Ethical Pick-Up Artistry
2011 23 Mar
As some of my readers know, I’m fascinated by the pickup artist subculture (a community devoted to advising men on how to seduce women). It’s a very mixed bag. My feeling is that there’s good advice in the community for genuinely kind shy guys. But sometimes, it’s so mixed with misogyny and cold-heartedness that wading through it feels like panning for gold in a sewer.
By the end of this year, I plan to release an eBook called Confessions of a Pickup Artist Chaser, all about my experiences in that subculture. In the meantime, here’s my attempt at a summary:
There are small communities of pickup artists all over the world, and there are message boards all over the Internet, and expensive pickup coaches are always popping up. Some of these folks are not so bad; some of them are really bad. Many have awful cynical and negative attitudes about people; many hold particularly awful stereotypes about women. And most of them care a lot more about what works (i.e. how to get their penis in someone) than about what’s ethical or how we can treat women like human beings.
A good friend of mine recently told me that he’s been reading the blog of a misogynist pickup artist who I absolutely loathe. I was appalled. I provided a detailed feminist critique of this guy’s blog. My friend listened and understood, but in the end he said, “I hear what you’re saying, and I agree with you. The guy is an asshole and his advice is permeated with terrible opinions of women. But a lot of it is really good advice, and I don’t know where else I can find such good advice about women.”
Here’s the thing: the current pickup artist subculture has a monopoly on effective advice for how to break down social interactions and talk to women. Not all of it works, but enough of it works that it draws guys in. As a pickup artist instructor once told me, “When I first found the community I was horrified by how sleazy and gross it is, but I had never had a girlfriend and I told myself: dude, if you don’t learn this stuff you’re gonna die alone.”
I’ve theorized that maybe feminists should provide good pickup advice, in an attempt to counterbalance some of the awfulness of the existing community. In the meantime, however, I figure the next best thing to do is to provide a list of less-misogynistic pickup artist instructors and sites, and a few very basic critiques.
First, the basic critiques. These are very, very basic; if you get me started then I’ll provide ten thousand more. But please, if you are going to investigate pickup artistry, at least keep these things in mind:
1) People are different. Pickup artists often say “women are all X”, “women love X”, “women all respond to X”, etc. Sometimes they are correct for the majority of women; sometimes they are correct for a minority of women; sometimes they aren’t correct.
The bottom line is this: Anything pickup artists say about women is not true for all women. Period.
(Corollary: pickup artists are sometimes wrong about men, too.)
2) Even pickup advice that works does not always work for the reasons pickup artists commonly claim it does. Here’s a nerdy scientific analogy:
If you put a large container (like a tall drinking glass) over a burning candle and trap the flame inside without fresh air, it will eventually flicker out.
In olden times, scholars believed in the existence of a substance called phlogiston. Supposedly, phlogiston was an invisible substance produced by fire; too much phlogiston would suffocate fire. Scholars believed that flames without fresh air died because they eventually produced enough phlogiston that it filled up the available space, thereby suffocating the flame.
Today, we know that this is incorrect. Flames require oxygen, and if they are trapped without fresh air, flames go out because they use up the available oxygen.
So, the phlogiston theory is wrong. But at the time, it fit reality better than previous theories about fire. It explained why fire wouldn’t burn without fresh air, for example; previous theories failed to explain that. People had observable reasons for believing in the existence of phlogiston. Nevertheless, phlogiston still did not exist.
In the same way, pickup theory has a lot of assumptions wrapped up in it, especially stereotypes about women. Pickup artists may have some good ideas about how to flirt, but many of them will try to convince you that those tactics work because women are dumb, childish, weak-willed, gold-diggers, inherently submissive, considerably more irrational than men, or whatever other gross stereotype you care to choose. Just because a pickup artist can show you how to flirt, that doesn’t mean the assumptions behind the advice are reasonable.
In short, don’t fall for the phlogiston trap.
3) Some pickup advice only works because it capitalizes on the insecurities of women who have low self-esteem, and can manipulate those women — not because those women actually want to have sex.
For example: some pickup artists describe using “freeze-outs” on women who say they don’t want to have sex. Here’s what the freeze-out looks like: the woman says no, the pickup artist says “Okay,” … and then he turns away from her and starts checking his email or doing something else very boring that does not include her. If candles are lit, he blows out the candles. If they’re playing a card game, he packs up the cards. Basically, he goes cold and ignores her until she agrees to have sex with him.
Here’s why this is fucked up: because women are inundated with messages that men won’t like us unless we have sex with them. If a guy we really like suddenly gives us the silent treatment because we won’t have sex with him, that’s basically calculated to take advantage of our societal complexes. And yes, it will probably work with women who have low self-esteem, or who have never experienced a relationship with a dude who respected them. It might have worked on me when I was much younger.
But just because it would have worked does not mean I would have enjoyed it or felt okay about it later.
(edit April 15: After much discussion, I want to note one thing. It is conceivable that lots of people have sex after being frozen out that they like; that still doesn’t mean the freeze-out was the most ethical tactic for having sex with those people. Also, is is conceivable that some people actually like being manipulated through the freeze-out; I don’t speak for all women. However, in my experience as a woman, the freeze-out would have worked on me because of low self-esteem and poor boundaries, not because of mutual desire. So even if there are women who are okay with the freeze-out, there are obviously women who find it manipulative and abhorrent. This means that other tactics that are more universally appreciated are more ethical than the freeze-out. This is still true even if the freeze-out is the most effective tactic for getting a person to have sex. Effectiveness is important, but it’s not more important than treating other people well. There’s more commentary on freeze-outs in below comments #261, 262, 382, and others, and also over here. end edit)
A fair number, though not all, of pickup tactics are just like that: they work, but they work because women are likely to feel pressured, or guilty, or anxious. Not because women are likely to feel attracted. This is another reason looking for ethical pickup artists is useful, because most of the evil tactics come from the genuinely misogynist ones. (For example, I pretty much have no truck with anything from Gunwitch, whose advice often reads like a textbook on date rape, and who once shot a girl in the face because she rejected him.) In the comments below, there is much discussion of specific tactics. Feel free to read and participate.
… Okay, so now that’s all out of the way. Here are some references:
I appreciate Hugh Ristik’s critiques and deconstructions of the pickup artist community. I don’t always agree with HR, but feminism and consent both interest him, and he has a much more careful and intelligent approach to those things than most pickup writers I’ve encountered.
SucceedSocially.com is a site full of thoughts on basic social skills, by a guy who’s studied a lot of pickup stuff but specifically does not identify as a pickup artist. Its goal is to get readers from socially below average to average. Seems pretty much pickup jargon-free. The author has also written an interesting article on detrimental attitudes one can encounter or internalize through the pickup artist community.
I really like what I’ve read from Mark Manson. A good place to start might be the post on his history of becoming a pickup artist. He often uses pickup jargon, but there’s not much in that post.
The Authentic Man Program has been recommended by a couple people I trust. Lots of pickup jargon.
ApproachAnxiety.com has various advice that only trips my misogyny-meter about half the time, and also usually features pictures of science fiction chicks. Seems light on pickup jargon.
Zan Perrion and David DeAngelo are often recommended as less-misogynist pickup gurus, but I haven’t looked at much of their stuff so I’m not linking to them. (Edit: There’s some criticism of DeAngelo in comments #114, #116.) But I am linking to Juggler at Charisma Arts because he wrote this advice post that made me laugh for five full minutes. Juggler, it should be noted, specifically does not identify as a pickup artist.
Over on the feminist blog Feministe, I once started a thread that drew 322 comments picking apart pickup artistry. Some of the comments are terrible, but many are interesting and perceptive.
I once got the chance to interview the famous pickup artist Neil Strauss, author of 2005 bestseller The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, and he was pretty cool. Here’s some commentary about the interview on Feministe.
If you’re unfamiliar with pickup jargon, welcome to the encyclopedia. Understanding pickup artistry may no longer be worth it to you once you realize how many acronyms are involved.
Tags: advice, masculinity, pickup artists
I’m going to move a bunch of comments from the most recent masculinity thread to this one. Stay tuned ….
UPDATE: Okay, many comments have been moved from a previous thread. Comments posted after the above post was written start at #90.
I’ve been working on “Confessions of a Pickup Artist Chaser” (slow going). I have some thoughts. Link me to PUA fora or whatever if other people have already had these thoughts.
* PUAs give so-called shit tests too. They’re called “negs”.
* Although I have serious doubts that most women issue “shit tests” at the rate that PUAs assert, and I suspect that the real motivation of a lot of shit tests is to actually get an answer to the question or get some reassurance (e.g., “what do you do for a living” … really, TylerDurden listed this as a test? really?) or again, as noted upthread, to actually set boundaries (“we’re not having sex tonight” has NEVER been a shit test when I’ve said it, it’s been the goddamn truth), I’m starting to recognize them more often. But I think women give them at least as much to flirt as they do to test. Women who give more shit tests are better at traditional flirting. Shit tests make men attracted to you.
I think a lot of things get mixed up in debates like these. Questions that are way of getting to know the other, e.g. “What do you do for a living?”, statements about the speaker’s state of mind, playing the devil’s advocate because it’s interesting (I know I do it), arguments which the arguing woman actually wants to win, and the way some men end up getting ‘emasculated’ (damn I hate that word!) over the course of a relationship.
And when women who aren’t used to analysing their every word and action are confronted with it, and presented with the well thought out theory of male dominance and female shit-tests, they’re likely to find it every bit as plausible as the men who thought it up.
I think especially the case of women slowly starting to dominate a relationship, and perhaps simultaneously losing interest in their partner, can be just as well explained by the difference in how men and women tend to perceive power.
Women, from what I’ve read and observed, have a rather fluent concept of power, with hierarchies often changing rapidly depending on the situation, whereas men tend towards the more rigid concept that an alpha is an alpha is an alpha. The constant negotiations that often take place among women are one of the main reasons I often find socialising with them difficult, I’m just surprised so many men think women are doing it especially for them.
Clarisse,
hmm, I’m not sure that’s the appropriate equivalent. I’m not sure there is one, actually. The assumption about shit tests is that they’re supposed to test for “are you man enough for me”, but I actually can’t remember reading about value testing for women… Strauss or Mystery seem to say “leave if the interaction is boring”, but I can’t remember “character testing” routines. Women however, do seem to test more – a recent example includes a woman making an assertion about having a boyfriend (to a friend of mine) later explaining to me that she was single and totally liked it how I stayed and talked while he wandered off while I must have assumed she had a boyfriend, as that indicated I was interested in more than just sex.
As far as I understood “negs” aren’t there to test if women are tough enough to stay, but to a) pretend she’s got a lower relative value in your eyes than you assume she has of herself in comparison to you and b) demonstrate “active disinterest”.
I’ve never quite understood how that goes together with the mindset of “you’re the prize”. If guys actually *have* that mindset, they don’t need to lower any woman’s perceived relative value compared to themselves. So that whole neg thing does seem to come, if I may, from a strangely “beta” perspective, that is at odds with the prescribed “alpha” perspective.
As for PUA testing, I think there’s much more of a focus on “compliance testing” – which could also be called boundary testing, and I’d say, depending on how you do it and how you frame it, is a good thing in a situation where two people are only just beginning to understand each other – I reckon it’s a good thing to be able to read body lanuage and test she’s having fun and trusting you by, say, taking her hand to see whether she’s squeezing yours or not.
But I think it’s an interesting thought to assume that this kind of thing is part of the natural play. But I’d say that very much depends. As with all interactional stuff, pretty much all is fine in the low-risk early stages of a “relationship”, like lying about having a boyfriend to weed out guys. And I do think it is part of the script in some sense at that point. But as you know, I’m getting uncomfortable when this is taking further along, and women test by saying stuff like “I need to be careful being a girl on my own” and later tell you you “lost” them when you didn’t push them against the wall and kisses them. It’s probably true that that is, to a degree, part of the standard script, in the way that a friend once told me that she, as a woman, is expecting and requiring men to not just test for compliance but push actively (“we rely on you to do that, otherwise we can’t be gatekeepers”).
And then we’re back at the feminist induced double bind for guys – if you’re not doing it because you may be wrong and initiate something, say kissing, she’s not consenting to, even if only as long as it takes her to say “no” or turn away, you end up being dysfunctional in that respect for all women who do expect you to push.
Real quick, an example of LMR advice that only barely tripped my misogyny meter:
http://thesocialsecrets.com/2009/04/5-easy-ways-to-over-come-lmr-last-minute-sexual-reservations/
Clarisse,
What exactly? Language? Stereotypical assumptions about women and men in the situation? The “no doesn’t always mean no”, keep escalating, but “three nos” does part? That I don’t find misogynist, but wrong. As I once told a female friend who played the token resistance game with a guy she was really into and told him “fingers off” at that point because she didn’t want to appear “cheap” while she later said she really wanted his fingers on her (incidentally, same friend whom I quoted above with respet to guys need to push and girls need to be gatekeepers), if we should ever get in that situation, and she’d tell me fingers off, she shouldn’t expect me to keep pushing (as I’d probably wonder for two days if I had overstepped some line since I apparently forced her to say “no” to something I did.)
I can accept if girls don’t want to escalate to see if the guys they’re interested are able to perform the kind of masculinity they’re looking for, but there is a point where she’s as responsible for what’s going to happen as the guy, there is a point where the risks associated with making mistakes about reading her are no longer offset by the possibility of it being a test.
Basically, while I think assuming token resistance to saying hello, possibly even to being kissed, may be interpreted as a test – depending on a host of other situational variables -, when clothes are off and pants are down, that’s no longer an appropriate way to deal with things.
It’s not *just* her value, she’s playing with, she’s also playing with her pleasure. What guys would really need to do to deal with assumed token LMR would be to say, “ok, no problem, but you’re missing out as much as I do” – which is not the mindset apparent in all the advice, in my opinion.
And that brings us back to perceived scarcity and the individual and social perception of the value of male and female sexuality.
@Sam
How about not “bringing her back to logic” because “girls don’t think that way”, or portraying pregnancy as something which is mainly detrimental to a woman because it would affect her looks and ability to get dates? Something being wrong doesn’t rule out that it is misogynistic.
And what exactly is wrong with these alleged ‘shit-tests’? I ‘test’ people by asking them, sometimes hypothetical, questions to see how they answer, I bring up possibly off-turning facts about myself, and I get into deep political debates, because it’s a way of getting to know people better, and because I’d rather get fundamental disagreements out in the open from the start than finding out at an inconvenient time.
How is it that when a guy makes possibly off-putting remarks, or asks various questions because he’s read in a PUA manual that it will convince the girl that he’s not desperate for sex, and that he’s interested in more than her looks (even though he isn’t), the people who object are called feminazi prudes, but when a girl, all on her own and with no manual, do stuff to get to know a guy better and gauge what sort of person he is, she’s being mean and dishonest, and only looking for a macho-man to put her in her place?
The more I think about it, the more I believe so-called ‘shit-tests’ to be infinitely more healthy than almost everything the PUA community has come up with.
AB: Saying no and then expecting me to ignore that and continute is “shit”-test I’ve experienced. I didn’t ignore that and years later she asked me why I didn’t push further. She thought I was not enough into her since I didn’t ignore her initial no. I wouldn’t call her mean or dishonest. Whether she was looking for a macho-man to put her in her place I don’t know. I doubt it, probably she was just insecure and wanted an extra validation of her hotness based on a steretypical notions of male sexuality as described in so-called “bodice ripping” romance novels.
However, she was dangerous to both herself and me.
Even in hindsight when I now know I could’ve gotten laid that night and perhaps it could’ve evolved further I have no second thoughts on my decision to cease and extract myself from the situation when she said no. Her wanting me to push past her no simply made me and her incompatible.
This is not a very uncommon behaviour and this LMR notion of the PUA is not something they’ve pulled out off thin air in order to pressure women into something they don’t want to do.
The problem as I see it is that it’s extremely difficult to see the difference between the “shit”-testing no and the real no and this is dangerous for both parties. Perhaps the PUAs should rather frame the acceptance and adherence to the first no as the ultimate neg :)
Tamen said:
I’d be curious to hear what Clarisse and AB think of this example. They seem to comparing the concept of “shit test” to their own behaviors, and considering that characterization unfair and potentially harmful. While I understand that reaction, the concept of “shit test” is based on real behavior by other women with different sort of psychology.
Sam said:
I agree. Pushing through what seems to be “token resistance” could be harmful if the resistance isn’t actually token. Even if you think there is a 75% chance that the resistance is token, there is a still a 25% chance that you could end up harming someone. In the case of trying to start a conversation, the harm may be minor. But in the case of actual sexual activity, the cost of things going wrong is too great.
That’s why #5 worries me:
Attempting the same activity multiple times, when (a) she has said “we shouldn’t,” and (b) she hasn’t said anything or done anything to show that she has changed her mind, then pushing forward is just too risky.
Where things get complicated is in cases of ambiguous objections. For instance, “we should stop soon.” How soon is “soon”? Is she trying to stop it now, and having trouble coming out and saying it? Is it token resistance? Or is a conflict within herself that she might resolve in another couple minutes of making out? At what point should you check in to see if she wants to stop? That’s a lot of calculations.
Clarisse and Sam,
I’m with Clarisse on this one, though I think I’ll even go a step further: “Negs,” flirting, and “shit tests” seem to me to be really closely connected. I’m no authority on what exactly PUAs mean by “neg,” but it sounds to my inexpert ear like a way of describing basic flirting techniques. I’m not sure if “shit tests” are exactly the same (it sounds like “shit tests” are something you do during a relationship, as opposed to before, if I’m understanding this correctly), but they’re definitely on the same spectrum.
And for what it’s worth, I think Clarisse is right and there’s a reason why people use “negs” and “shit tests,” and it might be unproductive to criticize the tactic without addressing the underlying dynamic that makes both behaviors advantageous.
Hugh,
A bit like the “other side’s” version of Nice Guys, in that respect, isn’t it? I’m reasonably certain that I’ve seen exactly this tendency in some guys who see themselves in a feminist anti-”Nice Guy” rant.
But here,
I’d have to disagree–for that specific wording. “We shouldn’t” often precedes the word “but,” in my experience (whether or not the “but” is spoken aloud is another matter entirely). “We shouldn’t” isn’t “I don’t want to.” It can mean “I don’t want you to think I’m unaware of the way our culture looks askance at women who have sex on the first date” at least as easily as it can mean “no.”
My evidence is anecdotal, of course, but I’ve heard “We shouldn’t” a great many times, and I can’t recall a single instance in which it really meant “no.” (Though there were a few times when it meant “Only if you’re really sure that my significant other/employer/family/whoever won’t find out,” but while that can effectively mean the same thing as “no,” it’s not expressing the same sentiment).
I think a concept from law is useful here–and it sounds a lot like what you’re getting at. We’re basically talking about negligence here, aren’t we? Some of the standards for that involve (if I’m remembering this correctly)* multiplying the potential for harm by the severity of that harm, and weighing that against the severity of the measures required to avoid it.
But this might be assuming a level of objectivity that is not generally considered to be humanly possible.
*If there’s a lawyer present, and if I’m not stating this correctly, then my apologies for mangling the concept, and, by all means, correct me.
Haven’t read the replies yet (will do tomorrow) as it’s late and I’m just coming home from a fun (for me) night out with a female friend who was a bit unlucky tonight with respect to the guys who tried to chat her up.
Now, if I’ve ever come across a pretty much exclusively feminist reason for teaching guys how to be better at flirting/around women it is the one I’ve come across tonight: My friend said, and I’m sure she’s at least partly serious, that she believed the fact that she was chatted up by four sociallly awkward guys in a row until she felt we needed to leave, was due to the fact that *she’s* not worthy of the more attractive, more socially skilled guys – being hit on awkwardly and clumsily had a (probably, hopefully, temporary, but still real) negative effect on her self-esteem.
Sure, four in a row is a bit unlucky, particularly at the venue we were, but until tonight I’ve not considered it possible that an attractive woman could possibly believe that unskilled approaches are a reflection of their own social value.
I don’t think that’s how unskilled approaches are usually interpreted, but if my friend’s not a unique case, then this aspect really seems like a particularly feminist reason for teaching a “curriculum” in social/interactional skills…
Clarisse, Re: shit tests:
I assume flirty shit tests would not be serious, and whether the guy “passed” or not would be fairly immaterial. Its more to progress the interaction and have fun with the interaction than it is to make any judgment. And indeed, that would be more along the lines of negs, and absolutely I enjoy that kind of thing if it is done right.
But the “I have a boyfriend” test that Sam mentioned would most certainly put me off, because that seems indicative of more serious and problematic game playing. Had I been there for that, she would have auto-disqualified herself with that. Or at least she would have had to clearly demonstrate that she is not the game playing type after that display. But that is just me. I cannot speak for all men. Especially after my past experiences, I am very sensitive to and intolerant of serious game playing.
(But as a counter-example, a female friend of mine just broke up with her (briefly) boyfriend because he actually told her point-blank that he wanted her to play mind games, like threatening to break up with him, etc. But she is very much like me in this respect, and cannot stand such games, so it was clearly not a match. Thus she actually broke up with him. I cannot help but chuckle about that, at least a little.)
On the other hand, the kinds of tests AB is talking about do not strike me as problematic because:
1. They are things that she actually cares about, and
2. She is being honest about how she is testing (e.g. bringing up a topic to determine whether someone agrees with you about it is a lot different than lying about yourself to see how people react, or pretending to resist to see if someone pushes past the faux resistance, etc.).
My issue with (non-dishonest) dominance testing is not that women are testing. I mean, if that is really something that is important to them in a partner, then by all means. It is just frustrating to me whenever I start to feel like dominance is generally important to women, because it is not a role I am comfortable filling for the most part, so I feel disqualified. Tests are never fun when you fail them. ;-)
I do think that at some point in a relationship, “tests” need to stop, though. But at the beginning, of course you are feeling people out.
I’d be curious to hear what Clarisse and AB think of this example. They seem to comparing the concept of “shit test” to their own behaviors, and considering that characterization unfair and potentially harmful. While I understand that reaction, the concept of “shit test” is based on real behavior by other women with different sort of psychology.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. One study that I think you’re familiar with, HR, found that 15% of both women and men acknowledged that they routinely say no when they mean yes, and that 40% acknowledged that they’ve done it a few times. Self-reporting is admittedly not entirely trustworthy, but I am left with the conclusion that a group of people that is probably a minority but still significant actually says no when they mean yes.
What does this mean for people like me who don’t do that, and who get pissed off when other people don’t accept my “no”? I’m not sure, but I know one thing: it actively annoys me that those other people exist.
It also frustrates me that so many dudes encounter this occasionally and then generalize to “OMG ALL WOMEN MUST DO THIS”. It’s like dudes who discover female BDSM submissives and conclude that all women secretly want to be raped. It’s like the time many years ago when I discovered that my boyfriend was watching rape porn and immediately thought that this indicates all men are secretly predatory rapists who are barely held in check by society. sigh. what a mess.
I think it’s important and wise for people to assume that when a person says no they ACTUALLY mean no. When I’ve dated guys who indicated that they wanted me to push them past their “no” (yes this has happened to me more than once), I’ve informed them that it’s not gonna happen. I tend to think that people like this probably need to find a good BDSM framework and quit fucking around like idiots.
I often think that if everyone in the world would accept “no” as no, then this problem would not exist, because the dysfunctional behavior would never get the “no”-sayers laid and they would stop. I don’t think this is too strong an ethical burden to put on initiators (and therefore, usually, men). But just because it’s not too strong an ethical burden doesn’t mean they’ll do it.
I sometimes think that maybe people who insist on saying no when they mean yes deserve partners who are never going to take their no for an answer. If these demographics match up, then maybe they can leave the rest of us the hell alone.
BTW everyone, I TOTALLY INTERVIEWED NEIL STRAUSS TONIGHT, AND HE SAID THE WORDS “WE STILL LIVE IN PATRIARCHY”. Oh yes he did. Sincerely. Article forthcoming. for now I am mildly drunk and going to bed.
note: the swearing in the above comment is the result of intoxication and mild irritation, not actual anger, and especially not anger at anyone on this thread.
