"In pervasive female self-honesty begins the only hope of not training up more generations of jerks. "
I just read a post by Eric S. Raymond on his take on the PUA (Pick-Up Artist) and wanted to share it with my readers (thanks to Engineer Bob for sending this to me) because it is a brilliant analysis. Here is an excerpt:
The reason women need be paying attention to PUA goes much deeper than just notching up another escalation in the jerk-vs.-bitch arms race. It’s because until women stop lying to themselves about their actual behavior, they won’t have any prayer of becoming self-aware enough to change the sexual reward pattern they present to men. In pervasive female self-honesty begins the only hope of not training up more generations of jerks. And it’s there that the pitiless, revealing glare of the PUA spotlight might help....
Ladies, with having more power over sexual outcomes there comes more responsibility. And there’s this, too; just suppose the great mass of men stopped thinking with their dicks and 99% of them suddenly became sensitive New Age guys eager to commit. Until most women stopped being cruel to betas and rewarding men who behave like dominating jerks with sex, nothing….nothing would change. PUA game would still work. The tragedy to which it is a minimax response would still be in motion.
I don’t have any final answers either. But, gentle reader…if you’re a beta male and not a natural, learning some PUA game might sound icky but it would sure beat masturbating to porn for the rest of your life. And if you’re female, think hard about the last guy you slept with and the last guy you friend-zoned. Maybe you owe yourself a rethink and friend-zone guy an apology, of the kind best delivered naked.
Labels: men's issues, PUA
posted by Helen at 7:27 AM
54 Comments:
I hate to be cynical (well, not really), but I don't even understand why he is appealing to women to change their behavior.
They won't.
And the type of men they want to sleep with is ingrained in their genes - it is not going to change.
Instead of the childish-sounding "pickup artist", maybe a more general term should just be "an examination of how women really behave".
If you want to know what women (subconsciously) want, ask them.
And then do the exact opposite of what they say.
For instance, they want a sensitive guy - because the guys they have really gone for in the past were insensitive and they wanted to change that behavior. The women saying that will never realize that they didn't pick a "sensitive" guy in the first place.
Asking women to stop being women is never going to happen but the sexual market place is a two way street. Men have power in it if they are willing to use it but first they need to learn to walk away from the deal when they are being steered into the friend zone by allowing themselves to used as an emotional tampon. The moment she calls you and starts blabbering about all the crap she has to deal with at work or school is when you need to cut her off, hang up the phone and be a jerk for your own good. You have better things to do with your life than be her unpaid on call psycho therapist.
just suppose the great mass of men stopped thinking with their dicks and 99% of them suddenly became sensitive New Age guys eager to commit
That's a supposition that Mr. Raymond use to draw an enlightening and, in my opinion, correct conclusion. I think, however, that men who stop thinking with their dicks, as I did more than a decade ago, do things very different from becoming SNAGs or eager to commit (to women; I'm committed to some other things).
There isn't any easy solution.
The vast majority of the women heis describing won't change, because change in the vein he is describing will sound/feel to them as if they are being asked to not be attracted to men they are naturally attracted to. So it won't happen on a broad scale, really.
As for the men, sure they can opt out, but that doesn't change the market, because most of the men who are opting out are guys who were not on many female radar screens anyway -- ergo, they won't be missed by most women.
The mating market has reverted to a more animalistic kind of thing, which is apparently how humans behave when there aren't rules imposed from some source outside that market -- society, family, religion, state, etc. Take away all the rules and it's back to the savannah in less than a generation. The only way things will dramatically change in the SMP is through some kind of extra-market intervention, and that's a long, long, long way off from happening, really, given where we are at culturally, socially, politically, religiously and so on.
It's a good analysis.
I don't defend Roisy, but I haven't been able to muster contempt for him either. He isn't telling men to present a false desire for monogamy or marriage. He's telling them to be jerks. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the effective thing to do.
