In Defense of Sedouchers

 

Neil Strauss, writer of "The Game," after and before he was a PUA

 

Atheists eat babies. Atheists worship the devil. Atheists are instruments of Satan. Freethinkers know that none of these statements are fair assumptions about who atheists are. In fact, freethinkers are the first to ward against pre-conceived notions that associate certain stigmas with certain labels. So it came as a surprise to me how negative the group’s reaction was to the confession I made while we were playing a game of “I used to be a…”

Well, I used to be a pickup artist or a PUA.

In the same way that atheists are reputed to be cannibals, the PUAs, I have learned, are reputed to be:

1)    Douchebags

2)    Misogynists who objectify women as sex objects

3)    Pathetic people who had to resort to artificial tactics to compensate for their lack of natural social skills and personality.

4)    Assholes who use any means necessary (including manipulation and deception) to get into women’s pants

5)    Clueless opportunists who unwittingly contribute to reinforce oppressive systems

As far as I know, the list of stereotypes mentioned above would more accurately describe a drunk hipster, posing as a misunderstood genius and talking about his aesthetic perspective (which is “ahead of its time”) to get into the pants of a woman, than it would a PUA. I guess that’s the reason why I wrote this article – to provide a better understanding of what a PUA is. This is an attempt to break the “negativity” associated with the label – PUA. But if by the end of the article you’re still not convinced. Well, “Fuck you, I’m alpha! Yeah!” *high-fives enabling PUA wingman*

Let’s begin with the label: Pickup Artist.

I must admit that the label sucks. The first time I heard it, I imagined a douche driving down Quezon Avenue, picking up prostitutes and calling himself an artist because he knew where the fresh whores hung-out.

In any case, the notion that women can be “picked up” is viewed by many women to be demeaning. But just to clarify, the term “pick up women” to PUAs simply means to “meet women” (and sometimes, take them home the night you meet them – thus, the label).

The label is, primarily, a marketing ploy – a “product” label. A PUA is simply a man who used to be a socially inept nerd and was given training to become less socially inept. But the services offered by the pioneers of this product had to be creative in their marketing strategy.

Instead of using the label PUA they could have used the term “ex-socially inept nerd.” But what kind of moron would pay good money to be an “ex-socially inept nerd”? They had to create the notion that this product would enable one to “pick up women,” but what it provides, really, is the ability to “meet” women in different social situations. Again, it is marketing.

Is this type of marketing and unethical? It depends on your perspective with regard to advertising. Is the Axe commercial misleading and unethical in that it creates the false premise that by using Axe women will chase you around?

My first argument is that between Axe commercials and PUA material marketing, PUA material is actually more ethical in that it has a higher probability of delivering on its promise. You will meet women and be able to interact with them when you acquire the basic social skills that might qualify you as “non-creepy.”

Secondly, the methods by which PUA products are advertised have nothing to do with the ethical value of the product itself. If the problem is in its marketing, the problem is not with the PUA product, but with common advertising practices.

The term pickup artist was a re-packaging of what really is “social training” or “relationship/dating advice.” But in order to make people buy the product, the pioneers of PU had to market it as something else, thus, the politically incorrect label.

But why is it politically correct to begin with? Is it sexist? Is it anti-feminist? My argument is that the notion implied by pickup does not assume that only women are exclusively susceptible to being picked up. Men can also be “picked up.” There are magazines sold to women, which provide tips on how to seduce or “charm” a man. But I’m not going to complain that the notion that men can be seduced is demeaning, because it’s true. Men can be seduced – women too. Both men and women can be seduced, or in PUA terms, “picked up.”

On to the myths!

1)    Myth #1: PUAs are douchebags

PUAs are not douchebags. To begin with, majority of men, if we are to generalize hastily, already are douchebags before they even became PUAs. Douchebagerry is not a trait acquired through the practice of PUA methods. The fact is that there are more douchebags in Cubao Ex than there are PUAs in the Philippines.

The most common trait associated with a douchebag is cockiness. The thing is, if ever a PUA behaves with cockiness, it isn’t done with sincerity. It is a performance in the same way that flirting or courting is a performance. He might say something like, “Stop checking me out, it’s making me uncomfortable.” But this statement is meant to be playful, not arrogant (unless that particular PUA was delusional or paranoid). It is what PUA David DeAngelo might call “cocky and funny.” It’s only douche-like when it’s not done correctly.