Clarisse:
I realize you were a bit tipsy when you wrote that, but… no. Just no. But I definitely share your frustration.
I had not thought about the kink angle before, though. I wonder if it really is just an unidentified kink that has somehow been elevated to “normal” status even though most people do not do it. Although I suspect the whole slut-shaming dynamic in our culture has something to do with it as well, especially in casual encounters. Because, you know, women would never willingly consent to casual sex. Not respectable women, anyway. (sarcasm)
As for what these faux-no people deserve, I think they deserve to have their no’s taken 100% seriously. Every time. They would hate that, and no one gets violated. Plus it would probably be hilarious. It is almost enough to make me want to seek out one of these (in my case) women on purpose. Bwa ha ha ha ha…
With the caveat of taking the circumstances of authorial inspiration into account, in regard to:
and:
And if saying “no” but expecting it to be taken as “yes” is actually part of how genuine, individual desire works for these people, and if this is different from what’s involved in BDSM — what then?
I can see good intentions behind these positions. But that doesn’t stop me from also seeing them as being borderline encouragement for the quarantine, humiliation and marginalization of individuals on the basis of how their sexuality works, so that others don’t have to suffer the consequences of their existence.
Sure, it’s a difficult issue. But still: what was that quote about fighting monsters, again?
Xakudo,
It is! Did that once, and it hasn’t stopped being funny to me. What was surprising was how so many people around at the time thought that I was being an asshole. For, y’know, not doing anything sexual with someone who said she didn’t want to.
…actually, now that I think about it, I feel like I’ve already posted the anecdote, maybe somewhere in the Megathread. (Actually, yes; I just went and checked. It’s #556)
@Sam — It’s not *just* her value, she’s playing with, she’s also playing with her pleasure. What guys would really need to do to deal with assumed token LMR would be to say, “ok, no problem, but you’re missing out as much as I do” – which is not the mindset apparent in all the advice, in my opinion.
Quoted for agreement. That’s the tack I take with explicit communication generally. I’ve been thinking about specifically writing a “why people shoot themselves in the foot when they say no but mean yes” post.
OK EXCITING QUESTION: What are hot ways to tell someone “I’m going to take your no for an answer and not continue unless you say yes”?
I have some ideas, but they’re not clear yet. Would love to hear more from others. I would say that when guys in the past have demonstrated that they wouldn’t continue past when I said no, it may have decreased their chances of getting laid with me that evening, but it massively increased their chances of seeing me again and having sex with me later. (This means this argument isn’t great for guys who are out for the notch in the bedpost. But those guys … I’m not sure what to do with them. They’re the same ones who will justify the freeze-out, i.e. silent treatment, as a last-minute-resistance-busting tactic. Ick.)
@AB — How about not “bringing her back to logic” because “girls don’t think that way”, or portraying pregnancy as something which is mainly detrimental to a woman because it would affect her looks and ability to get dates?
Yup. That was the stuff that tripped my misogyny-meter. Barely, since the guy seems to generally have positive intentions, to generally like women, and to generally be concerned with consent. But it’s still there.
@Tamen — Perhaps the PUAs should rather frame the acceptance and adherence to the first no as the ultimate neg :)
AWESOME.
@Motley — And for what it’s worth, I think Clarisse is right and there’s a reason why people use “negs” and “shit tests,
I think it was AB that said this, but I agree.
I’d have to disagree–for that specific wording. “We shouldn’t” often precedes the word “but,” in my experience (whether or not the “but” is spoken aloud is another matter entirely). “We shouldn’t” isn’t “I don’t want to.
I would agree with this sometimes, but I’d hesitate to encourage people to bowl past “we shouldn’t” unless they know that person really well. Like, certainly not on a first date. “We shouldn’t” doesn’t always mean “no,” but it could very easily mean “I’m not really sure about this and will get upset if you push me on it, OR I’m looking for a way to allow myself to blame you later if we get in trouble or I don’t like it”.
Some of the standards for that involve (if I’m remembering this correctly)* multiplying the potential for harm by the severity of that harm, and weighing that against the severity of the measures required to avoid it.
I might ask Thomas, or my dad. I wonder how the law deals with the fact that crimes affect different people differently (eg it’s going to be much worse for the victim whose car is stolen if the car is their last asset in the world, than if they’re Donald Trump). This may be applicable to boundary violations, although I write with great hesitance about rape affecting different people differently, for obvious reasons.
@Xakudo — As for what these faux-no people deserve, I think they deserve to have their no’s taken 100% seriously. Every time. They would hate that, and no one gets violated. Plus it would probably be hilarious.
I seem to agree with this instinctively. But ….
@Infra — I can see good intentions behind these positions. But that doesn’t stop me from also seeing them as being borderline encouragement for the quarantine, humiliation and marginalization of individuals on the basis of how their sexuality works, so that others don’t have to suffer the consequences of their existence.
Okay, that’s interesting. When you put it that way, it seems like some of the tactics that anti-BDSM feminists use to attack S&Mers, for example. Which I obviously think is messed up.
The reason S&M is okay is that it’s consensual — and specifically, that many of us talk about and care about consent, and create frameworks for it. But it’s not clear that the frameworks are necessary for S&M to be consensual. They just increase the likelihood that it will be.
I’ve thought about this principle before, but never written about it because it’s a scary line to walk as a feminist. I think of it as the “maximizing consent” principle — all we can do, philosophically, is maximize consent, not ensure it 100%. There are also ways we can maximize the perception of consent, which is important for legal or PR purposes (e.g. Kink.com’s practice of including videotaped interviews with models after their porn shoots, where the models talk about their experience and how they felt about it). But that’s a slightly different issue. But a lot of the time methods of maximizing the perception of consent (e.g., explicit Master/slave contracts) are also methods of maximizing actual consent (because the contract can’t just be shown to other people, it also gives the participants a space in which to clearly discuss and define their desires).
Again, I tend to think of people who want to be able to say no when they mean yes as closeted S&Mers who need to learn how to use safewords. But maybe some of them just like headgames, or whatever. Are there alternative frameworks for maximizing consent in that case? If so, what are they?
Infra:
Fair enough. These people need to be educated about how to get their kinks satisfied responsibly, they do not need to be quarantined.
But it reminds me of something a female tattoo artist I know said once. Apparently, for whatever reason, she has had a lot of kinky people come into her shop wanting to use her tattooing as a sexual service. Often she would not find out that was their intention until she was already tattooing them.
While I sympathize with these people trying to get their kinks met, they are not going about it in an appropriate/responsible way, and they are involving/affecting other people involuntarily. And I do not think it is entirely wrong to shame these people a bit for that inappropriate behavior. Not for their kink, but for the inappropriate behavior. I feel similarly about these faux-no people.
But, even so, you are right. More sympathy + problem solving, less shaming. It is generally a good rule to follow.
Motley:
Yeah, that is interesting. It is very similar to a (half) joke between me and a male friend of mine. If you make a pass at a woman, and she rejects you, then you are an asshole. If a woman makes a pass at you, and you reject her, then… you are an asshole.
@Clarisse:
Maybe this will answer that, or maybe it won’t. I haven’t been able to get my thoughts on this to a more concrete point, so this is an initial sketch. Though not one that hasn’t been on my mind for quite a while.
That having been said:
Over the years, I’ve come to conclude that it’s about neither BDSM nor head games, though I wouldn’t rule those things out in specific cases. Instead, I think that it’s about what I’ve seen referred to as embodied consent, something that could be considered as being distinct from, but not necessarily exclusive of, verbal consent.* (In my view, enthusiastic participation/consent is a subset of this; “my ‘no’ meant ‘yes’” relies upon a broader view of the same principle.)
It isn’t a matter of mind-reading, but one of reading context, body language and state, and certain aspects of language, such as prosody; it’s sexual negotiation with an emphasis placed upon pragmatics as a semiotic element. And that poses a significant problem for most of the frameworks that aim to maximize consent, I think, because they seem to rely upon, and aim for, semantic clarity. But an approach that emphasizes pragmatics — one that involves pragmatic competence as an element of sexual interaction — would require ambiguity for its existence.
So the problem we’d be faced with is the possibility that sending and resolving mixed messages is a perfectly valid form of communication, and not a failure to communicate properly — and that “my ‘no’ meant ‘yes’” is an expression in this particular communicative form. Accordingly, its risks would lay within the general domain of being able to properly craft, properly identify, and properly resolve those messages, something that (IMO) is more likely than not to be a matter of experience and skill.
If it isn’t a failure to communicate properly, though, then frameworks that focus upon clear communication are unlikely to have much positive impact: they would misidentify as a problem the fact that it’s in a different, if related, domain. What would be needed, instead, is the ability to intentionally and knowingly create an illusion, and effectively communicate the fact that it is an illusion, while not compromising its effect as an illusion in the process. That would be required for the facilitation of an interaction focused upon the demonstration of pragmatic competence, going back to the requirement of ambiguity noted above.
But that would require, in effect, training in deception — sexuality as stage magic, as it were — along with the ability to recognize and enjoy being deceived. And if I recall correctly, that’s one of the things for which seduction is roundly and nigh universally condemned.
Which is to say that the frameworks are probably already there. But they’re disavowed, for ethical reasons, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
—
* I think that there’s also an issue of taboo and transgression involved, each of which only makes sense in relation to the other. But there, we’re getting into Bataille’s territory, which is a subject far too involved to broach here. I’ll just say that I think that this is why it can seem to be similar to BDSM, even though it’s a different dynamic, and also that Bataille’s views on discourse would be relevant to the following points.
I’m not a lawyer but… what Motley was talking about isn’t a part of negligence as such, it’s a risk assessment method, part of risk management more broadly. However negligence often relies on deviating from established professional or workplace procedures, and so not properly performing a risk assessment could leave you vulnerable to negligence claims.
AB,
Even assuming your theory about fluid female power-hierarchies are correct, that wouldn’t change anything about the necessity to react to the “challenge”. Either she learns to be attracted to something else, or he needs to find a way to perform what she likes if the relationship is to be saved.
I can see the “logic” bit, but the pregnancy bit does sound (to me) exactly like something feminists would quote to explain why women are more careful, have to be more careful about casual sex despite all the advances in reproductive self-determination.
Also – what Tamen said – I’d only call a test a “shit test” if it seems designed to test for dominance by implicitly asking to ignore what has been explicitly said – they boyfriend example I gave wasn’t as good as the one about wanting to be pushed against a wall and be kissed after mentioning having to be careful as a “girl out on her own…”.
Xakudo,
I suppose that depends on why you are “failing” them. If you’re “failing” because that’s simply not you and you don’t want to be that way, than that’s all fair and well. But if you’re failing because you’ve been told that what you’d need to do to pass that test is immoral, then that’s an unfair double bind.
Clarisse,
I wonder if it could be when there’s no real alternative offered? Certainly outside of purely ethical discussions I believe that aligning self-interest with what’s appropriate is preferable to telling someone they need to behaive individually irrational for the greater good. I believe that’s the core of many of the problems guys have with feminist behavioural prescriptions.
Terminology can be tricky though – what does Patriarchy actually mean? I believe that most reasonable people agree that we live in a social reality certain features of which are “patriarchical”, but I certainly don’t agree with radical feminist “matrix”-interpretations of the term (which would, eg, rid women of their agency). I don’t think you agree with those either…
Also – totally looking forward to reading that article. He’s someone I’d really like to talk to about a couple of things, too. All the marketing stuff aside, he seems like an intelligent person (latin school and all). And reading his book did show me that change is possible, and in my position at that point that was already *quite* something.
Thing is – remember the Conley research, remember your position on the impossibility to disentangle emotional from physical pleasure, remember the value attribution thing, and remember when those situtations are going to arise – this is typically a *first* sexual encounter problem, not one encountered the second or third time people have sex, or even in a relationship (although, of course, they can be, but in that case I’d suppose the underlying reason is different).
So given that, I’m not sure whether the subjectively experienced value women are missing out on by playing with their pleasure compared to the subjectively experienced value men are missing out on by not trying to get around that LMR prior to a first sexual encounter will always be equivalent. I’m pretty sure it can be, given the right circumstances, but, in general, if the subjective value women experienced in that situation would be equivalent to the subjective value experienced by men in those situations, then I’d suppose that saying no would not have worked a long time ago – it would not have gotten the women laid, and that strategy would have died at some point. But it didn’t.
So I – and this obviously only relevant in cases of token resistance, not real nos – that a token-no does indeed help to extract additional pleasure/value from the interaction (likely by attempting to make him invest more, say emotionally or physically). It seems like a final “toll station” used to balance the perceived values of male and female sexuality (in the social reality we’re in).
So guys saying “ok, no problem” must in fact either believe (against everything they’ve ever learnt) or convingly pretend to believe that their touch is actually equally valuable (at this point, presumably prior to the transformation of an interaction of a man and a woman into an interaction of two people who are in a bilateral monopoly (unique) to each other).
Finding a hot way to get *that* done will go a lot further than just dealing with LMR, in my opinion.
I’m thinking of making a list of non-misogynist (or at least as non-misogynist as possible) PUA resources. Suggested titles/authors welcome ….
@Sam — So guys saying “ok, no problem” must in fact either believe (against everything they’ve ever learnt) or convingly pretend to believe that their touch is actually equally valuable (at this point, presumably prior to the transformation of an interaction of a man and a woman into an interaction of two people who are in a bilateral monopoly (unique) to each other).
Finding a hot way to get *that* done will go a lot further than just dealing with LMR, in my opinion.
I dunno if it’s that hard. I mean, PUAs do takeaways, right?
@Infra — interesting. I’ll have to think about that more ….
Also our old friend DanceDreaming has a pro-PUA comment here:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/14/dc-meets-americas-no-1-pick-up-artist/
Also this person has interesting observations about negs that I’m not sure I agree with:
http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/the-gift-of-fear-by-gavin-de-becker/
oh also –
@Sam — I can see the “logic” bit, but the pregnancy bit does sound (to me) exactly like something feminists would quote to explain why women are more careful, have to be more careful about casual sex despite all the advances in reproductive self-determination.
The pregnancy reasons are accurate, but it’s ridiculous that they’re the only reasons presented. Apparently, women don’t fear unplanned pregnancy because of the significant health risks, the considerable professional costs, the major emotional risks (agonizing choice over abortion, issues with keeping the child and taking care of it, etc), or the social stigma (which, while not as bad as it was in the 50s, still exists). No, we fear it because we will no longer be hot enough to keep a guy’s attention. Because being hot is (and should be) our main priority, of course. And also women with children are total hags, not that it’s those poor women’s fault. [/sarcasm]
Clarisse,
yeah, you’re right, sloppy reading. I just read “costs of pregnancy” and mentally replaced it with a paragraph like you just wrote – you’re right. The author actually only expclicitly mentions the potential visual consequences of a pregnancy.
Clarisse,
and takeaways are “hot”? Maybe I don’t understand the concept of “takeaway”, but you said above –
so my intuiition is that you don’t really consider takeaways/freeze-outs as a particularly “hot” way of saying “my sexuality is equally valuable, you’re going to regret this just as much.”
Clarisse:
I actually think some of what she says is spot on. Though I really tire of the “rapists do this, so if you do it too then you are following in their evil footsteps” insinuations. Rapists go grocery shopping, and drink in bars with friends, and strategically go to places/events to meet women. OMG! I must be doing evil things!
In any case, the extent to which I agree with her is the extent to which I think negs do not actually have a clear definition. Negging means different things to different people, and some variations of negging are absolutely, IMO, problematic. Or at least jerkish.
My own formulation of negging is effectively a synonym for “teasing”. Poking fun some at someone in a friendly way, like you would your guy friends or family members. And if you end up making her uncomfortable or triggering an insecurity, then you are doing it wrong. The intent is to have fun, and to keep the interaction casual and more equal; show that you do not view her as a helpless, delicate flower that if you breath on her wrong she will break; show her that you are comfortable with her.
But that is certainly not everyone’s formulation.
And as for PUA resources, I apparently haven’t dug as deeply into that community as other’s seem to have, but two resources I liked were
http://blog.authenticmanprogram.com (different approach, male and female advice)
and
http://approachanxiety.com (although it varies with respect to quality)
Clarisse said:
Rapists wear socks, too.
I agree with Xakudo’s exasperation about how feminists associate certain social behaviors with predators. It seems like a predatory context is just the first place where they’ve heard a certain behavior explained, so those feminists get a negative emotional association with that behavior… even if, out in the wider world, everyone and their dog does the same thing.
It’s just another case of nerdy introverts thinking that extraverted power-oriented behavior is eeeevil. No it’s not; it’s just another social culture (hence the “culture shock” that nerdy introverts get when they encounter it).
To me, it’s unsurprising that various forms of rapists, predators, and con men have effective social skills. Yet they don’t own those skills.
Xakudo wrote:
I have to agree with this. As much as the neg is referenced, I’m not sure that there’s any agreement about what it actually is, neg qua neg. But people understand what insults are, and at least some part of how they work; and they understand what teasing is, and at least some part of how it works. So the neg ends up defined as being somewhere within that spectrum.
Having used them from time to time, though, I can’t say that I agree.
Personally, I think that the original “neutral comment” explanation was close to accurate. But I’d extend that to say that, IME, a neg is the intentional production of an awkward moment — combined, when properly done, with staying calm about having produced it. Which in itself is just an extension of staying calm if and when you make a gaff in the normal course of things, as everyone eventually does. It’s the artificial production of the unavoidable.
It’s for that reason (again, IME) that proper calibration seems to be absolutely crucial when it comes to negs, and that they can’t and shouldn’t be employed as a general technique. They’re primarily about saying, before any heavy or challenging flirting starts, “I’m going to make mistakes. If you can deal with that, let’s continue,” and a lot of the time it isn’t necessary to make that explicit. If it looks like the expectations are high and there hasn’t been any genuine one-to-one engagement yet — everything has remained suggestive but superficial — then they can be useful; but if they’re more casual, then a neg is overkill, if not downright crude, and if the interaction hasn’t even gotten off of the ground, then it’s just presumptuous. The timing and circumstances need to be precise, and in that way, as odd as it might seem to be to draw this parallel, the neg is a lot like a first kiss.
The idea is similar to “show that you do not view her as a helpless, delicate flower that if you breathe on her wrong she will break,” but from a very different direction. That’s my take on it, anyway.
(For what I mean by “heavy or challenging flirting,” see the two interactions in this clip, especially the one starting at 5:05.)
Still, there’s the awkward… and then there’s the unsettling, the unnerving, the disturbing, the amusing, and the strange. The differences can be subtle, and I think that that’s one of the reasons why there are variant definitions of the neg.
@Tamen
I’ve thought of something similar, namely that a lot of PUA terminology (though I’m admittedly not terribly familiar with that subject) seems to revolve around not acting desperate, and yet, when it comes to potentially violating a woman’s boundaries, or worse, accidentally rape her, men are advised to push forward in a manner I’ve mostly experienced with really insecure and desperate guys (and jerks).
I personally think it’s extremely sexy when a guy can demonstrate his interest while still seeming comfortable not having it reciprocated. Though I am admittedly not all women, the guys who’ve succeeded giving me that impression have pretty consistently been considered attractive by their surroundings, especially the female part of them.
@Clarisse
I get why you shot down commentaries in the creep thread, but did you have to do it right before I had a chance posting a 2 page response to AlezNovy? ;-)
Clarisse,
and, of course – even though I’ve only seen youtube clips of him – Zan Perrion, who also offers a Workshop for women. http://www.zanperrion.com
AB,
sure, and I agree (as mentioned above) that a number of PUA concepts seem to be at odds with the idea of “being the price”.
But, again, this comes essentially down to two things for a guy – one, believing or credibly pretending that his sexuality is equally valuable, which is really the opposite of what guys learn all their lives (and is possibly, to some extent, even biologically incorrect), and two, (and this goes likely hand in hand with the subjective value perception) choice, that is, to use a quote from Madonne, to have, and to believe to have, “the power of good-bye”.
Definitely not easy. Actually, definitely very hard.
AB,
“I personally think it’s extremely sexy when a guy can demonstrate his interest while still seeming comfortable not having it reciprocated.”
you do realize the slightly oxymoronic nature of that statement – “now that I see how you take my shooting you down, that actually makes you extremely sexy”…
@Sam
That depends on what your perspective is. I agree that from the perspective of a PUA, it’s irrelevant, because the PUA community was founded with one main purpose, to give guys access to a as many, and as attractive, women as possible. Many of them say so directly, by telling that the only reason they act, or avoid acting, a certain way is because it gets them laid, and that it is unreasonable to expect them to act according to any other motivation.
Right now, PUAs are throwing a lot of shit women’s way. To them, it’s irrelevant, unless women can prove that throwing shit is detrimental to their chances of getting laid. But for those of us having shit thrown at us, whether or not it’s justified is pretty damn relevant. I’m not part of any scene, I rarely frequent most places where PUAs practice their trade, I haven’t chosen to join any community, and yet, I’m the one who has to live in a world where my ‘no’ wont always be respected, and I’m the one who doesn’t have a choice about it.
PUAs and Rules Girls are like both sexually conservative and sex-positive people. They live in their own little world where only their goals matter. Someone from the religious right generally wont care about the shame and insecurity following inadequate sexual education, as long as they succeed in forbidding people to talk about sex.
And someone who identifies strongly as sex-positive generally wont mind prude-shaming, or women getting discriminated because of their appearance and having trouble in any area not related to sex, as long as the women working in the sex-industry are accepted (sorry Clarisse, just my personal experience). Exceptions exist, but they’re foolish to count on.
I don’t expect anything more from the PUA community. They’ve at least mostly been honest in saying that they don’t give a shit about the welfare of women, unless said welfare can get them laid. But considering how many complaints I’ve had to listen to in regards to feminism, without once resorting to “And so what if it hurts guys, as long as it gives women the edge necessary to achieve equality, it’s irrelevant”, I think it’s only fair that we can discuss whether these, imo, rather serious accusations against women are an uncomfortable truth, or simply a mislabelling of a more basic communication issue.
@Sam
Not really.
1: Perhaps I didn’t make it clear, but I was talking about seeming to be comfortable with being rejected, not actually finding guys I reject sexy because they took it well. Some guys have an air about them where you get the feeling they would handle rejection well. This indicates all sorts of good things about them and their character, as well as being very relaxing (one of the biggest turn-offs I know is being afraid of what’s going to happen if you say no, which, ironically, is more likely to cause me to ultimately reject a guy).
2: Sexual attraction and sexual advances are not something which is decided once and never chances. Guys who can go on with their lives after being rejected are more attractive, so I’m more likely to become attracted to them in the future. I realise there’s probably some nasty PUA stereotype about fickle women inspired by something like this, but right now, I’m done caring.
3: Saying no is not always a rejection. I often use it, or similar words, when I need a break or when I’m unsure. Guys continuing in spite of it often manage to make me go along, but only for a while, after which I reject them. Guys who immediately respect it are the types I want to see again. And just as before, there might be a PUA stereotype about that too, and maybe I’m a bitch for using words like ‘no’ when I just want him to stop for a while, not necessarily forever, but I don’t think it’s a halfway as unreasonable as “just ignore it the first couple of times she says no”.
AB,
and how would a guy exude “being comfortable with rejection?” without being actually rejected first – I can only think of the signals I mentioned above: visible choice among women, having the “power of good-bye” himself, demonstrating that he’s a scarce resource himself.
Totally understandable.
I’m a bit surprised that you seem to assume continuing contact after rejecting the guy. That, I’d say, seems to imply you’re talking about interactions within a social circle that will ensure the continued contact and make it easier to continue on a certain level of familiarity. I wouldn’t think you’d be very likely to see someone whom you shot down in a bar again later to tell him how attracted you are now that you’ve seen his being relaxed about you turning his advances down.