The "i didn't know he was a jerk" excuse doesn't work when he is deliberately presenting himself as a jerk.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If one is unhappy with their life then stomping one's feet and demanding the rest of the world change so one can feel better about themselves probably isn't going to work.
One does have power over their behavior, their thoughts and their feelings. May I suggest working on the inside rather than expecting 3 billion people to change their ways simultaneously.
@Cham said...If one is unhappy with their life then stomping one's feet and demanding the rest of the world change so one can feel better about themselves probably isn't going to work. One does have power over their behavior, their thoughts and their feelings. May I suggest working on the inside rather than expecting 3 billion people to change their ways simultaneously.
_________________
Good advice. I suggest you give that advice to feminists, since they are notorious for leveraging laws and the courts to force people to do their bidding.
The way I read the advice from the posted article is he is suggesting to individual women to think twice about friend-zoning good men and bedding jerks. His discussion of 99% of men changing was hypothetical, and that the individual woman's results wouldn't change one bit if she didn't alter her reward system.
Trust, I doubt any woman considers her sexual desires and needs a reward system. Woman tend to have sex with men with whom they are attracted, not those they pity. An apology that would get delivered naked has a name, and it isn't a good one.
@Cham said...Trust, I doubt any woman considers her sexual desires and needs a reward system. Woman tend to have sex with men with whom they are attracted, not those they pity. An apology that would get delivered naked has a name, and it isn't a good one.
________
I agree that "an apology delivered naked" is over the top.
It really doesn't matter whether women consider their sexual desires a rewards system. The fact is, her sexual responses are a reward for certain behaviors. If a woman is attracted to bastards, she is certainly free to let as many of them mount her as she choses... but she should be willing to accept the consequences of that behavior, not whine that all men are jerks when only jerks are the ones she responds to.
Insofar as pity goes, pity is an unattractive attribute... but that isn't the only alternative to bastards.
I doubt any woman considers her sexual desires and needs a reward system
Which doesn't change the fact that they are in fact a reward system, and as we all know from Econ 101, you get more of what you reward and less of what you don't. The sexual marketplace is just as subject to the laws of economics as any other.
I agree with randian. Anytime a certain behavior(s) results in a positive or negative outcome for the person(s) engaging in the behavior(s), it is a rewards system. Whether or not that is the intent is not relevant... the fact that it encourages/discourages behavior(s) is.
@Cham said... Woman tend to have sex with men with whom they are attracted
_____________
I should have said more on this point. It is absolutely true. And it so follows that men who aren't completely clueless will begin to emulate the men women have sex with in the off chance that they may want to be attractive to these women as well. And if women are primarily attracted to bastards, that is what otherwise good potential partners will emulate.
I'm not sure why this would surprise anyone. Do not women spend a great deal of their time and money buying clothes, perfume, getting makeovers and hairstyles, etc., largely in an attempt to appeal to the men they are attracted to? Much to the delight of department stores.
The intent may not be to reward, but that sure is the outcome.
Cham :
It will be nice if you can pin point whether your disagreement comes from (a) or (b) below :
(a) Your disbelief in the game theory that is under discussion - you think women do not stand to gain from shifting to a more thoughtful rather than blind-instinct-following approach;
or
(b) You think women may stand to gain by such a paradigm shift, but there is no point in talking about it because the paradigm shift is never going to happen.
There's a thought or idea that's getting stronger and stronger with me as I get older: Women are just not that important.
They are important as human beings, they are important to me for the ideas and insight they have, but as very-important-up-on-a-pedestal beings, they are no longer really there for me.
So women who act like human beings to me get my respect in return.
Women who are entitled, passive-aggressive, sexually manipulative, otherwise manipulative etc. are just ignored by me.
Frankly, young men should act the same way towards them, but they never will. I put up with shit from women when I was young.
The world should also recognize just how extensively women live off men and get money transfers from men.
I don't know why there is such pressure to ignore that.
