Say what you will about the dedicated PUAs (Pick-Up Artists) of the world: at least they sometimes actually talk to real human women. The guys in Reddit’s Seduction subreddit, I’m not so sure about.
It’s kind of sad, sometimes, to read the plaintive requests for advice on Seddit (as it’s known) from college guys who’ve fixated on some girl in some class of theirs, and want desperately to learn the secret formula to get into her pants. These aren’t guys who’ve mastered the art of “negging” women with clever little mini-insults (a favorite PUA technique); these are guys who haven’t quite grasped that you have to actually talk to a woman in order to ask her out.
Take this query, recently posted there:
My suggestion?
Write “coffee?” on your forehead, and stand in front of her. Point at your forehead if necessary.
So, yeah, I’ve been banned from Seddit.
Look, I feel for the guy. I’ve been that guy.
But just think of it from the point of view of the girl. Some guy you’ve never spoken to, some guy who doesn’t know a thing about you other than you make him feel funny in his pants, approaches you out of the blue and … slips you a note?
But really, the problem there isn’t the note. Well, part of the problem is the note, But the main problem is that college dude has never spoken to her before. As anyone who has watched Seinfeld knows well, “coffee” means “sex.” Going up to a woman you’ve never spoken to before and asking her out is a bit like saying “hi, you make me feel funny in my pants. I would like to put my penis in you. Perhaps we could chat a bit first. Though, clearly, I don’t care what’s in your actual brain, because here I am asking you out based on nothing more than the fact that you cause that aforementioned feeling in my pants.”
Pro-tip for lonely guys: remember that women are actual human beings also.
Now, this poor Sedditor got some good basic advice from the crowd there, basically boiling down to: figure out an excuse to talk to her before class, and see how it goes.
Now, Seddit may be mildly useful in giving this sort of basic advice to the truly hapless. But it doesn’t seem to be very good at getting across the notion that women are human.
Indeed, there was a strikingly similar question posted in Seddit a couple of days ago: a guy who wanted to ask out the only girl in his engineering class. His post, in stark contrast with the note guy, was bristling with PUA acronyms and lingo: the girl was an “HB8” (Hot Babe that he rated an 8 of 10 on the hotness scale); he was on the lookout for IOSs (Indications of Interest) from her, and so on and so on.
But his strategy was strikingly similar to that of the AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) with the note: he was going to walk up to her after class and ask her out for dinner. But he was planning to add one more “technique” to his approach: “kino.” In PUA-speak, kino means touch.
So, yeah, that’s what he learned from all his study of advanced PUA-oloogy: just start touching her! Women are eager to jump into bed with guys who come up to them out of the blue and start groping them. (The post itself was deleted after it got linked to in the ShitRedditSays subreddit, so no link.)
Trouble is, this guy is not the only one getting the message that Pick-up artistry is all about invading a woman’s personal space and “escalating” until she literally fights you off or given is. This is, in fact, the basic message of the PUA who calls himself Gunwich – a man who not that long ago (allegedly) shot a woman I the face after she refused his advances.
And, yes, pressuring a woman until she gives in, or up, is one way of getting in her pants. It’s also, you know, rape.
In recent days a number of Sedditers have posted advice that is little more than a how-to of date rape. A number of instances were pointed out in ShitRedditSays, and were deleted by the Seddit moderators. It’s clear this is damage control; a number of regulars on ShitRedditSays have been banned from posting in Seddit – many of whom had actually never posted there in the first place.
Here’s a discussion of one copy-and pasted date rape guide that got deleted before anyone made a screencap.
The Seddit mods say this is “fringe” stuff that doesn’t reflect how most Sedditors think. Then how is it that some of the creepiest comments get dozens of upvotes? Take this Sedditor’s advice on how to get inside a woman’s house (and then her pants) that I managed to screencap before it was deleted:
Now, there is plenty of PUA material that is not rapey. Manipulative, sure. Dopey, absolutely. But not rapey. A good Pick-Up Artist, in theory at least, should be able to tell when a woman is interested and when she isn’t, and move on when she isn’t.