Again, if you are in the position that these guys are still interested in you at that point, cool. In my case, being turned down (which, admittedly, luckily happens rarely in the stages of the interaction I am good at, flirting – I’m not good at all at initiating kissing or physical intimacy, so I usually don’t do that, leaving the women confused if they don’t take the initiative themselves) certainly wouldn’t make me more interested in her, to the contrary.
As for this -
seriously?
As for the rest of comment #38, I’m really not sure what your point is. People here *are* having that discussion, in my opinion. We *are* already talking about the questions you seem to raise.
I’m the one who has to live in a world where my ‘no’ wont always be respected, and I’m the one who doesn’t have a choice about it.
3: Saying no is not always a rejection. I often use it, or similar words, when I need a break or when I’m unsure.
These aren’t mutually exclusive. I’ve done this too. If I say “no”, that doesn’t always mean “it will never happen”, sometimes it just means “I’m tired/sick/depressed/drunk/whatever and now is a bad time”, or it means “I want to get to know you better”. I usually specify fuller shadings of meaning, but sometimes it’s obvious from context, or sometimes it’s just not a good time to give a fuller answer. What “no” DOES mean is that the person should STOP in that moment. (unless we have a safeword)
So what AB’s trying to get across isn’t that she sends mixed signals, which it doesn’t sound like she does — it’s that she sets boundaries and wants them to be respected.
As for rejecting a guy and expecting to see him later, maybe I didn’t parse what she said the same way you did. I mean, I was out at a party on Saturday and saw a partner I’ve hooked up with before. He tried to get me to have sex and I cut it off after a little making out because I just was not at all into it. That doesn’t mean I never want to have sex with him again. And the fact that he didn’t push was important. If he had, I wouldn’t be willing to see him again.
I forget sometimes what I’ve said here, what I’ve said elsewhere, and what I’ve written in Confessions so far. To clarify my take on the earlier neg link (#25), I agree that different PUAs have different ideas of what the neg is; what I’m not sure about is the case that writer makes, where she claims that only misogynists defend the neg. I think it’s just that non-misogynists use it differently. Here’s a section from my Confessions draft:
At the same time, PUAs want to avoid “supplication” — basically, acting too needy or desperate or eager to win a target’s good opinion. Supplication includes doing stuff like buying a girl’s drink so she’ll talk to the PUA, or offering her too many compliments — a PUA never wants to start from a position where the target feels like she can take him and his attention for granted.
Hand in hand with this (decent) advice comes the idea that women are constantly throwing “shit tests” at men, which is sketchier. Supposedly, women are always giving men a hard time just to see how they’ll react. By saying things like “Are you a player?” or “What are you taking at school?”, for example, women supposedly aren’t seeking an answer (or reassurance), but are supposedly testing to see if he’ll supplicate. PUAs usually encourage each other to either ignore shit tests, or respond with something hilarious and unexpected.
The concept of shit tests gets unnerving when some PUAs label any pushback or questions as shit tests. While this can make for fun flirting, it’s weird when a PUA won’t answer or respect anything I say (example: “What do you do for a living?” “I clone humans”). I don’t know about you, but I usually ask people what they do for a living when I’m, uh, curious about what they do for a living. And that’s a fun example. A much more important example is that when I say “I don’t want to have sex with you,” I’m not testing; I’m trying to set a real boundary. (Seriously, “I don’t want to have sex with you” is cited as a shit test that should be ignored. No, seriously, many PUAs claim this.)
Related are “compliance tests”: the claim here is that women are always trying to get as much compliance (or supplication) out of a man as possible, and will lose all respect for him if he actually fulfills her requests. (Example: “Could you hold my drink while I get something from my purse?”) Many PUAs claim that the answer is to ignore or refuse the compliance test. In contrast, a PUA may offer a compliance test to gauge her interest (“Give me your hands, I’ll show you a magic trick” — if she does it, then she’s comfortable with some contact; if she doesn’t, more verbal game is necessary). In short, compliance tests are viewed as entitled and demanding when women do them, but as tactical and flirtatious when PUAs do them.
Perhaps the most widely-discussed and controversial PUA idea is the “neg” tactic, where the PUA subtly insults the target or gives her a backhanded compliment. Like many terms, its deeper meanings and usage vary from PUA to PUA — but it’s an especially dramatic continuum with “neg”. Some PUAs just see them as friendly teasing, a way of establishing rapport without supplicating. An example I found online: when talking to a sunburned girl, one PUA reports saying “I just wanted to tell you … your face is the cutest … shade of pink at this whole party.” (I think this one’s hilarious. It would totally work on me. If I were sunburned, that is, and hadn’t already read it on the Internet.)
Some see negs more strategically, as a way of passing the target’s tests or breaching her indifference (her bitch shield, if you will) — which they argue is necessary for targets who are very high-status, very beautiful, etc. Neil Strauss, a famous PUA and author of the bestseller The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, once wrote that
When you give a woman who’s often hit on a generic compliment, she will usually either ignore the remark or assume you’re saying it because you want to sleep with her.
When you tease her and show her that you’re unaffected by her beauty and demonstrate that you’re out of her league — and THEN let her work to win you over and ultimately REWARD her with your approval, she will leave that night feeling good about herself. Like something special happened and she connected with somebody who appreciates her for who she REALLY is.
In short, a neg will buy you the credibility you need to sincerely compliment her later.
That said, I don’t necessarily advocate negs; they are in many ways a temporary patch to stick onto your personality while you learn to possess real confidence and strength of character. XX
Manipulative? Sure. I’m not convinced it’s harmful, though. My one concern about it goes back to the “fake” thing — personally, I often react positively to guys who are blunt and seem unconcerned about offending me, because it makes me feel like they’re honest. So it’s a little scary to think of someone turning that around and using it as a tactic to seem honest, as Strauss implies, even if that person’s intentions are overall good.
But that’s a mild concern compared to how some PUAs use negs: they cite the neg specifically as a tactic to reduce the target’s self-esteem. The goal, in this case, is to say things that really hurt her — make her feel bad about herself so that she’s easier to take advantage of. Question them about it, and they’ll respond with something along the lines of “Those bitches need to be taken down a peg.” What’s especially alarming is that this can be a way of testing for poor boundaries and low self-esteem: if this girl lets me get away with saying crap that genuinely hurts her, what else will she let me get away with that she doesn’t like?
And as PUA tactics get ethically murkier, it’s more and more useful for unethical PUAs to select targets with poor boundaries and low self-esteem. Nowhere is this more obvious than when PUAs discuss Last Minute Resistance (LMR).
Clarisse,
need to run, more later, but briefly -
Probably not – that’s why I tried to explain what kind of rejection I was talking about (meeting someone new, rejection with a clear “no” or the time-tested “I *really* need to use the restroom now”, not a “look, I’m not in the mood right now, but DO come back in half an hour”). If people are already familiar with each other, then things are very likely different.
Clarisse,
As an aside, I was a little startled by that line. I’m probably not anyone’s idea of a sexual conservative, but I can’t actually imagine making out with somebody and not wanting to have sex with them. That seems really alien to me. I don’t know if it’s a subculture thing, a guy/girl difference, a me/you difference, or what. But it’s… weird, I guess, and interesting.
Seems like the sort of thing that’s designed to keep the local criminal-law attorneys employed…
I haven’t read enough of the relevant materials, so I’m curious: Does PUA “target-scoring” factor in the higher social value of partners with positive self-esteem? Or do they operate on the assumption that all partners are (all other things being equal) equally valuable, so go for the least risky?
Sam,
Out of curiosity, to what extent are you confident that that’s a coincidence? That connection sort of jumped out at me.
Xakudo,
I have more than a mild suspicion that women tell the same “joke,” only with the genders switched and “bitch” instead of “asshole”…
Motley,
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Is being good at approaching and flirting correlated to not getting rejected often? I’d say yes, sure. Or are you asking whether my not usually escalating as far as I could (occasionally should) is a consequence of feared rejection? If you’re asking the latter, I’d say it’s more of an inability that is more a consequence of being afraid to move without positive knowledge, that’s linked to my previouly explained psycho-sexual situation and, accordingly, also linked to a certain relative inexperience.
Clarisse,
Here’s an example from an interaction with a girl (saunagirl) I’ve been flirting with on and off for two years now. At some point in early 2009 we attend a concert with friends and for some reason I don’t remember she says, “I’ll never have sex with you, or, well, maybe if you’re the last man on the planet.” Then she takes my hand and we stroll through the festival fair for two hours. Then she mentioned in passing how she would never make the first move, to which I only replied “too bad, I don’t usually do that either…”.
So far her prediction was right, but I think the example shows that “I’m not having sex with you” can also mean something that’s not “I’m not having sex with you”. In combination with all of her behaviour (and I really do like her, she’s a good friend, just so that’s clear) that statement in that context very likely *was* a test to see how I’d react.
The “hold my drink” example is silly, of course. I think all of these examples are basically designed to explain to guys how to not be doormats, maybe exaggeration is a necessary didactic tool? I don’t know. As for compliance tests, I think their main focus is non-verbally gauging consent to further escalation, as far as I’ve understood. I think that’s something conceptually different from power-games in early flirting, although I agree that it can look similarly.
Sure. But for me that kind of defeats the purpose – if the idea is not to be learn how to be able to approach and flirt with someone you would like to get to know, but to find the easiest target by insulting ten other women first, then that guy may just as well ask for sex directly, don’t you think? If that’s the purpose, then signalling it will work on, say, 1/25 women, and it’s a lot quicker and less painful than insulting women. As someone said above, predators eat, too, but not all people who eat are predators, in fact, not a lot of them are (see also Thomas latest posts on ymy).
Clarisse:
That is not necessarily implied by what you wrote. Compliance tests are viewed as noncompliance tests when women do them (e.g. the woman is testing for your confidence/lack of supplication, or at the very least not complying will supposedly increase your attractiveness), but compliance tests are viewed as straight-forward compliance tests when PUAs do them.
But I agree that a lot of PUAs view many of these actions as entitled. And in some cases (asking you to buy her drinks, for example, or really any other case where it would not be normal/acceptable were the genders reversed) I agree. But in a lot of cases (e.g. your holding-her-drink example) it clearly is not entitlement. Or, at least, not in the bad sense of the word.
My immediate reaction to this is similar to Motley’s, though on further thought a lot of my reaction stems from prior bad experiences. When you date someone that seems to delight in turning you on and then denying you, even after you tell them you do not like it, you can develop some weird complexes.
(Thankfully, after subsequent positive experiences with more stable, predictable, respectful women, I have been able to regain my enjoyment of making out even if it does not necessarily lead anywhere.)
In any case, I can imagine cases where I do not really feel like making out and cutting it off, yeah. Though, like Motley, if I did want to be making out, I find it difficult to imagine being opposed to sex. At least, presuming I trusted the person, and presuming it was appropriate to the situation.
But in a lot of cases (e.g. your holding-her-drink example) it clearly is not entitlement. Or, at least, not in the bad sense of the word.
More later, but: Google Roissy’s post on that exact request. The major point of his post is that asking a dude to hold a drink is all about entitlement on a woman’s part. The post has over a hundred comments, as usual, and most of them agree with him, as usual. You could argue that not *all* PUAs agree with that reading. But a non-negligible percentage clearly do.
Actually, it occurs to me that the “hold my drink” example could be a bit on the entitled side if you are both sitting at a table, or some similar situation where there is a convenient place to put the drink. In that case, I would probably say, “Sure,” take the drink, and then really obviously put in on the table right in front of her. :-P
Although, admittedly, I would not be doing that as a pickup technique.
Xakudo,
but handing you a bottle or a glass could also be an IOI, no? I’ve only met American and Canadian women overtly worrying about someone putting something into their drinks while they’re going to the bathroom, but I remember the first time this happened (on a backpacking trip) and her giving me her glass of wine when going to the loo (saying: “make sure no one puts something in”) was a sign of trust in my book (and my inability to kiss her while lying on the beach later that night really had nothing to do with holding a bottle or not…).
That said, again, I think the main reason of all this is demonstrating that one is not easily being taken advantage of. Personally, I’m a kind person and I usually don’t mind making small detours to, say, pick people up and take people home. But most people are apparently not able to accept small favours without drawing conclusions about someone being a pushover. I remember one instance a couple of years ago when I was at studying abroad and didn’t attend a party because I was sick one night. Late that night a friend calls because a bunch of people had missed the last chance to go home and I was the only one who could still drive. So I went and picked them up, sick though I was. Sure they appreciated it, but guess what a girl wrote on my birthday card a little later – “don’t be so nice.”
It’s impossible to extricate oneself from those games when most people seem to play them, whether they actually want to play them or als feel they cannot avoid them. The possibility of moral hazard leads to adverse selection. And in a setup where being perceived as a pushover is one of the worst things that can happen to a guy, that adverse process is likely to be more intense than in most other situations.
I’ll still hold the bottle, most of the time, except in cases like the one you mention.
@Motley
Not exactly. Nice Guys are unsuccessful with women and blame women for it. Women don’t like that and answer back, enraging a lot of men in the process and getting called bitches and feminazis for it. Women who perform ‘shit-tests’ are extremely popular with men, probably more than all other women combined (hence why that behaviour is assumed as standard for the types of women PUAs are interested in), and they (the men who make the choice of hitting on women who perform shit-tests) blame women for it.
Both situations are alike, in that we have men having low thoughts about the women they want to have sex with because of a certain alleged behaviours (making shit-tests or wanting to date assholes). But they’re not ‘reverse’, they’re just variations of the same theme, men wanting to fuck women that they don’t actually like or respect, and feeling entitled to slander the entire female sex because of it.
Nice Guys and players/PUAs/jerks have always been two sides to the same coin, this is just a more obvious case.
@Sam
He can also just avoid being clingy. Also, you go by the presumption that the standard encounter must per definition being a guy in a bar looking for sex. It could also be a private party where people will see each other several times during the evening, or a case of two people being acquainted and interacting with each other over the course of months, or years, such as in the case of work, shared hobbies, dog-walking in the same park, mutual friends, etc.
Yes, because it is quite common for people to meet somewhere that isn’t a bar. Considering how much flak I’ve caught for focussing on sex and thereby presuming that men aren’t interested in romance and long-term relationships, I can’t really win, can I?
Presume that guys are hanging around in bars and hitting on women solely based on their appearance, and I’m insulting all the nice sensitive guys who just want a long-term relationship with a girl they’re really comfortable with, but presume that plenty of guys are just looking to hook up with girls in their surroundings whom they know and like, and suddenly my example is not valid.
That’s why I’m not looking for guys like you, I’m looking for guys who like me. Guys who wont cut all ties just because I wont fuck them, but who like me enough for my own sake to see sex as a bonus to, not the sole purpose of, our interactions. If I was just interested in sex, I’d go to swinger-club or put an add on the web instead.
Yes, seriously. You remind me of my first (and so far only, since it explains everything) theory about how the old stereotype of women being emotional/illogical and men being rational came to be. Most likely, some man (probably a Greek) concluded that since he didn’t understand women, it must mean that women didn’t make sense, and since women didn’t understand him, it must be because they were not smart enough for it, and his fellow men agreed and imposed that view on the rest of the world.
Your definition of ‘no’ seems to be: “I have spent lifetimes exploring my emotional life, to the point where I can say with 100% certainty that I do not, and never will, have any sort of relationship with you, ever”, whereas mine is the much simpler: “I don’t feel OK with what’s happening now, please stop”. And yet, you’re acting like I’m the one sending mixed signals or not understanding the obvious.
Actually, I don’t think anyone has discussed relationships since I wrote about it in post 372. Right now we’re mostly discussing definitions of shit-tests.
And sorry for being grumpy everyone, but I’ve been on suicide-watch for a friend since Thursday, and having women accused of dishonesty and caveman-thinking based on the opinions of PUAs, of all people, is just a bit too much right now.
AB,
I reckon we’re mostly talking past each other based on attributing different things to the same words, based on our respective experiences.
Now I don’t see how that’s mutually exclusive. I also don’t see what it has to do with the chances of seeing someone you turned down again and him still being equally interested in you. Also, possible additional cause of misunderstanding, I tend to assume “rejection” means “I’m not interested in interacting with you.” (which is the standard case in the setting I assumed) and you seem to assume a meaning of “I like to keep interacting with you, but I don’t want to have sex (right now).”
You’re right about my assumptions about the setting in this case, and I’ve tried to make them as explicit as possible above. You’re also right that the setting I assumed is not the only one – just the one I usually associate with “no” and “rejection” (however justifiedly, as in the case of my friend rejecting those four guys in a bar last Saturday night, see comment above).
Funny. Because it’s usually me who is explaining that to women who don’t think women and men can be friends ;). Again, though, if I’d be rejected before being friends (say, in a bar) I doubt that rejection would increase the chances of me liking the person.
As for the Greeks, I think the most likely reason they didn’t see women as full equals was that free older Greeks married women when they were very young and unexperienced, hence – even disregarding cultural aspects that made them responsible for the oikos (economics, household, private) while the guys were responsible for the polis (politics, public) – they were likely not intellectually on par in most cases. I suppose that’s how that idea got socially ingrained.
By the way, speaking of the Greeks in this context, as I’ve sais elsewhere -
If you read Foucault’s history of sexuality, I think it becomes apparent that, from a meta perspective, the existence of a seduction community can in itself be seen as feminist. The ancient Greek philosophers had elaborate pickup concepts, but only for pickup up of *free* men. Moreover, true eros *required* that freedom, consent (after the “pickup” process) was a necessary ingredient of the erotic. I would actually go as far as saying that this rational devotion to freemdom as a requirement of eros (coupled with the strange social inability to conceptualize women as equals, which may have been a consequence of age-disparate marriage patterns and differences in education) was a key ingredient of the socialized homo-erotic pattern in ancient Greece. It wasn’t just tolerated, it was the *essence* of the erotic, not because the philosophers preferred men, but because they had rightly understood that freedom (aka consent) is required for true eros, required to give the desire a transcendence of its own.
As for differences in approach to logic, I tend to think that there is a slight yet occasionally noticeable gender difference along the lines you outlined, not sure why, though.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend and wish you and him/her all the best.
AB, I understand you’re grumpy, but I think this for example:
That’s why I’m not looking for guys like you, I’m looking for guys who like me.
… was unwonted. Especially against Sam :P who of all the guys who have ever commented on this thread, is LEAST likely to do the stereotypical “I don’t like her but I’ll fuck her” thing.
Sam,
I suspect we do.
It isn’t, but you seemed to assume the whole subject was exclusively about picking up women in bars, and that my suggestion was therefore invalid.
I see. I tend to assume a rejection is just rejecting something, not necessarily rejecting all interaction with someone. There are people who go to bars just to have fun and meet people, not necessarily just for getting sex (though some of those people, like me, tend to stay away because we figure we’re not welcome). I wouldn’t consider it impossible that a guy would not have sex as his first priority, but would prefer to talk, flirt, or make out with a girl he found likeable and interesting, rather than eschewing her company in the hopes of finding sex.
Granted, while almost every guy I’ve talked to about these things have been quick to explain that guys are not always interested in sex as their main priority, they have also always assumed sex to be the main priority for both themselves and others in every concrete or hypothetical interaction with a girl, so perhaps the guy mainly looking to meet interesting people, and having sex as secondary, is only hypothetical.
I think women mainly think this because they’ve been told/showed (frequently by guys) that the man will want sex with the woman.
As for rejection, that’s a hard one. I’m not interested in one-night stands (nothing moral, I just have trouble enough enjoying it with a known partner, the thought of getting horny on command is wishful thinking for me), which leads to about two thirds of all guys thinking I should immediately reject every single strange guy hitting on me, instead of ‘giving them false hope’ and having them ‘waste’ their time flirting without getting sex. And about two thirds of them think it would be insulting to reject guys out of hand, and to assume every one of them were only after sex.
So I know that no matter what I do, the majority of guys will disapprove of it, and some of them will be downright hateful, from the Nice Guys who think everyone is entitled to an extensive interview as to come ‘under consideration’ as a potential romantic partner, to the PUA-types who think every second with me that doesn’t lead up to their penis in my vagina is a waste of time.
So I avoid clubs and bars altogether unless my friends invite me, and stay with them as long as I’m there, because I’ve listened enough to guys to know that I’m polluting the place with my very presence. Perhaps when I’ve grown old and fat enough for guys to lose interest in me, I’ll start to go out more, but then again, considering how guys treat old and fat women, that’s not likely.´
Luckily, I have both a boyfriend and enough male friends as it is, who managed to like me before I ever had to reject them, so I can flirt (with the single ones) or not flirt as I want, without fearing male disapproval for being sexually unavailable :)
I mainly mentioned that the hypothetical man was probably Greek because it seems many of our most misogynistic assumptions stem from that civilisation. My main point is that there seem to be a discrepancy in the way we judge communication failures/disagreements between men and women. In this case, even though my statements were perfectly logical, you seemed quick to assume inconsistency and mixed signals on my part.
The difference is that PUAs do not seek true eros and do not require basic freedom. There is no moral aspect in what they do. At it’s core, the seduction community is simply about teaching men how to get what they want sexually/romantically from women, and how much freedom is afforded to women is entirely up to the individual PUA.
If we lived in a society where women had as little freedom as in ancient Greece, the equivalent of the seduction community would be more likely to be guys exchanging rape strategies over the internet than guys fighting for female empowerment, since rape would be a quicker and more obvious way to get laid.
Notice that many of the qualities a good deal of PUAs ascribe to the women they want to pick up are extremely negative, and yet the attitude is often “You might think she’s the scum of the earth, but we assume you still want to score with her, so here’s a guide to how”. That’s no more true eros or basic freedom than deer hunting is.
Of course, individual PUAs have different morals, but the ones who treat women with fondness and respect often explicitly avoid certain PUA tactics, whereas the ones who dislike women tend to use every trick in the book.
I’m not sure what you mean, a difference in who’s the most logical, a difference between who’s assumed to be acting logically, or a difference in how the sex perceive logic? The lines I outlined were along the middle example, but I suspect you might be referring to the former?
Thank you, we’ve been to the doctor who’s given him a part-time sick leave and some sleeping pills, so I reckon he’ll be alright.
AB:
I’ve used PUA techniques to get a girlfriend and to keep her. I’m not much interested in your simplistic and one-sided “critiques” of PUA’s as I had already read some feminist “critiques” of it before I started doing it. It’s a toolchest, a useful one, and what I do with it determines what kind of person I am and nothing else. It must piss you off that it works, but really, that is not my problem, that is yours.
Clarisse:
You have some haters, and at least one “armchair” psychoanalyst:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/03/22/another-sexually-emotionally-defective-feminist/#comments
@Clarisse
Point taken, I should have used more moderate wording. My apologies.
AB:
My sympathies. I was effectively on suicide watch for 3+ months last year with a friend of mine who refused to talk to anyone except me, so I can relate. An extremely stressful situation to be in, indeed. I hope things get better.
@Clarence
You seem to not have read the actual posts, much less understood who agrees with you and who doesn’t. I said: “At it’s core, the seduction community is simply about teaching men how to get what they want sexually/romantically from women, and how much freedom is afforded to women is entirely up to the individual PUA.
Of course, individual PUAs have different morals, but the ones who treat women with fondness and respect often explicitly avoid certain PUA tactics, whereas the ones who dislike women tend to use every trick in the book.”
This is pretty much exactly the same you say. They’re tools. Some PUAs use them to get girlfriends that they love, some use them to get sex from women who want the same thing, some use them to commit rape, and almost al of them don’t give a shit about how it affects women they’re not sleeping with.
Correct. And as I once said to my dad at the tender age of 11: “There’s a difference between having a problem and being a problem”. PUAs who say stuff like “Ignore it the first couple of times she says no” are the problem, but women like Clarisse and me who want our rejections to be respected are obviously the ones who have the problem.
Yes, AB, you have a problem.
The problem is you want a perfect world, and you intend to use the coercive power of the state to try to make it so while decrying individual men for working on a script they’ve been largely taught by women.