Everywhere I look. Two "professionals" married to each other soon turns into the man working until he is frazzled and the woman working a bit but reading her novels and doing her hobbies and generally having a good life ... off his money.
Sandeep: The "paradigm shift", as you call it, is never going to happen. There isn't a woman committee somewhere that sets policy on how all women act and which males get sex and which don't. One can write a bunch of posts on the Internet explaining that women need to change their ways so that beta males can get laid and feel satisfied with themselves but you won't see the hot girl down the street suddenly providing pity sex to the nerd in the basement playing video games. What may happen is that the writer might draw more people to read his site and maybe sell more ads, that's about it.
If you want to meet women and increase your chances of having sex I would suggest a man review the way he looks, read a few books on presenting himself and maybe get some advice from a trusted friend who has some luck with the ladies.
"If you want to meet women and increase your chances of having sex I would suggest a man review the way he looks, read a few books on presenting himself and maybe get some advice from a trusted friend who has some luck with the ladies."
---------
In other words, Cham is a Pick-Up Artist. Who'd a thunk it?
... meaning she espouses the same philosophy.
Feminists are really big on degrading men's sexual attraction for women, but they don't really think things through to the end.
Picture a world in which men had no sexual drive for women or any inherent chivalry towards them.
Uh Oh.
A gender war would have really become a gender war. With the same path the Neanderthals took, for one of the genders anyway.
Women's studies "professors" and all of the other "professors" of women's bullshit at universities would just be cut off. Women would actually have to produce something useful to get money. They couldn't just parasitically attach themselves to a man.
Frankly, it would be horrible. Life would be like what a man has to live.
Maybe feminists should think through their shaming tactics - or maybe they realize that men will always have a sex drive and chivalry, and it's just fun to continually nag and shame.
Cham : Let us consider the following :
1. Your advice to men : "If you want better results, you should change yourself".
2. ESR's advice to ladies : "If you want to minimize exploitation by bad guys, you should change your filter".
Why is (2) impractical and (1) not?
I don't really see a problem, I don't get exploited by men. Most men that I meet and interact are decent wonderful people. Maybe this wave of Pick-up Artists exists but I haven't witnessed it.
That probably your default approach was already in the spirit of what ESR suggested. Good for you, and good for the men you have interacted with.
But certainly, not every woman has the same kind opinion on men as you do, and to them ESR's advice might apply.
Interesting post that I plan to send to my 20 year old daughter. I previously mentioned a book that I thought was insightful. It was called, "Why Men Are the Way They Are," and was published years ago. Fortunately, it is still in print.
I still remember one discussion. Try to find a computer ad in a women's magazine. Advertising companies spend real money. They don't throw their money out the window. Thumb through the usual men's and women's magazines and look at the ads.
That should tell you most of what you need to know about how the sexes differ.
Try to find a computer ad in a women's magazine. Advertising companies spend real money. They don't throw their money out the window. Thumb through the usual men's and women's magazines and look at the ads.
Don't you know that this is because of gender bias in computer software?
Good point about the ads. Follow the money. Billions are spent annually on marketing research (the field I work in) before these ads run. Yes, the well run companies know where to put there money because companies like mine do extensive research to help them figure it out.
As I've said here before, what I've picked up on PUA sites such as Roissy have completely transformed my relationships with the important women in my life - in particular, my teenage daughter, my ex, and my female supervisors. I know it makes many of you throw up in your mouth a little to hear this, but learning a little game can teach you a lot about women and thus can be a real relationship changer.
Regarding JG's and Cybro's comments, they reminded me a bit of this song,, in which a guy decides it's time to bail on the "friend zone." Although I first heard the Linda Eder version, it makes much more sense as a song that a guy would be singing. It is by a singer-songwriter named Shaun Barker.
What a train wreck these threads always are, and dang if I can't stop rubbernecking in horror.
It only affects me indirectly if at all, but as a peer into damaged people its interesting.
My larger impression of men with the PUA discipleship going on is that they are slightly pathetic figures who are socially retarded and out for revenge as much as physical release.
