The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby sethtriggs » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:40 am

RyukaTana wrote:I know this is going to sound sexist to people who aren't paying attention, but understand that I am not painting all men and all women with one brush stroke. However, 'women pick-up artists' is pretty much an unnecessary endeavor, at least in American (and generally Western, from what I've seen) culture. Men are easy. That's not to say every man is just a horndog who trolls for sex. The point, however, is that a lot of them are, and it's easy to know where to find them, and they aren't subtle.


About the concept of "men are easy"...

I really do like female attention, I like the carnal attention.

But if a woman all of a sudden showed interest in me and was making it sound like she wanted to go out with me about 5 minutes after meeting me, I'd be a bit...okay, VERY suspicious.

While I feel pretty safe from the dangers most women would feel with a strange man taking interest in them, I know that there are many dangers that can befall me. I could be lured to a mugging, a murder, or all kinds of things like that.

I don't think guys are as easy as we might think culturally.

Certainly if I've had several conversations with a person I might feel safe in going elsewhere with them. I remember once I took a huge, huge risk once, having struck up a conversation many years ago with a nice woman on a bus. She kissed me and started making out with me, and invited me to her house, which was reached one stop before mine. It was a pretty fun time, all things considered. But dangerous? Heck yeah. I could've been led to my death and had no way out of it.

One thing that helped me though is that I'm 6 feet tall and apparently pretty beefy-looking, and this happened in Canada.

Nevertheless, I guess my own difficulty with the PUA context is why I started this topic. I've met male PUAs; I've never met a female one. And it's asserted that men are easy so women don't need a PUA.

So in that case, why do men need PUA? I guess I have difficulty in figuring out what the point of a Pickup Artist technique is. I ponder what it implies about the behavior of women.

-Seth
"You know, maybe if I could somehow eliminate everything you could ever possibly say, the phrases that are left over would actually be practical advice." - Ellen
User avatar
sethtriggs
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 12:23 am
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby RyukaTana » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:56 am

You refute my claim, and proceed to tell a story about how quickly you got involved with a woman you just met (even if only for a short while) right after. I'd say that's not particularly convincing of your points.

To say that men, as a whole (at least in cultures similar to America's) are easier, cannot be refuted by evidence of how a few men are not (which does not mean it cannot be refuted). Nor does the knowledge that men, on the whole, are easier, make every man easy.

The pool of men who are absolutely ready to jump into bed with the next woman who looks at them just right, is almost definitely greater than that of women. That doesn't mean every woman can get every man at a glance. It means a woman who just wants quick and easy sex, however, doesn't need to try as hard as a man who wants the same thing.

Could I be wrong? Sure, and I accept that. However, I've seen enough oversexed young men to be pretty damn sure I'm not.
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby sethtriggs » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:08 pm

RyukaTana wrote:You refute my claim, and proceed to tell a story about how quickly you got involved with a woman you just met (even if only for a short while) right after. I'd say that's not particularly convincing of your points.

To say that men, as a whole (at least in cultures similar to America's) are easier, cannot be refuted by evidence of how a few men are not (which does not mean it cannot be refuted). Nor does the knowledge that men, on the whole, are easier, make every man easy.

The pool of men who are absolutely ready to jump into bed with the next woman who looks at them just right, is almost definitely greater than that of women. That doesn't mean every woman can get every man at a glance. It means a woman who just wants quick and easy sex, however, doesn't need to try as hard as a man who wants the same thing.

Could I be wrong? Sure, and I accept that. However, I've seen enough oversexed young men to be pretty damn sure I'm not.


Well I relayed that story out of full disclosure. Yes, I did that but that's because I have a much higher sex drive than most folks. I am certain I'm in what is surely a 95th percentile or something. I just don't think that sort of thing would happen as commonly. I know many, many guys who've rejected women that have come on to them...often, in fact. Some so much that they still have never been intimate with a woman.

I guess I'd need to see more women that want quick and easy sex. I do know that when it comes to sex, women bear most of the costs of it (that is, they have the greatest risk from it). That is, I suppose, where I have trouble with the context of the PUA, that it's only seen as necessary for men towards women and not women towards men.

-Seth
"You know, maybe if I could somehow eliminate everything you could ever possibly say, the phrases that are left over would actually be practical advice." - Ellen
User avatar
sethtriggs
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 12:23 am
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby crayzz » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:45 pm

To say that men, as a whole (at least in cultures similar to America's) are easier, cannot be refuted by evidence of how a few men are not (which does not mean it cannot be refuted). Nor does the knowledge that men, on the whole, are easier, make every man easy.


While this is true, you've yet to show that men, as a whole are easier.

I guess I'd need to see more women that want quick and easy sex.


In my experience, there are many. I mean, many. Even the ones that want to wait until marriage have an active sex drive that they need to fight against.
crayzz
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:34 am

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby sethtriggs » Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:07 am

crayzz wrote:
I guess I'd need to see more women that want quick and easy sex.


In my experience, there are many. I mean, many. Even the ones that want to wait until marriage have an active sex drive that they need to fight against.


That is true, since I've experienced a few folks that were like that.

I feel like I've got a higher drive than the average guy. And I've turned down women.

Hell, I can even think of times where I wanted it but I was actually clueless that the lady was interested in me. So that was a missed connection.

-Seth
"You know, maybe if I could somehow eliminate everything you could ever possibly say, the phrases that are left over would actually be practical advice." - Ellen
User avatar
sethtriggs
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 12:23 am
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby Carnie » Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:50 pm

RyukaTana wrote:That's not to say every man is just a horndog who trolls for sex. The point, however, is that a lot of them are, and it's easy to know where to find them, and they aren't subtle.

This, I think, is the crux of the matter. Whatever the extent of the need for strategies for women to get men whom they could not otherwise get, such strategies need not be anywhere near as complex as those of PUAs. Men may sometimes need convincing, but they will respond to much more direct and simplified tactics. Which is neither a good thing or a bad thing. And by direct and simplified, I do not just mean shallow. Things like directly explaining why I think you and I are compatible and we should give a relationship a try, for example, are probably more likely to work on a man than a woman.

To answer the original question; no (for the reason above), but I tend agree with Randall Munroe in figuring that the closest thing you will find to such is "The Rules" and the like. But, by my understanding of such (and said understanding comes mainly from the Sister, Sister episode on the subject), that's more a method for keeping a man and getting more out of the relationship, than for getting one.

It's kind of ironic because that sort of women is often seen as a 'slut', not a 'PUA' or 'predator'. The same kinds of people who talk down to men for their 'predatory mindsets' will tear you a new asshole for slut-shaming*. I'm not saying there isn't a difference, but the difference lies more in method than purpose, and a lot of people cut down Eric (and other men) for 'just wanting sex'.

*Note: I will also tear someone a new asshole for slut-shaming, I'm not at all talking down to the mindset. I'm just discussing the hypocrisy of saying that women who want casual sex shouldn't be judged, but men who just want sex are misogynists and pigs.

I, for one, don't have a problem with men who desire casual sex. Or at least not in the sense that you mean; I don't think it makes you a bad person, or someone who preys on women. My problem with PUAs is indeed with their methods for obtaining casual sex - and my objection still mostly stands when the same methods are used in the pursuit of something somewhat more lasting. Specifically, my problem is that I consider said methods manipulative, and consider the premises on which they are based to be degrading to women (women are biologically programmed to respond a certain way to certain actions, et cetera).

Tem wrote:And this is what sexist men don't understand: the women you deem unattractive are people, too, just like you, and they want sex, too. And by not approaching them in an environment where it is not considered acceptable for women to approach men, you are just as bad as the beautiful women who say "no" to you.

Your general point does illustrate that one could ask "Are there PUAs for women who aren't attractive?" But as to your specific point, I don't think the problem is with men "not approaching" certain women. I would argue that the problem is with it being "not considered acceptable for women to approach men" in the first place.

For example, I like to go out salsa dancing. I am aware that certain females at the venues are less attractive than others, and consequently don't get asked to dance as much; and will admit, with some guilt, to asking them less often for that reason. However, when these same women ask me to dance - and they sometimes do - I say yes. Thus my preferred solution to this problem would be to find the sacred scroll on which these things are written, and change the rules so that women are allowed to ask men to dance; and then, if less attractive women keep getting turned down when they do so, then hate on the men who turn them down.

If a man wants sex, and he's conventionally attractive, he doesn't need manipulation, either. And if he isn't ... see above, there are women who have the same problem.

I think this is true to an extent, but not to the same extent as it is for women. I think that a conventionally attractive woman will have more success getting sex using their looks alone than an equally attractive man will.

Which brings me too:

RyukaTana wrote:The pool of men who are absolutely ready to jump into bed with the next woman who looks at them just right, is almost definitely greater than that of women.

While I am not one of such men, I for one believe this to be true. I don't want it to be true, but if I am to be intellectually honest, I am under the impression that this is true. There has been disagreement here as to its truth, and by all means continue to discuss that. But under the premise that it is true, I would like to ask as Seth did in his post at the top of this page,

Why?

This frankly fascinates me. I know the stock response is that men who will easily have sex are pigs and women who won't have standards; but seriously, do you really think the cause is as simple as that? I can't imagine it being. I'd very much like to hear theories on the reason for this.
Last edited by Carnie on Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Carnie
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:17 am

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby RyukaTana » Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:04 pm

If I had to pick a reason... Biology... One woman can only be pregnant by one man at any given time. A man, however, can spread his seed all the live-long day (not literally, but 'theoretically'). Given that, and the way evolution works, it seems like the connection is easy to make. Only society decides that sex is something wrong, and thus men shouldn't do this. In the end, even rape is easy to explain away biologically, it's a pretty common facet in the mating of many species.

I'm not advocating rape, I'm just making statements in response to Carnie's 'question' (it wasn't phrased as a question, but I assume it was an implied one nonetheless).
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby Carnie » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:49 pm

That doesn't explain why a woman who is not currently pregnant would not want to become pregnant ASAP.

Your point about rape reminded me of this. :D Which might appear to answer the above statement with "it is an advantage not to have babies with someone you know nothing about and who is quite frankly an asshole." :P But seriously, is that actually an evolutionary advantage, that would feature in natural selection?
Carnie
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:17 am

Re: The Ontology of Pick-Up Artists

Postby RyukaTana » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:25 pm

Consider how many 'mating dances' and other things that exist in nature. Usually males forced to court women. As far as males are concerned, they can spread their seed far and wide, and if the female is genetically weak and the babies die, oh well, he's got more babies elsewhere. A female, however, has a commodity. They are limited by how often they can procreate, and a baby that isn't healthy enough to survive in the womb could even put the mother's life at risk.

Again, these are all just biological factors, but they definitely inform the nature of the sexual dynamic.
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
RyukaTana
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:01 pm

Previous

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron