1027: "Pickup Artist"

[Aaeriele]

Do I care to discuss the real world? Sure. If you continue to show interest after a woman has pushed you away and told you to get lost, then you're a creep.

...And you're saying that PUA's give out bad advice...

Who said anything about continuing to show interest after someone has told you to get lost? If you're told to get lost, then you get lost. I wasn't aware that was even up for question.

[Magnanimous]

LMR is basically, move back physically and tease her, or freeze her out by doing what you'd rather be doing, or talk to her and comfort her.

If it works, and it gets her back in the mood, great. If it doesn't work, and she just wants to chill out, that's okay too. It respects her agency, shows your intent, and attempts to bring you and her together. It's just phrased in a technical manner, much like other techniques.

How is blowing off her request to not have sex respecting her agency? How does making the bold-face lie that you don't want to have sex show your intent? It certainly attempts to bring two people together, but only on the man's terms. Socially healthy relationships have both people on somewhat equal footing; having a dominant man and a submissive woman means the woman always gets the short end of the stick, and that's what we're objecting to.

Now you may argue that that's part of the Game, and women follow along with it. And that would be fine... if they had a rules-free way out. If PUA had a universal "safe word" that everyone knew, that someone could say if they're not having fun and you need to gtfo, then I wouldn't object nearly as much.

[ddxxdd]

Do I care to discuss the real world? Sure. If you continue to show interest after a woman has pushed you away and told you to get lost, then you're a creep.

...And you're saying that PUA's give out bad advice...

Who said anything about continuing to show interest after someone has told you to get lost? If you're told to get lost, then you get lost. You don't start "showing disinterest" in hopes that she'll change her mind.

If someone walks away from you, are you going to assume that he's interested in what you have to say, or disinterested?

[ddxxdd]

LMR is basically, move back physically and tease her, or freeze her out by doing what you'd rather be doing, or talk to her and comfort her.

If it works, and it gets her back in the mood, great. If it doesn't work, and she just wants to chill out, that's okay too. It respects her agency, shows your intent, and attempts to bring you and her together. It's just phrased in a technical manner, much like other techniques.

How is blowing off her request to not have sex respecting her agency? How does making the bold-face lie that you don't want to have sex show your intent? It certainly attempts to bring two people together, but only on the man's terms. Socially healthy relationships have both people on somewhat equal footing; having a dominant man and a submissive woman means the woman always gets the short end of the stick, and that's what we're objecting to.

Now you may argue that that's part of the Game, and women follow along with it. And that would be fine... if they had a rules-free way out. If PUA had a universal "safe word" that everyone knew, that someone could say if they're not having fun and you need to gtfo, then I wouldn't object nearly as much.

It's simple, actually. If a girl's honest and straightforward with a guy, then the traditional Game won't work. In my interpretation of Game, a lot of game is just a guy mirroring a girl: if she wants a straightforward conversation, then you just engage in a straightforward conversation. If the girl shows disinterest that can possibly be reversed (talking while looking around and not making eye contact), the guy's supposed to show disinterest that may be reversed (false time constraint).

In LMR, if a girl seems horny but hesitant, an honest talk would work. If a girl seems genuinely turned off, you just gotta turn yourself off. But if a girl was showing honesty and empathy, the guy's supposed to respond in kind.

I have no doubt in my mind that if most people in the world acted like the people in this thread, then the "Game" would be straightforward honesty. But in reality, straightforward honesty would be your ticket out of the Game.

[mvdwege]

ddxxdd Has objected many times to being compared to a cold-caller.

Yet has anyone ever noticed that his posts are drenched in the language of a hard-seller? He's talking about 'closing the sale', and his earlier posts had a complete checklist of the stages of the PUA 'pitch'.

I've been caught by Multi-Level Marketing in my youth, and I am glad I got out, but I recognise the language. This is language that belongs in an MLM scam, and that he objects to being compared to that without even seeing that he invites that comparison himself speaks of a deep-seated cognitive dissonance.

[Pfhorrest]

People are not just machines, and trying to reduce them to such is both disrespectful and flawed, the very essence of objectification.

People are machines. Very complicated information-processing machines with functions for not just experiencing input and outputting behaviors by rote with some kind of fixed lookup table, but functions for analyzing that experience into complex models of the-world-as-it-is and the world-as-it-should-be, and dynamically generating behavior based on the intersection of those models. More than even that, they are capable of recognizing themselves as objects in that world, both objects to observe and objects to act upon, through that whole complicated process of modelling is and ought and then acting to bridge the difference; that is, people are capable not only of learning about the world and reshaping it, but capable of learning about themselves and reshaping themselves.

All of that makes people (among other things) objects of moral judgement and subjects of moral concern. The relevant question in this discussion is whether people (PUAs in particular) are using those reflexive processes or not; that is, whether they are considering themselves as objects of judgement, and others as subjects of concern; or in other words, whether they are recognizing that there are other perspectives equally valid as their own, or if they are seeing the world (including the people in it) as a mere collection of objects, and themselves the only subject.

But that doesn't mean that people, though subjects, are not also objects. We can, and should, study both how people (including ourselves) do think and act, and how they ought to, in order to decide how best to behave toward them and toward ourselves. To conduct such study methodically is not at all wrong; to apply the study of what is with no concern for what ought to be, e.g. to be dishonest or manipulative, is what's wrong.

EDIT: Goddamnit self, preview is your friend. Also, go to bed.

[Caffè_Macchiavelli]

So you read up on what type of things to talk about with complete strangers that develops friendships more efficiently. You read up on how to use body language to express yourself more efficiently. You read up on voice tonality and when to move forward with an expression of interest and when to show disinterest to prove that you're not overly supplicating.

Let's say that after that crucial interaction, you two become buddies. He finally sees the real you because you finally did a good job getting his attention. You then learn that treating other people like humans is a necessary, but not sufficient, way to develop relationships, and that there's a community out there that exists to understand and dissect those other necessary factors.

How is that dehumanizing?

Well, I've heard this story about one of the commercial PUA guys: He talks to some other member of the "community", who, after a couple of minutes, recognizes that he's been listening to the same kind of patterns these guys use when talking to girls, and reacts in some way similar to this: "Dude, that's creepy, why don't you talk like a normal person?".

The ironic part about this is that both don't seem to realize that they don't appreciate being "gamed", but are perfectly fine using this stuff in their conversation with women.

Now, I've only heard about this story on the web, so it the original might differ from my version, but the example is still pretty clear: People don't like being part of some game plan.

[ddxxdd]

ddxxdd Has objected many times to being compared to a cold-caller.

Yet has anyone ever noticed that his posts are drenched in the language of a hard-seller? He's talking about 'closing the sale', and his earlier posts had a complete checklist of the stages of the PUA 'pitch'.

I've been caught by Multi-Level Marketing in my youth, and I am glad I got out, but I recognise the language. This is language that belongs in an MLM scam, and that he objects to being compared to that without even seeing that he invites that comparison himself speaks of a deep-seated cognitive dissonance.

1. I haven't objected a single time to being called a cold caller. What I was objecting to was the fact that I was personally insulted for switching up which post I was responding to. Go check. I've been calm, cool, and collected this entire debate, and have been responded to with nothing but insults.