You will be taken seriously to the extent that you and Clarisse deal with the fact that many women do not follow your scripts, scripts that seem to be confined to a distinct minority of women.
That is not my fault, and I’m less inclined to care about how much of a problem it is for you when you attempt to blame it on a mostly non -existent and insulting (to a whole sex) “rape culture” meme.
If you want to know more about what I feel about such a concept you can read here:
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/03/philadelphia-sanctions-vigilante.html
And here:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2011/02/28/an-open-thread-from-picon/
I’m rather sick of being “thrown under the bus” because there’s “more important” battles being waged. Men in my cohort (45 and younger) have had to deal with that our whole lives. Clarisse at least responds with empathy and tries to understand some MRA and PUA concerns, you have mostly dealt out snark since you’ve came here.
AB:
When I am looking for a dating relationship I am generally looking for both things (mental/emotional connection, and sex/physical affection). Neither are a “bonus”. Both are requirements. So if I get the impression that sex is off the table, one of the two requirements disappears, and I am much less likely to stay in contact.
And I say this as someone who has many female friends, including ones that I consider attractive and would date if I sensed that they were interested (at least, if I were not taken at the moment).
But basically what is going on (for me, at least) is this: I already have my “just friends” needs met. Whereas–when single–I do not have my “more than friends” needs met. So if I meet someone, I am unlikely to make an effort to stay in contact unless:
1. They have something particularly cool or interest-perking to offer in terms of friendship (shared interests that are not common, for example, or uncommonly similar backgrounds/life-outlooks). This goes regardless of their gender.
2. They are a woman, and they want to date me, and I want to date them.
It is also the case that if I am attracted to someone, it makes friendship with them more emotionally complex (even if only on my side), so the value of the friendship has to be that much greater to offset the cost of the emotional complexity.
Also, if I express interest in someone and they reject me, it makes friendship awkward for me after that point, and that takes work to overcome. So unless I already know them well, the effort involved in getting over the awkwardness is unlikely to be worth it to me.
And finally, for whatever reason, women are simply less likely to meet point #1 above, especially in terms of “uncommon” shared interests. There may indeed be some sexist distorted perceptions happening on my end that contribute to this, but that does not account for the full extent of it.
I guess, in the end, this does not make things any different for you/women. Even if every guy were like me in these respects, I think you would still have the same complaint, and it would not be entirely invalid. But compound that with the fact that there are also some guys out there that actually do only fuck women and rarely befriend them… and it makes things even worse.
But I guess the point I am trying to make is that not all guys that behave this way are doing so out of any “women are pieces of meat” assholishness.
AB,
No it wouldn’t. I doubt a lot of guys would actively fight for women’s rights, but that’s a different matter from understanding the logical structure of “seduction”. In that society, as exemplified by the Greek example, the *seduction community* would likely be *gay* (and thus be a lot smaller), because, again, the very notion of a successful seduction requires “submission” from a subject, an equal with agency. Consent is *the essence* not the antithesis of seduction.
Let me repeat that, because it’s important: Consent is *the essence* not the antithesis of seduction.
That is not changed by certain questionable techniques and certain questionable characters who very likely don’t understand the concept of seduction.
To further elaborate on my stance on the seduction community:
I don’t begrudge PUAs their techniques in themselves, but I think it is extremely problematic how “but it gets me laid/but it doesn’t get me laid” are used as moral standpoints within the community.
People should be entitled to judge what PUAs say about women, or do to women, on its own moral basis. If technique is questionable (like the “don’t respect a no”), then it’s questionable, no matter whether or not it can be successfully employed to get sex. And its moral legitimacy should be judged on that. And if a statement about women is potentially problematic and/or offensive (shit-tests, only wanting alpha males), then the statement should be treated accordingly.
The history of psychology (as well as medicine, political science, physics, history, economics, etc.) is filled with discredited theories that have still been highly effective in their time. Though there’s little doubt today (among actual psychologists) that Freud was wrong about a lot of things, his work is still highly valuable and he undoubtedly helped a lot of people.
So if the seduction community comes up with a theory about women which only applies to 3 out of 10 of them, but is seen as a revelation by guys who use the technique suggested by the theory to go from being able to score with less than 1 out of 10 women to be successful with 3 out of 10……
It’s still wrong.
If the technique works on 7 out of 10 women, but, with at least 2 of them, for a different reason than the theory suggests……
It’s still wrong.
If it works on 7 out of 10 women for the reasons predicted by the theory, but only because the PUAs in question went after specific women found on specific locations and employed screening techniques to weed out the least susceptible ones……
It’s still wrong.
If it works on 7 out of 10 of all women for the right reasons, but end up harming them in the process……
It’s still wrong (albeit for a different reason).
If it works on 7 out of 10 of all women for the right reasons, but end up harming the remaining 3 if used on them……
It’s still wrong.
And if it works on 7 out of 10 of all women for the right reasons, and doesn’t leave anyone worse off in the process……
It’s still potentially problematic if presented as universal, rather than generalisation from which a significant amount of women deviate.
So when discussing PUA techniques outside the seduction community (having this sort of discussion inside of it would be good too, but I don’t have high hopes), certain questions are bound to come up. Does this theory apply to women in general or just the sub-set of interest to PUAs? Is this technique useful for a different reason than the theory suggests? Is this technique harmful? Is it beneficial to the PUA in the short term, but damaging to them, or society at whole, in the long term?
And these discussions need to happen in an environment where “But it worked for me!” is not given priority. Because it’s not about what works for PUAs, it is how the rest of us, are affected by it. Are the PUA theories valid knowledge which we should incorporate into our lives, or a bunch of pop evo-psych which we should debunk? Should we embrace the seduction community as a salvation for insecure young men, or learn its techniques merely so we can deflect them?
And again, whether or not PUAs have benefited from incorporating them into their lives is irrelevant, they obviously wouldn’t do it if they didn’t find any benefits. Plenty of wrong perceptions can be helpful to the people holding them (though often not for the rest of the world), and plenty of wrong actions can still lead to the desired results, theft to get money, rape to get sex, murder to get rid of a rival, etc.
So in short, I don’t have a problem with the general seduction community per se, but I do have a problem with its frequent inability to stray from the script of “I get sex/girlfriends from it” when talking about the effect it has on outsiders. No matter how much these things are said to me, it doesn’t change the fact that I may have to interact with guys who’ve read all sorts of stuff about women on PUA websites, whether I want to or not, and I think that gives me and others the right to at least discuss how we’re going to deal with that without PUAs begrudging us for it.
I have listened to plenty of guys tell about how important sex is to them, but the PUAs still chose to make the seduction community, they chose to publish their theories, they chose to advise others to follow them, and they have a responsibility for the validity of their statements and for how their actions affect others.
Eschewing that responsibility is bad enough. Insisting to fill up every conversation, even outside their own message boards, with snide remarks about how “I’m getting laid, you’re just a hater who doesn’t understand anything, I have a girlfriend now, you’re just jealous, why should I care as long as I get what I want?, it works for me, it fulfils my goals” is worse. And I don’t think we’ll get any constructive discussions about the seduction community until we stop having them on the terms of people who think the end, their end, justifies the means.
AB:
Wait, what?
Maybe we just have wildly different definitions of “flirting”, but to me flirting is something that is done to express interest.
I sympathize with your first paragraph that I quoted above, insofar as the guys refuse to just have a normal non-flirty conversation. In that case, indeed, your only two options are to flirt or reject. Personally, I think rejection is the appropriate course of action, presuming you are not interested. But I do see the double-bind.
But outside of that, I am really baffled that your idea of male friends seems to be guys with whom you can choose to flirt with or not as you see fit. Unless I am misreading you? But if I am not misreading you, then to me that is really disrespectful, and really makes me start to wonder if you yourself are not playing a part in your difficulty in making male friends. If a friend of mine regularly (and knowingly) flirted with me and it was not an indication of interest, I would tell her to cut it the fuck out.
I am also really baffled about your apparent frustration with finding male friends when, by your own admission, you already have several. How many male friends are you looking to accumulate? And do you expect to be able to flirt with all of them (that are single) as you see fit?
Okay, maybe I am grossly misreading what you have written. And if so, I apologize. But if I am not, then… really? It seems like what you want is a free pass to flirt whenever you want, with whomever you want (if they are single) and for guys to magically know that it does not mean anything (except when it does), and to just accept the flirting even if they only want it on the condition that it means something.
Wow! I intend to use the coercive power of the state to try to make the perfect world decrying individual men….? no, I can’t go on, this is just too stupid. I have never mentioned the state, or any laws. Nor have I mentioned any ‘rape-culture’. That is, as I understand it, a concept mainly used by American feminists, of which I am decidedly not one.
You seem to belong to the group of American anti-feminists, many of which, in my experience, are so convinced that feminists see themselves the sole as victims of male aggression, and therefore demand endless sympathy and understanding regardless of how much shit they spew out about others, that you have become convinced that you are now the sole victims of feminist aggression, and therefore demand to endless sympathy and understanding regardless of how much shit you spew out about others.
As I’ve said before, if I can go in as a foreigner, without any deep understanding of American feminism, and without using American feminist theories or buzz-words (like rape culture), and still be labelled a woman’s studies major belonging to specific branches of feminism, with specific goals and opinions that I have never expressed myself (like using the coercive power of the state), then something is wrong with the way you deal with gender in your culture.
Sorry mate, but those accusations are just waaaaaay to specific to not come from a background at least as dogmatic as you accuse feminism of being.
Oh sweet, haters. Just what I needed as I finish typing up my Neil Strauss interview. Well, he seemed to like me. I wonder if that gets me cred with them, but probably not.
I really appreciate your efforts to defend me on that thread, Clarence, especially given our recent disagreements. I try to do it myself on behalf of reviled writers I respect, and I know it can be really hard.
I’ll probably x-post this to that thread:
One thing I think is interesting is how different groups have deployed the “incoherent” accusation against my work. People who disagreed with me when I was writing about masculinity told me my stuff was “incoherent”. People who didn’t like the boundaries post that the haters are going on about have also criticized it as “incoherent”. One of my friends made me watch Glenn Beck the other night, and then sat around afterwards and talked about how incoherent it was.
I’ve thought about this a few times and my working theory is this: When people can’t see the pattern or understand the experience behind something, they call it “incoherent”. This isn’t to say that nothing is incoherent, but I’m pretty sure that for a non-negligible percentage of stuff that’s labeled “incoherent”, the viewer simply doesn’t have the experience required to parse it (and rejects the idea that such experience might be valid). This is why two of my most successful articles (the creep article, and the setting boundaries article) are called incoherent by totally different groups, and Glenn Beck, one of the most famous talk show hosts in the country but one with an audience primarily of non-urban conservatives, is called incoherent by urban liberals.
AB,
first of all, I believe you’re totally wrong about the originality of PUA concepts. It’s mostly a remix of scienctific and other information with a specific focus. Second of all, you’re trivializing the harm of “not getting laid” compared to other potential causes of harm. That’s not a very helpful when you want to make the people suffering from *that* see your point.
Third of all, as I said above when Clarisse, after citing research that a lot of people routinely say “no” in whichever words when they actually mean yes, stated -
- effectity *IS* an important element. The only correct practical implementation of the categorical imperative is no one doing anything, because all actions have unintended consequences and are thus questionable from a standpoint of a general rule. In other words, if we’re not going to kill ourselves, we’re going to keep hurting each other while trying to find an equilibrium – a practical implementation that people can lie with. And in this context *living with* implies that any solution to any ethical question needs not only be ethically acceptable, but also effective. If your answer and assumption is that using PUA techniques is morally wrong but will get guys laid, you’ll get a classic adverse selection: those who listen to you will stop being effective at getting laid, the others will.
Effectiveness, in this case, is a moral category, because if both ethics and effectiveness are necessary conditions, and only effectiveness can be satisfied, then effectiveness will win, hands down.
If your position were right, then, again, we should go and rejoin our respective teams. But I don’t believe it is. I very much believe that those dimensions can be integrated.
I’m here because I’m trying to do that, I’m here to talk about my perspective with people who have different perspectives, but it’s really necessary to accept their position as not a priori invalid or immoral, because in that case there really doesn’t need to be a discussion.
Xakudo,
I’m not sure of your context, or what exactly you mean by “flirting” or “interest,” but as far as I’m aware, it’s not exactly uncommon in our culture to flirt just for fun, rather than purely as the first step in a particular process.
This might be exclusive to older, married people (I don’t know how old you are, or if you’re married) but it’s something I’ve noticed a lot. Married women flirt with me all the time (usually more after they notice I’m married, rather than less) and they’re basically never doing it with the intention of it going anywhere. It’s a fairly culturally-accepted activity, as far as I’m aware.
Clarisse,
For what it’s worth, I think I can see what they’re saying. (also for what it’s worth, this is not a criticism)
Your posts aren’t essays. You don’t always have a pre-planned beginning, middle, and end–you’re not always making a “point,” so to speak. If it’s incoherent to just say “this is what I’m thinking, this is where I’m at, and this is what I’m wondering about,” then yeah. But so what?
Since you’re usually fairly explicit about it, I’m somewhat confused by the notion of “incoherent” being a criticism.
Weird.
Xakudo:
That’s fair enough. But it does depend largely on what you perceive to be the main purpose of interacting. When I’m at a party, I like talking to people. Sometimes we’ll flirt or take things even further, but I also like just talking to people. If I talk to an interesting guy who’s also attractive, and it becomes obvious that he’s not likely to want to hook up with me, I might not give him the same full attention as if things were about to sexual, but I’d still want to continue talking with him.
To me, flirting is fun in itself, and sometimes more arousing than actually being with a guy. I know many people feel the same way, but it seems that many people don’t welcome it, particularly not in women. It’s strange that we live in a society where we feel the need to constantly state how women shouldn’t be marginalised for wanting casual sex, even S&M sex, and yet women who like casual flirting are more or less told to keep their filthy perversions away from innocent men :)
Directly declaring “I’m not going to have sex with you” can have rather negative consequences. And it takes courage. I know some men say they’ve experienced negative consequences for not hitting on a girl, but usually, if you’re the one who wants to initiate and you lack the courage to do it, nothing happens. When someone initiates with you, and you lack the courage to reject them, something will happen and you will be held responsible for it. It might be better than never having people show interest in you, but it’s still not easy.
When I say that “I can flirt or not flirt as I want, without fearing male disapproval for being sexually unavailable”, it’s meant to be taken more along the lines of a woman moving from a sexually regressive society to a sexually liberated one saying that “I can have sex or not have sex as a want, without fearing being labelled as a slut”. It’s not an indication that the flirt/sex is forced, just that regular social norms (which have nothing to do with consent) are not in effect.
That’s funny, last New Year’s Eve a friend of mine told me how much he appreciated our 4 years of on/off flirting (I have permission from my boyfriend, long story), and how much he felt he could relax with me. He also has a lot of casual sex though, so he can go to bars and flirt without feeling like he lets anyone down by not being able to perform sexually with them, which I envy. Thinking about, he’s the guy who’s gotten me the most sexually aroused in years, despite that I’m not that attracted to him, and I think it’s because of his specific ability to make me feel like sex is optional.
I don’t have a problem finding male friends per se, though I sometimes feel there’s a certain filter you have to penetrate to get there. When I was younger, I sometimes deliberately flirted with guys I liked because, in my experience, many of them would categorise guys as potential friends and girls as potential lovers, so in order to get into the friend-category, I had to keep them interested long enough for them to realise that they liked my company. Not the most honest strategy (though still better than what was employed against me by miles), and not terribly healthy either, but it sadly wasn’t without merit.
Today, I’m mostly frustrated when men appear to use the same categories as the guys from my teenage years. I don’t mind the sexual judging, but to me, meeting a guy for the first time makes me go: Potential sexual interest first, human second. Not that their humanity is secondary, but more that sexual attraction is the first thing that registers, but if it’s not there, the guy just goes into the same (gender-neutral) category I put female acquaintances in. But with a good deal of guys, it seems to go: Potential sexual interest first, nothing second, when meeting women. Even if my ‘friend’ quota is met, that still bothers me.
@Motley — I’m probably not anyone’s idea of a sexual conservative, but I can’t actually imagine making out with somebody and not wanting to have sex with them.
Really? You’ve never started the sexual process “cold”, with the assumption that they would turn you on to the point where you would enjoy it?
In this particular case, I felt more obligated than I usually do for reasons I don’t want to get into here, and the guy kind of played on my feelings of obligation (to be clear, I don’t think he did this on purpose), and I’ve hooked up with him before and it was pretty fun, so I was like, well, ok. But actually I was mildly sick and very tired, and was dealing with a lot of confusing thoughts from the Strauss interview, so I wasn’t easy to turn on, and when I realized that I was doing it more out of obligation than attraction or expectation of enjoyment, I stopped and went home to bed.
(Which was not easy, by the way, but he specifically made an effort to not make me feel bad about it once he realized I really wasn’t into it, which is the reason I think he wasn’t aware of how he played on my feelings of obligation earlier.)
Does PUA “target-scoring” factor in the higher social value of partners with positive self-esteem? Or do they operate on the assumption that all partners are (all other things being equal) equally valuable, so go for the least risky?
Interesting. All I’ve seen is that they usually score women’s self-esteem by their hotness. A 10 is expected to have more self-esteem (and therefore be able to take more negs, for example) than a 7. Occasionally someone will write about how very hot girls sometimes have low self-esteem, but I haven’t seen a lot of that. Maybe the more experienced PUA theorists on this thread have more to say about that.
I have more than a mild suspicion that women tell the same “joke,” only with the genders switched and “bitch” instead of “asshole”…
Yeah, sometimes it’s a joke and sometimes it’s a serious conversation about how we’ve been inculcated with fears about rejecting men too obviously, because if you reject a man too clearly he might get angry, and you really don’t ever want a rejected dude who’s angry at you but sexually attracted on the same planet. In case we’ve all forgotten, the girl Gunwitch shot in the face was someone he had thoroughly groped, who rejected him, left the room, and was shot when she walked back in.
@Sam — Sure. But for me that kind of defeats the purpose – if the idea is not to be learn how to be able to approach and flirt with someone you would like to get to know, but to find the easiest target by insulting ten other women first, then that guy may just as well ask for sex directly, don’t you think? If that’s the purpose, then signalling it will work on, say, 1/25 women, and it’s a lot quicker and less painful than insulting women.
Depends on the demographic, right? I’d guess that the misogynists who promote aggressive LMR tactics and nasty negs probably aren’t the same guys who run in more promiscuous circles, and so the 1/25 chance you cite is a lot lower for them. Because more promiscuous circles tend to be liberal, social-justice-y, more feminist-leaning circles.
@AB — Women who perform ‘shit-tests’ are extremely popular with men, probably more than all other women combined (hence why that behaviour is assumed as standard for the types of women PUAs are interested in),
This is a theory I’ve been toying with myself for a while. (Note the anecdote earlier in the thread of the guy whose female friend made an online dating profile that she specifically wanted to be snide and filled with baggage, and that profile was hugely successful.) I’d be curious to hear more about how you arrived at it, though.
I think women mainly think this because they’ve been told/showed (frequently by guys) that the man will want sex with the woman.
Co-sign. If left to myself, I would still be convinced men and women can be friends just fine. Now, due to years and years of having people (especially guys) tell me that men are never friends with women if they don’t want to have sex with them, I’m a lot more cagey and distrustful. It sucks, especially since we also get so many messages that make us fear men getting angry or disliking us. Here are some example binds:
* If we flirt without much intention of follow-through, we’re slutty cocktease bitches.
* If we try not to flirt, we’re cold bitches.
* If we reject a guy before he makes sexual intentions crystal clear, we’re presumptuous bitches.
* If we don’t reject a guy clearly enough, we’re leading-on bitches.
* If we believe a guy who claims he just wants to be friends, we’re being stupid and playing into his game, because guys don’t really want that.
* If we don’t believe a guy who claims he just wants to be friends, we’re presumptuous bitches.
etc.
There is no moral aspect in what they do. At it’s core, the seduction community is simply about teaching men how to get what they want sexually/romantically from women, and how much freedom is afforded to women is entirely up to the individual PUA.
I completely agree with this. I’m pretty sure I’ve made this exact point before, haven’t I? Maybe I’ve only made it over email with pickup artists. Either way, I’m surprised at the amount of pushback on this thread. It seems like an obvious and established point to me: most PUAs don’t care about ethics, and the ones who do are often policed by their community. There is a minority of PUAs who do care about ethics, but they are frequently very careful not to be too overt about it when talking to other PUAs, because they sometimes get so virulently attacked for it.
I’m actually really curious about what the reaction of PUA groups to my Strauss interview will be, given that he says things like “men are the dominant group” and “we live in a patriarchal culture” and that men who hate feminism are probably afraid of powerful women (he didn’t actually say “we live in patriarchy”, sorry, that was a mild misquote). I wonder if he’ll get policed as hard as a lower-status PUA would.
@Clarence — I’m surprised by #61 … I also feel like you’re ascribing things to AB that she hasn’t said.
You will be taken seriously to the extent that you and Clarisse deal with the fact that many women do not follow your scripts, scripts that seem to be confined to a distinct minority of women.
Can you give examples of scripts most women follow that we don’t? AB isn’t S&M, so it’s not the same level of explicit communication. As I noted upthread, studies have shown that while there is a minority of women (AND MEN) who routinely say no when they mean yes, that’s a minority. (15%)
Here’s another working theory of mine: women who are more likely to give “shit tests” (which, again, is a concept I am very suspicious of, but let’s take it as a given FOR NOW) are probably also more likely to be in the minority of women who say no when they mean yes. If women who give shit tests are also seen as more attractive, and PUAs are only interested in the most attractive women, then it follows that PUAs are interacting with women who say no when they mean yes much more than 15% of the time. But it doesn’t follow that women who say no when they mean yes aren’t a minority.
As a side note, I continue to feel really represented by a lot of what AB says, so I’m still surprised that people seem to put us in such different categories. I guess I’m more diplomatic about it, but if anyone can pin down what’s different about our communication styles, I’m interested. (Not that I’m sure my communication style is better. I seem to be good at having coffee with PUAs and walking away with them thinking I’m totally fascinating, and me either cracking up or on the edge of a migraine, and them having no clue how much effort the conversation was for me, which might be a good thing, but also might not.)
Like, here’s something else I totally co-sign from AB:
Today, I’m mostly frustrated when men appear to use the same categories as the guys from my teenage years. I don’t mind the sexual judging, but to me, meeting a guy for the first time makes me go: Potential sexual interest first, human second. Not that their humanity is secondary, but more that sexual attraction is the first thing that registers, but if it’s not there, the guy just goes into the same (gender-neutral) category I put female acquaintances in. But with a good deal of guys, it seems to go: Potential sexual interest first, nothing second, when meeting women. Even if my ‘friend’ quota is met, that still bothers me.
And I thought #64 was an especially rational breakdown of this stuff, and mirrors my own thoughts pretty much exactly. It also echoes some stuff I’ve read from HughRistik, I think.
@Motley — Since you’re usually fairly explicit about it, I’m somewhat confused by the notion of “incoherent” being a criticism.
Yeah, that gets me sometimes too, especially for posts where I’ve explicitly stated that I’m not sure how to write about it.
The reaction to the setting-boundaries piece was funny. Some feminists told me that I was failing to acknowledge my past as an abused victim. Some non-feminists told me that I had failed to set boundaries and everything that happened was my fault. Whereas a much larger group of people left comments saying that it was massively reflective of their experience, and my favorite sexual partner sent me an email saying, “That post made me want to give you a hug.” This last group, I think, understood what the point was.
Sam,
The seduction community consists of many people. There are certainly enough of them suggesting tactics which amount to little more than bullying, and enough women reporting bad experiences with PUAs, for it to be unfair to not count them in when talking about the seduction community as a whole.
