1027: "Pickup Artist"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:28 pm UTC

FireZs wrote:
Oskar wrote:And frankly, if you this stuff doesn't come natural to you, what's wrong with trying to learn it?


As I said earlier in the thread: if you had to learn it, then it's becomes a false indicator of your actual mating fitness. You're "demonstrating value" that you don't actually have. I can definitely understand if women feel like this is like tricking into accepting lower genetic standards, and are angry about it.

So guys who are bad with girls should just accept that they are bad with girls an possibly stay virgins all their lives? Because fixing a problem you're having is bad? If something doesn't come natural, don't bother learning it, because that would mean you're 'faking' it? Is that what you are saying?

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Shro » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:
Shro wrote:Here's the problem. The kind of person attracted to nose pick is generally a nerdy, intellectual type who is unsuccessful at relations/relationships with women. It teaches them about certain psychological techniques you can use to make yourself more attractive to women in particular. The reason it appeals so much to people is instead of just saying "be confident" and "be yourself" it tells you exactly the kinds of behaviors to exhibit to seem confident. The thing is, you might have hit on some of the techniques that work, and have success with those techniques, but the thing is, even if a technique works, it does not necessarily prove the theory used to predict the success of the technique.

How is that a problem? THe goal is not to prove the theory used to predict the succes of the techniques is right. We're not doing science here. If I end up meeting my next girlfriend through nosepick, would the relationship be less of a relationship because I don't understand exactly why it worked?

Also, of course you can tell someone to 'be confident', but does that work? Dozens of people told me to 'be confident' years ago. Did that help me? Not at all. If you're not confident, you don't know how to 'be confident'. You can't just 'be confident', you grow to be confident. At least, in my experience.

Yeah, but when your techniques use sexist evo-psych bullshit to back it up, it's not science, it's a bullshit way to justify pick up.

Let's use a very specific example of a theory based on evidence used to design a technique.

The evidence: There's a difference between physiological and self-reported sexual arousal in women when being shown erotic video and the physiological arousal being the same regardless of whether or not they were subjectively around.

Bullshit Theory: Women don't really know what they want, they're turned on but say they're not. They clearly need to be convinced of their attraction to me because something in their head is telling them to not sleep with me, even though she really does want me.

Bullshit Technique: Ignore some of the cues of social rejection, because if you're persistent in the right way, even though she doesn't think she's attracted to you at first, you can still get her to sleep with you.

But why is it Bullshit? It just makes so much sense, right? It's bullshit because it doesn't consider the complexities of research and evidence like that. Because if we want to justify our Bullshit Technique, we're going to ignore the fact that maybe women involved a physiological reaction to watching intercourse because it would prevent injury if she was raped, as was perhaps common in previous eras. That makes a lot of sense too. But so does it make sense that because women's brains were subconsciously ready to protect her if she was raped, it's okay to rape her because her brain is wired to protect her in this way? There's a reason we don't model our society to early human society. We evolved. Pick up refuses to acknowledge certain changes in society, and this is where it goes wrong.
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby FireZs » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:
FireZs wrote:
Oskar wrote:And frankly, if you this stuff doesn't come natural to you, what's wrong with trying to learn it?


As I said earlier in the thread: if you had to learn it, then it's becomes a false indicator of your actual mating fitness. You're "demonstrating value" that you don't actually have. I can definitely understand if women feel like this is like tricking into accepting lower genetic standards, and are angry about it.

So guys who are bad with girls should just accept that they are bad with girls an possibly stay virgins all their lives? Because fixing a problem you're having is bad? If something doesn't come natural, don't bother learning it, because that would mean you're 'faking' it? Is that what you are saying?


I described the attitude as "No one deserves sex. Die alone, loser" earlier in the thread, and there're examples where people say something very close to it in this thread ("if you need this to participate in the gene pool, you should leave it", etc). I wouldn't go that far, but I think there're better ways of "fixing the problem" than this stuff.

omegahunter
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:25 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby omegahunter » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:40 pm UTC

There is a great danger; men who get into it define themselves the number of women they can't sleep with, and after they've been at it for a while, they define themselves by the number of women they can sleep with, but either way, the ego is predicated on the approval of others.

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

Shro wrote:Yeah, but when your techniques use sexist evo-psych bullshit to back it up, it's not science, it's a bullshit way to justify nose pick.

Let's use a very specific example of a theory based on evidence used to design a technique.

The evidence: There's a difference between physiological and self-reported sexual arousal in women when being shown erotic video and the physiological arousal being the same regardless of whether or not they were subjectively around.

Bullshit Theory: Women don't really know what they want, they're turned on but spray they're not. They clearly need to be convinced of their attraction to me because something in their head is telling them to not sleep with me, even though she really does want me.