2. So you object to my language? If I was speaking Chinese, would you object to me for being a communist?

[Caffè_Macchiavelli]

2. So you object to my language? If I was speaking Chinese, would you object to me for being a communist?

If you'd use phrases like class consciousness, commodity fetishism and dictate of the proletariat (or the Maoist equivalent), that wouldn't seem inappropriate, would it?

[Pfhorrest]

To conduct such study methodically is not at all wrong; to apply the study of what is with no concern for what ought to be, e.g. to be dishonest or manipulative, is what's wrong.

Addendum here, for an example: Consider a hypothetical person with only the purest of intentions, who mistakenly seems creepy to other people, for reasons people have trouble placing. (I've known such a person, and other very self-aware people who knew him, men and women both, admitted that he was really a great guy and absolutely harmless, just something about his mannerisms and tone of voice subconsciously creeped them out, and they couldn't quite place why). Now imagine that this person methodically studies what it is that people find creepy about him, and changes those mannerisms so that he seems like a normal person. Since, besides those mannerisms, he was a normal, good, upstanding, honest person, his study has helped him convey that fact more honestly, instead of giving the false impression that they should be afraid of him. Is that wrong?

(Note that I am not defending the "PUA community" here, as I think they consist at the core of people who really are dishonest and work really hard not to let that show, exactly the opposite of the above scenario; but they seem to have a lot of followers lured in by the studious methodology who ignore or downplay the advocated misapplication of it; and there seem to be people here who wrongly conflate a studious methodology with a dishonest application of it).

[Caffè_Macchiavelli]

(Note that I am not defending the "PUA community" here, as I think they consist at the core of people who really are dishonest and work really hard not to let that show, exactly the opposite of the above scenario; but they seem to have a lot of followers lured in by the studious methodology who ignore or downplay the advocated misapplication of it; and there seem to be people here who wrongly conflate a studious methodology with a dishonest application of it).

Hanlon's razor might apply here.

There's a lot of guys in the PUA community who lack social skills and are obviously insulted or hurt by advice with questionable use like "Just talk to women", so they'll try something without considering the moral implications, as long as the outcome looks positive to them. And given that guys like Eben "DeAngelo" Pagan run deca-million dollar businesses selling this stuff, I don't think it's likely to change.

[MattSudan]

How is blowing off her request to not have sex respecting her agency? How does making the bold-face lie that you don't want to have sex show your intent? It certainly attempts to bring two people together, but only on the man's terms. Socially healthy relationships have both people on somewhat equal footing; having a dominant man and a submissive woman means the woman always gets the short end of the stick, and that's what we're objecting to.

Now you may argue that that's part of the Game, and women follow along with it. And that would be fine... if they had a rules-free way out. If PUA had a universal "safe word" that everyone knew, that someone could say if they're not having fun and you need to gtfo, then I wouldn't object nearly as much.

None of this is exclusive to pick up, it's just the reality of flirting/seduction. for example: "I'm not going to kiss you, I'm not going to kiss you" followed by kissing. 'Bold faced lies' like that happen all the time. Why? it's about the sub communication. While a guy may be saying to a girl "I'm not going to kiss you", what his sub communication is (tonality, expression, etc) is "I'm fucking with you"/"I'm flirting with you"/whatever. It is a "game" that people play with each other because it's sexual, and fun, and it's just how attraction works.

Reading these forums I get the idea that a lot of the forum posters here think that attraction is a logical, verbal exchange between individuals. Something like:

[Guy]: (robotic tone) Hello, nice to meet you, you are very cute and wish to get to know you
[Girl]: (robotic tone) Thank you, how is your day going?
[Guy/Girl]: *blah blah, small talk, shared interests, etc*
[Guy]: May I kiss you?
[Girl]: Yes you may
Guy and Girl kiss
[Guy/Girl]: *more small talk, blah blah, kissing*
[Guy]: Would you like to go back to my place?
[Girl]: Yes I would
*return to Guy's place*
[Guy]: Do you consent to sexual intercourse?
[Girl]: Yes i do
*sex occurs*

It just doesn't work like that. Or maybe it does for some people, but for the vast majority of people, flirting is nothing like that. Attraction is commonly spontaneous, non-verbal and full of games, especially in the bar scene and regarding one night stands. Regarding bringing a girl home and saying "we're not having sex", obviously it depends on the context. If a dude is really misleading the girl in a serious way, and he's honestly trying to make her believe that the will be no sex in a ploy to get her into bed, then obviously that's wrong. But what the situation typically is, is the man and woman start walking home and the girl says something along the lines of "I'm not having sex with you", and the guy responds "what makes you think I want to have sex with you?" and it's really just teasing, building tension, and essentially fore-play. Let's be real, if a girl is walking to a guy's place under those circumstances, she knows what's up, and knows sex is at least a possibility.

I mean here's a few more ploys: "Lets go back to my place and watch a movie", "Hey come check out my goldfish tank", "Hey want to do a quick afterparty at my place", basically lies, because when it comes down to it everyone knows what's really up. But that's just "the game". It seems really devious on paper, but it's really just playful, sexual, and generally fun. Now if a girl is clearly against having sex, and the man is actively pressuring her to change her mind, that's wrong and everyone knows it. But the point is, it's clear when that's not the case and it really still is just foreplay

[Dream]

But what the situation typically is, is

If you think that there exists anything close to a "typical", then I'm going to assume you are vastly inexperienced in dating and romance, either by never having had the chance to become experienced, or by dating such a narrow cross section of people that you don't have a useful frame of reference.

[Zamfir]

- Jedi Master, I am worried about using straw men in my arguments! How do I recognize them?

- Know a straw man you can, yes.

- But how, Jedi Master?

- Look deep in yourself, young Padawan. When (straw tone) you say, straw man you make.

- But what if I say (robotic tone), Jedi Master?

- Then Roboman you make, Force is strong.

[J Thomas]

You should respect other people. You should also respect yourself. That's why PUAs are so pathetic, they do neither.

Mostly staying out of this thread for a lot of reasons, but I just wanted to pipe in and point out that this isn't a helpful approach. I'm absolutely positive that a given PUA can respect women as well as themselves; being a PUA doesn't mean you are a PUA 24/7. Pick-up artistry as a movement and culture doesn't seem to respect women, nor respect their agency--largely because of its refusal to include women in the discussion about how to have sex with them--but you can respect women in one way and simultaneously disrespect them in another. Otherwise wonderful, good-hearted, nice-smelling people are perfectly capable of subscribing to completely backward, stupid, stench-ridden ways of thinking. Lord knows I have, and I smell awesome.

One of the reasons PUAs probably react so strongly to being told that pick-up artistry does not respect women is because they instantly assume that this is a criticism of them, personally, rather than PUA tactics in general. To be honest, we don't know each other. Maybe you have enormous respect for women. PUA is not a means by which you express that respect.

There are quite a lot of women out there who like having sex with guys. Some of them may even want to have sex with you! Talk to them. Figure out what they want. Be honest, and be clear. Don't conspire together with other guys about ways to convince them to have sex with you. Just ask women about ways to convince them to have sex with you. This is not hard! Do you want to know how to please the ladies? Then ASK THEM!