The consistent assertion made here that men shouldn’t be expected to ignore their bad experiences with feminism or statements from individual feminists when judging the movement as a whole goes both ways. You can’t just say that the bad elements in the seduction community don’t count, because none of them understand what seduction is really about.
And secondly, the concepts of freedom and consent have different defintions. PUAs might be interacting with women on a (theoretically) equal basis, but they’re not interacting with women on a similar basis. Many people don’t feel there can be complete freedom (and thereby consent) unless there is a certain degree of equality, and many people feel that “equal but different” doesn’t quite cut it. And I’m not sure I disagree.
Free men of a similar background and a similar status is a lot different from people who’re born significantly physically different, come from different backgrounds, and are operating under completely different conditions. I don’t know enough about ancient Greece to know if they identified men born under certain circumstances or with certain physical characteristics as belonging to a fundamentally different group of people, for whom fundamentally different assumptions could be made, but I doubt it.
AB,
“You can’t just say that the bad elements in the seduction community don’t count, because none of them understand what seduction is really about.”
They don’t count for the point I was making: That the existence of the seduction community is meta-feminist. And if modern feminists can largely ignore the radical, militant, history of their predecessors when defining their feminism, then I don’t see why people identifying as PUAs should not be allowed to do the same?
If you don’t believe in female agency, then what’s the point of debating for you?
They don’t count for the point I was making: That the existence of the seduction community is meta-feminist. And if modern feminists can largely ignore the radical, militant, history of their predecessors when defining their feminism, then I don’t see why people identifying as PUAs should not be allowed to do the same?
I agree that the SC is in many ways meta-feminist. I also think that it will be more useful to people trying to work out ethical game to recognize where the current community is fucked up, not less. There are feminists who point out areas where the current community is fucked up, too.
Clarisse,
right, I agree. But that, in turn, requires general acceptance of the idea that most men would like to have more rather than less sex with women they find attractive and that’s not opposed to women’s interests as such. Or if it is, to the degree that it is, that the male perspective is equally important as the female, when balancing the interests. Somehow AB’s aggressive style seems to give me the feeling that being sexually drawn to women is somehow inherently misogynist, so given my personal history of sexual shaming that may have triggered my being more defensive than usual.
@Sam
Only if you assume that by the word ‘seduction’, we’re talking exclusively about what went on consensually between free men in ancient Greece. But ‘seduce’ just means “to persuade or induce to have sexual intercourse”, “to win over; attract; entice”, to use the most sexual definitions. It doesn’t say anything about freedom or equality.
We use the concept of seduction for many things, not just what went on Greece, and there is a long history of it taking place under unequal conditions. I could find you several old folk songs about lower class men seducing maidens above their social station, or Christians rejecting trolls or witches trying to seduce them.
Seduction, according to modern use of the word, is, as I mentioned, “to persuade or induce to have sexual intercourse”. The seduction community is dedicated to that, or rather, to teach men to do it with women. That’s it really. You’re right that seduction loses a lot of its purpose if the person being seduced has no power to consent or reject (say, forced marriage or slavery), but that’s a far cry from saying the idea of a seduction community must per definition include complete freedom.
First, there’s a difference between the past and the present. Especially since the past contained so strong inequalities that several marginalised groups felt forced to become radical (in terms of violence and militarism, I don’t think feminism has anything on certain black rights groups).
Secondly, feminists who define their feminism are often acutely aware that it differs from that of other feminists, and they frequently fight among themselves.
Third, there’s a difference between feminists not being allowed to have their discussions in peace without getting flooded with accusations that because Andrea Dworkin said something 20 years ago (which the accuser is more likely than not to have misunderstood) feminism is evil, and feminists flooding other websites with comments themselves. I don’t go into PUA websites just to leave comments about how the whole seduction community is wrong, but I do retain my right to discuss it in non-PUA spaces.
And fourth, speaking of evil, I didn’t even call the seduction community evil. I said it has the main goal of teaching men to get what they want sexually/romantically from women, and that how individual PUAs handle this depends on their individual attitude. If you want to make a comparison, I’ll say that feminism has the main goal of eliminating inequality for women, and how individual feminists handle this depends on their individual attitude.
Compared to the attitude most American men seem to have towards feminism, my categorisation of the seduction community is downright generous.
Way to put words in my mouth. Just because I believe in female agency doesn’t mean I believe it can’t be compromised or circumvented. We have rules about certain commercials here, because it is assumed that they’re able to affect people in a way so negative that the welfare of those people takes precedence over the right to advertise. We also have rules against fraud, because it is acknowledged that it is possible to cause people to make incorrect judgements.
And that’s just the stuff that’s in the actual law. People find themselves in situations where they are put under pressure or unable to make optional judgement calls all the time. Many people are raised to recognise and respond to such situations, and many are also raised to either create or avoid creating these situations for others.
There’s a far cry from saying that women have no agency to recognising that we’re not all completely free and equal (or equally free), operating outside social pressures or expectations, or with compatible needs, a clear sense of where we’re going, and a mutual understanding of the people we’re socialising with.
We have rules about certain commercials here, because it is assumed that they’re able to affect people in a way so negative that the welfare of those people takes precedence over the right to advertise.
What kind of commercials?
AB,
I’m saying that “seduction” in any meaningful definition requires consent and consent requires agency. I’m not sure what you mean by “complete freedom”, I doubt there is something like “complete freedom”, including the notion of “unconditional free will”. What is required for all practical purposes and discussions about them is agency.
If you do believe women have agency to consent to interacting and, well, sex, just as men, then we don’t disagree.
ick. I looked at the haters link again. Somehow I managed to miss the worst of it the first time around. Clarence, I’m honestly puzzled … they call me defective in my sexuality, which means they think you’re defective too, but you seem inclined to debate them anyway. Doesn’t that bother you?
@Clarisse
(Warning, long). From several directions, actually. The first is a theory I’ve got that one sex is often more prone to exhibit certain stereotypical behaviours of the other sex, because they’re not warned/blamed for them.
For instance, women can sometimes be extremely rude about hitting on men, checking them out, or talking about them sexually, because our culture only teaches us that male sexuality is predatory and women are vulnerable. This can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but sometimes, men are truly uncomfortable and women don’t notice, because it’s not in our cultural script that women can even be like this, so they don’t police themselves in that aspect.
On the other hand, I’ve noticed that men are often more openly aggravated when someone is prettier than they are. A woman going on about how some girl is just fake and stupid and wearing makeup and can’t sing etc., will often be aware at some level that she’s either jealous/bitter, or at least likely to be perceived as such. But men can be extremely mean and petty, especially if their target is sufficiently ‘feminine’ – hence why the facebook group ‘Stop Prettyboys’ (started by guys) could get as big as it got here.
So with all the talk about women falling for manipulative sociopaths/’damaged’ guys, I couldn’t help wondering if men, who’re not warned against or blamed for it to the same degree as women, wouldn’t be even more prone to doing the same :P People exhibiting certain problematic behaviours can be strangely attractive, so with men not being (as) expected to police their behaviour in that regard, they’d probably be more likely to react to the attraction.
Secondly, I noticed that I had a lot of guys courting me in my disturbed teenage years (where I didn’t always feel like I could be honest, sometimes resorted to manipulation that I wouldn’t use today, and got flattered over things that were basically boundary violations), and not just for my looks. I don’t know why, but I suspect I had a certain attitude that I was ‘fair game’ in some way. I was also in more contact with guys who used these tactics, so that also enters into it.
Finally, I think women who play ‘the game’ are more likely to be immediately attractive to men. I’ve noticed that women who aren’t overly concerned with attracting men tend to go for comfort or (non-sexual) style over sex, whereas women who’re very interested in male attention tend to do the opposite. I suspect it’s often less about looking good and more about signalling sexual availability (hence why girls with gaudy makeup, visible thongs, and fat spilling out of overly tight low-cut jeans tend to get sexual attention without looking good), but it works. And they’re also more likely to exhibit stereotypically feminine behaviours.
Since these women are often both objectively attractive (goes with caring about appearance), more available in places like bars, and signalling sexual availability with both their looks and behaviours, they naturally constitute a much larger amount of PUA targets than average. They also exhibit more confidence which is always sexy.
(On a related note, that’s is one of the areas where I think guys are unaware of their own influence, concluding that certain women are naturally confident/alphas, when in truth, these women are getting a boost from all the male attention. Attend an all-female university study-group, and they’re likely to get a completely different picture of confidence and alpha-status ;)
@Clarisse
Mostly commercials for children, but I think adds for smoking have been banned too, and there are limits to what you can say in commercials, as to not mislead the consumer. For instance, you can’t advertise health benefits that aren’t there, and there are all sorts of rules for what you can call a product and how you can market it.
You can’t have images of fruit on the package unless the product contains a certain % of actual fruit (I also have a suspicion that soft drinks wouldn’t be advertised “with a twist of lemon flavour”, if the more obvious “with a twist of lemon” had been allowed), you can’t use a place where your product isn’t produced in marketing (e.g. leading the consumer to believe your product is from a farm, not a factory), you can’t call something ‘real juice’ if it’s made from concentrated juice mixed with water, etc.
I’m sad to see such skepticism, by both Clarisse and AB, about the existence of real friendship between women and (primarily single?) men.
Of course during much of my twenties I thought what I was pursuing was friendship, with sex maybe developing from it if it did, and maybe I was not so good at recognizing sexual intention when I had it below even my own conscious recognition. But that is a very different thing from being really insincere in the pursuit of the friendship itself, which I was not.
And really a lot of my irritation with the “nice guy” feminist discourse is that it provides a sort of twisty double bind for just this case, in which friendship from a man is necessarily “guilty” before proven innocent, and in which if he is attracted he must confess it (and know it!) or be guilty of some vague crime of the discourse. Please don’t explain that this isn’t what the feminist discourse actually is meant to imply, because it ends up there, though not in every case.
And I pursued plenty of real friendships without attraction on my part. But then again, if it were clear that the “nice guy” discourse was only about cases where the men blame the women, or resent women, there would not be this pushback. One can have lots of good, solid friendships, with both/all genders, and still want sex to have a place in one’s life. But sometimes this yearning on men’s part is confused with the idea that they do not value women for nonsexual friendship. That is very much not the case.
@Sam,
.
But then again, a fight requires some degree of agency too (otherwise, it’s just a beating or a slaughter). So does a trade. I’m not saying seduction is a bad thing, I’m just not seeing it as inherently feminist, given that, just like fights, or trading, it can be both beneficial and exploitative.
@Clarisse (in response to Motley):
When it’s phrased this way, I have to say that I might be similar to Motley when it comes to this. Not in the sense that I wouldn’t make out with someone without wanting to have sex with them, specifically… but I simply can’t start cold. Doesn’t work. There has to be enough desire before even the first touch occurs or things don’t start at all. Starting cold is about as erotic as cleaning a hair clog out of a drain, and nothing changes that.
On the same lines, I can’t have sex with someone I don’t like, or even consider it. It doesn’t matter how attractive they are, etc. The erotic component has to start before any physical contact, in the earlier interactions, or it just won’t happen.
(Pardon me while I cede the floor to my inner cynic.)
I can’t say that what I’d consider as ethics, in this context, is what others would consider as ethics, because when people talk about ethical behavior, they usually have a certain concept of the good in mind. I’m not sure that mine would match.
But the main reason why I don’t discuss it with mainstream PUAs, or on public PUA blogs or forums, is that I think that those things, in the main, stopped being about pickup (and definitely about seduction, my understanding of which is evidently very different from how other people are defining it here, as I emphasize the artistic qualities of the thing) a long time ago. Now, they’re primarily a sneering pseudo-defense of a selected group of ill-defined concepts. And in that regard, I’d have to differ with what AB wrote about PUAs who don’t care about women using every trick in the book. They don’t; they just use the same 5% (or less)* over and over again, and rehash it and shout about it, which makes it look like every trick in the book, because what they say is what people hear, and what they do is what people see.
And… honestly, that places me in a position of, on the one side, arguing against people who are simply committed to justifying their own ideas — which is always a losing battle — and, on the other, attempting to discuss things with people who usually associate me with that group, because they’re the ones they know of. So I stick with individual conversations. Even engaging with threads such as these is a rare occurrence for me these days.
In the end, I’ve tried discussing things with both groups, and I just got burned out. So at this point… I’m perfectly content to work on things, individually, with those of similar mind.
As for the rest?
I’m equally content to watch while the quasi-PUA scene is razed to the ground.
—
* Based upon the amount of SC material that I’ve read, listened to and seen over the years, I consider 5% to be a generous estimate.
AB,
Well, if my definition is correct, then it is recognition of both agency and consent as prerequisites of sex. Recognizing female agency, particularly in the realm of bodily autonomy, seems to me as inherently feminist.
Btw, your comment #82 does make sense to me, by and large.
@humbition — To clarify, it’s not that I believe men and women can’t be friends. I’m just much more cagey about it, and much less likely to believe that a guy just wants to be friends with me, than I used to be. A lot of my closest friends are/have been male.
I don’t mind sexual tension in my friendships. And a non-negligible percentage of my romantic relationships have been good friends who later seduced me. But the fear is that male friends secretly resent me for not having sex with them, but aren’t telling me and are bitching behind my back or building up resentment that could end in tears. I don’t know. Maybe being nervous and cagey about it has made me better at negotiating these situation (e.g. by bluntly making it clear that I have no intention of sleeping with a given friend), but I think it’s also made me less receptive to guys who probably would have been fine with being friends.
Interestingly, I re-met a guy at a party on Saturday who took my email address. In the past I’d offered to email him some resources and he said no. Recently by email he told me he rejected that offer out of respect for his then-girlfriend. It always surprises me when I come upon behavior like that. Even when I was devoutly monogamous, I would have been pissed if my boyfriend had told me I couldn’t chat by email with other men, and confused if he told me he wasn’t chatting by email with other women at all.
Right Clarisse. I am very worried that both sides of the “nice guy” debate, if you call it that, are together ruining the nascent institution of male-female “just friends.” I always thought one of the benefits of the new post-feminist world was that one could have good friendship relations across the genders. This was something the second-wave feminists back in the day really thought would be good for men to do — that male-female relationships would not always have to have sex as the unspoken elephant.
This causes certain dilemmas but in my life has overwhelmingly been primarily a Good Thing. However it depends on people taking responsibility of a sort — the responsibility that if sex hasn’t been mentioned, it hasn’t been mentioned. The uglier sort of Nice Guy has hurt that by implying the woman should read his mind (or should just have sex because of her induced martyr complex, that is really the worst of all). The most double-bindy sort of feminist anti-Nice Guy does read the guy’s mind (whether correctly or not is actually immaterial), and then blames him for not acting on his feelings, which in my opinion should be treated as his choice whether or not it really is (existentialism helps here). (Of course she has every right to come on to him herself if she wants, but that is a choice regardless of who does it.)
Of course it isn’t always easy to discern intentions or how to act on it. In the days of patriarchy, it was just understood that intentions were sexual unless proven otherwise. This was connected with manhood, i.e., you and that pretty woman are alone together and you did nothing, what kind of man are you? I always repudiated that kind of masculinity myself, but “nice guy” and “anti nice guy” are somehow conspiring to put it back. This of course also feeds into the whole ridiculous jealousy thing as well. The whole dynamic impoverishes everyone but especially men.
[this is the first comment of mine referencing the above post, previous comments have been moved from the last manliness thread, just in case there are unclear references above]
Clarisse,
sure. Although I have to say that I never had the impression that the actual *theory* goes a lot beyond purpose of life declarations like “survive and replicate”, which is actually hard to argue with. Apart from that, I always had the impression that the process works inductively, stuff is tested “in field” and then ad-hoc explanations about why things work are made up based on the assumptions, working knowledge, and prejudices of the respective author (so not much different from actual science, just with less interest in the causal structure, and more interest in the result ;))
I wonder what exampled you specifically have in mind, and what your alternative explanations are.
Again, I have to wonder about “many”, I’d go with “some” or “few” (but then again, you seem to have come across stuff in the course of your research that I haven’t seen). In general, I’d say that there are likely differences in *degree* and perception, as your own (more positive) take on the often citicized “neg” technique.
I wonder if you could give more specifics about what techniques you’re referring to. As I’ve already asked before – you mention the “freeze out” as a technique you find problematic for dealing with “last minute resistance”, but you seem to suggest “takeaways” (if I’m not mistaken) in a reply to my statment about how it will be difficult to find “hot” ways to communicate the value of male sexuality and risk of foregoing pleasure in that situation. Again, maybe I’m not as familiar with the difference between those two concepts, but as I understand it, these are similar. So, what would a “takeaway” look like in the situation you describe?
And really, despite not being really familiar with the situation, I do find it odd to ask guys not only to respect a “no” but to also to be totally relaxed and cool about it (disregarding all possible motives for using the LMR as a way of negotiating here). I mean there’s a difference between accepting a “no” and being ok with it and being relaxed or even being “happy” about it, and I think it’s a reasonable expectation that a guy who’s looking forward to sex with a woman will not be happy about her saying “no” in the last minute. And I believe it would be strange to expect that unhappiness didn’t find a way to communicate itself. To bee too relaxed about it may, I’d say, even indicate a certain lack of emotionality about the situation *and her*.
Clarisse:
This is really interesting, and it sounds like AB would agree with you. And, also, based on AB’s anecdote about her friend it sounds like a lot of guys agree with you as well.
I guess I am just weird. I hate sexual tension in friendships, especially intentionally played-up sexual tension. At least, in friendships that are intended to just be friendships. Because for me that is no longer friendship, but some weird half-way land sexualized friendship. And I guess I just do not deal well with that ambiguity. For me it is an emotional cost that I have to pay for the friendship.
Although perhaps some of this is coming from my experiences with my radfem ex. I got a lot of weird issues from that. And I am still working through a lot of them.
I think a lot of it comes down to me not feeling safe in those sorts of interactions, like I cannot stop the interaction if I do not want it. Hence my reading of AB’s comment as her getting to decide, regardless of whether her friends want the interaction or not. I think that is largely me projecting (angrily) from my experiences with my ex.
She would particularly get pissed off if my consent was contingent on whether it was leading to sex or not. She viewed it as me “obligating” her into sex (e.g. you turned me on, now you have to have sex with me). Which was not the case at all, and even after trying to explain it to her she insisted that I was doing something wrong and unethical. Arg. For me it was simply that at a certain point, and under some circumstances, I did not enjoy it without follow through (e.g. “if this is not going anywhere, then please stop“–very different from “you have to follow through”). Which she either could not, or refused to, understand.
And the ironic thing is that the more I felt like I was not allowed to stop it, the less I enjoyed it. It was like a horrible feed back loop. And by the time I got out of the relationship, I was really messed up and basically could not enjoy being turned on just for its own sake anymore. (Thankfully I am getting over that, with someone that is not an entitled abusive asshole.)
So… yeah, perhaps my anxieties from those experiences have spilled over to my reactions to flirting. There is a sense that I am not allowed to conditionally say “no” (e.g. ‘yes’, if this has a possibility of going somewhere, otherwise, ‘no’) on pain of being called an unethical person who is trying to strategically obligate women into sex.
I have a similar reaction to those people (both men and women) as the faux-no people (both men and women). If that is their world, then let them have it. They can suffer having no male/female friends. But they should leave me out of it.
Is it really fair to call it “playing” on your feelings of obligation if he was not doing it intentionally? “Playing”, to me, insinuates intent. I would rather say accidentally triggered feelings of obligation.
I should make clear that in my above anecdote about my ex, the things I was consenting to (or not) were not just “flirting”, but were often types of physical stimulation executed in bed, such as making out, nipple play, etc.
@Xakudo:
I’d agree that the way that sexual tension has been employed by people that we’ve known can seriously alter our responses to it. One woman that I knew ended up leveraging it quite a bit: she’d play up the tension, then ask me for a favor that she knew I was not inclined to agree to, such as intervening in her relationship problems or (in one particular case) giving her transportation across several states… and then blame my refusal on the fact that the flirting didn’t end in sex.
Because, obviously, that’s the only reason that I wouldn’t have agreed to do it.
Or she would become abusive, and then attribute my attempts to defend myself to my being angry about not getting laid. The same if I refused to flirt with her later on: it couldn’t be because of how she acted. It had to be, obviously, because we’d flirted but hadn’t fucked.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. I still enjoy sexual tension and erotic charge. But as a result of those experiences, and as a result of the reputation that I got for a while after them — and, in certain circles, still have — I won’t do it with a friend as any kind of long-term thing. IME, the longer it goes on, and the more consistent it is, the higher the risk that it’ll be used as a betrayal of trust.
There might be exceptions. But so far, when it’s been healthy, it’s either been intermittent or, over the short course, gradually faded away.
Reading some of this kind of makes me want to crawl under a rock. The older I have gotten, the less flirty I have gotten. In fact, I’ve mostly become hesitant to express any romantic/sexual interest until I know someone a little bit, which obviously hasn’t made dating any easier. And seeing how fraught with confusion and contradictions this conversation, and others I have read like it, are I can see that my reserved response is just one of many to this lack of much agreement on all of this.
If I am with a woman, and she says “no” at any point, I stop. I try and see what’s going on, but I’m not going to push. Game playing like saying no and meaning yes is a complete turn off. And I find comments like AB’s “I can flirt or not flirt as I want, without fearing male disapproval for being sexually unavailable” a bit troubling. Liberation here seems to be linked with being able to as you want, without concern for how others might take it.
If a man mistakes this “play flirting” as real, it’s his damned fault. If a man misses that no means yes, it’s his damned fault for not getting that he’s being asked to be assertive, possibly aggressive.
It’s confusing, and you know, a few of you were surprised by Clarence’s anger, but I’ve felt that as well. He may have misjudged AB, but I think his response is coming from the fact that the whole dating/sex/romance thing is a complete guessing game these days. And if you’re a man who sincerely wants to live a conscious way, embodying feminist ways of being in relationships, it’s even more confusing. I have rejected the old, patriarchal ways of approaching women, but have found that most of the time, the lack of a quick leap into flirting and fast seduction on my part lands me where I am: single. In fact, the female friends I have just happened naturally. There has been some sexual tension in a few of the relationships, but not all. However, I’m finding that when I’m out dating, it’s more like a job interview than a date. If there isn’t instant chemistry (whatever that means), and/or if I don’t show enough interest, and guess right about whatever signals are being offered, it’s over. No friendship. No potential girlfriend. Nothing.
To be honest, I don’t even feel articulate writing about all of this. I find myself weighed down by the baggage of men who act like assholes, and men who are clueless about women – and also by the constantly shifting sands of what is “ok” and what isn’t. The whole consent narrative, for example, which I have supported in the past – I remember commenting just a few months ago on a Feministe post about it – gets screwed up when people play games like no means yes.
And I also, like Sam, feel like male sexual attraction is completely put into question by some statements made in this thread. I mean, if I show sexual attraction – if that happens right away with a woman and I show it before I know her as a person first – it must mean I’m a teenage-regressive pig, right?
What a rambling comment that was. I’m going under that rock now.
@Clarisse
I have a similar problem. I was told that men would inevitably fall for their female friends, and I originally took this to mean that male sexuality was flexible, and if spending enough time with a woman he liked and trusted, a man would often instinctively start to develop feelings for her.
Later, I’ve come to suspect that perhaps it’s more that these men will only be friends with a woman if they’re sexually attracted to her on some level in the first place, since that happened to me a lot. The “potential sexual interest first, nothing second”, that I mentioned. But I mainly hang out with guys in larger groups where everybody sort of goes together, and I’m not sure I’ve ever had a male friend who’ve not been physically attracted to me yet, so I can’t judge. I recently had a conversation with a guy that made me suspect he liked me without being attracted. It made me all giddy inside :)
I’ve always wondered how to reject a guy. One the first times I did it, I explained quite logically that I couldn’t know how I’d feel in the future, but right now, I didn’t have those feelings for him. I was told by a male friend that I was stupid for encouraging the guy. Then I tried just directly telling a guy that I wasn’t interested, period, but when he continued to act like we were dating, I had to drag him outside and tell him that I really meant it and he needed to stop acting familiar and bringing me gifts.