But then, I don't see boinking person after person I have no feelings for as a desirable activity, and can't get that far into their heads.
I just feel so sorry for everyone involved.
Something really bothered SarahW to put her in that shaming mode. I think it is the true examination of what women are like, and Modern Entitled Woman with a Perpetual Chip on Her Shoulder is just not used to it.
You know, SarahW, more and more men are able to just shut off the shaming of women and look at them for what they really are.
sarahw, you might be right. revenge for all the controlling manipulative cruel whiney and entitled women that we find ouselves with from time to time in our lives.
the PUA disciplineship allowed me to drop state around some of these women while i was dating and i was able to get information about their past relationships, money strategies and legal tactics while they relaxed and we drank coffee or walked or whatever, and mostly i got the same old story of i deserved better and divorced him, took the house and kids and now i`m so much better on my own.....and i would think to myself, am i next?
and the answer was yeah, if i stick around.
cocky funny would get in her pants, but i would better off to just call it a night and go for a bike ride.
and here`s a tip the next time you are on a date, don`t call yourself a single mom. there`s nothing more irritating to a divorced guy paying child support that to hear that phrase.
what a trip sarahw, men with feelings and reactions to the shit things that certain women expect from us.
C'mon, SarahW, comment on the smallness of our penises. You know you want to.
I would have posted something earlier but I'm just now able to wipe away my tears over the deeply cutting remarks of SarahW. Sob.
mostly i got the same old story of i deserved better and divorced him, took the house and kids and now i`m so much better on my own.....and i would think to myself, am i next?
Been there, left it.
comment on the smallness of our penises. You know you want to.
LOL. Yes, she does.
Is it me or do these women who respond to comments with bitter shaming sound like angry vampires whose coffins have been suddenly thrown open exposing them to the sunlight of truth? You always know you nailed one when that poisonous shaming spew comes flying out of their mouths.
Shaming: When you haven't got an argument, a clue, or ethics.
When enough men become sensitive, feeling sort of people, we will
then get posts asking what has become of all the Real men that have been replaced by wimps.
what the fuck is friend zone ? sort of a parking area where you get to screw a friend?
"WTF is friend zone ? sort of a parking area where you get to screw a friend?"
Close. It's sort of a parking area where you DON'T get to screw a friend.
Men who meet womens' emotional needs while not appealing to their baser instincts have lifetime parking passes.
Leader of World Transhumanist Org aims for Female-only governments in 25 years :
http://theantifeminist.com/founder-of-world-transhumanism-aims-for-women-only-governments-within-25-years/
How? By exterminating men, of course.
"In pervasive female self-honesty begins the only hope of not training up more generations of jerks."
I strongly disagree. I'm a man, and I don't need a relationship. I don't need sex, porn, or masturbation, either. If women would rather not date me because I'm too sensitive or don't play enough games, that's alright. There is no reason for them to apologize to me unless they are obligated to feel attracted to me, and no one has that obligation.
If men realized that they do not need sex and romance to feel whole, there would be no need for resentment. They would realize that celibacy is okay.
I don't mean to make men feel ashamed of their desire for sex and porn, which I've felt quite strongly as well. It's a natural part of who we are, but it doesn't have to be our master.
Marriage was much more important for women, both socially and economically, than it is now. It's unsurprising that this change is challenging. In the interim, some people, both men and women, are going to have to go without having their desires met. It is difficult to bear that burden gracefully, but it can either be borne gracefully or ungracefully: as has been mentioned above, in the absence of changes from others, there is no other choice.
The graceful choice is not to manipulate or play games. That doesn't remove the burden of loneliness and lack of connection, because you can't have a genuine connection when there is manipulation. Even if one person plays along with the game, the player is not going to have respect for their prey. Only if both people are genuine with each other will there be a connection.
Unlike Cham and some columnists in the papers recently, I don't think the problem will be solved with a little fashion advice for men or more responsibility on their part. Men can't just solve the problem themselves. Women are part of society, after all. But if women don't change, it's better for sensitive men to bear the burden of celibacy gracefully. It really isn't even a burden.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
Josh (Mr. Nihilism),
Interesting strategy in that "sensitive men" will breed (more accurately, not breed) themselves out of existence.
When enough men become sensitive, feeling sort of people, we will
then get posts asking what has become of all the Real men that have been replaced by wimps.
what the fuck is friend zone ? sort of a parking area where you get to screw a friend?
fred - your best comment ever!! You're alright.
@fred: "WTF is friend zone? sort of a parking area where you get to screw a friend?"
____________
Actually, it's a parking area where a woman cries on your shoulder about how horribly another guy (who, unlike you, she is banging) treats her.
and if you find yourself being cried to by a woman you`d prefer to be banging, you may just be in the friend zone....
If a man finds himself in the friend zone it might be best for him to move on and find a new love interest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Grump said... 9:19 PM, March 07, 2011 “Interesting strategy in that "sensitive men" will breed (more accurately, not breed) themselves out of existence.”
The goal of a PUA is to get laid, not to father children, so they are in the same boat from that standpoint.
@Cham said...
If a man finds himself in the friend zone it might be best for him to move on and find a new love interest.
_________
Totally agree.... men in the friend zone should move on.
There is a corollary... Women who complain that they can't find a good guy ought to look at who they friend zone versus who they bang.
Is it me or do these women who respond to comments with bitter shaming sound like angry vampires whose coffins have been suddenly thrown open exposing them to the sunlight of truth? You always know you nailed one when that poisonous shaming spew comes flying out of their mouths.
Ka-ka-kaboom! Cybro DRILLS another one!
Good point, Words Twice. Those with sons and daughters might do well to educate them on how to navigate the current dynamics. How to do so without making them overly cynical is a tough one.
The so-called pickup artists are obnoxious and immature for the most part, but they're onto something and the so-called "nice guys" ought to pay attention.
A woman wants a man to make her feel like a sexual creature, and she wants a man with a backbone. That's it in a nutshell. A well-timed, somewhat forward and unambiguously sexual remark goes a long way, as does saying no to a woman once in a while, instead of agreeing to whatever she wants to do when you obviously don't want to do it.
Nice guys aren't necessarily so nice if they want to get into a woman's pants while pretending not to, or if they're trying to manipulate her by appearing agreeable when they really aren't interested in what she's interested in. And the truth is that women are very attuned to picking up on this kind of dishonesty.
Being assertively sexual doesn't have to mean acting like a jerk; neither does saying no.
Mario: I agree with you 100%
mario and cham...sorry, you are wrong.
if women had "radar" for jerks they wouldn`t mate with them and raise more jerks.
i spent two years dating and applied the nice guy presentation and got nowhere, but when i applied the "cocky-funny" and negged all over the place, i had my choice every time.
women, in general, are so insecure that a neg sends them into fighting for approval. it is cruel to treat women like this, as it is cruel to torture house pets....but it is how women respond.
i came away from the experience with a sense of disappointment that a woman was generally incapable of knowing who i really was, yet responded to tactics designed to get her to physically and psychologically repsond in precise ways.
i seriously planned to teach PUA but realised that what most guys would get was a verbal rohypnol, and i have ethical and moral injunctions with that.
occasionally i take on a student, but not before i know their own ideas about who women are.
It never fails. Some advice is given to women who are always belly aching about the quality of the men they choose, and how they can't seem to find better men even though the precise men they say they seek are the men they reject.... and women some RealMen(TM) chime in about what men need to do differently.
Yes, men should do a lot of things. We get the memo. Thanks for the tips. But that doesn't do much good when it is the women complaining. Why is advice to men always great, but advice to women a sign that men should change?
And the truth is that women are very attuned to picking up on this kind of dishonesty.
What complete bullshit.
Post a Comment
<< Home