I mean, this is so ridiculously simple that I sometimes wonder why the hell PUA even has any purchasing power in the market of ideas (then I remember how many people subscribe to the 'women are a mystery!' bullshit, and I stop wondering). You don't need a system; you just need to get over your fear of rejection, figure out what women want (protip: fucking ASK THEM!), and plug away at it.

[J Thomas]

One of the reasons PUAs probably react so strongly to being told that pick-up artistry does not respect women is because they instantly assume that this is a criticism of them, personally, rather than PUA tactics in general. To be honest, we don't know each other. Maybe you have enormous respect for women. PUA is not a means by which you express that respect.

You might very well be right. Have you watched any of these guys do their thing in person? I have not. Have you listened in person to them talk about what they do? I have. They seemed to me to respect the women they met. Their manipulative tactic was to create rapport, and I think they found they could do that better by maintaining an attitude of respect and admiration. Of course, when they got rapport they got influenced by the women too. Maybe the ones I saw were not typical.

There are quite a lot of women out there who like having sex with guys. Some of them may even want to have sex with you! Talk to them. Figure out what they want. Be honest, and be clear. Don't conspire together with other guys about ways to convince them to have sex with you. Just ask women about ways to convince them to have sex with you. This is not hard! Do you want to know how to please the ladies? Then ASK THEM!

I mean, this is so ridiculously simple that I sometimes wonder why the hell PUA even has any purchasing power in the market of ideas (then I remember how many people subscribe to the 'women are a mystery!' bullshit, and I stop wondering).

There are enough men who are rarely laid but want to be, to provide a market. There is probably room for better competitors in that market.

You don't need a system; you just need to get over your fear of rejection, figure out what women want (protip: fucking ASK THEM!), and plug away at it.

This is mostly a solved problem. You don't have to ask women how to seduce women. Though it sounds like a series of fun conversations. It might easily turn out that some women do not really know how they want to be approached by men, and suggest things that they in fact would not respond to. Maybe better to ask women to remember how it actually worked for them with guys they liked.

Here's a workable method.
--------------
1. Approach a woman in circumstances where she feels safe.
2. invite her to have sex with you.
3. Wait for her to choose.
4. If she seems conflicted, back off.
5. If she doesn't want to, thank her for considering it and accept that. If she doesn't know how to contact you, you might offer her your card in case she changes her mind later. But don't ask her again for at least 8 months, unless she initiates it. (Initiates not just conversation but rampant overt flirting.) If she returns the card that's fine. If she tears it up and burns the pieces, don't ask her again.

It helps if you sincerely admire her. It helps if you have a clear concept within yourself of how much enjoyment you want to show her. Etc. But since these things tend to come from inside, they'll develop on their own. It helps if you feel like an afternoon with her is potentially the greatest most wonderful thing that ever happened to you for an afternoon. And you'll be just fine without it. But there's no point trying to fake that. Just notice when it happens, and watch it happen more.

Lots of women enjoy being propositioned when they don't feel the least bit threatened. Lots of women enjoy it even when there isn't the slightest chance they'll say yes.

Women who feel conflicted about it tend to be trouble. For example, they have good solid reasons why it's a bad idea, but they want you anyway. Or they have bad memories and just aren't ready to consider it. Back off, and be cautious if they decide they want you. There is unfortunately an art to gracefully turning down a woman that you previously propositioned. Your natural tendency will be to continue. You're attracted to her, and it's the polite thing to do. You may need several times to see that this is a bad idea. Still, it's likely to be unpleasant. i suggest you be open and honest. That may get bad results but weaseling will probably be just as bad.

The whole thing has no big meanings unless you put big meanings on it. Try to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Try not to pick up destructive memes. If you find you want a relationship with one particular woman you've been having sex with, be very cautious. Women tend to avoid relationships with men they have casual sex with, and may get freaked out if you want that. As a general rule that has lots of exceptions, if you might want a long-term relationship with a woman, you're better off not to proposition her right away. I don't know why it works that way, it just does. Usually.
----------------

This works. It works even without most of the details. But it sometimes fails as advice because men who need it sometimes cannot follow it. Most of the men who have trouble about this, just plain can't bring themselves to invite women for sex. Anything that gets them to relax and actually try will work better than what they're doing. But telling them to do it may not help them actually do it.

The following approach works better:

--------------
"Get a dog. Not a pit bull, a cute dog."
"But pets are a whole lot of trouble."
"You want a girl but you aren't willing to go to any trouble?"
"You don't have a dog."
"He died."
"What does getting a dog have to do with women?"
"Trust me. It works."

Then if the same person complains about women later:

"Did you get a dog?"
"No."
"Why should I put up with you whining when you know what to do and you don't do it?"
"My lease says I can't have pets."
"Move. The place you live is holding you back."
-------------------

If they don't get the idea right away even with a dog, still their thinking will be very different after hundreds of pleasant conversations.

[BlueLaughter]

Reading these forums I get the idea that a lot of the forum posters here think that attraction is a logical, verbal exchange between individuals. Something like:

[Guy]: (robotic tone) Hello, nice to meet you, you are very cute and wish to get to know you
[Girl]: (robotic tone) Thank you, how is your day going?
[Guy/Girl]: *blah blah, small talk, shared interests, etc*
[Guy]: May I kiss you?
[Girl]: Yes you may
Guy and Girl kiss
[Guy/Girl]: *more small talk, blah blah, kissing*
[Guy]: Would you like to go back to my place?
[Girl]: Yes I would
*return to Guy's place*
[Guy]: Do you consent to sexual intercourse?
[Girl]: Yes i do
*sex occurs*

It just doesn't work like that. Or maybe it does for some people, but for the vast majority of people, flirting is nothing like that. Attraction is commonly spontaneous, non-verbal and full of games, especially in the bar scene and regarding one night stands.

Yes! That's totally what The Great Hippo's posts miss. Most women don't want to be asked straight out "Do you want to have sex?" which is such a blunt way of doing that. Some people prefer bluntness, but if you're dealing with most, they prefer the roundabout subtle seduction. There's a huge difference between seduction and rape, and equating PUA to rape is really off the mark.

Rape is bad. We all agree. Any PUA which advocates rape is bad. The majority do not, whereas the ones that do are pretty obviously awful.

This may sound somewhat sexist, but I find women just know how to communicate better, with words and without. For guys who may be more action oriented, PUA can provide the proper etiquette around seduction and foreplay and obtaining mutually consenting sex, with pleasure for all parties.

The truth is, most women (as well as men) don't know what they want when it comes to seduction. Many have no idea if what they would like because it has never been tried on them (and I don't mean surprise sex, don't take me out of context).

[J Thomas]

One last question for all the anti-pua regulars:

Why is it that I've observed growing up that the men who "played the game" were the ones who were successful with women, but the guys who talked to girls like human beings had no luck whatsoever?

I'm not anti-pua, more neutral, but I have some answers for that.

1. You don't know everything. Lots of people -- particularly lots of women -- like to keep their affairs private. Some men who talk to girls like human beings, don't let anybody know who they're having sex with.

