So over on Chateau Heartiste, Mr. Heartiste is trying to explain a highly innovative pickup strategy that you may know as “playing hard to get.”
First he tries a “fishing” metaphor, quoting from a commenter on his site who wrote:
It’s like fishing. You don’t just jerk your line out of the water as soon as you can. That’s how you get a broken line and lose an expensive lure. You jerk her in slowly letting the fish tire herself out. Once she’s sufficiently submissive then it’s time for the net.
Then, presumably, you gut her and fry her up in a pan?
Heartiste doesn’t say. Instead, he moves on to another metaphor that he manages to make even more awkward than the fish one. Apparently women are like cats, who are much more likely to pounce on a string if it’s being pulled away from them than they are if the string is just sitting there.
There is some serious science behind this observation: In their Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation, studies reveal, prehistoric cats were in a perpetual war with irregularly moving string creatures.
In trying to explain the whole string thing, Heartiste writes:
A cat won’t lunge for the string if it’s just sitting there in front of her, but if the string [your penis and any proxies for your penis, like your brain or personality] is moving away or zig-zagging, she’ll pounce.
Dude, have you ever met a cat? Cats have claws. They’re hunters, known for capturing and killing prey animals with a single well-planned pounce. You definitely don’t want a cat’s claws in your junk.
The shared idea behind all these pithy game theories is that women want a man who seems like he gets so much mad pussy that he can take or leave any one particular pussy. This is the man who “flips the script” and has women chasing him. Women love the man of plenty. Women are repulsed by the man of need.
I think you’ve actually just described cats, the world champions of playing hard to get.
In the comments, Heartiste’s readers somehow managed to make his creepy metaphors even more creepy.
According to Broadsman,
Some fish have a “hard mouth.” Once the hook is set, you just reel them in as hard as your rig can stand. Some women are like that – once you plant the idea that you’re going to bonk them and they buy in, it becomes a matter of logistics.
Some fish have a “soft mouth,” Once you set the hook, you can reel them in but too hard a pull, and the hook slips out and they are lost.
MILFs tend to have hard mouths. Once the appeal is there, it’s a matter of finding a room.
Young girls tend to have soft mouths. You have to be gentle in tugging them into your clutches.
Soft mouth women tend to have the more succulent flesh but it can be more difficult to catch your fill.
It apparently never occurs to Broadsman that the “hard-mouthed” women he thinks he’s “reeling in” may have actually decided on their own to have sex with him; they may be easy to “reel in” because they are also reeling him in.
trav777, mixing up a couple of metaphors, suggests that “young girls” are so eager to be fished that they “jump in the boat when they get close…no pullin teeth.”
Sentient, meanwhile, takes the fishing metaphor way too literally:
Fish are “attracted” to “lures” but you have to match the conditions and the species sought to the right lure and technique.
You can’t just paddle out in a farm pond and start tossing an offshore lure around… No matter how many “numbers” you put up in that scenario, you will never “hook” a fish… kind of like opening a HB9 in a bar at 11PM and discussing in detail your career as a mid-level actuary or the excellent gas mileage in your Honda Accord…
Successful fishermen know all about the species they are seeking (mating, migration, hibernation, etc.), know the right lures for the conditions and time of year (what they are eating, what attracts them, type of environment/bottom) and know the right techniques (depth, rate of retrieve, where in water column etc.)… It’s a science and a skill – just like pick up. It’s GAME game. It’s not a numbers game.
Apparently feeling that comparing women to animals is too flattering, Greginaurora compares them instead to plants:
When I was in college I practiced “gardening”. Open every woman I’d consider taking to bed, then don’t-close. Everywhere on campus. … I’d “plant the seed of her interest in me”, then I’d walk away and let that interest germinate. One nice side benefit of this was that I had pretty women starting conversations with me everywhere I went (post-open). Eventually, one-at-a-time, these girls would let me know they were ready and bloom for me.
Ew ew ew ew ew.
Broadsman (the hard and soft mouth guy from above) returns with a whole new metaphor — women aren’t cats or fish or flowers but MINKS — and manages to out-creep everyone in the thread with a weird, victim-blaming apologia for domestic violence:
It is a common mammalian behavor for the female to require the male to get rough with the female before mating. For example, the female mink has to be bitten and bleed from the wound before she ovulates.
Lots of women at least appreciate rough treatment, from just being picked up and thrown on the bed to being battered women, loving their abusive mate.
Women: As PUAs see it, they’re fish to be lured, or cats to dangle strings in front of, or flowers to plant, or minks to physically mistreat — anything but sentient beings with their own thoughts and their own motivations for things.
h/t — dashapants
EDIT: Added the h/t, and a link to Heartiste’s piece. Oops.
I’d like to point out that female mink are ‘highly suited to multiple paternity’ of their offspring, so another analogy lost to reality!
When I read ‘young girls’ I am envisaging 12-14 yo’s, presumably ideal for ‘game’ as they are vulnerable and inexperienced for the most part.
Paedophiles do play the long game if they are clever. Game really is just another word for grooming.
PUA’s only don’t mention age as in most countries their targets are underage and they are not going to held accountable for ANY of their grotesque behaviour. .
Having heard more than one cringing story about men who, wearing nothing more than a bathrobe, bent down to find something in a low cupboard or rescue a fork that had dropped through the dishwasher rack – and found that the household cat really will attack a couple of things that are just dangling there… Don’t waggle your junk in front of a cat, really, really don’t.
I love how they take a really simple and correct idea – talk to a girl, then see her later, repeat until dating – and run with it in the stupidest directions possible. It’s like being inside the brain of an idiot (not to quote HB directly or anything).
If your brain or your personality is a “proxy for your penis”, you’re likely to be a very dull person to be around. Dicks have a pretty limited set of ideas.
As for the talk about fishing: isn’t the purpose of metaphor to explain an unfamiliar concept via a more familiar concept? These guys appear to find basic human interaction harder to understand than a minority recreational activity which most people only know from movies.
Then, presumably, you gut her and fry her up in a pan?
Please don’t give these fools any idears! They might start thinking that’s a valid response to women being submissive.
I think the saddest part of that whole thing was the idea that “intelligence and personality” are proxies for the penis.
Seriously?!!
Or in your brain! Probably not your personality, either, but how that works is beyond me.
Speaking as a point of data, this is not true in my case at all. I have met one or two men like this and it’s hard to get their attention and a constant pain to keep it. Not worth the effort; these guys and their ‘mad pussy’ can have each other as far as I’m concerned.
Ah, yeah. This.
In my younger, more sexually active days, I was the queen of “you’ve got me right where I want you”.
cue the “All My Nopin'” song, stat! ⛔ ⛔ ⛔
Okay, on to the comments for ten minutes or so before I have to leave for work…
Freemage: Don’t you get it? Women are like the T.rex from Jurassic Park.
If they don’t move, they can’t see them. They gotta move around a whole lot. Preferably in the opposite direction, cuz that’s the lure that will catch ’em.
– Ikeke35
As usual, they’re not doing their own gender any favors, either.
Broadsman sounds like an alien talking about his general theory of how the humans mate and what they want, based entirely on talking with many humans in the PUA forums, not realizing that none of the bragging they do about their conquests with the human women is actually true.
My husband and I have a terrifying story about our (at the time) kitten, some boom-chicka-wow-wow action, and dangly male bits that wobble temptingly. No testicles were lost, but I think he still bears the psychological scars.
@lkeke35 “Then, presumably, you gut her and fry her up in a pan?”
I’m surprised none of them made a joke about giving women their “Wunder Boner” during that fish metaphore.
The (aweful) jokes write themselves. They must be pretend fishermen.
In other words, nag her until she finally breaks down and says “If I do this, will you leave me the fuck alone?!”
Probably TMI but that moment when you’re doing your thing and suddenly notice the cat is crouched and staring at your junk.. *shudders*
Is it worth mentioning that mink are closely related to ferrets (both in the mustelid family)? Did they catch a glimpse of one of us out of uniform and just mistake the species?
What this suggests to me (and why I pointed it out to David) is that Heartiste is advocating the following:
pickup strategy #1: helicopter at a woman (or cat, possibly cat)
or, if not particularly well-endowed, then
pickup strategy #2: be a dick to a woman, except this time literally
Cat string theory aside, however, I too thought that no matter how funny the suggestion of waving your junk at a poorly chosen euphemism was, far funnier (sadder!) was the explicit notion of equating his readers’ minds/personalities with their boners.
The whole point of a metaphor, AFAIK, is to provide a simplified model of a complex or unfamiliar concept. This whole fishing/cat wrangling/whatever shtick fails at this.
The image of some putz running Game until he happens upon a woman who had already decided, “I’m gonna get some tonight,” and thinking “hey, it worked!” is simultaneously plausible and depressing.
This is a surprisingly accurate, if more than moderately disturbing, summary of PUA tactics. Most of the pick-up artistry I’ve read about involves seeing women as victims or prey. In other words, getting into a borderline serial killer mindset.
I think there was a Criminal Minds episode about it.
One of this fuckwits just used some random animal’s mating process to rationalize an abusive relationship. How dumb can one person be?
Yeah, me too. It sounds…advicey, though, doesn’t it? Kinda?
Reminds me of something I read a long time ago. “How To Be a Millionaire: First, get a million dollars. Then,…”
I’m sorry, I laughed uncontrollably at this. Especially the boom-chicka-wow-wow bit.
BTW, if any PUAsshats out there are reading this, the best kind of balls to dangle in front of a cat are the shiny, crinkly tinfoil variety. Kitties LOVE those.
I think that if your penis is zigzagging, something is very wrong, and you should either see a doctor or tie a feather to the end of your zigzag and amuse a cat.
Funny thing is that Heartiste isn’t even wrong. Women do tend to respond better when you don’t act like a creep who’s only interested in getting in her pants. Of course, his solution is to just pretend to not be a creep instead of, y’know, to actually stop being a creep.
One thing about this: shaking your junk at a random woman would seem to be the meatspace equivalent of sending dikpix to random women on the internet. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any woman who regarded dikpix as anything other than a useful device to identify men that they want nothing whatsoever to do with.