There are other attitudes that might associate PUAs with douchebags. Unfortunately, I can’t cover them all. For additional information with regard to PUAs not being douchebags, follow this link: What’s wrong with pickup artists?, http://taoofbachelorhood.com/2009/07/28/whats-wrong-with-pickup-artists/

2)    Myth #2: PUAs are misogynists who objectify women as sex objects

The notion that PUAs are misogynist is just ridiculous. I mean, how can that be? He’s the one who spent countless hours finding ways to better relate with women. That means he likes women, not hates them. The very label that the PUA identifies with reveals his desire for women. PUAs are not misogynists.

For the most part, majority of the PUAs I’ve met used to be socially inept nerds (I was one too). We said things like, “The reason why your approach didn’t work was because the HB can sense your AA through your BL. Even though she did give you an AI and several IOIs, you failed to establish a FTC. Furthermore, your attempt to DHV via a Neg backfired and actually turned into a DLV because it made her see you as an AFC trying to be the AMOG. You should write an FR about this C&B.” See? Nerds.

These are nerds who simply realized that the women they were earnestly infatuated with ended up with jerks that didn’t treat these women well. These nerds wanted to treat women well but didn’t have the necessary, the most basic, social skills to meet them. So, they had to learn.

Another misconception is that PUAs objectify women; view women as machines that respond to “secret magic buttons” that super PUA mad scientists discovered after raping and dissecting women. I have no proof that the procedure described in the previous sentence didn’t happen, but if I were to speculate, I would say that there’s a higher probability that PUAs made simple observations and took notes, or simply subscribed to Cosmopolitan.

If women didn’t want their buttons to be pressed, maybe they shouldn’t be writing about where these buttons are. Women can’t publish all this information about what they like and what they do not like and not expect men to know about it. I mean, men can read too.

Some women think that PUAs are wrong because only women should be reading about relationships; and that only women should be learning about the opposite gender in the hundreds of magazines published every year devoted entirely for this purpose; and that only women should be able to use tools that enhance their attractiveness (makeup); and that only women should be allowed to use seduction.

Then these very same women complain about how men don’t understand them and don’t know what they want. PUAs are good to and good for women. They know what women want because they took the time to learn what women wanted (Cosmo! I wasn’t kidding when I said that).

One woman actually wrote an article about how she went from thinking that PUAs are assholes to being engaged to one. Her name is not Marguerite De Leon (Margie still thinks I’m an asshole). She’s a writer from London. You can read her article here:  Do Women Like Pickup Artists?, http://www.articlesbase.com/relationships-articles/pua-lover-do-women-like-pick-up-artists-1356395.html

3)    Myth #3: PUAs are pathetic people who had to resort to artificial tactics to compensate for their lack of natural social skills.

This one is not a myth. The truth is that I was (am?) a pathetic person who needed a book to learn basic social skills that I should have known in the first place had I not been so socially retarded.

Some men think that it’s pathetic that some boys need books to learn about women. I agree. In fact, I wish I had the social skills that these cool men had so I didn’t have to go through all the trouble that I did. Better yet, I wish I had a Cool-man friend who got dates for me.

Cool-man Friend to Girl: “Hi, are you doing anything Saturday night? There’s that new Scott Pilgrim movie everyone’s been talking about. I was thinking maybe you and DUSTIN could see it together.”

If friends like that existed there wouldn’t be any PUAs. As for me, I had to read books about girls and practice talking to girls in clubs and coffee shops.

But, honestly, I’d rather be the socially inept dude who made a decision to improve his social ineptness, than the dude who can’t get a date because he thinks that reading about girls is cheating.

4)    Myth #4: PUAs are assholes who use any means necessary (including manipulation and deception) to get into women’s pants.

The most common misconception about PUAs is that they use deception. Well, some men use deception. Other men do not. The same is true for PUAs. Some PUAs are assholes. Some are not.

A lot of PUA literature doesn’t teach you a secret, sneaky, shadow pick-up Karate move that you can use to instantly get into a woman’s pants. It simply teaches you what girls don’t like.

Let’s say for example that there was a shy boy who had a big crush on a girl. After stalking her for a few months (because he couldn’t approach her), he developed a real adoration for her – not just her beauty, but her character as well.

Let’s say he walked up to her and told her, “Hey, I just thought I should tell you that you’re beautiful. Also, you’re very gentle with people. I like that about you. I know that because I’ve been watching you – for months. But this is the only time I gathered enough courage to actually talk to you. By the way, I’m John.”

Let us pretend that he was being honest. In fact, let us also say that he was compelled by a strong, sincere emotion to make such a grand gesture because he really, sincerely adored this girl.

I don’t think I have to tell you that this approach will not work. The girl will run. It is authentic, yes, but the girl will think this is creepy and she’ll call for help.

Now, let’s say that this same boy learned later that girls don’t like weird boys who stalk girls and he stopped doing it – is this deception?

Isn’t he simply learning not to be a creep?

To many cool guys, this is common sense. But to some people it is not, and I don’t think men who decide to learn ways to not be creepy should be discriminated against. The truth is PUAs don’t pretend to be anything. They’re just trying to evolve for the better.

Quoting Wayne Elise (CEO of Charisma Arts):

“[To be a PUA] also takes honesty. You probably didn’t expect to see that word in a book on picking up women. Surprise. A true pickup artist is not a player. While a player schemes and hides and sneaks around to get in an extra bit on his girlfriend or wife, the pick-up artist has neither the inkling nor time to do that. He seeks to be straight with the women who are involved with him. He has contempt for dishonesty and considers the player an unskilled opportunist.”

“How about those scripts and routines?” the reader might ask.

Well, they’re mostly “icebreakers.” Again, the client base of PUA literature is the nerd community. Nerds can’t simply walk up to a stranger and start a conversation (unless they’re also nerds of the same gender). These routines only help them get through those first 5 minutes. There’s only so much script a person can memorize. The scripts may create attraction for 5 minutes or so, but it is the person’s character that sustains this attraction for longer periods of time.

5)    Myth #5: PUA assumptions reinforce oppressive systems

If you were a nerd who didn’t have the skills necessary to relate to women, what would you do?

A)    I would question, challenge, and seek to change our hierarchical society that postulates alpha-male characteristics as the standard for what is attractive in men thereby discriminating against, and marginalizing, other masculine models.

B)    I would question, challenge, and openly criticize our patriarchal society for accepting as a norm the notion that men carry the exclusive burden of having to actively pursue women.

C)    I would subvert and deconstruct the very concept of masculinity in order to promote pluralism and negate any objective standard society might prescribe as the “ideal”.

D)    I would try to figure out what women (in general) found attractive and aspire to live-up to that standard.

Come on. Seriously? Deconstruct masculinity? Challenge patriarchy? Dating can’t be that complicated. Doing these things in the right social circles might earn a date (from a really smart person), but, generally, what these discussions will earn from the average woman (or man) is a yawn… unless it’s a complicated pickup line:

“Hi. I don’t subscribe to traditional notions of gender politics, or the oppressive system of patriarchy that subordinates women… So I can’t and won’t pick you up. In order for this interaction to progress further, we must mutually agree to pursue each other, and mutually agree to allow said pursuit to occur in a negotiated space that is independent of the traditional gender roles prescribed by patriarchal societies.”

Or, a revision of a classic pickup line:

“Hey, can you buy me a drink?” (Instead of “Can I buy you a drink?” if you didn’t get it)

Back then, it was easier for me to learn the rules than to change the game. As a fitting analogy, let’s take capitalism for example. As a person with common sense, I recognize that I am operating within the existing framework of Capitalism. If I didn’t have money, I’m not going to go around appealing the injustice of capitalism or private property. I would simply get a job.

What I had then was a pragmatic problem, so what I needed at the time was a pragmatic solution.

Some people feel that my positive attitude with regard to the PUA perspective has consequences with my previously stated political ideology – anarchism. I have been told that I wasn’t an anarchist because, as someone who sees nothing wrong with PUA behavior, I continue to tolerate and recognize oppressive hierarchies that I should be rejecting if I were, truly, an anarchist.

Whoops! My bad.

I may have accidentally pretended to be an anarchist. But my understanding of anarchism is simply a rejection of state authority and religious dogma. Does anarchism really mean rejecting all hierarchies and behaving as if no hierarchies existed?

In that case, I’m probably not one because I have a day job and the only reason I can maintain a day job is by recognizing the hierarchy in my office and the authority of my boss. If my boss tells me to write a syllabus, I don’t tell her, “Fuck off, lady. I don’t recognize your authority.”

People behave contrary to what their ideology prescribes because that is what the real-life situations demand. And in the context of being a PUA, one has to recognize certain hierarchies because recognizing these hierarchies and using these labels (Alpha Male, Mother Hen) allow for a better understanding of the existing order. The labels are used for the purpose of practicality, not politics. If our behavior determined our ideology, wouldn’t we all be capitalists?

To be consistent with the analogy I proposed (“preconceived notions about atheists are just as ridiculous as preconceived notions about PUAs”), I’d like to bring up the issue of labels. Because of the negativity associated with atheism, a certain group of atheists actually proposed that the term “bright” be used as a euphemism for “atheist” to avoid the negative connotations attached to it. But changing the term doesn’t change the fact that atheists don’t believe in a god. So why change the term? If anything has to change, it’s not the term but how people perceive the term.

Many PUAs also want to rid themselves of the labels “pick-up artist” or “ex-pickup artist” because of the negative connotations associated with PUA culture. Some PUAs have proposed terms such as “naturals,” “players,” or whatever bullshit euphemism they could think of. In fact, the most recent dating products are inherently anti-PUA, although, it’s mostly the same material re-packaged in politically correct boxes. Well, I don’t need a euphemism. I was a pickup artist – a fucking PUA.

We (active or inactive PUAs) can change the terms but these facts remain:

We were a bunch of men who did not naturally develop the skills that provided other men the confidence and ability to just walk up and talk to women; we read a book (several, actually) or attended a seminar about women with the intention of finding out the characteristics these women liked so that we could develop such characteristics in ourselves; we went to clubs and other social places talking to as many women as we could in order to accustom ourselves to the idea that “women are nice people who will not embarrass you in public for fun because you wanted to meet her (most of the time, at least).” We wanted to improve ourselves and many of us left the community as better, improved, versions of our former nerdy selves.

I’m happy I was a PUA.

As a freethinker, I liked my life more after I became an atheist than I did before I was an atheist. I could say the same for being a PUA. I liked my life more after I became a PUA than I did before I was a PUA. The truth is I still exhibit many of the traits I learned from my PUA days (I still maintain a delusional sense of coolness, I’m not needy or jealous, I slap my bitch from time to time just to keep her in line and show her who’s boss, I make sure that people know that I’m joking when I make incredibly offensive statements like the phrase before this one, etc.).

Now, if PUAs are really manipulative misogynists who abuse and objectify women, then my girlfriend probably has the worst case of Stockholm’s syndrome since she seems to enjoy my supposed misogyny, abuse, and objectification.

The myths about the PUA are only as valid as those about atheists. The truth is that PUAs are regular people. They don’t hate women and they don’t eat babies (unless you’re using the word “babies” as a politically incorrect and possibly anti-feminist euphemism for breasts).

38 comments

  1. I'm glad to hear that PUA doesn't conflict with my political views (anarchism).
    BUT, doesn't it kind of prevent natural selection from doing it's work?
    like, i feel as if it's immoral to be a PUA, simply because natural selection is supposed to weed out the nerds and the beta males, thus improving our society (you know..like…evolution?)
    It's the same thing with self help.
    So can you please ease my fears that this is somehow working against the will of nature, so that i can get on with my PUA learning?
    Thanks 😀

  2. Thanks for the comments everyone!

    I hope everyone who commented on this post attends the actual meet-up! It's going to be a very interesting discussion. I hope several PUAs go (regardless of race, religion, or creed) because I can't speak for all PUAs. We have different methods and approaches (direct/indirect, inner/outer game). We have different backgrounds (I'm was an artsy-fartsy nerd who used to bore my dates to death with pretentious literature. Hahaha!). I hope female PUAs (to prove that PUAs are not exclusively men), and females who don't hate PU culture go too because many of the criticisms of PUA culture come from feminists.

    In defense of PU critics, many of them have met few PUAs (apart from me). In fact, many of these critics are very good friends of mine, including Red, with whom I get along very well. That is precisely why we decided to talk about this: to give PUAs a chance to provide a better understanding of what we actually do, clarify misconceptions, as well as answer criticisms.

    Cheers! 😀

  3. I'm a woman and I don't hate you or any other PUA for that matter! I actually wingwoman for my friends. Well, I do try and it isn't that bad. :))

    My sister bought The Game months ago and we both found it really interesting. By the way, I understood the acronyms. Indication of interest, definition of higher value, et cetera et cetera. :))

    Bottom line, I don't find it offensive at all. My gal friends are even crazier when they want to get a guy. Some men are players with or without the PUA status. And yes, some women are sluts. That's just how it is. Any established / perceived group in society cannot be isolated nor generalized based on a handful of its members. It's just sad, you know.

    Anyway, take care and please do know that not all women judge PUAs. 😀 So yeah.

  4. You are the man, Dali. Seriously. This is one hell of a write-up. And a lot of conversational fodder I'm saving for the meet-up.

    Nash Casten – one of the leaders of Philippine pick-up – coming to the meet is a blast from the past. But at this juncture in my life, I'm more interested in his intellectual rather than Game-related points.

    Also, I think it really sucks that I could still understand that nerd-speak. The Game has a place in my heart… but they have to ditch the fucking jargon, man. It's not good for you.

  5. Dustin is the first real live PUA that I have met and his way of employing psych in 'charming' women baffles me. While lit and media portrays PUAs and their social interactions, I never thought that the same applies in Philippine setting. Nonetheless, I anticipate our meetup this Saturday
    Ciao

  6. When PUAs *actively* exploit human weaknesses to gain an advantage in the power dynamic, they're no different from liars — from white liars to outright brainwashers. Not only is this demeaning, coercive, and oppressive, it reinforces demeaning, coercive, and oppressive social structures. This becomes especially unethical when you consider that there are alternative tactics to use to meet women that are not unethical and just as effective.
    =====
    The whole point of life is to exploit weaknesses (some call opportunities) in people, in situations, in everything to get your way.

    Alternate tactics? There are plenty…all are manipulative.
    At any given moment someone is manipulating someone else. If youre not manipulating? Youre being manipulated by the forces that be.
    Manipulation is movement. It is taking someone from point A to point B-hopefully is advantageous for you?
    With your statements you attempted to manipulate us to thinking a certain way. I pushed back and now attempting to manipulate you to see it my way.
    Manipulation is a reality of life! Without manipulation is stasis…suspended animation. Someone and something is always manipulating and being manipulated by someone/something.

  7. i read redtani's post and here are my comments back at him. DUSTIN your post was great BTW

    "When PUAs *actively* exploit human weaknesses to gain an advantage in the power dynamic, they're no different from liars"

    i dont get what you see in people who use PUA tactics. why are you against people choosing the PUA way? aren't we all entitled to it? you sir are what people call close minded and idealistic. you say that because we use tactics and routines we "deceive" women? well let me ask you, who do you think deceive better? hmmm? it all comes back to that opener, "who lies more? men or women?" hahaha

    women put on heels so they LOOK taller. they wear make up so they LOOK whiter. use lipstick so that their lips LOOK redder. women arent that tall, they aren't that pretty, they aren't that white. Aren't they also deceiving guys to grab that advantage in dynamic power?

    PUAs learn lines so that they sound more interesting and to level the playing field. women for as long as i can remember have used what they had to their advantage, they had the power in LOOKS. thats all they needed to do, get some surgery and voila they can "game" any man that might have not wanted her back when she was ugly. most women are so superficial. whereas a guy, lipstick, high heels, and makeup will do him no good, all he needs is some surgery on his social skills via bootcamp, book, video, etc

    i am no nerd, never was and never will be. i never deceive women, because in truth i am a jock, im an athlete, i am a pratyboy. i do feel that i have high social status, and that was way before i learned pick up. in my mind i was the ALPHA MALE. that is why i dont consider myself a PUA, im just an alpha male who learned game

  8. You make a woman happy, they call it deception….

    You make a woman cry, nobody's saying anything except for, "hey! it's a man's world so shut up woman!"

    Cmon! Give it a break. PU isn't the most anti-sexist stuff in the world but PUAs do little harm unless you make it a big issue. Sure, compare most women who have been picked up by PUAs and you'll see that they are more friends with PUAs rather than being heartbroken with their pathetic exes.

    And please… Don't start with the "be natural". Naturals are your father who beat the crap out of your mother whenever she complains about your daddy's 11th mistress.

  9. from an ethical standpoint, I find it no different from how lawyers are trained to win cases. delivery and technique often play a bigger role than content especially when it come to first impressions.

    on a side note, the story of "The Game" ended badly because as the author pointed out, PUA only works well for the initial first impressions which usually means its only good for one-night stands and short-term relationships. You have to change gear eventually and IMHO, PUA who are already so good at the "game" have trained themselves so well in the script that they can't.

    • I'm more reminded of the movie "Hitch" starring Will Smith.

      Smith's character reached a similar conclusion, in that he felt that helping socially inept guys wasn't necessarily there to help them just bed the girl. It was simply to give them a fighting chance at starting up a meaningful relationship. Maintaining the relationship after that first impression was then left entirely up to the guy's disgression.

      He went as far as to threaten a jackass with a beating when he found out that was the only reason said jackass was looking for his advice was for a one-night stand with a girl who was looking for a long-term relationship.

    • While we're at it, I also find the ethics of such lawyers questionable, especially when they consciously try to obscure the truth with delivery and technique.

  10. Blah blah blah… I'll be there this saturday… hahaha…

    Man I've been totally busy… Btw Yes I'm an asshole… But I'm the asshole with a heart… Shiet "Dali remember back in the day when David used to be called a manyak and me a jerk… then you were called both…" hahahaha That was Epic… -Nash Casten, 24/7 Attractive Man Instructor, APAC and Middle East.

  11. Sure, Red. I've been trying to contact my former wingman but he hasn't responded yet. If he doesn't respond within the week, I would try to contact the other local dating company. I must say thought that I don't completely agree with some of the methods used by this other company, but they do know a lot more about PU than I do. 🙂

  12. I'd reply to each of your points, and even write an entire post about it, but this really spoiled it for me: http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/pua-p… . Anyway, let me summarize my points now:

    When PUAs *actively* exploit human weaknesses to gain an advantage in the power dynamic, they're no different from liars — from white liars to outright brainwashers. Not only is this demeaning, coercive, and oppressive, it reinforces demeaning, coercive, and oppressive social structures. This becomes especially unethical when you consider that there are alternative tactics to use to meet women that are not unethical and just as effective.

    That will have to do for now. I like to leave some left for our discussion/debate next meetup. The topic: Are PUA tactics unethical? It would be great if your friend could join us so that we'll have a sampling of the different tactics. Or we could just discuss them ourselves — I'm familiar with the PUA literature, too 🙂

  13. Uh-oh. The link I posted in my comment don't work. Here are links that do work:
    <a href="http://www.venusianarts.com” target=”_blank”>www.venusianarts.com <a href="http://www.charismaarts.com” target=”_blank”>www.charismaarts.com <a href="http://www.zanperrion.com/the-essence-of-enlightened-sed…” target=”_blank”>www.zanperrion.com/the-essence-of-enlightened-sed… <a href="http://www.authenticmanprogram.com” target=”_blank”>www.authenticmanprogram.com

  14. PART 3

    As for the “neg,” as I have said before, “If it was demeaning, it didn’t work.” You use negs all the time Red, the only difference is you don’t call it a neg. For example, when you said that (I apologize in advance if I happen to misquote you) “women had smaller brains” you didn’t say it to demean or insult our friends since your intention was to playfully tease them, as well as to generate humor. I don’t remember any of them being insulted.

    I don’t think we should make a distinction between self-help lit and PUA lit because PUA lit is self-help. And with regard to relationships and dating it is definitely more “self-helpful.” By simply browsing the links I placed above, one would realize how varied PU really is. In fact, the only reason they call these products PU products is because they’re after the same market – what is known as the seduction community. Other than that, these are completely different approaches and belief systems.

    PS> I'm sorry I had to comment in 3 parts. My connection was having difficulty posting it in a single long comment.

  15. PART 2

    That’s the first difference among PUAs. Some branches of PU thought focuses on behavior (what to do) while others focus on attitudes and developing inner characteristics (who to be). Outer game provides a beginner with training wheels or crutches until he gathers enough experience and success (however minimal) to do it on his own. Inner game informs the beginner which characteristics are attractive, shows them how to develop these characteristics in themselves and teaches them how to convey these characteristics properly.

    Anyway, Venusian Arts too was my first encounter with PU (from the book, The Game), and majority, if not all, the acronyms used in PU come from this method. Later on, I found a school of thought which was more congruent with my personality – Wayne “Juggler” Elise’s Charisma Arts <a href="http://(http://www.charismaarts.com/)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.charismaarts.com/). They had a completely different approach to the game, a minimalist, improvisational approach (no scripts). Their emphasis was on sincerity and connection. Among the problems they attempt to solve is, “How does a man express sincerity without behaving like a total wimp?” and “How does one convey one’s own genuine value?”

    There are also mystical approaches to the game. Zan Perrion’s “The Arts Amorata” <a href="http://(http://www.zanperrion.com/)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.zanperrion.com/) focuses on “the essence of enlightened seduction” <a href="http://(http://www.zanperrion.com/the-essence-of-enlightened-seduction.php)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.zanperrion.com/the-essence-of-enlightened-seduction.php). Travis Decker’s AMP or Authentic Man Program <a href="http://(http://www.authenticmanprogram.com/)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.authenticmanprogram.com/) whose emphasis is on raising a man’s sexual comfort that he may express his sexuality in a more fluid manner (and attract girls).

    • I'll repeat what I said: What characterizes PUA literature as PUA literature — what makes it different from other self-help books — is *often* the manipulative tactics that prey on coercive social structures. The different schools you are speaking of may appropriate self-help psychology or social engineering tricks and then put it in a PUA book, but those tactics/behaviors are not particularly PUA. I hope you get what I mean.

      Imagine this situation. We dissect any PUA literature and identify what other books/philosophies each piece of advice would likely appear in. For example, we have tips 1 – 5. And we say 1 comes from any manual on good grooming and etiquette. 2 comes from relationship self-help literature. 3 comes from New Age/New Thought/Positive thinking literature. 4 comes from Behavioral Studies/Sociology. Then we get t o 5 — 5 is special. We won't find this in any of the literature already mentioned. It's the kind of advice you could only get from a PUA book. And this is often the kind of advice that is particularly douchy — chauvinist, oppressive, unethical.

      So you could appropriate any kind of literature or philosophy or religion and market it as a PUA book — all you have to do is say this is for becoming better with women. But that's only PUA in intent — not content. Like you already mentioned, the term PUA is loaded. Better I think for the good guys to use a different name than be confused with the douchery PUA originated from.

      • how different is PUA literature from say… a book like "How to win friends and influence people" ?
        Influencing different targets require different sets of tactics, PUA is just fine-tuned to the specific target than most other other self-help books.

        And Red, you of all people should know that what can be considered "douchy" or not is totally subjective 🙂

        • I've actually discussed that book with Dustin, to prove that the many tactics that do work aren't actually new, let alone exclusive to PUA literature. Which is exactly the point of my comment. And in my book, chauvinist, oppressive, and unethical tactics are deserving of something more than the term "douchy."

  16. PART 1

    Thanks guys! Hopefully, this post will diffuse some of the hostility directed towards PUAs before next meet-up.

    @Red

    Good point, Red. I did make the mistake of dwelling only on the positive side of PU. But I am speaking primarily from experience and my experience was mostly positive. I have met PUAs who are outright Machiavellian jerks, but I can't tell their story for them. I also acknowledge that not all PUAs are formerly socially-inept nerds. But, I was, and majority of the PUAs I have met in the field were too.
    Also, I would have to disagree with your statement that, “the things that are not OK are what make the PUA literature PUA literature.”

    For one, this too, is an over-generalization.

    I think I should have mentioned in my article that PUAs come from different schools of thought. Similar to a religion or philosophy, a person might not get it right the first time. When you bring up the tactics “neg,” “false time constraint,” “change of venue” you are referring to only one of several PUA schools of thought, Venusian Arts <a href="http://(http://www.venusianarts.com/),” target=”_blank”>(http://www.venusianarts.com/), the pioneers of “fake it ‘til you make it” or “outer game” methodology.

    • The entire post is worth reading, and so are the author's comments. Especially this one:

      "1: Subject: Bullshit. Out of the examples of PUA I’ve used for this? I’ve included the smooth and capable, the caring and people like you. That’s right, you’re included. Especially since you said “assholes” get girls. No. They don’t. They get a small minority of girls and the rest of us go to confidence. Way to do prove me right about PUAs through stereotyping women.

      2: Stop stereotyping guys too. CS majors, nerds and best friends often can talk to girls. And the reason why some fail is choosing women who aren’t into them. Lack of compatibility isn’t a talking issue.

      3: You mean Nice Guys™ who think being emotional support will get them laid, which in and of itself is disgusting, sketchy and insincere. No wonder that skeeve carries over into PUA. A minority of girls are into that sort of thing. And some just aren’t willing to leave. The rest? They just find something worth enjoying in your actual personality once they get past the PUA bullshit. After all, just because someone is a PUA doesn’t mean they aren’t a fun person anyways. Same for social engineers.

      4: Deceiving covers creating an impression that is untrue. Which PUA can and do engage in. You don’t have to lie to decieve. Social Engineering taught me that. So did lawyers.

      5: You’re very silly. What is fun differs among different women and men. Stereotyping again? The proof piles up.

      6: You assume every woman has fun in the manipulation or wants to play the game.

      7: The harm is perpetrating sexist evo psych bullshit and using SE techniques in a way that could cause serious problems for both of you. It isn’t guaranteed but the risks are high.

      So, in conclusion: holy shit dude, you could have added more evidence to my point while attempting to make your case with a much shorter comment. Next time write a fucking post at a blog. As a note, I did mention there’s some advice given in PUA circles that is sound, good and completely non harmful. If you guys could pull the evo psych bull, the skeevy gaming bullshit and the stereotypes out of it and just take the good advice by itself? It would be a damn good thing."

  17. This really is a very interesting, contentious topic, and I'm excited to discuss/debate this at the next meetup. Justin, you put it well when you said, "such tactics do not attempt to move the persons towards a more rational/reasonable state." A lot of PUA tactics do involve deception, and do involve taking advantage of our inherent irrationality.

    Again, the parent – child analogy is apt. The parent can tell a child anything, however irrational, and be believed by the child because of the inherent parental power structure. What the PUA does is put himself and the target in a situation where the target is more likely to accept the PUA without question because of the power dynamics. In an ideal situation, players would be in an Adult – Adult relationship, where less deception is involved. When the parent – child dynamic is employed, abuse is often inevitable, and I'd argue that putting an adult into such a situation is already a form of abuse.

    Jong, it's not the overall strategy to get the girl that is usually unethical — it's the individual tactics that are questionable, as I've discussed in my first post. As Justin said, the "all is fair" statement is usually made precisely when actions made for a larger goal (winning a war or a romantic conquest) are obviously unfair.

  18. Great Post, a Social Engineering topic. It appears to me the craft of PUA is under the general field of Social Engineering, so is Diplomacy, and Deception (the art of the Con). I think its important more people are aware of it, because if they are swayed by the tactics which require a stronger irrational and emotional predisposition in judgement than an introspective one (that attempts to be more rational).

    Although unlike diplomacy, such tactics do not attempt to move the persons towards a more rational/reasonable state. Still, I find the areas of ethics of this methods and intention very very gray. The reason the saying "all is fair with love and war", which applies to these methods, is that some times its hard to tell if the means are not justifiable to its end.

    Great topic and thanks for sharing.

  19. Excellent post, Dustin! I agree with practically everything you said. The tricks used by a PUA are simply tools to help them achieve their objectives, so there is nothing immoral about them; it's the objectives that should be judged as moral or immoral.

    Take two guys, for example: one impulsive and spontaneous; the other cold and calculating. Both fall deeply in love with the same girl. The first guy freely expresses his feelings and the girl grows defensive and distant; the other works a subtle seduction and stirs interest, intrigue, and eventually desire. The probability is that the second guy will win.

    Now some might argue that he is not deserving because his feelings are not strong enough considering he was still able to come up with a strategic plan, whereas his rival was overflowing with so much desire he could not contain it. And yet it is precisely the person’s control that proves one’s sincerity. Speaking out what one feels is easy and even quite relieving, but it takes a lot of work and self-denial to keep holding back until the right moment just to get the girl. And when one refuses to give in to his natural tendencies for the good of some future goal, it means the goal matters more than the immediate release. Just because the method of courtship is systematic and deliberate doesn’t mean the affection is planned as well.

  20. Yes, PUAs are not all douchebags. But you made a mistake in the wrong direction. They're not all good guys either. Neither are they all nerds trying to be less socially inept. Nor are they all honest and respectful of women.

    The mistake in both cases is over-generalization. This applies not only to the people using the rules of The Holy Game, but to the rules itself. Some rules are OK while some aren't. The problem is, the things that are OK can be learned from other self-esteem literature. The things that are not OK are what make the PUA literature PUA literature.

    Take the neg, for example. Pretending to ignore or downright insulting a girl is manipulative, sometimes even demeaning. Or lying about your availability to create a sense of urgency to talk to a girl. Or consciously trying to take a girl to several different settings to create an immediate sense of familiarity. I could go on.

    These tactics, although they work, are manipulative and sometimes outright unethical (of course the ethics is debatable, which is what the next meetup is for). It's like lying to a child to get him to do or not do something you want. Explaining things is more ethical, but lying often gets you the result quicker.

    You can argue that from a practical perspective you get the results you want faster, but if you are at all concerned about the means by which you reach your ends, then you'll think twice about lying to a child — and using *some* PUA tactics for that matter.

    I emphasize the "some" because the advice you get from PUA manuals are not all bad. But let's not pretend that they're all good either. Again, over-generalization is the problem. (While we're at it, PUAs are NOT all former socially inept nerds. And people who set up their friends with potential mates DO exist 😉 )

    • BTW, not about PU in particular but more about patterns in general. I am interested in patterns. PU has some components that I see as cross-pollination of patterns from other disciplines. I do software and about 15 years ago, patterns as a concept in software engineering was finally recognized and started to be formalized with software being a recent discipline, and with patterns from architecture as the primary analogy/rationale of why it's important/useful. Now, PU also had some patterns (of human behavior and social dynamics), some of them originated in the 80s as the basis, for example, compliance and influence [Cialdini] which incidentally is mostly about persuading people (marketing) and not about PU. I highly recommend the Cialdini book if you haven't read it already and you will be surprised at what you can recognize are some concept in PU that may have been, shall I say "influenced" by it. cheers!

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here