2. Lots of nice guys don't know how to get sexy things started. They get frustrated. Sometimes their girlfriends get frustrated. PUA gives you a way to get past that, but it isn't the only way to get past that.

3. I'm not sure how to say this one and I might say it wrong, but here's my attempt: Some women want to have sex with guys they won't get too attached to. Kind of like the joke about lawyers and lab rats.... They choose men who clearly want sex but who do not look personally attractive. Some men capitalize on that. By giving the impression that they have casual sex with a lot of women, they attract women who want to just be one of the crowd. I say there's nothing wrong with this, if that's the way those men and women want to be. Is it what you want? Still, don't believe the hype without independent confirmation. Lots of men don't tell you about their sex. Womanizers have an incentive to inflate their numbers because it helps them get women.

4. I'm not sure how to say this one either, but another attempt: Some women want a whole lot of drama. They choose men who abuse them. They stay with one abusive man until he gets too rough or too boring etc, and then switch to another abusive man. You hear a lot about it because the women dramatize it to whoever will listen. If you act like the right kind of jerk, you will get the women who want jerks. I say there's nothing wrong with this, if it's what you want. But there are a lot of other women out there, and that is not the only game in town.

[Hawknc]

Yes! That's totally what The Great Hippo's posts miss. Most women don't want to be asked straight out "Do you want to have sex?" which is such a blunt way of doing that. Some people prefer bluntness, but if you're dealing with most, they prefer the roundabout subtle seduction.

I don't think Hippo's even saying you need to be blunt. Charisma and confidence are extremely useful social tools, and if you're not equipped with them then they can certainly be learned. If pickup artistry stopped there - improving one's self, increasing self-confidence and presenting yourself in a manner that people were at ease with - nobody would have a problem with it. Of course it doesn't, though, because the ultimate goal isn't self-improvement, it's picking up, so the techniques extend to manipulating women. The obvious example to use here is the neg, but plenty of others have been mentioned in this thread. So pickup is a hybrid of putting a version of yourself forward and manipulating your "target" to get your desired result, and the last 48 pages are mostly a result of the problems people have with the latter half of that.

[WithinThisMind]

Let me be blunt - when you say there are factors that 'contribute' to rape, what you are in fact saying is that you feel the rapist was justified and the victim was asking for it. That makes you sub-human scum.

Let me be blunt: When you say there are people who are sub-human scum, you are contributing to rape culture--by contributing to the false notion that there are people who are sub-human, and thereby unworthy of our time, consideration, and care. It's this exact sort of sentiment that leads back 'round to "you deserved what you got" - because you're not human.

I mean, I realize on some level you're just shit-talking, and fuck if I don't shit-talk quite a bit myself--and maybe I'm just splitting hairs here?--but 'sub-human scum'? Really? Are we going to get into this sort of rhetoric? Come on. Just say they're the shitty mayonnaise slathered on a pile of shit-pickles inside of a shitburger at McShits-a-lot and leave it at that.

If you think that considering rapists to be sub-human scum is contributing to rape culture, then well, to be very blunt, you are an idiot.

[J Thomas]

WithinThisMind: tanthalas has not been spouting bullshit.

Would that it were so, and yet, here we are with evo-psych.

There are useful ideas there. The game theory could be used directly without any JustSo backstory, but the stories help people keep the ideas in mind. There's hardly ever any *experimental confirmation* of the ideas, but it's a valid way to express ideas.

[savageorange]

WithinThisMind

I don't think so. That's just exactly the kind of thinking that causes things like rape culture. Fact is, whoever you wanna talk about -- rapists, slavers, pedophiles, neo-nazis, violent drunks, jaywalkers, CEOs, your heros and heroines or idols, that guy behind the checkout at the supermarket, your neighbours, your kids, your partner, you -- they're all basically the same. There's very little factual reason for assuming that a person that you despise for a very good reason, is anything less than simply another human being, with all the same kind of worries that trouble you. (of course, people don't want to admit this -- they want to put rapists, pedophiles or whatever in that group over there, even though they're actually in this group right here (for any given value of here). To which I can only say -- Denial sucks, huh? Maybe you should stop doing it.)

TGH is pretty much right on target. If you dehumanize rapists, well, you're now sharing that characteristic of dehumanizing people with them, which is exactly what makes it easy for them to rape another human being -- the other person has stopped being human to them. Is that really a characteristic you want to share with them?

</derail?>

Also, I'm stunned at the absurd speed at which this thread has ballooned.

[J Thomas]

I wrote what I got from your answer, and when I repeated back what I got, to me it looked entirely consistent with my claim.
Did I miss your point? What did you mean instead?

If you claim that there is a single sole motivator for holding a position ("moral outrage") and someone responds with a list of independent reasons for holding that position (ethical objections, aesthetic objections, practical objections, objections from courtesy, etc), most people would consider that a contradiction of your claim. Do you not see it that way?

No. I didn't talk about "motivators" or "causes". I said that most of the anti-PUA stuff *was* moral outrage, not that it was caused by moral outrage.

This is what's called sophistry, and it's not a nice habit. You're saying it's, what, an expression of moral outrage? Okay, I'll say it's an expression of ethical objection, etc. You'll say it's "really moral outrage"? I'll say it's really a combination of factors, as listed, and probably others as well. I don't care how you chop it, that's piddling piffle, and it's sophomoric and it's boring and you should stop it.

The topic of discussion here is what I said and why it's wrong. You are splitting words.

If one person says "I get the idea you mostly feel disgust for me"

and the response is "No, you're wrong. There's a lot of disgust, but there's also contempt. And revulsion. Aesthetic horror. Loathing. And I have this sense that I need to stay far away from you or I'll get cooties, that's just my own self-interest. So no, you are completely wrong."

That is not a respectful response.

The point is, you're trying to reduce the objections to this Passtime to a single simple entity, so you can dismiss it more easily.

This is the key point. Because you believe this, you cannot agree with what I say. After all, I might be some sort of evil Socratic dialoguer who would get you to agree to one little harmless statement after another until you are boxed in by some subtle sophism you cannot escape. It's a slippery slope, better to disagree with everything.

I suspect that if I tried something like that you would see through it immediately. Truly you can afford to grant me this small obvious truth, and then stop me when I do something with it that doesn't work. I will take it as a compliment to my aura of supreme intelligence and devious manipulation that you were not sure you could do that.

If you think the difference between moral objections and ethical objections is a fine one, I simply disagree. A moral claim is a final judgement: one ought not. It might be grounded in some core works, a teaching or a scripture, or whatnot, but it's not something that one can argue. It's a flat directive, which one accepts or rejects. An ethical claim is inherently argumentative. One claims that if one abides by a certain set of principles, then society will be this way or that way. And one might prefer one outcome or another.

To take a standard example, a moral claim about murder might be "Murder is wrong". An ethical claim about murder would envision a society which permitted murder, and one which prohibited murder, and consider the effects of the permission or prohibition. It would presumably define the term, and consider various circumstances which might or might not constitute murder (acts of war, acts of self-defense, acts of immediate or delayed vengeance) and attempt to understand the effects of a society's views on the taking of life on the life in that society.

....

So: I claim that ethical and moral objections are quite different species of of objections, and therefore if there is an ethical objection in the forty-odd pages of debate, your claim is incorrect.

Well, first I said the bulk of it was moral outrage, so I wouldn't consider a single counterexample to be definitive. Second, for my purposes the distinction you are making is not very important. I can see that it's important for you and the points you want to make. Third, I'm not at all clear that the bulk of the public or even the XKCD posters have the distinction you make clear in their minds. I like the way you do it, and I'll tend to use "morals" and "ethics" in ways that are compatible with the way you said it. But if it isn't built into the language and the common box of understandings then you shouldn't tell me I'm wrong for not doing it your way.

Moving on, you pull a standard move and claim that "morality is aesthetics". Wrong.

I believe I could make a good, serious argument that it is. Also ethics is esthetics. This might not be the place for that argument, and you would likely still disagree. I tend to think you would disagree because you would find my argument estheticly displeasing. Because that's how it looks to me. Notice that you are saying ahead of examining my argument that your idea is right and mine is wrong. Now we have reached a topic in epistemology. How do we find the true sources for morality and ethics? If you are convinced you know the truth about this it would be interesting, but again this is probably not the right forum.

So, back to the topic. I do not dismiss the various objections presented here. I do not dismiss moral outrage simply because it is moral outrage. It is a valid expression of valid feelings. Your esthetics do matter.

I do want to point out that for the first 40 pages or so, there was little ethical reflection present. Did you guys ask "What effect does my moral outrage have on society? What kind of society is likely to result from it?". Mostly not. It was mostly "We're right, they're wrong, they're disgusting.".

In the last few pages some people have come in and improved on that. There have been people who actually tried to see the other guy's point of view, while still confirming that PUA as a teaching and a movement is disgusting and wrong.

I want to suggest that when you consider ethics in terms of what kind of society it creates, you should look at what you get when 1% of the people follow that set of ethics, and 10%, and 50%, and 90%, and 99%. It isn't enough to consider the philosophy in isolation. The communists had the idea they would create a society with the New Communist Man who would be different, and everything would work out well. They failed, they wound up with a bunch of hypocrites. But a society 100% full of New Communist Men (and Women) would have worked fine. Probably.

You don't have 100% of society agreeing with you about how women should be treated. You probably don't have 30%. Lots of men and women disagree. Lots consider the whole thing airily intellectual -- they know how they like to be treated but they don't have words for it and don't have it thought out. And there are a whole lot of real honest-to-badness misogynists. Here's a clue -- probably 99%+ of Rush Limbaugh fans are misogynists. (Not all Rush listeners, but pretty much all the fans.) It seems to me like there are more misogynists than there used to be, but maybe they're just more visible.

You figure that PUAs treat women as not human beings. So you treat PUAs as subhumans. There's a certain rough justice to that, but does it lead to the kind of society you want? Isn't it likely that it leads to misogynists who are more confirmed in their feelings, who tend to hate you and not consider your ideas worth seriously internalizing? Is that what you want?

Again, you have a perfect right to express your feelings. You have no obligation to think about ethics or the effect of your actions on society. You do not owe it to anybody to think about what result you want from the conversation. It's your free choice.

[hawkinsssable]

MR is basically, move back physically and tease her, or freeze her out by doing what you'd rather be doing, or talk to her and comfort her.... It respects her agency, shows your intent, and attempts to bring you and her together.

To quote, verbatim, from the LMR page:

"STEP 1: Say NO to sex before she does! You're in the drivers seat, not her!

...The purpose of this last stage of Anti-LMR is to turn her on so much, that she’s not using her logical mind. All the, “Will I get pregnant?” and “Does this make me a slut?” thoughts are gone and she is only doing what her body tells her is good for her.

How is someone's humanity disrespected if you're constantly reading their faces and body language?

... if there are certain ways to build attraction, and certain ways to determine if attraction is present, is it really inhumane to use that knowledge for mutual benefits?

"Mutual benefits" is almost definitely not true for the context outlined on the LMR page. Look at the description of the swimsuit model:

Incredibly hard to gain any sexual ground with, she had only had sex with 3 people before and was devout about how she needed to be in a relationship with someone for a long time before she would ever engage in anything coital.

So, her morals / worldview tell her that it's wrong (either morally, or wrong for her) to have sex without having first been in a monogamous relationship for several months. Clearly this wasn't the case for Gareth Jones - after all, "because I have the skills that I do, I am not starving for sex [ie he's good at making chicks have sex with him], so I had no problem slow-gaming this girl and NOT pushing for a one night stand." It's okay, though - all you have to do is lie about your intentions, reject her, and then turn her on so much that "she’s not using her logical mind" and all of the "'Does this make me a slut?' thoughts are gone and she is only doing what her body tells her is good for her."

So you might say that the desire to be in a long-term relationship before sex is stupid and nonsensical. And you might think that societal hangups about sluttishness are harmful or sexist or just generally undesirable. That doesn't change the fact that behaving in a way you believe is immoral (or is contrary your worldview and idea of the kind of person you want to be) can make you feel pretty damn shit about yourself. Manipulating somebody into having sex with you when she genuinely does not feel that it's the right choice for her is directly harming somebody. And subjecting somebody to that, just because you want to have sex with her, is basically a shit thing to do.



More broadly, the common (Kantian) idea of disrespecting somebody's humanity is to use them as a means only. The Humanity formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative basically states that "we should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself."

It doesn't matter if you're reading body language and facial cues - if you're doing so purely to meet one of your own ends ("I want to have sex with a swimsuit model!") and treating her as a means only ("this swimsuit model could sate that desire!") with no regard for her own ends ("the only views or desires she holds that matter to me are those that help me have sex with her!"), you're violating that imperative and, well, disrespecting her humanity.

[J Thomas]

Except when it comes to this 'game', women are stuck with the special olympics version due to the sheer number of handicaps they are under thanks to social conditioning. Remember - if she puts out, she is a slut, if she doesn't, she is a prude, the double standard has her condemned right out of the gate.

Men are stuck with a similar paradox when it comes to making the proposition as women are to answering it. If they do, they get called a sleaze. If they don't, they get called a loser. There are tremendous social pressures in both directions for both sexes, coming from conflicting standards from different generations and the different sexes themselves: traditionally, women would be shamed for "putting out" and men would be shamed for not "picking up", predominantly by those of their own sex. Now, on top of that enduring tradition, women will also be shamed for not "putting out", and men will also be shamed for "picking up", now predominantly by the opposite sex.

The solution to this double-bind of course is not to give a fuck what people call you and do what's right regardless of them. Just be honest about what you're after and respectful of people who aren't after the same thing. This means anyone can approach or accept anyone they're interested in (you're not a slut or a sleaze for doing so), and anyone can turn down or pass up anyone they're not interested in (you're not a prude or a loser for doing so).

In the cliched heteronormative picture of a hard-up man approaching a woman who is probably not interested (that everyone seems to be discussing here), this means that guys need to both have the confidence to approach a girl and have the respect to take no for an answer, and that girls need to both have the confidence to say no to a guy and the respect not to be offended by the approach. The man's respect will help give the woman more confidence to say no again in the future, and the woman's respect will give the man more confidence to approach women again in the future, instead of mutual disrespect brewing a culture of men and women who are afraid to talk to each other.

Of course, it would balance (our common perceptions of) things out a lot more if women would approach men more often, because the above applies just as much if the genders are reversed.

Well said! But -- what if some women feel uncomfortable to be approached? What if 1/3 of the women are scarred by previous experience and they feel miserable and trapped any time a man approaches them?

Don't women have the right to go anywhere they want and do anything they want and never get an unwelcome proposition?

Some people on this forum have suggested a solution. Men should be good enough at reading body language that they know when a woman is not interested in them. And they should never ever approach a woman unless she wants them to approach her. If there's any doubt, just don't do it.

I think what this amounts to, is men should wait for women to give them clear and unambiguous body-language invitations, before trying to start a conversation or anything. That is, it would really be the women doing the approaching, but deniably.

But your idea is that anybody should be able to ask, and anybody should be able to say no. Only what about the women who've been conditioned by society to have a hard time being asked, who sometimes can't bring themselves to say no when they really want to? Shouldn't we watch out for those women, by never asking any woman unless we know for sure she isn't like that?

I dunno. I remember one Mensa party where they had everybody wear stickers. Red meant "don't ask". Yellow meant "I dunno, maybe." Red meant "Anything goes". **edit** That was supposed to be green the second time.** Some women wore red stickers, and presumably the party went better for them than it would otherwise. I didn't notice anything special, and they didn't do it again. Or maybe they did it again after I left.

[Red Hal]

I remember one Mensa party where they had everybody wear stickers. Red meant "don't ask". Yellow meant "I dunno, maybe." Red meant "Anything goes".

That sounds about right ... "Don't ask, anything goes." Or did you mean red, yellow and green?

[J Thomas]

Let me be blunt - when you say there are factors that 'contribute' to rape, what you are in fact saying is that you feel the rapist was justified and the victim was asking for it. That makes you sub-human scum.

Let me be blunt: When you say there are people who are sub-human scum, you are contributing to rape culture--by contributing to the false notion that there are people who are sub-human, and thereby unworthy of our time, consideration, and care. It's this exact sort of sentiment that leads back 'round to "you deserved what you got" - because you're not human.

I mean, I realize on some level you're just shit-talking, and fuck if I don't shit-talk quite a bit myself--and maybe I'm just splitting hairs here?--but 'sub-human scum'? Really? Are we going to get into this sort of rhetoric? Come on. Just say they're the shitty mayonnaise slathered on a pile of shit-pickles inside of a shitburger at McShits-a-lot and leave it at that.

If you think that considering rapists to be sub-human scum is contributing to rape culture, then well, to be very blunt, you are an idiot.

This might be a good time for you to read the Tao Te Ching. Or maybe study some control theory, which unfortunately is often taught with a lot of electronics prerequisites.

Yes, it sometimes happens that you strengthen ideas by openly opposing them. Or at least, you don't completely win. Republicans and Democrats oppose each other more and more ferociously, but it's rare one of them gets more than 60% support.

If you support Democrats you're just playing the game. You'll never get rid of the GOP that way. But if something happens that makes them irrelevant then they'll go the way of the Whigs. If for example Libertarians or somebody else ever gets enough support to become the second party, if the GOP ever becomes a third party then they're probably finished.

I'm not clear how to make Rape Culture irrelevant, but finding out how to do that and doing it, is the task at hand for you. I'll help as I see how, though my primary social goal just now is cheap alternative energy.

[ShortChelsea]

One last question for all the anti-pua regulars:

Why is it that I've observed growing up that the men who "played the game" were the ones who were successful with women, but the guys who talked to girls like human beings had no luck whatsoever?

I'm dating a guy who treats me like a human. I've been dating him for five years. Where do you live that no woman wants to be with someone who treats her like another human? Do all the women there have low-self esteem? Those are the women that I see letting guys treat them like non-humans.

[Felstaff]

If you think that considering rapists to be sub-human scum is contributing to rape culture, then well, to be very blunt, you are an idiot.

Only monsters commit crimes, and I don't know any monsters, therefore I don't perceive a problem.

[WithinThisMind]

If you think that considering rapists to be sub-human scum is contributing to rape culture, then well, to be very blunt, you are an idiot.

Only monsters commit crimes, and I don't know any monsters, therefore I don't perceive a problem.

:::rolls eyes::: Nice hyperbole there. You can't tell the difference between one of these scumbags and a 'normal person' by sight, only by behavior, and anyone can slide into this kind of behavior. That's the danger. They otherwise look and act 'human', except that they lack this level of basic decency. Sliding into that kind of behavior, such as by justifying rape or acting like rape is just some sort of consequence to wearing a short skirt, should be called out because it can prevent other people from sliding into that kind of thinking and thus abandoning their humanity in this manner.

And that's one of the dangers of PUAs. They engage in the same predatory behavior and thought patterns as rapists, and as I mentioned earlier, there is a fine line between a PUA and a date rapist. A fine enough line that it's not really unusual for it to go away entirely.

Yes, only monsters commit these crimes. However, since these monsters look, act, and otherwise seem to be human, they can masquerade as human until they reveal themselves by things like, oh, rape jokes, thinking comments about killing gays, etc... Since they are kind enough to reveal themselves in such a manner, saying 'I don't know monsters' is willful ignorance, and saying 'I don't perceive a problem' is either pure stupidity or a demonstration that you are part of the problem.

[WithinThisMind]

This might be a good time for you to read the Tao Te Ching. Or maybe study some control theory, which unfortunately is often taught with a lot of electronics prerequisites.

Yes, it sometimes happens that you strengthen ideas by openly opposing them.

Ah yes. We should coddle these poor misogynistic/racist/bigoted/otherwise moronic idiots for another 2000 years, because that's worked out so well for us. Perhaps now would be a good time for you to read some basic history.

These kinds of things only change when they are openly opposed.

Citation - The entire civil rights movement.

[K-R]

So is it okay to rape a rapist?

[J Thomas]

@jpk and other discussing the "moral outrage" topic with J Thomas: note that he is an admitted moral relativist (in the Adam and Eve thread). If I had to "diagnose" his metaethics I would say he is an expressivist: moral claims are just the expression of feelings. So when he says that an argument is tantamount to "moral outrage" and you correct him to "ethical objection", it doesn't matter: to him, both are equivalent to "grr! boo! hiss!" and presumed devoid of real argumentative content.

Absolutely not!

First, your esthetics matter.

Second, when people think out the probable effect of their actions on society, and make an esthetic judgement about the kind of society they would prefer, that is not "devoid of real argument" just because it's an esthetic judgement. Everybody who agrees about the probable effects and agrees about the esthetic value of those effects, has reason to go along. People who disagree about the probable effects but agree that the results will be something they find pleasing, also have reason to go along. People do not need moral absolutes to work together for the common good. Thank god.

To quote Noam Chomsky, relativists "plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow."

That's unlikely to be true. Human societies have a lot of specialized roles. However, pretty often when the topic comes up, it will be about somebody abusing special privileges. And the idea that everybody should have the same rights sounds so intuitively obvious that people will tend to accept it without thinking. So it looks like an expedient strategy even if it's basicly false. I can't completely disapprove.