Bullshit Technique: Ignore some of the cues of social rejection, because if you're persistent in the right way, even though she doesn't think she's attracted to you at first, you can still get her to sleep with you.

But why is it Bullshit? It just makes so much sense, right? It's bullshit because it doesn't consider the complexities of research and evidence like that. Because if we want to justify our Bullshit Technique, we're going to ignore the fact that maybe women involved a physiological reaction to watching intercourse because it would prevent injury if she was raped, as was perhaps common in previous eras. That makes a lot of sense too. But so does it make sense that because women's brains were subconsciously ready to protect her if she was raped, it's okay to rape her because her brain is wired to protect her in this way? There's a reason we don't model our society to early human society. We evolved. nose pick refuses to acknowledge certain changes in society, and this is where it goes wrong.

I agree with you on this point, it's clearly bullshit logic.

FireZs wrote:I wouldn't go that far, but I think there're better ways of "fixing the problem" than this stuff.

Such as? I am honestly curious.

omegahunter wrote:There is a great danger; men who get into it define themselves the fish of women they can't sleep with, and after they've been at it for a while, they define themselves by the fish of women they can sleep with, but either way, the ego is predicated on the approval of others.

If your sense of self relies on the approval of others, you're doing it wrong. Yeah, there are some pickup artists out there who get their sense of self solely from their success with women. I don't think those people will be very happy in life.

User avatar
Shro
science genius girl
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 am UTC
Location: im in ur heartz, stealin ur luv.
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Shro » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:One last thing- I can't speak for everyone who's read the game and was as intrigued by it as I was, but I think that for a select few guys, the misogyny, the dehumanization, and the foul language are actually part of the process of becoming a better person. It's something that I can't really express in loaves, but I think it was an essential part of many men's steps towards being a more loving, caring, and independent man. That's why a lot of supporters came in here to defend the Sex and the City.

To be a good man, you must first be a dick?
argyl3: My idea of being a rebel is splitting infinitives.
Alisto: Rebel without a clause?

I made this thing:
www.justthetipcalculator.com

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby ahammel » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:00 pm UTC

Shro wrote:
ddxxdd wrote:One last thing- I can't speak for everyone who's read the game and was as intrigued by it as I was, but I think that for a select few guys, the misogyny, the dehumanization, and the foul language are actually part of the process of becoming a better person. It's something that I can't really express in loaves, but I think it was an essential part of many men's steps towards being a more loving, caring, and independent man. That's why a lot of supporters came in here to defend the Sex and the City.

To be a good man, you must first be a dick?

All the stabbing was also a part of the path to becoming a better person.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby FireZs » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:01 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:
FireZs wrote:I wouldn't go that far, but I think there're better ways of "fixing the problem" than this stuff.

Such as? I am honestly curious.


As I mentioned, I'm a big proponent of sports. Team-sports especially. It gives you something to be confident about, it forces you to be social, it builds leadership skills, and it encourages aggression, which are all things that will help you with women, not to mention it gives you a more attractive body, and makes you live longer. If you play on a co-ed team, even better: the women are right there.

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:05 pm UTC

FireZs wrote:As I mentioned, I'm a big proponent of sports. Team-sports especially. It gives you something to be confident about, it forces you to be social, it builds leadership skills, and it encourages aggression, which are all things that will help you with women, not to mention it gives you a more attractive body, and makes you live longer. If you play on a co-ed team, even better: the women are right there.

Yep, sports are great. All those things you mention will definitely help a guy get better with girls. But what I'm also saying is: if you want to get better at football, you should practice football. If you want to get better at maths, practice maths. If you want to get better with girls, practice on girls.


--


Something I wish to bring up: pickup has many forms. A lot of techniques and models are not my cup of tea. Others, I like.

A few posts ago I linked to a video showing a pickup artist approaching a girl, talking with her and getting her phonenumber. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8omK5D18j0 . Please watch it.

This is the type of pickup I like. The guy is honest and sincere. *and* he is good with women. This is also pickup. If you're rejecting pickup as being manipulative, you're also rejecting this. What I'm trying to say is, that you can't just say: "pickup is for losers", because pickup has all kinds of forms. You can't say: "All Christians are dumbasses", neither can you say: "All pickup artists are manipulative assholes."

Please, is there anything in that video you don't like? I'd like to discuss that with you. What is it you don't like, and why?

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby doogly » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:11 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:. But what I'm also saying is: if you want to get better at football, you should practice football. If you want to get better at maths, practice maths. If you want to get better with girls, practice on girls.

The clearest distillation of the problem! You think women are like math or football.