But I also heard a lot about how hard it was for guys to get rejected, and how cruel girls were, so I never found the balance. Sometimes I wondered if, from a scale from 0 to 10 (where 0 was gently showing your lack of interest through body-language, and 10 was screaming that he’s a creepy ass-hole you never want to see again), guys would perceive anything above 4 as being too harsh, and anything below 6 as not being direct enough. I suspect it changes with age, but I still don’t know whether to get flattered or panic when a guy at a bar starts flirting with me.
You’re like a female Hugo Schwyzer, even when you’re talking about your own experiences you still manage to give the impression that you’re on the side of the other sex ;) And you can’t seem to get really mad at them, even when Clarence calls rape-culture a non-existent and insulting meme, your first comment to him after that is still about how you appreciate his effort (albeit in a another context). You’re also communicating in your native language, which I suspect is an advantage.
Most of all though, I think it’s because you’re settled and I’m pushing back. You’ve found your way in life and you’re mostly exploring out of curiosity and idealism. I’m curious too, but I mostly react because I see something which I can’t accept, and I mostly explore because I’m still searching.
You’ve also gotten a great sex life, whereas I’m in the same position as a many of the guys who complain to you, in that I want sex but often can’t have it, albeit for a different reason. I also have to deal with it from three sides, having the actual problem, having people actively work towards creating a culture in which I’m unwelcome and my sexuality marginalised, and simultaneously being told that my feelings don’t have any relevance. And that’ll be reflected in my posts whether I want to or not.
In fact, I’m a lot like many of your male posters, which I think is confusing. And I have this theory that people, Americans in particular, are used to brushing off people who disagree with them in debates about gender as feminists, basically categorising everybody as non-feminist, “not like those other feminists”, and feminazi, and dismissing the latter. I don’t register as non-feminist, and I can’t (or just don’t want to) pull off the “not like those other feminists”, so even people who don’t want to categorise me as feminazi still has no other category to put me in. At least that’s my experience, but it’s probably better suited for the feminism thread.
@Xakudo;
I’ve so been there, but on the other side. Knowing that if you get aroused for its own sake, the guy will inevitably demand sex, and you’re a horrible person for not being able to give it to him. And the more you worry, the harder it will be to feel aroused, and the harder it is to feel aroused the less sexual favours you’ll be able to give to a guy.
Until you can barely feel aroused, after which you start worrying about whether something is wrong with you and if you’re ever going to get your sexual feelings back, and the more you worry about that…… Horrible feed back loop.
Sam-
I think we can agree that there is a difference between disappointment, unhappiness and reacting in an entitled and pushy manner. I don’t want to speak incorrectly for anyone else here, but when I think of a man (or woman) taking rejection well, it’s not that they are completely stoic or pretend that it doesn’t affect them, but rather that they show respect for the decision (no guilt trips, cajoling or coercion) and they don’t just take off like there’s no damn point to speaking with someone if it doesn’t end in sex. I’d add bonus points if the person could maintain an overall positive attitude and not get hell of down on themselves. It’s not about denying understandable unhappiness, it’s about having confidence in your own value enough to not let it wreck your whole night (or make you want to wreck hers.)
I also wanted to come back to this for a moment:
This is a really interesting idea and I think it goes back a lot further than pick up, straight up into personal philosophy. The effectiveness-as-end-goal idea (what Lyotard calls the “Scientific Metanarrative)is certainly useful to an extent, but I personally balk at how frequently it’s relied upon in seduction circles. The main reason I think it’s problematic is that what we’re discussing here — having sex, presumably with our desired number and “quality” of partners — isn’t such a grand goal that it allows individuals of conscience to overlook other important stuff. I mean, I know first-hand how miserable unwanted celibacy can be, but it isn’t so dire a condition that ethical concerns, concerns about how you could hurt others can be tossed aside for merely practical “can this get me what I want” thoughts.
Which leads to the first part of your statement, Sam. I disagree that ethics cannot be satisfied. Perhaps I’m coming at it from a bizarro postmodern utilitarian standpoint, but I certainly do think that there are ways for men and women to interact ethically. Not perfectly ethically but certainly in a way that reduces harm.
If we accept that there are conditions that make clear communication of consent (those 15% who say that no means yes) and there are no direct and immediate ways to fix that, the only thing left is what we do in the face of it. I think we need to look past who is responsible, in terms of blame, for that kind of circumstance and start figuring out who is response-able, as in able to control their own reaction and what the ramifications that might have.
So, if you encounter a woman who you would like to have sex with who puts up LMR, you are now in a responding position. Knowing that there are chances that she is either rejecting you outright, setting boundaries you don’t necessarily know the extent of, or testing you or playing by a busted social script, you are the one in control of how you react. And I would argue, that in the face of all these pretty complex possible meanings and the cultural shit behind them, it would be pretty negligent to just pursue what is most effective in just getting laid.
While I would never blame any individual dude for all the social baggage around such a tough and complicated interaction, once they are aware of those complications, it becomes their responsibility to act ethically. And what I’m hearing from Clarisse and AB, and I agree, is that whatever else might be going on, a no must still be understood as a no, every time, even if it’s the wrong interpretation, even if you don’t get laid. (Because, seriously, who really wants to sleep with someone who expects you to assault them?)
A lot of my rambling in the above comment can be boiled down to broken down confidence. Many women seem to want confident men, but also men who have broken through the old patriarchal, oppressive ways of relating to women. And yet, when I’ve expressed confidence in who I am, have been bold enough to clearly express attraction in respectful ways, it’s taken as being too confident. Or I’m lumped in with every sleezebag who’s looking for a one nighter. When I’m move more slowly, feeling out the situation, I’m dismissed as not interested. In fact, I have been in situations where I have received clear signals of interest from a woman, but wasn’t sure if I wanted to go in that direction, so I didn’t react. Yet, the opportunity to do something later never came because I didn’t do anything right away.
Perhaps this is coming from being a mid-30s male who has had enough experience to create a lot of hesitation and some angst. But I do sometimes feel like where we are right now in sexual revolution – at least in terms of male-female attraction situations – is that women want to be free to do as they please, and men are either acting out shitty old narratives, or spinning around in circles trying to find anything to put a foot on.
And you know, god forbid a man doesn’t have sexual/romantic interest in a woman. I’ve been labeled gay more than once on that account. Which just goes to show how much our collective sexual narratives are really in need of some deep reflection. Because when women who claim to be invested in liberation and equal opportunity for all are relying on homophobic narratives to explain away a lack of attraction, there’s something screwy.
Another thing – in response to AB’s comment about rejection – I’m not sure how old you are, but I think it’s somewhat accurate that younger men don’t handle rejection well either. However, now that I’m a bit older, I’m finding that most women won’t even offer a rejection. They just disappear. You have a nice coffee date or dinner, they say let’s talk again, and then you never hear from them again. No response to your calls or e-mails (and I’m not talking endless attempts on my part). Just gone. The times I have had someone say to me, or write to me and say they aren’t interested have been refreshing. I appreciated the clarity. Instead of sitting around for a week or two wondering (I just had a woman write back after almost three weeks of nothing, and that’s not the first time that’s happened). So, when someone says “I’m not interested,” I welcome it. Maybe it’s not what I wanted to hear, but it’s so much better than guessing. When I know I’m not interested romantically, I do the same. And if I’d be open to being friends, I offer that as well.
To me, those who play games, and defend that, add to the already confusing situation we have.
@humbition
Oh, yes. I’m always puzzled when I read in the comments section of yet another Nice Guy thread comments like “Just just ask her out for dinner already!”
Wait, can I not have dinner or a movie with a friend anymore?
(Oh, well, a Nice Guy discussion in a PUA thread. Might’ve been better placed in the other thread.)
@AB:
And, of course for guys it’s just the same as for women: People are different
Indeed, that surprised me too. Especially since I felt that was pretty close to what almost made the other thread break down in the #200s.
I’m not sure on this… but I’m coming to the conclusion that, when it comes to why things are so confusing, one of the big reasons is because desire isn’t as constant a thing as it might seem to be. But by that I don’t mean that people have different preferences, orientations and tastes. I mean that desire itself might be something that’s structured differently in different people. That, just as biological sex isn’t a strict binary — and it’s worth noting that taking that view inevitably leads to intersex individuals being “fixed,” if not worse — neither is there homogeneity in how we desire.
So what might be playing games to some might be both natural and necessary to others. Similar to what Clarisse wrote in regard to the haters, that this can seem like a game might, at least in some cases, reflect an experience that the observer is simply unable to understand.
I’m not saying that all game playing would, or could, be explained this way. But wouldn’t it be an anomaly, given how much variation there is in every other aspect of the human organism, for variation of similar kind to be absent here?
And what would that mean for an ethic?
AB:
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my case it is more along the lines of your former interpretation. Although I very much disagree that it is inevitable, as some of my female friends are simply not what I am looking for/attracted to in a potential partner/lover/whatever. But certainly some of my friends I could totally go for, and I have fallen for one or two friends in the past, including one that I did not initially find notably attractive (I say ‘notably’ because most women are attractive to a degree).
Fair enough. That actually sounds consistent with what may have been going on from her side (I can only guess at this point). I may be interpreting the weirdness in our sexual relationship too harshly due to her abusive behavior in other areas of our relationship.
I am curious, though, how your experience was in terms of your partner’s behavior.
In my case, I basically started out just confused as to why she would get me turned on, and then not want to do anything. It was not something I was equipped to understand at the time, I think. “Making out in bed” equaled “time for sex” to me at that point. It is also the case that certain things she did she knew were shortcuts to getting me really horny, because I had told her.
So she would ‘start’ things (in my thinking), and after a few minutes I would try to escalate, but she would stop me. And it confused me, and (especially due to other things going on in the relationship) felt like she was purposefully trying to frustrate me, or at the very least did not care that she was frustrating me.
So I started trying to make it clear that I did not like being turned on unless it was going to lead to sex (which was not entirely true, but it was close enough in context). And she did not take well to that.
From my perspective, she was being really entitled (e.g. “I can turn you on whenever I want, even if you do not like it!”). And, honestly, to a degree I still think that is true. She can turn herself on whenever she likes, but to do so with me in the process requires my consent, and my consent required knowledge about her intent.
And I was not being vindictive about it. I was not trying to rob her of her sexual needs. I simply genuinely disliked it when she did it, and I felt like she was completely disrespecting and disregarding that (which made me dislike it even more). As if the fact that she did enjoy it somehow trumped my dislike of it, and that she therefore did not need my permission.
I think there was also a degree to which I felt shamed for the way my sexuality worked. As if the fact that I did not enjoy it meant that I was some primitive neanderthal pig (toxic male sexuality strikes again!), instead of it just being that our sexuality worked differently, but both were valid, and this was thus something to be negotiated and worked out. So I felt defensive in that regard, too.
Whoops, messed up a blockquote tag there. Starting with “I’ve so been there” and ending with “Horrible feed back loop.”
Should have checked the preview…
Actually, to be honest, I still do not understand how someone can be turned on in a situation where sex is appropriate, and specifically be opposed to sex.
To me, a large part of being turned on is experiencing a desire for sex. Similar to how a large part of being hungry is experiencing a desire for food. In both cases that is not all they are (there are a variety of physical/mental sensations), but it is an identifying characteristic.
But having said that, there are plenty of circumstances where I can imagine rejecting sex despite being turned on. But being in bed with a person with whom I regularly have sex is not one of them (save, perhaps, if I need to get up early the next morning and thus need to sleep, or if I am really angry with them, or something like that).
And I do enjoy (now, after recovering somewhat from my previous experiences) playing with arousal etc. without it necessarily leading to sex. But I just cannot imagine being opposed to sex.
I am genuinely curious how this works for other people.
This is certainly possible, and even if it weren’t a hardwired difference in desire, wanting to play games with consent and language and whatnot is not necessarily a problem. Insofar as it doesn’t fuck with any body else, which is where the problem comes in. The folks who believe no is yes are doing an active disservice by making both individuals they meet and the culture at large think that they are numerous and normal, and that causes problems for people who emphatically mean their no and want and need strong verbal boundaries to be respected.
An analogy (apologies to Clarisse if it is off the mark or offensive): It is totally fine for a person to be a sexual sadist, to seek partners to engage in that kink with. But I doubt that anyone would argue that doing so with a partner who is completely unaware (and therefore unconsenting) would be ok. You can’t treat everyone in the world like a masochist just because it is your personal preference that they be into that. That is essentially what I see with the people who play head games: it may be their thing, and I’m not telling them how to get off, but to play games with consent without previous communication and agreement is causing real harm, and is pretty clearly unethical.
(Also, can someone help with the proper tags for line breaks? I’m trying everything I know, including “br /” html (carrots omitted), and I’m still formatting like an asshole. :/ )
Double returns work for line breaks (ie, you don’t need to signify them with HTML). I fixed some earlier comments.
Thanks, Clarisse.
Hiya,
Well, the PUA stuff I've checked out reads like badly written Sales Manuals.
One thing in Sales that is not mentioned in the PUA stuff I've seen is "qualifying a prospect." That means asking questions and listening to the replies. It is said that the best sales people are great listeners.
I've also read some of the lay reports on PUA websites and it seems like they are going for bragging rights more than anything else.
I originally read the article on the Gunwitch shooting on Femniste, it just seemed most of the commentators there wanted to shut down other viewpoints by accusing someone of "mansplaining."
Rock On!
Stoner With a Boner
My head is spinning after all that. I normally don’t even bother to read threads with more than 50 comments (unless I already started reading it and want to catch up with the latest). But it’s also spinning because the philosophy behind PUA feels so alien to me.
Here’s where I’m at:
Rejection screws me up pretty badly, so out of self-respect I’m not going to chase someone who has said they’re not interested. Maybe it’s a test, and maybe it’s not, but really? I can’t be bothered trying to find out. I’m worth more than that. And the sort of woman who is going to play games with me and test me – we are NOT going to be compatible anyway, so I’m better off if she thinks I’m not worth it, too.
The “compliance tests” stuff seemed weird to me. Why wouldn’t I be helpful, unless it’s actually going to put me out in some unacceptable way? It shows nothing about my manliness or dominance!
The other thought I’ve had as I was reading through the OP and comments, is that I’m curious what people (especially those who know PUA stuff) make of this episode.
AnneBonney,
thanks for your reply. There’s actually nothing in your reply that I disagree with, but here are some qualifiers.
I agree. But as I noted in the first of the manliness followup threads and here (http://www.realadultsex.com/content/shorter-no-sex-class-paradigm#comment-17675) and above, believing in one’s own sexual value (compared to that of the respective woman) goes pretty much against everything ever learnt by most men. We can be valuable as individuals, but the socially attributed and individually perceived value of our sexuality is lower than that of most women (and very likely the woman in position to say “no” at that point). Say what you want but there’s a reason having sex is considered an achievement for men but as “giving it up” for women. Sure that’s fucked up and as I have repeatedly said, reducing that imbalance would probably the most effective feminist strategy ever deployed, but it’s still true. Sure, as I’ve said above, she’s playing games with her pleasure, too, if she’s playing a token “no” game. But her expected utility (since you’re a utilitarian) from a purely sexual encounter is likely not equivalent to his.
I agree. But at the same time, on a purely personal level, this moral meta-logical duty discourse, like Clarisse’s statement above about it not being too much of a burden on guys, with its seeming disregard on effectiveness really reminds me of the kind of my mother’s “don’t ever push a girl” feminist shaming that is, not only, but to a non-trivial degree, responsible for delaying my psycho-sexual development to the extent where I am now some sort of chimera, a guy whose best female friend tells him that he’s unfair for talking women wet and letting them stand ther, but who’s also been involuntary celibate for more than a decade, who’s still close to unable to initiate a kiss for fear of reading her wrong. Even disregarding the general moral duty – ignoring effectiveness as a category can be, I’d say, a moral failure in its own right (something I should probably tell my mother, rather than you, but as a general reminder, it fits here, too).
Totally agree. That’s what we’re here to discuss, at least I am. And as for bizarro points of view, I just mentioned my bizarro perspective…
Again yes. But also again – denying effectiveness it’s right in that debate will is, in my opinion, a moral failure and is creating harm in its own right.
True again. Same qualifiers.
AnneBonney (AB?):
Quoted for agreement.
I tentatively suggest that games are great as long as:
1. Everyone involved knows it is a game.
2. Everyone involved has the tools and resources necessary to opt out of the game if they do not like it.
In practice this will sometimes imply explicit negotiation prior to game playing. Especially for things that are otherwise questionable consent-wise (like faux-no). But I do not think that necessarily has to be the case with every kind of game.
However, this is all very abstract, idealistic, and future-looking. And unfortunately it does not propose or provide any solutions/strategies for real people who want to participate in the dating/sex/whatever scene right now.
And I think that is what Sam was trying to get at. There is “Consent Utopia(tm)” where everything would be great, and then there is the world we live in right now which is far from that. And the advice for people who want to be dating and having sex right now (while maximizing consent) is going to be different than the advice for people who are happy to wait until Consent Utopia(tm) comes about (even if it never does).
@AB –
This might be a language barrier thing. But my observation, both of my own friendships and my observed friendships, is that sexual interest and personal appeal have some links.
For my own experience – I have very good friends who I wasn’t at all attracted too when we first met. The evolution of the friendship has lead to me considering the fact that hey, they’re really fun to hang out with, maybe they’d be really fun in bed as well.
I would say that falling for/developing feelings for is probably inaccurate or misleading in terms of the masculine experience of developing physical interest in a friend. Those phrases come with implications and context about deeper emotional experience. I think it’s much more common for the increased interest to be a very shallow, very physical thing.
To go for a cruder analogy. Some of my friends use a ‘hotness scale’ that ranges from Bush Pig to Undeniably Hot. It’s obnoxious and juvenile and all kinds of politically incorrect – but the system of rules for the scale is the part that relates to the conversation – which is to say that at first blush, it’s a purely physical rating system. But there are adjustment criteria for awesomeness, sexual adventurousness and miscellaneous other non physical criteria.
This is male sexuality at I think it’s most unfiltered and tacky. It’s a completely juvenille system for ‘scoring’ the desirability of ones conquests and contrasting them to the conquests of your friends. It’s the kind of thing that guys mostly don’t talk about around girls, or the presence of any adult who’s respect they value. But it’s still got a model built in to allow for the fact that a good friend is more desirable.
I would describe that as characteristic of the nice guy ™ syndrome. A douchebag using false friendship as a stalking horse for sexual agenda. I’m cynical – but I seriously doubt the sincerity/strength/genuine nature of any friendship that’s predicated on sexual attraction. But I certainly think there is increased attraction towards a genuine friend for many guys.
AB and AnneBonney are different commenters, for the record. Previous comments from AnneBonney are available on the Feministe Gunwitch thread.
David DeAngelo is awful. Pretty standard-issue exploitive, manipulative, sexist “PUA”. I’m horrified that reputable dating sites take ads from and steer men towards people like him.
I used to be very shy, and I have Asperger’s Syndrome, and I spent a good chunk of my life going out on a limb working for feminist causes like prevention and treatment of rape and domestic violence. Yet at 34, I’ve never had a girlfriend, and no one including 14 therapists or the leaders of Seattle’s sex-positive community can figure out why. It’s brought me to the brink of suicide many, many times. For a couple years I blogged about it recounting what I tried, being willing to try virtually anything anyone suggested, and having nothing ever succeed. Next month marks 6 years since I had sex–I’ve had it 5 times in my life, first at 27. On OKCupid, many women openly acknowledge that if a guy didn’t have sex before 25, or has never had a relationship, he’s automatically disqualified from them. One woman assumes all the others avoided you for a reason, and it just snowballs. I know men in their 50s who’ve never had sex or romantic relationships. Who’d want to live like that? In straight men, feminism seems to be mutually exclusive with relationships and sex. I’ve been left deeply disillusioned with feminism for years. The personal used to be political; now when I bring up mens’ concerns I’m mocked and marginalized. Where do you think men are going to go if feminism ignores their issues? How can you achieve equality between two groups of people if you shut one of them out? If women reward –> encourage men for being sexist/to be sexist, especially insisting equality is somehow unromantic and re-romanticizing chivalry, what hope do we have of ever reaching equality? I know the pickup/seduction stuff works, I just can’t bring myself to be enough of an asshole to use it. I try to date on and off, but I honestly hold no hope of experiencing love or sex in my life. So much for all the feminist work.
@AnneBonney:
Interesting thing is: based upon the people I’ve known who prefer that kind of interaction (something discovered by conversation, I should emphasize), they usually believe this as well. But two problems tend to crop up. One is that recognizing this doesn’t change the way in which desire seems to work for them, and the mismatch between the two eventually results in self-hatred; the second is that they seem to find overt and clear negotiation of consent to be more difficult than ambiguous negotiation, at least based upon the the partners that they choose as a result of it (based upon their disclosures). What seems to be the case is that, yes, they’re able to clearly say yes and no — but this comes at the cost of being less able to evaluate the character of their partner (respecting clear statements of consent, of course, doesn’t necessarily bring other positive characteristics in its train), and they’ve regularly stated that the partners that they’ve gotten involved with in that way have been universally worse than those with whom they got involved through ambiguous negotiation. (Disclosing the fact that it was a game before engaging in it was similar thing: by making it overt, it became more difficult to do.)
Several eventually decided that this meant that they simply couldn’t engage in sex without harming themselves or other people, and concluded that either they shouldn’t have sex at all — because of who they were — or that making sure that they were the ones suffering was an acceptable price to pay. More penance than price, really: paying in pain for being as they are.
I’m not sure what this means for resolving the problem. But I am sure that it’s worth pointing out that the clear-cut solutions aren’t clear-cut. They come at a cost.
@Jon:
I agree: DeAngelo, as far as I’m concerned, did more than anyone else — including Mystery — to make the PUA scene into what it is today. He’s the one primarily responsible for promoting the idea that seduction could be distilled down to sound-bite concepts and proven by skims of pop-sci books.
He might not have been responsible for promoting some of the concepts themselves, especially in their current forms. But he definitely and fundamentally changed the way in which they were presented and understood. And he also provided a far from critical framework for the presentation of other people’s ideas through his interview series and seminar formats, lending credibility to them by association.
There are certainly authors whose work is, in direct effect, much more destructive. But DeAngelo’s effects were lasting and affected more than his own material. He altered the course of the SC as a whole.
Jon,
I can imagine your pain. I feel for you.
@Xakudo:
For me, that analogy is entirely appropriate. It’s just more nuanced.
If I’m hungry, I’m experiencing a desire for food. But that desire is usually a specific craving, maybe for a particular kind of food, or for food that’s been cooked in a particular way (or not at all), or for food with a particular kind of texture, or a particular combination of flavors, or a certain aroma, or even a certain look. With a particular hunger, other foods won’t satisfy, and can even bring on discomfort or nausea in the attempt.
Arousal, eroticism, sexual contact — those are no different.
And that applies to specific acts, as well: even when the desire is for PIV, for example, it can be for a specific variety of PIV. Different speeds, different rhythms, different positions, all of which affect sensation in a way that’s much the same as how aroma, taste, texture and the rest vary with different foods and methods of cooking.
It’s a matter of what, with that hunger, will satisfy the cravings of the palate.
Sam-
I think this might be where our minor disagreements on this subject arise, and I think it also ties into what Xakudo is describing as a “Consent Utopia”. I’m not saying that this is not the current state of affairs: yes, there is slut shaming and yes, there is a higher relative social value for sex for men. But you state that negating these facts are an integral part of feminist practice, and I agree. So my question then becomes when does stating the current situation also become complacency? And what can we actually do to make that reduction?
To me, it’s clear that the first (and I’d argue most important step) is on the personal level. You and I both see the devaluing of male sexuality and the incorrect valuing of female sexuality as unjust, but other than recognizing and acting against those ideas in our own personal lives how are we going to do anything about it? For men, I think this is going back to the confidence in the face of rejection: even though on a cultural level they are supposed to measure themselves by women’s responses to their sexual advances, the ones who don’t actually have better responses from women.