So ignore him, unless you want to take on the daunting task of convincing someone who chooses to disregard the question that there are answers to it and that we can productively discuss what they are.

Independent of the question whether there are absolute moral or ethical truths, we can discuss what we like. It may likely turn out that you and I like similar things. When we look at the esthetic choice of what kind of society we want to live in, we might want similar things.

[WithinThisMind]

So is it okay to rape a rapist?

If the moon is made of green cheese, is it okay to dance the Remigold naked at sunset?

[JudeMorrigan]

If someone walks away from you, are you going to assume that he's interested in what you have to say, or disinterested?

You keep using that word. I do no think that it means what you think it means.

[Shro]

One last question for all the anti-pua regulars:

Why is it that I've observed growing up that the men who "played the game" were the ones who were successful with women, but the guys who talked to girls like human beings had no luck whatsoever?

Note: You is the generic "you" and is not referring to anyone in particular.

I don't know, I seem to think that guys who talk to human beings are pretty "lucky" for given values of luck. They're probably getting laid all the time, because most nice guys who treat human beings like human beings are usually taken. For some reason, women love being in long term relationships with guys who talk to them like human beings. These nice guys aren't part of this "sexual marketplace". So who is left available in the "sexual marketplace"? Assholes. And you. And damn are those assholes getting laid more than you. So not fair. You're a better piece of genetic diversity, a mere whiff of your major histocompatibilty complex differences should maker her lizard brain forever surrender and have your babies.

But no, it's these assholes that get to sleep with these hot girls. Of course it's these assholes that sleep with those hot girls that you're attracted to. Now one of the solutions to the problem might be to look around and maybe see that there are a couple of nice girls that might be attracted to you. But you don't know about them, they're kind of unattractive, don't take care of themselves, and make you uncomfortable. You don't want to sleep with them. You're more concerned with that super hot woman that would make great friends and you'd rather just be around her and be her friend because her presence is just so intoxicating. But she'd rather have you as a friend and talk to you about all of her relationship problems and all the jerks she's dating and why can't she see you-you're right there-just waiting and so perfect for her! Those movies and tv, they tell you, that if you're just persistent enough, if you just hang around long enough, you too can get the girl! But that never ends up happening. She keeps dating jerk after jerk and when you finally get up enough courage to maybe ask her or a date or something, anything more she drops you with a single sentence. "I just want to be friends". And keeps dating assholes that may inflame her desires but don't make the least bit of common sense. She ignores men that respect her. Hold her in high regard. Are compatible with her. For assholes.

And you think, do I have to be an asshole too? You don't want to be an asshole, but assholes get the girl and you really really want to get the girl. You think your life will change if you are just finally able to get the girl. You're worried everyone thinks you're a loser because you've never gotten the girl and the message you hear, constantly is you're not a man unless you get the girl. You question your manliness. You want to be able to feel manly.You want society to think you're manly. Manly men get all the girls, but you're not thought of as manly until you start getting the girls. Chicken and egg. Your social brain is telling you to fuck. Your lizard brain is telling you to fuck. Your rational brain is telling you, well, yeah, okay, go along with them and get your fuck on.

OF COURSE ASSHOLES GET THE GIRL
That's what they do. That's what they're out for. They're getting all of the chicks and fucking them and not calling back the next day while they sob into their pillows telling you about the jerk that she really liked that didn't call back. You don't want to be that. These assholes view women as practically nothing but a masturbatory aid, and they will say anything and do anything and tell their lies to get women into bed. Women get hurt as a result. You like women, you respect women, and you don't want to hurt them. But it seems that's the only way they'll sleep with you!

So you start looking at what the assholes are doing to pick up women. They seem to pick up women in clubs, in bars, even just right off the street. So you're taught, no, don't speak to her rational brain, it's the lizard brain that you have to convince. It's the lizard brain that wants the sex. It's the lizard brain that will make her want to jump into bed with you with no regard to the consequences, because honestly, the lizard brain really really wants sex. So you learn to speak to the lizard brain. You learn how to shoot down objections from the rational brain. You inflame her desires while not necessarily appealing to common sense. In fact, you commonly and consistently shoot down her rational brain's objections to sleeping with you, because you know it's her lizard brain in charge of making the decision anyway. This is what jerks do. This are the behaviors you emulate because you just want to get a girl.

And lo! You get them. You get girls numbers, you're more "successful". Maybe you even take one home and sleep with them. Your hypothesis has been proven. Only assholes get the girls, so you have to act like an asshole to get these girls.

Now, there's nothing wrong with appealing to the lizard brain. It's when you deliberately try to get past these women's rational brain barriers and appeal solely to their lizard brain. Sometime their rational brain centers match up perfectly with their lizard brain. You go home, have a fun time, everybody's happy. But sometimes the lizard brain and the rational brain aren't so in sync. Sometimes the rational brain is a little impaired and can't restrain the lizard brain as much as it used to (like with alcohol).

Now we'll reintroduce another part of the brain, the social brain. Your social brain is the part of your brain that's dedicated to interactions with other people. Women have a pretty big social brain and one of it's tasks is to avoid conflict. Women are conditioned from a very early age that conflict is bad and should be avoided at all costs. This is not a personal thing, it's an instinctual social thing (weak members of the group were able to survive by not making the strong members of the group angry) compounded by current social conditioning. Now while you're inflaming the desires of her lizard brain, you're making her slightly uncomfortable to turn on her social brain. This will activate classic conflict avoidance behaviors; you're hoping for "people pleasing" and "giving in". So her lizard brain wants sex, her social brain is thinking about whether or not she's safe and her rational brain is trying to synthesize all these inputs and it's own ideas into whether or not she wants to go home with you. There's still a chance that you won't get the conflict avoidance behaviors you want from her social brain, she might just leave. Her lizard brain might not think you're sexy. Her rational brain might think it's a bad idea. It's okay, you'll move on, and try it on the next girl.

This is where the moral outrage comes in. That's predatory behavior when you look at it. You have a formula and you're on the prowl. You keep using it until it sparks just the right brain condition in some woman to get her to sleep with you. You do not care if she is making the wrong decision because you believe that she is empowered enough to make her own decisions. Even if she doesn't know you're deliberately messing with the parts of her brain that would get her to sleep with you.

But she does know that you're deliberately messing with parts of her brain, that's what the game is. She should have known. Women play the game to get stuff, men play the game to get laid. That's just how it is. These manipulative behaviors are only a response to women's own manipulations of men. All's fair in love.

Okay. Now I will posit that certain manipulative (mate-guarding, etc) behaviors in ancient women arose from the same reproductive drive that shaped those different (but still manipulative) behaviors in ancient men. In a previous era (not that long ago, sadly) women weren't even able to own property. It makes sense that certain behaviors would be favorable for their survival. Being able to keep a man. Making sure his resources were not diverted to another family/mistress so it was her offspring that benefitted most from whatever the man was able to provide. A behavior that would make sure someone stronger wouldn't kill/beat her by maybe offering the offender sex would have turned out to be a behavior that persisted, since women with that behavior would tend to be the ones to reproduce and make more offspring with the conflict avoidant social brain feature. So really, these manipulations started out as behaviors as a response to sexist behavior by ancient assholes throughout the eras, but for and example, we'll focus on those assholes that would beat their wives if they were displeased and it was in fact thought their right to do so (also not too long ago). What behaviors would be most useful to women in this situation? Avoid conflict. Please her husband. Don't get beat up. Don't die. Live long enough to have babies. But the conflict avoidant behavior also means that she'll let him have sex with her more often? "Giving in" is one of the conflict avoidance strategies she's learned. And there's no such thing as birth control at this point. So this behavior not only promotes not dying in the avoiding getting fatally beat up kind of way, which is a pretty important drive for an organism, and would be selected for evolutionarily like, obviously. But the behavior of just letting him have sex with her would have also been selected for, because it was those women that ended up reproducing. So this is a behavior that evolution just loves, it makes sure the organism doesn't die AND it provides for a mechanism for the propagation of the species.

Evolution does not care about morals. It is not a moral process. But we evolved a sense of morality for a reason.

Holy shit wall of text I'm stopping here for now.

[dawolf]

If you think that considering rapists to be sub-human scum is contributing to rape culture, then well, to be very blunt, you are an idiot.

Only monsters commit crimes, and I don't know any monsters, therefore I don't perceive a problem.

:::rolls eyes::: Nice hyperbole there. You can't tell the difference between one of these scumbags and a 'normal person' by sight, only by behavior, and anyone can slide into this kind of behavior. That's the danger. They otherwise look and act 'human', except that they lack this level of basic decency. Sliding into that kind of behavior, such as by justifying rape or acting like rape is just some sort of consequence to wearing a short skirt, should be called out because it can prevent other people from sliding into that kind of thinking and thus abandoning their humanity in this manner.

And that's one of the dangers of PUAs. They engage in the same predatory behavior and thought patterns as rapists, and as I mentioned earlier, there is a fine line between a PUA and a date rapist. A fine enough line that it's not really unusual for it to go away entirely.

Yes, only monsters commit these crimes. However, since these monsters look, act, and otherwise seem to be human, they can masquerade as human until they reveal themselves by things like, oh, rape jokes, thinking comments about killing gays, etc... Since they are kind enough to reveal themselves in such a manner, saying 'I don't know monsters' is willful ignorance, and saying 'I don't perceive a problem' is either pure stupidity or a demonstration that you are part of the problem.

They don't "otherwise look and act 'human'"

They ARE human. The worst genocidal maniacs, the people that have the basest and most depraved of emotions are human.

Trying to state that people who you despise are sub-human is wrong. Despise them as the worst of humanity, instead.


BTW, you accuse someone of hyperbole in the same post as you say there is a thin line between being a PUA and being a date rapist. Hyperbole, you think?

[K-R]

So is it okay to rape a rapist?

If the moon is made of green cheese, is it okay to dance the Remigold naked at sunset?

I have no idea.

Why is the quote button on the wrong side of the page?

[J Thomas]

I mean, aren't all humans a bunch of machines that project emotions according to a predetermined formula developed inside the brain? If I give my buddy vanilla ice cream because I know he likes it, am I treating him like a metal robot with an input and an output response?

You know, referring to people as machines when those you're talking with are telling you to stop objectifying people is not helping your credibility...

If you weren't already able to surmise that my answer to you would be "fuck no, humans are not just a bunch of machines", then apparently I'm not making myself clear enough.

People are not just machines, and trying to reduce them to such is both disrespectful and flawed, the very essence of objectification.

Interesting! Some history might be in order.

There was once a time when people believed in animism. They thought that rivers and winds and planets and such did what they did from their own free will. Except planets followed reproducible rules, they obeyed the harmony of the spheres.

But then around the time of Newton a whole lot of people were sure that was wrong. They decided that the universe is kind of like a giant 3D pool table, with gravity. Things bounce off each other, and they're subject to gravity, and we know the rules! If we knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, we could predict the entire future course of everything. In practice they could not reliably solve the three-body problem but in principle they thought they could solve the 10^50 body problem. And that view started taking over, to the point that some people rebelled against it. They said that Newton's rules worked for inanimate objects but living things were different and special. Living things have free will and don't have to follow the rules. This view was called vitalism.

Vitalism crumbled in the 19th century. More and more organic molecules were synthesized from just chemicals, in test tubes. Life was made of chemicals that followed the rules of chemistry. Never mind that most of biochemistry was a complete mystery. But people did not like that, and many of them retreated to the view that brains are different and don't follow the rules.

But now we are finding that brains do follow the rules. How could it be otherwise, would they be run by magic? God's Will with no chemical intermediates?

One way to go from here is to figure that software has some independence from hardware. A von neumann architecture with gates can get the same result whether it's made from vacuum tubes or transistors or compressed-air valves.

And there could be some sort of emergent properties that make sense independent of the chemistry. This doesn't help much though because once you understand the mechanism it becomes another machine.

And there's the quantum interpretation. Since you can't know how quantum events will come out, maybe God plays dice with the universe and cheats! Then somehow that gives you free will....

Still the idea that people are machines is a leap of faith. We don't know how the machines work very well. Once you assume they have to be machines then it's easy to see little bits of the picture and assume the rest of the picture will be filled in someday. If you don't make that assumption, the alternatives don't look particularly plausible....

Here's what I think. We don't have proof whether humans are machines are not. Either way, when you try to predict what a person will do, it makes sense to treat them like they're predictable. When you negotiate with somebody, remember that you don't really understand them and they have full free will. Treat people the way that works for the particular situation.

[The Great Hippo]

Yes! That's totally what The Great Hippo's posts miss. Most women don't want to be asked straight out "Do you want to have sex?" which is such a blunt way of doing that. Some people prefer bluntness, but if you're dealing with most, they prefer the roundabout subtle seduction.

I don't think Hippo's even saying you need to be blunt. Charisma and confidence are extremely useful social tools, and if you're not equipped with them then they can certainly be learned.

Besides, ask some women you have no intention of sleeping with. Find some women who have attributes you like, file them under the 'never sleeping with you' folder, and just strike up a conversation about what they like to see in potential partners.

You know, the whole point of talking with women about this isn't so they can all prove me right. I bet there are plenty of women who don't have a problem with PUA. But you have, as a sexually active adult, a certain responsibility to your partners--to make sure they're okay with what you're doing. If you want to practice PUA responsibly, you should make sure the women you're practicing it with are okay with it. One of the ways you do this is by asking women what they think of PUA, and getting a better sense of how they respond. PUAs need to talk to women--they need to understand how women feel about PUA--they need to make sure the women they're pursuing are in on this game. Because a wink and a suggestive nudge aren't enough.

:::rolls eyes::: Nice hyperbole there. You can't tell the difference between one of these scumbags and a 'normal person' by sight, only by behavior, and anyone can slide into this kind of behavior. That's the danger. They otherwise look and act 'human', except that they lack this level of basic decency.

Ergh. For fuck's sake. Look, no.

This is 101 morality stuff. I mean, if you're just talking shit, fine, okay. But if you really believe that there's such a thing as monsters, you have a lot of growing up to do.