But it’s clear that many Sedditors aren’t learning that whole “if she’s not interested, move on” thing. They’re learning: “if she’s not interested, pressure her and manipulate her, and wear her down. And be sure to touch her. Sorry, “kino escalate.”
They’re not learning empathy. They’re learning stupid human tricks. And, worse, they’re learning to ignore a woman’s “no,” to treat it as what PUAs call LMR – that is, Last Minute Resistance. And that’s pretty much a formula for date rape.
Oh no! I’ve spelled “stead” instead of “steed.” The great knight Pecunium has thusly defeated me before the battle even began.
“She’s actually complaining that the men who buy her free stuff are unacceptably beneath her.”
Yeah, because they’re expecting sex from her for the price of a drink. And she doesn’t want to have sex with them. What is it you’re outraged about exactly?
Ride my great stead? Am I supposed to go out and straddle the ranch and wait for a landslide to move me to town?
An academic study of effectiveness of various pick up attempts!
http://www.springerlink.com/content/72885788164pt1x7/
NWO. I didn’t defeat you.
The swiss-cheese you walk on for feet, from how often you’ve shot yourself in them, did you in long ago.
Shaennon summed it up. You are no Paul Simon, to say, “My lack of education hasn’t hurt me none”, because you are an ignorant know-nothing, and proud of it.
You think ALL CAPS in a document is needed to make it legally binding; and that this is, “eight grade civics” stuff. You believe there is no proof for evolution.
You think feminism is a communist conspiracy run by the Rothchilds [sic] and funded through the UN.
I don’t have to defeat you. All one need do is wait for you to explain yourself, and the victory falls in our lap.
@KathleenB
“Let me get this straight: men are allowed to call women they consider ugly every single name in the book, insult them, or even assault them for having the nerve to encroach on their Sacred Manly Personal Space ™ – or even exist. But women are not allowed to have any standards at all and should be grateful for any male attention at all. Wow, look at those goalposts dance!”
No, no, no princess. Anything negative a man says about a woman is misogyny. I just mock the lying mockers is all. Everyone here jumped on the old men want only super-models to ask them out assumption, and that’s what their real bitch is all about. And everyone here jumps to defend Doctress Ju’ulia, who actually said she considered the “qualty” of men offering her “free stuff” beneath her. You’ve defended the “fact” of what she said, because she’s a woman. There can be no other reason. And you vilify men on an “assumption” because they’re men. There can be no other reason.
@Pecunium
Oh no, sick, spelled [sic] in brackets no less. Truely Sir Pecunium, your Knighthood is well deserved.
NWOslave, would you accept free drinks from two disgusting women strung out on heroin that might very well think your acceptance of said drinks was an acceptance to have sex with them?
Oh, my dear boy… sic, in brackets, is Latin for, “this mistake is in the original”
The Rothschillds is the wealthy family of French Vinters.
The Rothchilds [sic] is the group you accuse of funding international feminism.
Do try to keep them straight.
He just might, Amnesia.
I just mock the lying mockers is all.
He’s so META!!
NWO: NOT a princess, how many times do I have to say that? Neither I nor my husband fight heavy, so we can’t go for Crown, and thus can be neither Sovereigns nor Heirs. And everything I say is bouncing off your RealityShield anyway so here’s an video about Stephen King references in the last episode of Haven:
http://www.syfy.com/haven/stephenking/17
shaenon, excellent summary of the Book of Learnin!
I only wish I had been educated that good.
Sorry, that goodly.
@Amnesia
“NWOslave, would you accept free drinks from two disgusting women strung out on heroin that might very well think your acceptance of said drinks was an acceptance to have sex with them?”
They weren’t just ordinary “crack addicts” my dear, in fact, they were the nastiest, dirtiest, slimiest, most toothless, strung out on heroin guys in the bar.
Now I personally wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a heroin addict, crack addict or just someone whose drunk, but that’s me. I lack the social graces to determine such. But we have the good Doctress Ju’ulia’s word of honor that that’s exactly what those men were.
But keep defending her, it shows exactly the mettle of the modern day woman. I wonder if you’d defend a man who said such things about women?