I know it goes against how you’ve been socialized, and I know that is difficult, but approaching dating and sex and gender relations conscientiously and fairly in a patriarchal system is going to be pretty fucking terrible sometimes. While I sympathize and want to help men make it less difficult, I don’t see the fact that navigating these things is less easy then just blindly following you socialization as a good enough reason not to do it. Not least because of the fact that most women aren’t offered that alternative. Which, Infra:
I wasn’t implying that the obviously ethical thing to do wasn’t costly or difficult. Often it is, and often we as individuals and as societies value things just because they’re hard.
But, frankly, the when the cost of not having as much sex as you’d like (and I know for some that may be zero sex, but I would submit that there are other factors going on there than just confusion about consent) weighed against possibly coercing someone else into sex, I don’t see how people would not see that as a reasonable cost. While efficacy of pick up methods should be reasonably considered, I don’t know how they could be given the same weight when we’re talking about how awful the other side of the equation can get.
It’s that willingness to elevate their own desires above the wellbeing of others that gives PUAs their bad press, and a lot of times they deserve it. Sex is a collaborative thing, two (or more) people’s complex wants, needs and “can’ts” are in play. Using an effective tactic that reduces your partner’s ability to engage honestly or freely denies that, and that’s what I have a problem with. I’ll be blunt: if getting laid is more important than hurting someone else to a particular person, that person should not seeking sex.
That said, Sam, your personal bent on this is something that I’ve heard from a lot of guys especially in seduction circles. I accept that in their desire to mitigate some of the bullshit that happened to them, the women who’ve raised us gave a lot of hard and fast rules that seem less than practicable. But the converse of that is (and here I’m talking about other dudes I’ve talked to in depth, not you personally) the fear to escalate physically is never only because of a rigid adherence to boundaries. There’s a lot of failure or inability to learn social signals (or sometimes a lack of desire to), there’s a lot of fear of rejection, there’s a lot of homosocial stigma. All together, yeah, that’s a pretty difficult headspace to try and ask some one out from, or move in for a kiss, or whatever the case may be.
But it’s not all the same problem, and it’s not all a feminist-sourced problem. And I think that there is a lot of practical advice that is given (and could be done a lot better, I think) to overcome those things, without compromising a commitment to valuing consent and acting in an ethical way. I can think of some right now, but don’t want to presume this is the place for that sort of thing. (This is a fairly theoretical, meta conversation. Also, it’s kind of late and I’ll revisit some other stuff in the morning.)
@AnneBonney:
I should clarify something: I’m not approaching this subject from the perspective of a PUA. I’m approaching it from the perspective of someone who’s watched close friends tear themselves apart over this issue.
It isn’t about getting laid. It’s about making sure that I don’t have to bury the people I care for before their time.
Moderation notes:
1) Please don’t gratuitously attack feminism or claim that feminism is the whole cause of anything. There’s no way to prove the latter argument, and the former will just cause discord. If this degenerates into a debate about the supposed evils of feminism, everyone loses. It’s a red herring.
2) I like Clarence and I think he usually debates in good faith. He also usually makes an effort to be more positive than he has in these comments.
3) Due to some recent trolling, comments are on a stronger moderation setting than before. Sorry, no help for it.
4) If anyone is curious about the actual intent behind the word “mansplaining”, here’s a good article about it. But again, please, let’s not get into feminist words or feminist tactics or the so-called evils of feminism.
Clarisse said:
I think there is some overlap between shit tests, and “negs,” but mostly I think they are different phenomena. Even if they might superficially look the same, they serve a different function when done by men or women, in highly gendered interaction. More on that later.
I think a lot of Mystery and TylerDurden stuff looks weird because it comes from the LA club scene. In a highly materialistic scene, a man’s job is a way of qualifying him and ranking him. Nothing wrong with that, except that some people’s ranking system may be rather superficial. By answering that question in such a scene, a guy is simply giving her the key to ranking him based on his job without even knowing him. There is some objectification going on: as if a man asks a new female acquaintance “what is your cup size?”
Of course, in other social contexts where women are less materialistic, “what do you do for a living?” could be a perfectly benign getting-to-know-you question, without an objectifying component.
Yes… and plenty of PUAs know this! You and AB seem to be under the impression that PUAs use “shit tests” solely as a term of condemnation. But that’s not true at all (except perhaps for certain sorts of PUAs, like Roissy’s readers). PUA language has tripped you up again.
Years ago, I’ve seen PUAs considering certain types of shit tests to be IOIs (“Indicators of Interest”). Plenty of PUAs know that some “shit tests” are a form of flirting. That’s because “shit test” isn’t always a bad word. In his book, Mystery even drops the “shit” prefix.
AB said:
First, as I explain above, PUAs in general don’t regard tests as “mean and dishonest.” Yet I do think you are pointing out a real double-standard in how status/dominance behavior is perceived from men or from women.
Remember, in PUA world, women sexually prefer men who take charge. A man taking charge is giving a woman what she is believed to want from a sexual partner. A woman taking charge is then more of a challenge, because then the guy must take charge back, or fail to be considered as a potential partner. I think there is some truth in these dynamics in mainstream culture.
AB,
It sounds like I’ve missed a bunch of memos about what pickup is really about.
Perspective of “a PUA”? Which one?
What qualifies you to judge the purpose of the seduction community?
And many guys also say that they are looking for relationships. Or improving their social skills. Your picture of PUA motivations is skewed.
Because people only act out of one motivation at a time, or something? Wait, what?
While I agree that some of the practices of PUAs have a negative effect on women, other practices have a positive effect on women. What’s the net effect of the practices? We don’t know.
Who says this? Can we get some primary sources here?
It looks to me like you have come to a particular opinion of pickup based on what you’ve been exposed to, and you can only explain what you’ve seen by the hypothesis that PUAs “don’t give a shit about the welfare of women.” I question that conclusion, because over the years I’ve seen so many PUAs express caring about the welfare of women. Heck, we have Ross Jeffries, the god-father of the community, giving the maxim “leave her better than you found her.”
PUAs are people, too. Not caring about the welfare of others at all is hard on human hardware.
I suspect that for the most part, PUAs do care about the welfare of women. They just believe that the welfare of women is sufficiently aligned with their interests.
Even if you want to be completely cynical, ask yourself this: is it psychologically easier to practice pickup believing that you are harming women, or to practice pickup believing that you are offering something great to women? I suspect that most PUAs would prefer to believe that they are God’s gift to women, rather than that they are harming them. Even if it wasn’t true that pickup probably has a positive or neutral impact on women overall (my personal belief), and pickup was mostly harmful and zero-sum… we would probably see PUAs deceive themselves into thinking that it was good for women!
What is most disturbing about pickup is not that guys who genuinely don’t give a shit about other people find refuge there (because those guys were probably like that already)… but that guys who genuinely do care about women get saddled with biased and inaccurate ideas about what the welfare of women probably is.
If you want to argue that PUAs’ views of ethics are skewed, wrong, biased, or whatever, then that’s totally fair. Arguing that PUAs in general don’t care about the welfare of women is biased and hasty.
Clarisse said:
I think that most PUAs do care about ethics. The reason I think that is because I believe that most people care about ethics, and I don’t see any reason that this behavior suddenly changes when men become PUAs. It’s hard for human beings not to care about ethics.
Caring about ethics, and holding a particular form of ethics, are two different things. If you mean “PUAs don’t hold an explicit form of feminist sexual ethics,” then I would agree. But by that standard, most of the male and female population doesn’t care about ethics, either.
Saying that PUAs “don’t care” about ethics reminds of MRAs saying that feminists “don’t care about men.” What that claim really means is that “feminists don’t care in the ways we think they should care,” which is different from “feminists don’t care.”
If you want to say that many PUAs have ethical errors and confusions, I would agree. But that’s a different argument. Having ethics, and having the right ethics, are not the same thing.
There are some cases where ethical questions fail to come up for PUAs, which should. But that’s not necessarily because the PUAs “don’t care.” There is also a lot of hype in the community about how beneficial pickup is to women, and how women require particular behaviors. Consequently, certain moral questions might never be raised if certain behaviors are never considered potentially harmful in the first place… even when a PUA does care about women.
I agree that PUAs rarely talk explicitly about ethics (e.g. using terms like “ethics” and “morality”), which is different from not talking about ethics at all, and from not caring about ethics.
Also, how much “most PUAs” care about ethics depends on how we define “most PUAs.” Does “PUA” refer to self-identified PUAs? If so, then maybe it’s true. I don’t identify as a PUA, so then my interest in ethics won’t be counted. Many men with pickup background don’t identify as PUAs (e.g. Mystery, who identifies as a “Venusian Artist”). In fact, many of the most emotionally healthy guys with pickup background tend to not identify as PUAs: they get in relationships, and drop out of the community.
If we use a broader definition of “PUA” that includes any man who has had a brush with pickup and gotten something from it, then we end up including guys like your father, who do care about ethics.
On Nice Guys ™: I don’t think Nice Guys ™ are off-topic for this thread, especially given examples like pickup adherent George Sodini, who insisted he was a nice guy before writing a manifesto ranting about how women were ignoring him and then shooting three women. But in case anyone’s missing context, here’s a good summary of Nice Guy theory. Yes, there are difficulties with it, but this is where a lot of the feminist discourse starts from:
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/coin.shtml
On feminism and sex: Again, I really don’t want this thread to rehash old arguments about feminism or to become a feminism-attacking thread. For one thing, it will drive me personally up the wall. But I really have to object to the idea that feminist guys can’t get sex.
On Snowdrop’s example: Snowdrop, thanks for reminding me about the comparative sanity that is the BDSM world. I think a lot of my interest in pickup comes from the fact that I enjoy flirtatious games and I like having frameworks to think about them, but at some point it’s important to have an actual conversation where people are honest about sex, and that’s the part that BDSM covers and pickup ignores.
HR, can you give an example of PUAs discussing ethics without using words like “ethics” and “morality”?
One more before I go to bed:
@Nathan — However, now that I’m a bit older, I’m finding that most women won’t even offer a rejection. They just disappear. You have a nice coffee date or dinner, they say let’s talk again, and then you never hear from them again. No response to your calls or e-mails (and I’m not talking endless attempts on my part). Just gone. The times I have had someone say to me, or write to me and say they aren’t interested have been refreshing. I appreciated the clarity. Instead of sitting around for a week or two wondering (I just had a woman write back after almost three weeks of nothing, and that’s not the first time that’s happened)
I know this is tough, and I sympathize. As a writer, I would absolutely love it if editors would respond to my emails more, but they usually don’t. Most of the time, when I sent article pitches, I get no response. I don’t even know if they received it. If I manage to get experience with an editor, then I can learn how long a silence from that editor means “no”; otherwise, I’m guessing. For example, I pitched one site something like 5 times before they published me, and the editor didn’t respond at all to any of the initial pitches, but when she received the one that interested her, she responded within hours. That was how I learned that if I don’t get a response from her within a day, she’s not answering. Some editors are better about this than others, and I respect the ones who answer all my emails a hell of a lot more than the ones who don’t. But the ones who don’t probably save a lot of effort and mental energy by not composing responses.
As a woman who has to reject people romantically, it can take a lot of mental energy. It’s actually difficult to tell someone no directly. It takes investment of time and effort, and a lot of the time, what you get for your trouble is that the guy will just take your kind rejection as a signal to keep emailing. I’m not saying you do this. I’m saying that it happens often enough that literally the most effective strategy for making sure a guy will leave me alone is to ignore him. It’s really frustrating to put effort and emotion into a compassionate rejection, only to have the guy email me back insisting that we really ought to get together, etc, etc.
As someone who spent two years overseeing applications to a housing cooperative, I was responsible for telling people they had been rejected. That was at least as exhausting and hard as the above.
Bottom line: rejecting people is not fun, either, and you can’t rely on them to respect your boundaries. The most effective strategy for rejecting someone, if your goal is to be left alone, is actually to be silent.
Oh, also, rejecting guys by ignoring them is 1000x more effective on the street, too. By email it’s actually way easier to compose a nice rejection and have him listen. Out on the street, in a club, etc? It’s almost impossible to get rid of some guys without being incredibly cold and harsh. Believe me, I’ve tried rejecting guys with warmth and a smile. Sometimes it works, but a fair proportion of the time, they take it as a signal to persist and even escalate.
Possibly by chance, I had an anonymous commenter reply this morning to a post from last December, and re-reading that post I realised that a lot of it is relevant to this discussion. In essence, in it (and the comments) I talked about some PUA-style advice that I had developed on my own (and that I saw reflected in amongst the other advice given @ links in the OP). (That I struggle to put my own advice into practice is beside the point!)
Clarisse @ #126:
This outline actually made me LOL. The reason being that it is exactly the same as He’s Just Not That Into You‘s explanations for why men behave in the ways they claim mean “he’s not that into you”.
Rejecting someone is tough, therefore (men) go out of their way to avoid doing it directly (and one of the key ways of doing that is, he doesn’t call you).
I think that HJNTIY functions from a similar set of principles as PUA advice often does (and actually seems to advise women to reject men who don’t follow those kinds of script!) In fact, in Chapter 1 the “This is what it should look like” (discussed at the end of my post) seems to demonstrate the “shit test”-type stuff in action (it also shows one way in which PUA game playing can have consequences for non-players). As I noted there, and in my earlier comment in his thread, that type of testing is a complete turn-off for me.
@AnneBonney:
I think what’s going on is often a sort of negative/positive feedback loop. People who’re able to take things in strides and be optimistic about it are much more likely to be met with approval from their surroundings. But people are often only able to take things in strides after getting a sufficient amount of approval.
So those who have ‘it’ – confidence, optimism, emotional fortitude – often get further encouraged by the positive reactions of their surroundings. And those who don’t have ‘it’, but are always desperately looking to save their last shred of self-esteem, end up acting in a way which is off-putting or sets them up for abuse, which just makes it even harder for them to develop confidence, optimism, and emotional fortitude.
I’m reminded of a Danish photographer named Jacob Holdt, the writer of a rather famous book called American Pictures, who set out to enter the KKK (he’s also a member of both Amnesty International, Critical Muslims, and the KGB) and explore why they act as they do. He wrote a passage about hate which I think is relevant here. I believe there is an English version somewhere, but I’ve only been able to find the Danish one, so this is my translation (and highlights). Sorry in advance for the mistakes.
“Later on, I began lecturing tours in the USA, and often picked up hitch-hiking klan members. On these infinitely long drives, I got a good opportunity to experience the human behind the façade of hatred. For the façade was, as always, an incredibly closed and dispirited face, of the type which immediately repels other people with its hostile expression. But since I had already experienced the same patterns in the most damaged blacks, and, for instance, female rape-victims a long time ago, I intuitively knew that the people we discriminate against are those who have already been discriminated and damaged before.
It is easy to love women who exude trust and an extroverted love because they have always met the same. But I am almost always blown away by the hostility and closedness I experience in many rape victims in the USA, who we then further discriminate against as overweight when they try to eat themselves out of the pain. I regards to racism, I had learned a long time ago that what we discriminate against is not skin-colour, but pain – as it manifests itself in a despaired cocktail of anger and hostility patterns in the outcast.”
OK, it was a little off topic, but the pattern is the same. Confidence and the ability to handle rejection well are not created in a vacuum. People who have positive experiences are more likely to become confident, confident people are much more likely to have the kind of positive experiences that will make them optimistic, and the people who despair every time they hear a no are much more likely to get a no from their surroundings.
I fully agree with this. I also found he link you posted earlier hilarious and sad at the same time. The comedian’s response is perfectly sane: The woman wants him to risk committing rape in order to satisfy some needs that she is not able/willing to state, and he is, naturally, uninterested in that. But despite being perfectly sane, it is also perfectly unusual, as far as the pop-cultural portrayal of men goes, which is the sad part.
And it goes back to the Nice Guy double standard, that women’s attraction to men whose behaviour is non-constructive and ethically questionable is cause for blame, but men’s (including Nice Guy’s) attraction to the female counterparts is completely understandable, and is even used as further reason to blame women (e.g. they’re the ones acting unreasonable, they’re the ones who made the rules, they’re the ones sending mixed signals, men are just adapting to their behaviour etc.).
I think we need a debate that isn’t just about how men can get the women they want, but also explores which kind of women men actually want. There are plenty of men telling about bad relationships and/or feeling exploited by women, but there is a remarkable lack of discussion about why these women are so appealing in the first place, and what men would benefit from looking for in a partner.
Clarisse,
As a writer, I’ve also been through hundreds of rounds of silent rejection. It rarely hits me that much any more, but that probably is because I’ve been on the other side of the table as a editor doing the rejecting.
You know, I have had other women tell me the same thing about silence/ignoring as the best response. In person, especially with a stranger whose hitting on you – that makes sense. I have done the same myself in bars and clubs. Even though I, personally, would rather have some honesty in person, I understand the challenges that can come with an in person rejection, and so I wouldn’t expect one from a woman.
However, if you actually set up a formal date, go out, tell the person you’d like to see them again, and then disappear – that’s childish in my view. Sending a two line e-mail saying you’re not interested, thank you for the date shouldn’t be too much to ask for. Having someone e-mail you repeatedly in response can be dealt with by deleting unread. That’s where I support ignoring. It seems to me that your choosing to invest time/energy into those subsequent e-mails, and then using the draining effect of that to defend offering nothing to all men who you reject. If someone was intent on causing you trouble, a two line rejection e-mail isn’t going to make any difference in the long run. However, for those guys who wouldn’t cause you trouble, that e-mail is just being respectful.
Again, I think context is important. Some random dude in a bar who you give your e-mail address to after a few drinks is different from a man who you formally go on a date with to explore if there is something there romantically/sexually.
I don’t think a single, brief e-mail, followed by silence if he persists, is too much to ask for the guy you went on a date with.
On a different note, while I disagreed with Jon’s blaming feminism for his lack of relationships, I felt he made some important points, especially this one:
“If women reward –> encourage men for being sexist/to be sexist, especially insisting equality is somehow unromantic and re-romanticizing chivalry, what hope do we have of ever reaching equality?”
I have run into this myself. And I can imagine some of these seduction advocates are coming from a similar place, seeing how more aggressive flirting or deliberate play on a woman’s sexual energy has “worked,” whereas being more respectful of boundaries, waiting for signals, etc. hasn’t gotten them anywhere. Some women seem to want it all – a man with feminist sensibilities who can also take charge all the time, treat her like a “lady” in the old school manner, be the breadwinner, always be confident and strong, and yet somehow also be sensitive. Perhaps a few of those guys exist, but most of us will fall far short of that.
Oh, and I’d like to address AB’s men blaming women comments above. I don’t know about the other guys here, but I’m not writing what I am to blame women – I’m writing what I have experienced.
The points I made to Clarisse about e-mail rejections – men need to hear that too because we are just as likely to ignore or game play about rejection. And I know for myself, it took awhile to learn to pay closer attention to what’s happening, to see some of the more subtle cues like how a woman is holding her body while with you, or what she’s saying and not saying. Overall, I think men fail to pay enough attention and see things that might help them understand situations better.
As I said above, I think most men are either acting out old, sexist scripts (with mixed results) or spinning around in circles (with poor results mostly). We could probably do with having more deliberate conversations between ourselves about all of this, but that isn’t happening enough. However, it would be nice if men bringing up some of their struggles and confusions in feminist circles wasn’t so routinely dismissed as with labels like mansplaining, “what about the menz,” “trolling,” etc. Because in the end, there’s as much confusion as clarity and the more conversation and considering together, the better.
I remember reading an essay by bell hooks talking about a man she dated who was an outgoing black male feminist, and who found himself routinely skipped over by women who chose the more stereotypical macho, sexist dudes. And one of bell’s responses to this was to interrogate her own desires, and notice how sometimes she, too, had conflicting wants from a man. Now, bell hooks is quite piercing and direct in her views about sexism, racism, classism, and other isms. But reading this essay, and seeing her willingness to expose those personal contradictions, and also argue that it might be harder for men who actually try to embody feminist principles because of the very fact that we all have grown up in patriarchal societies. She deliberately pointed out that just like the many men who have conflicting loyalties – displaying sexist behavior/views – that many women also have conflicting loyalties – especially in the realm of personal relationships because they haven’t really examined deeply the makeup and origin of their desires.
I cannot tell you how many times I heard or read the lines “I want to be swept off my feet,” “I want a man who is confident and in control,” and “I believe chivalry isn’t dead” coming from women who otherwise come from feminist frameworks.
Far from blaming feminism, I’d argue within the various feminisms, there are the tools applied to broader social issues that could also be applied to interpersonal dynamics. But both men and women seem more willing to defend their positions, and deny the confusion and frustration of those on the “other side,” than actually take a deep look at their personal narratives and recognize that growing up in an oppressive society impacts and harms everyone.
Nathan, I’m not defending anything, I’m explaining how rejection is hard in all contexts and people usually avoid it as much as possible. As Snowdrop noted in #129, men are also encouraged to reject with silence.
I read an interesting paper lately on patterns of rejection (Kitzinger 1999) that made the case that rejection, in almost all situations (not just sexual), is usually tacit or talked around:
In sum, then, careful attention to the details of naturally occurring conversation shows that it is conversationally most unusual to ‘just say no’. Rejections and refusals are commonly delayed and indirect and follow a typical pattern which generally includes delay in responding, some kind of prefacing of the refusal (with words like, ‘well’, or ‘ahhh . . .’), a palliative remark, and some kind of account aimed at softening, explaining, justifying, excusing, or redefining the rejection.
The study was in the context of rape prevention and included this paragraph. To any readers who are likely to get angry about feminist rape prevention language — please just skip this and respond to a different comment:
In the present study, conversational analysis has made clear that there are normatively understood ways of doing refusals which are generally understood to be refusals, and consequently we believe that there is no reason why feminists concerned about sexual coercion should respond to men’s allegations of their ‘ambiguity’ by taking upon ourselves the task of inventing new ways of doing refusals. As feminists, we have allowed men (disingenuously claiming not to understand normative conversational conventions) to set the agenda, such that we have accepted the need to educate women to produce refusals which men cannot claim to have ‘misunderstood’. This, in turn, has led only to an escalation of men’s claims to have ‘misunderstood’, to be ‘misunderstood’, and, in general, to be ‘ignorant’ about women’s (allegedly different and special) ways of communicating. Men’s self-interested capacity for ‘misunderstanding’ will always outstrip women’s earnest attempts to clarify and explain.
So, here are the questions that follow from this for me.
1) If people normatively refuse things in avoidant and unclear ways, why are we so insistent that sex should be different?
My hypothesis: because the people talking about it either aren’t consciously aware of normative refusal patterns, or think that normative refusal patterns are also screwed up and “should” change. Also, because sex is so stigmatized that people routinely claim sex is “different” in any given context — even when it’s not in practice.
2) If both women and men are likely to say no when they mean yes at the same rate (15% of both genders do this, as I noted in earlier comments), then why are women getting so much more blame and being stereotyped so much more than men for doing it?
My hypothesis: because men are more often in the initiator role than women, the 15% of women doing the no-means-yes thing just comes up more often than it does with men. But even then, 15% is just not high enough to explain why this is a common stereotype, and is not recognized as a minority preference. So this could also be partly because — as I hypothesized earlier — women who are likely to say no when they mean yes are also more likely to be popular with men, thereby making men think that women do it more often than we do. It could also be partly because, as the feminist scholars in the above-quoted study suggested, many men have a vested interest in claiming that women are more unclear than we are.
Another thought. I would be very cautious about asserting that people who use the “say no when meaning yes” pattern necessarily prefer it that way. It may be that they’re just in a minority who likes different patterns of communication, as Infra suggested in #22. But it could be that some of them are looking for something else that they have most frequently found, so far, through that kind of behavior.