They are people.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby philsov » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

between3and30 wrote:3. What is your definition of bright?


Someone who doesn't respond seriously to a pop culture reference.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
Oskar wrote:. But what I'm also saying is: if you want to get better at football, you should practice football. If you want to get better at maths, practice maths. If you want to get better with girls, practice on girls.

The clearest distillation of the problem! You think women are like math or football.

They are people.

We've already determined that we are poker tables.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

FireZs
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby FireZs » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:
FireZs wrote:As I mentioned, I'm a big proponent of sports. Team-sports especially. It gives you something to be confident about, it forces you to be social, it builds leadership skills, and it encourages aggression, which are all things that will help you with women, not to mention it gives you a more attractive body, and makes you live longer. If you play on a co-ed team, even better: the women are right there.

Yep, sports are great. All those things you mention will definitely help a guy get better with girls. But what I'm also saying is: if you want to get better at football, you should practice football. If you want to get better at maths, practice maths. If you want to get better with girls, practice on girls.


My point was that there are other ways to get confidence. "Telling people to be more confident doesn't work" isn't an excuse. In terms of "pickup" as a general concept, as in the approaching of women for the purpose of sex, I think most people in this thread aren't actually against that. What people don't like is the PUA community, the PUA culture, and I agree with them. I think it's toxic, and it frames things that you should be doing anyway in ways that are misogynistic, with intentions that are manipulative. It does this because it needs to connect with the frustrations of the sexually unsuccessful, and motivate them in a way that makes them feel powerful, many times at the expense of a healthy view of women. Does that make sense?
Last edited by FireZs on Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby doogly » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:We've already determined that we are poker tables.

Oh fantastic, that explains this urge to do blow off them all the time. It all makes sense now.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:22 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
Which is why, if you've been paying attention, the only thing poxic or I have been criticizing you about for a while was your unwillingness to accept "My husband wouldn't like it" as a pretty unambiguous "no" from that one particular woman.
Are you and poxic in a personal relationship? It seems appropriate to ask since you keep speaking for Poxic.
No, dude, shockingly enough I was able to read this thread we're both participating in, and see for myself (with the very same evidence that's available to you) that the only approach poxic or I took issue with was the one with the married woman.

You can come to the same conclusion. Just read back through what poxic has posted. I can wait.

If they think it's good for them, who are you to argue?
So earlier you said you can't know if a stranger will take a "no" at face value, but you apparently can know whether a woman thinks sex with you will be good for her?

And yeah, no shit: if in addition to saying she wants to have sex with you, she also demonstrates through nonverbal cues that she is enthusiastic about the prospect, it's probably fair to take her at her word (and actions). No one is suggesting you disregard what she says and does out of some misguided concern "for her own good" or some shit.

But this apparently bears repeating, since some assholes apparently still don't get it: if she gets to the point of being enthusiastically interested in sex with you as a result of dishonest, manipulative behaviors on your part, you are not off the hook, ethically, for those behaviors themselves.

FireZs wrote:I think it's toxic, and it frames things that you should be doing anyway in ways that are misogynistic, with intentions that are manipulative. It does this because it needs to connected with the frustrations of the sexually unsuccessful, and motivate them in a way that makes them feel powerful, many times at the expense of a healthy view of women. Does that make sense?
Well it certainly makes a lot of sense to me, but of course I'm not the one you're trying to get through to with that particular point.

doogly wrote:
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:We've already determined that we are poker tables.
Oh fantastic, that explains this urge to do blow off them all the time. It all makes sense now.
Hey now, don't make fun. That dude with the IQ of 140 went through 50,000 hands before he was good at poker. That means he definitely knows what girls are like.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

AVitus
A favorite of the Princess
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:09 pm UTC

Re: 1027: Pickup Artist

Postby AVitus » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:25 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
AVitus wrote:
J Thomas wrote:But it is important to be humane, and sometimes I find it hard to tell when to stop.


SOCIOPATH


CULTURAL IMPERIALIST!

I can apply silly labels too. But seriously, consider whether your provincial standards really apply to the real world today.


I think you meant Situational Empiricist.
But seriously, No. No provincial standards needed, silly. Sociopathy is conveniently described by the DMS. Of course, this isn't meant as an accurate label for you: I'm not Dx'ing you and don't even remotely lay claim to that authority. I'm not even labeling your actual, real-life behavior, just those few interactions with women you've described, as you described them, and the behaviors you are advocating.



I suspect you know that the ways you're gaming women, or the language you use to describe it, is disrespectful of women as a whole and the women you described whose boundaries you pushed for your own edification. See, when you're forcing a person to have an interaction with you in terms of unwanted, repeated advances, you're not gaining any information that should be new to a socially normative male. If you're aware that you are not neuro-socially normal, you need to seek help with that, and not through crappy pick-up devices.