@shaenon you forgot to put under medicine that mammograms cause breast cancer
and CONTRACTS
@Pecunium
“The Rothschillds is the wealthy family of French Vinters.”
The Rothschilds are the decendents of Amschel Moses Rothschild. You’re knowlege of history always sucked. Perhaps this is where you’ve been mistaken. I’ve been talking banking, while you’ve been talking vinyards.
In other news, counter cultural hippies are to blame for priest induced pedophilic crimes, says Catholic Church.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/18bishops.html?_r=2&hp
@NWOslave
You didn’t answer my question. You know, it doesn’t even matter if they’re on drugs or not. If someone you find utterly repulsive, whether because of their looks, their smell, their behavior, whatever, offers to buy you a drink, and you think they’ll expect something in return, would you really take them up on that offer?
As for taking Doctress Ju’ulia’s word of honor, I see no reason to assume she’s lying.
NWO: Your greatest failing as a thinker, in the realm of gender-politics, is your inability to separate the singular, from the general.
If someone talks about a person, that’s fair; if someone talks about a group, it’s problematic. When they talk about an entire gender, it’s wrong.
You completely, utterly, absolutely, without reservation; nor hesitation, refuse to believe this is possible. A comment about any man; you say is made about each man.
A comment about women you get all bent about, because you confuse it with the comments about this man, or that man.
Guess what… I’ve known some horrible women in my life. I had a couple of girlfriends who treated me like shit. I’ve had women accuse me of things I didn’t do (to which the other women I knew called me and asked what happened because, [contra The World According to NWO, accusation doesn’t immediately equal shunning, much less arrest and the ruining of one’s life] and then make sure the story didn’t get out of hand).
Those women, are not all women.
That’s where you fail. You lump all people into very narrow classes. We don’t. I realise it may seem that way, because this is a place to talk about one specific set of pathologies, but that’s the real difference between you, and us.
It’s why MRAL, for all his faults, doesn’t get the treatment you get. He has a view of women which is wrong, but he doesn’t lump them all into one category. He admits he may be wrong. That means he is capable of change.
When shown how you are wrong (e.g. the issue of how stats work), you blithely maintain your position.
You are stupid, in the original sense of the word, you travel the world in a stupor… an addled haze of absolute certainty completely divorced from facts, and married to an utter lack of empathy, nor love for your fellow man.
I am, sadly afraid, you are getting the treatment, of each according to his deserts, that Hamlet prayed we would not get. I’d be sad, but that you are in the hell of your own making, where everyone sits down to dine with spoons to long, and cannot feed themselves.
Heaven, you know, is set in the same manner, and the diners feed each other.
You have my pity, but not my sympathy.
owlslave believes the movie national treasure was based on a true story
@KathleenB
“NOT a princess, how many times do I have to say that? Neither I nor my husband fight heavy, so we can’t go for Crown, and thus can be neither Sovereigns nor Heirs.”
I’m assuming when you say Crown you’re meaning is the British Crown. The “Crown” of Brittian has nothing to do with royalty. The “Crown” are the bankers. When you hear the term the “crowns colonies” that denoted the holdings of the bankers, not the royalty of England.
The “Crown” of Brittian is the “city of London” which is the center of the banking houses, not London city. Every year they have a celebration where the “Queen” begs admittance into the “City of London.” She shows defference to the great banking houses.
Sovereignty has nothing to do with royalty.
NWO: Can you not learn of the various interests of your little hobbyhorse. The Rothschilds are more than just a family of bankers. They also happen to own (and have for centuries), some of the best vineyards, and wineries, in France.
Chateau Lafitte-Rothschild, and Mouton-Cadet being the two best known.
But I should, perhaps, have expected that to fly over your head. Subtle isn’t really in your repertoire.
NWO: When she says neither she, nor her husband fight heavy, she is saying they don’t engage in “Heavy Weapons” as a category of combat in the Society for Creative Anachronism.
Which means they never be the ruling monarchs of a region. To be a princess, of course, they would have to win a principality, not a kingdom.
Your understanding of world politics seems a bit lacking.
NWO: The SCA. The Crown of the Midrealm, to be precise, which is the kingdom we play in. I am not going to do your fucking research on this one – google is your friend.