I can attest that I played a hell of a lot more verbal games, and was much more unpredictable, while flirting before I got a handle on BDSM and started practicing it regularly. I can also attest that learning how to communicate directly was not easy and in fact I was somewhat resistant to doing so (partly because of BDSM stigma, but partly because of general sexual stigma — I felt incredibly anxious about discussing sex with my partners).
Based on my own experiences, and on those of other people who have learned to communicate more directly around sex/BDSM, I’m inclined to think that explicit communication is in the “hard but ultimately worth it” category for a lot of people. And so, while, again, there may be people who really just won’t ever want to do it, I’m really not sure the most productive approach for the “we don’t want to talk about it directly” demographic is always going to be “oh, you don’t want to directly communicate? well, okay, we’ll make excuses for you and try to find ways around it!” I’m actually really grateful to past partners who forced me to articulate things clearly, though the early partners who did it kind of freaked me out.
As a final note on explicitness, though, I do recognize that if explicit communication is hard, then it’s going to be hard for people to adopt it even if it’s beneficial. I’m a fan of promoting it, but I know it’s not something we can assume for most people. And I am certainly not perfect at it myself. I sometimes fail to reject people clearly, I fail to set boundaries, I fail to explain things, I take an improv vs. scripted approach, etc. I don’t talk explicitly to everyone I have sex with.
But BDSM frameworks, explicit frameworks, have been the most helpful thing in my life for getting the kind of submission/pain/drama I need, without dating someone who actually puts me through the wringer. That has to be relevant, I maintain that it has to be relevant to all this, I just haven’t figured it out completely yet.
One thing I like about discussing PUA stuff is that it’s the greatest available database of actual dating behavior, rather than idealistic or stereotypical assertions about dating behavior. I think some PUA assertions are wrong and fucked up and based on stereotypes. And I think that when PUAs offer pseudo-scientific explanations for things or make misogynist assertions about “why” women behave the way we do, then it starts getting especially ridiculous (hence the phlogiston assertions in the above post). But I am a fan of trying to figure out what people are actually doing. It seems like that can only help, not hinder.
It seems clear that both women and men are adapting their behavior, at least somewhat, to what they think the opposite sex wants. PUAs make claims that they’re just doing what women want (with “women” meaning “conventionally attractive nightclub extraverts”), but I’d bet a lot of the women they talk about are doing things they think men want.
What seems to be emerging as a theme in this thread is both sides saying “The desires of men (or women) force women (or men) to act this way!” I guess it just seems like we should all keep in mind that (a) people are different, (b) no one can make you do anything, (c) this isn’t easy for anyone.
Sam, on takeaways:
When I review the definitions of takeaways vs. freeze-outs, it’s true that they have some similarity. I guess I think of takeaways as more harmless, as an expression of “okay, this doesn’t match my goals right now, have a nice day!” whereas I see freeze-outs as more hostile, an expression of “oh really? you’re going to be that way? fine, I want nothing to do with you,” but without walking away or otherwise removing the hostile energy from the interaction.
When I think about takeaways, I think about someone in a bar being like: “Okay it’s late, gotta go home!” and allowing the other person to convince them to stay. When I think about freeze-outs, I think about the example I gave in the above post, where the PUA has set up this whole romantic thing, and the girl says she doesn’t want to have sex, and he removes all the romantic stuff and turns away from her and starts checking his email. It just seems like … takeaways leave someone feeling good, and freeze-outs leave someone feeling bad.
But again, there’s a lot of similarity, and maybe PUAs would disagree with my analysis.
“As Snowdrop noted in #129, men are also encouraged to reject with silence.” And I also did in my comment – so I really hope you’re not lumping me in the “blaming women” group here.
And my point about short e-mail rejections is that they offer a shred of common courtesy towards someone, while minimizing the struggles that come face to face. I almost always opt for a short e-mail rejection as well, out of avoidance. In fact, I’m thankful for the distancing, abstract quality of e-mail, that offers an out with another where I can show a little respect for the time I spent with the person, while still being clear about where I stand.
The internet is actually allowing us the option of modifying our approaches to rejection, instead of digging in our collective heals around avoidance and offering silence.
“2) If both women and men are likely to say no when they mean yes at the same rate (15% of both genders do this, as I noted in earlier comments), then why are women getting so much more blame and being stereotyped so much more than men for doing it?”
This is a fair question. And I think you’re right that men probably think women are doing this more than they are. I’m not sure what all the reasons are behind this, but I’d agree that some men might be operating on a stereotype about “teasing” women (or however you want to phrase it) that needs to be discarded.
“It could also be partly because, as the feminist scholars in the above-quoted study suggested, many men have a vested interest in claiming that women are more unclear than we are.” In my comment above, I said I felt that many men don’t pay close enough attention to verbal/non-verbal cues from women. That we aren’t generally trained well, and can get tunnel vision when we have sexual/romantic interest.
However, this “vested interested” talk is questionable. In fact, my first take on it was to take offense – so I’ll just say that to give you an idea of how a man might initially react to such phrasing. As I sit with the study comments, I have to wonder:
How much of it is men expecting/demanding women to change their refusal/rejection approaches?
And how much of it is women who are actually ambiguous, even after a man has paid attention and dropped off what he would expect from a woman rejecting him?
I think the study language above makes sense in cases of rape/sexual assault – that men need to be much more aware of changes in behavior/comments coming from a woman in a sexual situation.
However, when applied to a general situation where a man has interest in a woman, but she doesn’t – it’s troubling.
“As feminists, we have allowed men (disingenuously claiming not to understand normative conversational conventions) to set the agenda, such that we have accepted the need to educate women to produce refusals which men cannot claim to have ‘misunderstood’. ”
1. A lot of men don’t really “get it” that rejection is often subtle and offered in indirect, delayed responses and other cues. And even if they do “get it” in some social contexts, the intensity of sexual/romantic attraction adds an element not present in other social situations. Now, I’m not saying this should be an excuse, but the tunnel vision effect of attraction has to be considered as part of the picture.
While you say this “because sex is so stigmatized that people routinely claim sex is “different” in any given context — even when it’s not in practice.” I’d disagree. It’s different for most people not only because of the stigma, but because of the biochemical shifts that attraction produce. Perhaps you’re experience and interests have brought you to a difference place with sexuality, but I doubt that a majority of people would make a statement like yours quoted above.
“This, in turn, has led only to an escalation of men’s claims to have ‘misunderstood’, to be ‘misunderstood’, and, in general, to be ‘ignorant’ about women’s (allegedly different and special) ways of communicating.” I agree that some men operate on a victim mentality around all of these relational issues. And that this mentality produces excessive requests and demands on women.
However, I also think some women totally misunderstand male actions in situations. When beliefs such as men just want sex are so prevalent, how is it possible to be fully understood if you are a man who doesn’t just want sex? Or if you’ve just met a woman, and you’re trying to guess at what she might find attractive, and you make a mistake and it turns into “you’re such an asshole” because that behavior – something as simple as holding a door open or touching her arm – reminds her of abusive dudes from her past?
I often find these conversations are very ungenerous towards both men and women in general. We sit about theorize about how the other group is abusive and manipulative – and some of it is true – but in the end, there’s very little acceptance of the fact that in every relational situation – a certain amount of human error and confusion are at play.
I have a number of thoughts that I don’t want to lose track of in this fast-moving conversation.
Re no-means-yes: I have a study filed on my computer somewhere (Muhlenberg and someone?) from a few decades ago, which has much higher rates for this than the 15% mentioned now. Also there is literary evidence. Basically, Infra’s concerns aside, there is every reason to believe that the percentage of this is going downward, which would be a success, and a very positive one, for feminism. Though I have to add that this does not mean that I think most of the sex that happened when this was a bigger social norm than today was non-consensual.
About “nice guy” — no, I don’t want to discuss it in this thread. I don’t actually ever intend to discuss it again except in a very meta way, i.e. I only talk about the talking about it, never about the “it.” Because I think “it” is a non-phenomenon, a spandrel, a Platonic epicycle, a phlogiston, an “ether” of the type Einstein made unnecessary, a humour theory of human dispositions…
So what is real? AB, in comment 130, took my breath away. The self-reinforcing feedback cycles that confirm confidence, on the one hand, and reinforce, while they discriminate, against pain, on the other. I am going to read that comment over and over.
I remember seeing American Pictures, as a slideshow by the author, when it came out. I was hugely impressed and moved by him, and now I am even more so.
Discrimination against pain itself — if we keep these feedback cycles in mind, we will understand the dynamics of what is going on. And that is why compassion is the only key to wisdom, and snark, however clever, only pours gasoline on all the fires.
Finally re Anne Bonney comment 119 — “I think that there is a lot of practical advice that is given (and could be done a lot better, I think) to overcome those things, without compromising a commitment to valuing consent and acting in an ethical way. I can think of some right now, but don’t want to presume this is the place for that sort of thing.”
If not here, where? If not now, when?
Or write it somewhere else, and link to it. It’s the quintessence of the topic, “Ethical pick-up.”
Re: studies, the one I’m citing is Sprecher 1992. The findings were something like 15% of both men and women offer token resistance regularly, but 40% have done it a few times. I think I’ve seen Muhlenberg cited as supporting the 40% “occasional” figure, so it could just be not that the figures are going down, but rather that the “occasional” figure is sometimes confused for the “regularly”.
and yeah, one last thing —
@AnneBonney — co-sign to what humbition said. You wrote:
And I think that there is a lot of practical advice that is given (and could be done a lot better, I think) to overcome those things, without compromising a commitment to valuing consent and acting in an ethical way. I can think of some right now, but don’t want to presume this is the place for that sort of thing. (This is a fairly theoretical, meta conversation. Also, it’s kind of late and I’ll revisit some other stuff in the morning.)
I mean, it seems like this is the only place for it. Unless there are lots of other ethical pickup artistry threads out there.
Anne Bonney,
I’d say they’re an integral part of feminism to the extent that they concern women. To the extent that men are concerned, they are a *theoretically* integral part, but one that is practically largely ignored to say the least (and often violently contested even by modern feminists, say, Amanda Marcotte in her reaction to Clarisse’s Creep essay). If anything, it’s a blind spot of feminism, and, to a considerable degree, a failure of feminists to measure their own actions by the yardsticks they use for others (this accusation is then usually dutifully rebutted with explaining the dynamics of oppression and a hint to check one’s privilege, at which point we’re entering problematic axiomatic territory and it’s hard to keep a discussion alive if people aren’t willing to work on finding common axiomatic ground – and that’s fucking difficult).
I believe that’s pretty much all we can do. For feminists that would, I believe, imply to do what Clarisse does – at least occasionally challenge myths of rationality about men and male sexuality, and to not try to have their ideological cake and eat it, too, by saying that, theoretically, “men aren’t that way”, but acting, including in discussions with men, as if they are. Sure, one has to pick one’s battles, but in *this* context, I don’t believe that those feminists who do think it’s a problem are usually sufficiently willing to pick that fight. Clarisse is really an example of communicative openness, in that respect, and I guess it’s at least to a significant degree because she has had her own problems with feminism and it’s gender discourse hegemony.
Totally. And this is one of the things that are entirely counter intuitive and feel almost paradoxical. This is also one thing that I think I read about first in “the game” – where Strauss is explaining how it was hard to go out again after a successful evening because the previous night would almost inevitably force him to go into the bar with expectations he had to fulfill. It just really requires a lot of mental gymnastics to *know* on a meta level that you’re going out *with a specific purpose*, and still not expecting anything when actually going out (“just for fun”). It’s “let go of what you want so you can get it”. And it’s really partly oxymoronic, and a difficult mindset to get into, but it’s totally true.
Why not? Most women seem to do that.
That’s why I say what’s really needed is a more reasonable approach to balancing opportunities and risks, and this is something that I think is not being modeled well in the feminist “consent”/Schrödinger’s discourse that is mostly about reducing the risk of instances of unwanted attention without giving any consideration to the initiator’s problem of having to create some – any – attention to begin with. Risk and possible reward must be balanced in a more appropriate way – as I said above in #7 with respect to assumed “shit tests” and token resistance: When the risk of making a mistake (false positive) is relatively low – depending on a host of other situational variables – when it’s mostly about the possibility of making someone uncomfortable, say, when saying hello, possibly even when moving in for a kiss , then opportunity/effectivity can and possibly should be considered as a more important variable than it currently seems to be the case, precisely to *avoid* situations in which – we all agree – it cannot be considered as equally important: when the risk of a false positive, making a mistake, the other side of the equation, is too important.
While I believe that risk/reward model will be assumed by a lot of feminists, even when talking about flirting/consent, it is, verbal generalizations that don’t make the balancing strucutree explicit are among the biggest reasons for misunderstandings (even though it may be “duh” for many feminists to assume that everyone they’re talking to will understand that they don’t mean “don’t ever say hello to a woman you like if you meet her at the bus stop”, when they talk about street harassment. Yet that’s what a lot of guys who care about *their* opinion will hear. I think it would be totally possible to come up with a PUA glossary in sociological/feminist lingo and vice versa.
Not all is a feminist-sourced problem. In my case I’d give feminism about 40% responsibility, the rest being Religion (40%) and a minor case of OCD (20%). Thing is, the feminist guilt has proven to be much more difficult to deal with than the other aspects. Not sure how that’s different for others.
Please be as specific as you want to be/can be.
“(even though it may be “duh” for many feminists to assume that everyone they’re talking to will understand that they don’t mean “don’t ever say hello to a woman you like if you meet her at the bus stop”, when they talk about street harassment. Yet that’s what a lot of guys who care about *their* opinion will hear.” I almost never strike up conversations with women on buses, that I pass on the street, or even in coffee shops any more because the possibility of being taken the wrong way is too easy, and I’ve seen enough sleazy guys approach strangers to know I don’t want to stir up that kind of energy. Women might consider that more aware men carry the baggage of knowing what sexist men do, and that impacts how we act, perhaps to the point of excessive holding back.
@Clarisse:
It tends to move toward explorations along those lines, yes, even when it’s a genuine thing. It’s just the other way around, with them: what they’ve found through that approach, they try to seek out in other behaviors, even if they don’t necessarily fit them and even if they don’t necessarily enjoy them.
Because… they are a minority, and they know that, and they’re well aware of how the needs that they have affect other people, especially because of the other assumptions out there. (Hell, they’re even aware that writing without disclosing whether or not they’re using the most accurate pronouns isn’t entirely honest.)
Aside from convincing themselves that they’re ok with being something else, there aren’t many viable options.
(On a more general note:)
But this is something that, in hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have brought up. Sometimes the things that you’ve learned in the past are still the most accurate — and here, it’s that we’re best off hoping that we’ll somehow stumble across each other, keeping this in private, taking care of our own.
My latest thoughts about some of the ideas and stuff going on in this thread, and relating to some of the material linked in the OP, developed into a full blog post, over at A Femanist View.
The short version is that although, personally, I have to reject the scripts implied by PUA theory (if I follow them, I lose even if I “win” by their standards) some of the concepts surrounding attitude and confidence I saw at some of the resources linked in the OP tie in with how I feel able to be confident of asserting my own “victory conditions” and saying “this is what I need to see”. (As an aside, in a funny way I wonder if in PUA terms I would not be happier playing the female hand in terms of what matches my personality?)
I’m sorry I haven’t come back to respond: I’m sick so a little foggy-headed, but I wanted to toss in a few thoughts about ethical PUA techniques. I started writing some out when I realized that my understanding of how to meet people, attract them and engage with them on a romantic level is actually counterproductive to the typical pick-up MO. I started this itemized list of how I think one could start conversations with strangers in public, how to handle parties and bars, but it all came down to this: I don’t want dudes who just want sex approaching me. Like, ever. The very minimal requirement is for you to want to have sex with me, and in order for that to be true, you have to give a shit who I am. This is not apparent in a lot of stranger interactions, and it is certainly not the norm in pick up.
It seems so rudimentary to say something like compliments must be sincere and without strings, but I feel like that is actually lacking in seduction discourse. Mostly because it’s an inner game thing, a state of mind where you want to get to know people or just make them feel good. You want to tell a girl you are attracted to that you also like the book she’s reading in a coffee shop? Great, go for it. But if you saw an unattractive girl with the same book, would you start talking to her too? Are you starting a conversation, or are you starting a seduction routine? Because I think it’s usually pretty clear to “the target” which one it is, and guess which one is less likely to 1) be respectful and non-objectifying and 2) get results.
But I think about that POV and that attitude is pretty much 180 degrees from a PUA mindset, where one specifically tries to meet women for sexual/romantic purposes, where one is already approaching with a goal in mind. I don’t think that is entirely ethical, respectful or effective to start with. I guess in my mind, you’ve got to be friendly before you can be seductive, and I don’t know how you do that within a seduction community set of standards or goals. (Of course there are going to be slightly different parameters for night-life type stuff, though the assumption that women in bars and clubs would stay home if they didn’t want men’s attention is old and busted as hell.)
Other random thoughts: don’t ever approach when the other person has no outs. That shopgirl/waitress/barista has a job to do that includes being nice to you even if she is uncomfortable. It is unethical to run game on her while she’s working. You have no clue if the woman on the public transport has a long or short ride, so you should approach extra carefully, I would say only after you’ve made substantial eye contacts. Surely dudes get people just making uncomfortable conversation on trains; add to that awkwardness a whole layer of socialization that makes bluntly refusing an advance difficult and/or dangerous, and you have a problem. (Let’s face it, there are some seriously unsavory people on buses sometimes, so women have good reason to be wary.)
When trying to escalate physically, I think if you have a preexisting flirtatious rapport it is ok to touch or try to kiss, provided that at any indicator of no you stop, apologize and talk it out. If you think you’re getting hell of body language IOIs but she says no, you trust that. If you get no verbal feedback but her body language is uncomfortable or trying to get away, you have to listen. Making a pass at someone you’ve been talking to for a few hours isn’t the end of the world for anyone if you’re wrong, provided you don’t keep pushing or get defensive or entitled or any of that bs. With proper context and accurate reading of that context, this is not such a tough thing, I think. And everybody’s wrong sometimes, you brush yourself off and make sure you two are still cool.
There were some other things that I was thinking of that I’m forgetting now that seemed less duh to me, but honestly part of the reason I have never just gone all out lady-guru and written this stuff down before (outside of my forum involvement) is that I don’t understand the LA club scene or how to land 100 top models in a year or whatever. I think what techniques and advice I have are for treating women like regular humans, and I have been repeatedly told that that doesn’t work to achieve the goals many PUAs set for themselves in terms of status and attractiveness of partners (I’m not entirely convinced). If anyone can speak to that, I’d be happy to hear it.
Sam-
I think you have a point, but I think your parenthetical there is an issue. Because you can’t have a conversation without accepting it’s context, and a major component of feminist conversations has been under threat of derailing and co-opting by “men’s issues”. There are places and ways to discuss this, but they aren’t always and everywhere (even though you and I agree that there should be more such conversations).
Err, I was referring to the fact that femininity-within-patriarchy is composed almost entirely of paradoxes, and that navigating the best personal way to perform one’s gender will almost always be at odds, if not with personal ethics and self-expression, with other components of the How to Be a Real Woman script. Are you really suggesting that most women engage with femininity completely on a surface level, without interrogating those problems? I would disagree completely.
I also agree with your assessment of the risk/reward situation, but I worry that a woman’s understanding of that risk and a man’s are at times so completely different that there’s little to be done. The fact that there are men who would assume that the majority of the women they meet think no is just a bit of foreplay shows that. From the woman’s perspective, the risk of coercing sex clearly outweighs the reward of having sex no matter what, but there are many, many men for whom that doesn’t hold. How do we have that conversation in a productive way?
I also want to cosign Clarisse on this:
because, Jesus, it is hard. Not least because women are often taught the awful double whammy that sexual aggression and willingness to breach boundaries in men is a compliment and that sexual connection isn’t valuable unless partners “just know” what we like and our boundaries are. Just overcoming that shit was a huge hurtle for me, and I’m still not in a place where I can be entirely assertive and/or verbal about my needs beyond that.
I know there are some other really awesome intraconversations happening, but I’m not in a Place to say anything other than I really appreciate this thread, and the general civility and goodnaturedness here. So thanks, y’all.
Clarisse,
you say in #125,
and I think you’re spot on here. Whatever I’ve seen of pickup material was exceedingly unspecific on that. Maybe someone who’s read more can point to something that actually deals with sexual escalation in a useful manner, but as far as I remember the only thing approaching a detailed account of that part in the game was the story about pouring oneself a bath in her appartment and the “dual induction massage” to induce threesomes. Apart from that, I don’t remember any advice going past a kiss close, except for the advice about handling LMR you mention. Again, maybe I’m just not sufficiently informed, but since you mention that, it does strike me as true. The focus on “follow the flow” seems like a stark contrast to the often verbatim advice given for earlier stages of an interaction. Actually, I think that the advice given by Charlie Glickman in response to your creep article (http://www.charlieglickman.com/2010/10/sex-tips-for-men-how-to-ask-for-sex) was more specific and broken down than anything I can remember reading in the game.
Maybe there’s an idea…?
Also, I guess your differentiation between takeaway and freeze out makes sense, although I do believe that making someone feel they miss you is not necessarily an asshole move, in my opinion. I guess it will also depend a lot on the performance.
@Sam:
The DiCarlo Escalation Ladder was specific to that. Formulaic, and not necessarily something that I’d recommend, but it put forward a framework that (ostensibly) covered the most comfortable ways to move from kissing, to caressing, to nudity, to sexual activity. Though not in stages that were that sharply divided.
I’m pretty sure that there have been others (by Love Systems, maybe — i.e., Mystery, Lovedrop and Co.). But it’s been some time since I’ve reviewed them, and I don’t recall being terribly impressed. But if I can recall where I Placed them, I’ll see if I can find the time to do another listen.
AnneBonney,
more later or tomorrow, but as a sidenote, I wish that -
had been the feminist message I was exposed to. That would have made my life a lot easier (I heard: “be wrong and you sexually assaulted her, you and your toxic touch.”) So if you could spread that talking point of yours, I’d be personally most grateful :).
I believe that treating women you’re interested in sexually like regular humans after meeting them but before knowing them is a bit confusing because if you’re interested in a person sexually, that person is *not* just a regular human. It’s a *special* human.
That said, I believe treating women like “regular people” is indeed very effective for attracting them – I think the closest thing in pickup lingo would be to treat her like your “bratty little sister” – but it is also, I believe, very difficult once one is attracted.
It is also important to know when to *stop* treating them like regular people and make them aware of their special status. I do believe that the SC is by and large right about the necessary sequence of attraction to work (she must be attracted to him before he can reveal his attraction to her, or it will not work and potentially even result in a case of “premature sexualisation” creepiness.)
Still catching up, but just briefly, Clarisse:
And:
I agree with the latter paragraph. But I wonder if the former will not make the latter a bit trickier, especially given the background of a lot of the guys on here. “Nice Guy(tm)” discourse is a really sore spot for me, at the very least. And if we use the “Nice Guy(tm)” label then I am much more likely to rip into the problems with the discourse than I am to discuss the numerous and different real-world phenomenons that are commonly equivocated (often in harsh terms) under that label.
(Perhaps “Nice Guy(tm)” deserves its own thread…?)
The Kitzinger and Frith study convinces me that people (particularly men, since they tend to be initiators) should be educated about the difficulty that others have saying “no” in sexual circumstances. That finding is consistent with my own experience having difficulties saying “no,” which becomes an issue more often as I’ve gotten more attractive and received more sexual advances.
This study does not convince me that men already know the difficulties that women have saying “no,” and are using claims of “miscommunication” in an insincere and self-serving manner. The latter claim is sexist speculation from the authors.
Whoa there. Kitzinger & Frith could be correct, but they haven’t made their case in this article. They argue:
Kitzinger and Frith are assuming that sexual communication follows the same norms as normative conversational patterns, yet their own analysis gives reasons to doubt that notion. They admit that they have no clue what acceptance by women of sexual advances looks like: