Excuse me while I vomit.- Trigger Warning for Rape and Rape Culture.

[LMNO]

I think I see what Placid is getting at.

The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people.  One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her.  Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".

Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".

So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".



HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.

And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

IS there a difference between the following victims:

Victim A was robbed at gunpoint and forced to empty their bank account.
Victim B wanted to make some fast money on investments and handed a wad of cash over to Bernie Madoff.

Bernie manipulated Victim B, giving them what they wanted, and ripped them off with their consent. The other thief used a gun and forced the person.

Is manipulation for sex, rape?

Let me expand that, is manipulating a situation by 'giving a person what they want' (emotionally/psychologically) in order to get into their pants, rape? Manipulation is a tool almost everyone uses, consciously or unconsciously, to get what they want. Is that rapey?

On the one hand, I might say yes, rape drugs subvert the free will of the individual, alcohol induced 'passed the fuck out' subverts the free will of the individual. NLP and/or other psychologically manipulative trickery subvert the free will of the individual.

On the other hand, maybe no... giving a person some date rape drug that knocks them the fuck out, is one thing. Trying to convince someone, or manipulate someone into wanting to get laid seems like something else. Dehumanizing, yes. Shitty, yes. But rapey? I dunno. Can a person's free will really be subverted through some hokey psych 101?

I suppose one important question would be how the woman feels. If she's drugged and fucked, I think we can all agree she's going to feel horrible, violated and well,  raped. If someone convinces her that a one night stand is just what she needs (and if she enjoys it and has a good time physically), then maybe she won't feel violated or raped... maybe she'll feel like she had a good romp. On the other hand, maybe she'll feel manipulated thinking about it later. So it may boil down to that 'later' feeling. Was the manipulation so great that she will feel violated, or was the manipulation just enough that she chose to make a bad decision? (and does bad decision = rape?)

No means no, anything other than Yes means no. It seems to be tricky territory, though, to say "Yes means no, if the guy convinced her that it was a good idea at the time".

Not defending PUA's, I figure they're con artists for sex, basically, which brings us back to the Madoff metaphor...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think I see what Placid is getting at.

The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people.  One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her.  Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".

Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".

So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".



HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.

And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.

PUA = Pick Up Artist.  Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).

Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.

PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves.  That is the definition I am working with.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

No means no, anything other than Yes means no. It seems to be tricky territory, though, to say "Yes means no, if the guy convinced her that it was a good idea at the time".

Not defending PUA's, I figure they're con artists for sex, basically, which brings us back to the Madoff metaphor...

That the PUA is a con artist for sex implies a couple of things-
A: Women need to be manipulated into having sex. It is the PUA's job to do this.
B: Outside of their potential for sex, woman are held in very low esteem by the PUA.

To say that a PUA is a rapist is a bit of a stretch. To say that a PUA is 'rapey' is simply to acknowledge that the above mindset is right on the same continuum as that what does the rape.

--And Trip, I don't really see that wanting a 'how-to talk to women' guide because a person is maybe shaky and a little awkward is really on the same level as making a lifestyle of 'sport-hunting the untamed vagina'. I'm fairly sure that when anyone on here says 'PUA', they are referring almost exclusively to the latter.

[LMNO]

I think I see what Placid is getting at.

The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people.  One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her.  Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".

Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".

So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".



HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.

And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.

PUA = Pick Up Artist.  Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).

Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.

PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves.  That is the definition I am working with.

See, I agree with you, TDRR.  I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.


LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think I see what Placid is getting at.

The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people.  One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her.  Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".

Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".

So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".



HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.

And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.

PUA = Pick Up Artist.  Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).

Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.

PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves.  That is the definition I am working with.

See, I agree with you, TDRR.  I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.


LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.

Anyway, we're starting the lift back up, so I gotta go to work.

BRB.

[Pope Lecherous]

I think I see what Placid is getting at.

The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people.  One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her.  Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".

Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".

So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".



HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.

And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.

PUA = Pick Up Artist.  Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).

Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.

PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves.  That is the definition I am working with.

See, I agree with you, TDRR.  I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.


LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.

Anyway, we're starting the lift back up, so I gotta go to work.

BRB.

It's hard not to invoke the true scotsman fallacy here, but i may have to.

I think that label has been claimed by all kinds of losers and it's hard not to see them when you think/hear "PUA."  If you see a man that doesn't attempt to convince a woman or deceive a woman into letting him have sex with her, but instead become genuinely attractive to the individual they're speaking to so that the woman wants him... is this wrong?

Can anyone get something they want from another person without debasing them as human?  I think so.  Does a "pickup artist" have to be seeking to get something from a woman?  A "true" and good pickup artist can create real desire and real rapport in an ethical manner, much like a good leader can lead men and give them an opportunity to shine. Much like a diplomat can negotiate a situation between adversaries and reach compromise, if not mutual benefit.  In this way, the ideal/true pickup artist has the artistry of a diplomat.  He negotiates the conflict between a woman's sexual desire and social expectations and fear of getting used/abused...  And like a leader, not in a manner that is persuasive, but in a manner that allows the woman to answer these questions for herself: By example. 

If the woman chooses to be distrustful, it may be because she detects some incongruence with his words/actions/demeanor, she may have her own baggage to deal with before she can engage the PUA in whatever way proposed, or she may simply not be interested in what he has to offer.  He moves on.  It may be his loss or her loss.  If he has nothing but goodness to offer to this woman, it is her loss.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think I see what Placid is getting at.

The label of PUA has been used to describe a large group of people.  One book identified as a PUA book gives advice such as "just go talk to her.  Don't be afraid to fail," which is something Stella mentioned as (for the lack of a better term) "not rapey".

Other PUA books use emotionally manipulative techniques, and have an outlook of debasement and non-human-ness, which is simply awful and pretty damn "rapey".

So Placid's saying that since some of the PUA material is non-rapey, then you can't call all PUAs "rapey".



HOWEVER, it's pretty clear from the various TV shows, websites, and the majority of books on the subject, that MOST BY FAR of the PUA material is rapey, so there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that someone who self-identifies as a PUA is rapey.

And I'd say it's a high enough probability that it's ok to make a blanket statement on this one regarding people who self-identify as PUAs.

PUA = Pick Up Artist.  Someone who does it for sport, and has a "method" (negging, etc).

Single guy out looking = single guy out looking.

PUAs have aggressively self-defined themselves.  That is the definition I am working with.

See, I agree with you, TDRR.  I was just trying to lay out Placid's POV.


LMNO
-obnoxiously reasonable.

Anyway, we're starting the lift back up, so I gotta go to work.

BRB.

It's hard not to invoke the true scotsman fallacy here, but i may have to.

I think that label has been claimed by all kinds of losers and it's hard not to see them when you think/hear "PUA."  If you see a man that doesn't attempt to convince a woman or deceive a woman into letting him have sex with her, but instead become genuinely attractive to the individual they're speaking to so that the woman wants him... is this wrong?

Can anyone get something they want from another person without debasing them as human?  I think so.  Does a "pickup artist" have to be seeking to get something from a woman?  A "true" and good pickup artist can create real desire and real rapport in an ethical manner, much like a good leader can lead men and give them an opportunity to shine. Much like a diplomat can negotiate a situation between adversaries and reach compromise, if not mutual benefit.  In this way, the ideal/true pickup artist has the artistry of a diplomat.  He negotiates the conflict between a woman's sexual desire and social expectations and fear of getting used/abused...  And like a leader, not in a manner that is persuasive, but in a manner that allows the woman to answer these questions for herself: By example. 

If the woman chooses to be distrustful, it may be because she detects some incongruence with his words/actions/demeanor, she may have her own baggage to deal with before she can engage the PUA in whatever way proposed, or she may simply not be interested in what he has to offer.  He moves on.  It may be his loss or her loss.  If he has nothing but goodness to offer to this woman, it is her loss.

All you need to do is spell it out:  "Pick up artist".

There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing.  It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".

If you're out looking to get laid, fine.  If you're out looking for a companion, great.  If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.

And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter.  And the methodology in the subculture is vile.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

IS there a difference between the following victims:

Victim A was robbed at gunpoint and forced to empty their bank account.
Victim B wanted to make some fast money on investments and handed a wad of cash over to Bernie Madoff.

Bernie manipulated Victim B, giving them what they wanted, and ripped them off with their consent. The other thief used a gun and forced the person.

