll respond to all your points one by one at some point this week dude when I'm less tired (it's really late here) and I have some free time but, off topic, I do think you need to get used to forums. I never felt like I threw any accusations or attacked you like you in the way you think I have been, and I even apologised for that observation I made, which wasn't even that mean.

It was partially a question because I was genuinely interested as to where the thread went because I was following it and interested in the answers so I wanted to see whether you started and deleted it (since it looked like you had the same username). I was also interested because I had all the arguments you were putting forward about Super Seducer in that thread already and I didn't want to repeat myself to you if it was the case. I think you are being a bit unreasonable. We'll have a civilised non-defensive argument about this without using harsh language at each other when I go through your arguments at some point. ok?

I'll say sorry again because I obviously unsettled you. It wasn't my intent. I post quite a lot on these forums on many different topics and I'm not a nasty person. People sometimes get testy on forums (including me) when they disagree with each other. I try not to - it's usually to do with either mine or the other person's mood at the time or if one party is communicating some intense feelings the other sometimes starts mirroring.

Don't stress yourself over it. You have your views on the subject and I have mine. I doubt anything either of us say is going to change the other's opinions so why don't we both agree to drop it and stop wasting each other's time?

 

[maninahat]

This all seems very Sealionish. You've got this idea that the PUA community isn't as bad as we keep making it out to be, but my (and I suspect, most people's) entire exposure to the PUA community has been exclusively negative. We keep explaining why PUAs are bad, and you keep repeating they're not all like that. So how about you recommend some PUA resources that don't involve coercing women or treating them as sexual conquests?