Is manipulation for sex, rape?

Let me expand that, is manipulating a situation by 'giving a person what they want' (emotionally/psychologically) in order to get into their pants, rape? Manipulation is a tool almost everyone uses, consciously or unconsciously, to get what they want. Is that rapey?

On the one hand, I might say yes, rape drugs subvert the free will of the individual, alcohol induced 'passed the fuck out' subverts the free will of the individual. NLP and/or other psychologically manipulative trickery subvert the free will of the individual.

On the other hand, maybe no... giving a person some date rape drug that knocks them the fuck out, is one thing. Trying to convince someone, or manipulate someone into wanting to get laid seems like something else. Dehumanizing, yes. Shitty, yes. But rapey? I dunno. Can a person's free will really be subverted through some hokey psych 101?

"Forcing the kiss".

EOS.

[Juana]

That always sounded like a good way to get a face full of drink to me.


A fair bit of what they do is legitimately emotionally abusive - negging for example. "Here, let me undermine your self confidence as a human being so I can score."
And then there's the forcing the kiss, which is sexual assault and leads to the idea that coercing women into sexual contact is totally okay.

[Pope Lecherous]

All you need to do is spell it out:  "Pick up artist".

There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing.  It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".

If you're out looking to get laid, fine.

How do you speak these two sentences in a row?  Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner.  Such people do exist.  Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.

And people choose to have sex with others for a variety of reasons.  Either healthy or not.  Having sex because you enjoy it and because you want to is probably among the healthiest reasons.  I'm concerned with how the woman leaves the affair.  No damage or better for it. That's what is ideal.  Furthermore, you can have sex with someone for all the right reasons and throw their identity into question causing them to ask hard questions of themselves.  Is this your fault if they have baggage they need to deal with before they can have healthy sexual relationships and you didn't realize it?  How you handle it is what it matters.

If you're out looking for a companion, great.  If you're out looking to SCORE WITH HOT WOMEN regardless of methodology, as an ego thing, then you're a bit of a shit.

And the very title "pick up artist" implies the latter.  And the methodology in the subculture is vile.

No one is talking about defending what you think a pickup artist is.  If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong.  A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That always sounded like a good way to get a face full of drink to me.


A fair bit of what they do is legitimately emotionally abusive - negging for example. "Here, let me undermine your self confidence as a human being so I can score."
And then there's the forcing the kiss, which is sexual assault and leads to the idea that coercing women into sexual contact is totally okay.

And the fact is, as The Confessor used to say, "You get judged by the company you keep."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

All you need to do is spell it out:  "Pick up artist".

There are no "good and true" PUAs, because the very idea of what they do is dehumanizing.  It's not just the actions (negging, etc), but the motivation behind the "artistry".

If you're out looking to get laid, fine.

How do you speak these two sentences in a row?  Being a "good" pickup artist would be, not sucking at it and doing it in an ethical manner.  Such people do exist.  Just because you're hung up on this label doesn't mean that people like i have described do not exist.

You don't seem to be grasping the nuance, here.  The two statements you quoted are not contradictory.  There is a difference in values between them.

No one is talking about what you think a pickup artist is.  If someone is great with women in the way an artist is great at what he does and in a positive way that's not inherently wrong.  A magician who pokes you in the eye and runs off with your money is hardly an artist, even if he'd like to call himself one.

I am using the definition as currently used in society.  The definition used by the self-identified PUAs, such as the scumbag "Mystery".  In short, I am using the common definition of the word.  If you want to change the definition of the word to try to validate it, then there's really not much I can say.

[BabylonHoruv]

Is manipulation for sex, rape?

It is in Israel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

[Pope Lecherous]

You don't seem to be grasping the nuance, here.  The two statements you quoted are not contradictory.  There is a difference in values between them.

I quoted the wrong sentences. But your point stands that there's nothing wrong with trying to get laid, but doing it for validation is not the best reason.

I am using the definition as currently used in society.  The definition used by the self-identified PUAs, such as the scumbag "Mystery".  In short, I am using the common definition of the word.  If you want to change the definition of the word to try to validate it, then there's really not much I can say.

I would like to change the definition of the term.  Otherwise, what would you call the kind of person i've been describing as the ideal kind of pickup artist?