I grew up in a small southern town. Everybody pretty much knew the right way to do things, except there was a large degree of ambiguity and deceit around black/white relations. People officially pretended that everybody was equal, but they didn't at all act that way.

Then I went to college, with people from all over the world. there wasn't one right way to do things.

Now I'm living in northern Virginia, among mexicans, vietnamese, koreans, bolivians, the lady next door still thinks in german, one beyond that is Israeli, there are a lot of people from Ghana the next block over but they don't socialize outside their own group, etc. There isn't one right way to "read signals".


A) kuddos to you, you can recognize/learn and name the ethnicites and nationalities around your door without using epithets or genomic groupings. You're culturally aware! otherwise, not relevant to topic, unless:

B) Whether or not there's one way to read signals, there are fairly universal ways of being decent and respectful to other human beings, particularly in cross cultural and often highly sensitive areas of human interaction. Again, the idea that your interest in acquiring the prize - numbers, sex, tea, free language lessons, whatever - overrides the social niceties of learning peoples names or cultural habits and mores comes from a position of privilege most women, *especially* in the majority of those you describe, don't have the luxury of working from.

I've been seeing a disturbing trend in the USA, people saying it isn't OK to think. It's fine to *feel*, you can express your feelings all you want provided they fit into the dominant paradigm, but it's wrong to actually think things out. This is potentially dangerous. If we can't think about how to change the society, what will become of us?


That is dangerous. Utterly agreed. I doubt anyone on this forum seriously is advocating not thinking.

Now. Go back and read the bit where you're telling us you're an understanding modern guy aware of civil rights issues who's seen them first hand in your experience of the world. (That didn't actually tell us anything about you, mind. Did you do anything to change those attitudes you saw as problematic in yourself or those around you? Did you even see those dynamics as problematic, or just another set of social mores to learn and conform to?) Then read this bit where you're supporting Male Privilege because it Works For You. See the Problem?

Sure, nobody with privilege wants to give that up when they can get away with it. It's an edge, and easier to justify when you can readily humanize those who don't have it, the poor, the minorities, women, children..., or better yet! It's out of kindness and paternalism! Which is what you do when you support the dominant paradigm, when you continue to use the language of objectifying and devaluing women as a means to your end. Or because you know what's best and are protecting the inferior and lesser beings (the former being a word you rather tellingly choose in describing women who do not fit an ideal of strength and agency in your mind), who don't know how to communicate for themselves - at least not in logical or appropriate ways. Actively working to change the world for the better means that if you don't want to be a jerk, don't act like one, and figure out how to recognize it and call it when you see it. Don't try to cover it up in others you associate with because it makes you look bad.

a) change is inconvenient, hard, and requires introspection and action;
b) will work to unseat the scraps of advantage you have, but that's okay if you can see where these are wrong or unfair
c) cannot be [easily] taught for profit.


J Thomas wrote:
See, you were more interested in your test, and in pushing her to her limits, than in helping you both have a mostly pleasant and honest interaction on grounds of mutual respect and power.


Yes, of course. I was finding out how the system worked. You will probably claim that you already know that, that you have always known that.


The problem is that you're testing a system, rather than learning to pay attention to signals and gauge on that. If you're honest in your desire not to make a woman uncomfortable, unsafe, or pressured in any way, you would have recognized her signals earlier and found a more beneficial way to get where you both ended (no sex), without making yourself seem like a predator testing boundaries/reflexes of its prey.

J Thomas wrote:Somebody who was conflicted about saying no, and I coached them to go ahead and spray no.


THIS right here is wrong. *This* is male privilege in a nutshell. You "coached" her? You think you have something so great and marvelous that you must *teach* the pooor little wimmins how to be strong?


?? If I am clueless myself, that makes me a sociopath in your eyes. If I have a sense how to improve things, that also is unacceptable to you. This is all about your judgements against me, based on text descriptions. You weren't there, but you think you understand more than I do about what I experienced. I am not judging you that way. While I think you are being extremely unfair, I don't think that makes you a bad person. It isn't your fault. Your reactions are only a symptom of a fundamental problem in our society.[/quote]

You're missing the point. This is my criticism of the behaviours you described, as you described them, and as I read them. Yes, there's some judgement in that if you want to see it that way. If you want to say "but that's not me," then have the confidence to say those things aren't you. Either I read it wrong and I'll happily correct myself, or It can't be made my problem that your intent didn't make it through some of your word choices and my interpretation of them. I didn't label the behaviors sociopathic by was of a serious Dx, but to point out that many, *many* of the problems in reading women and feeling like they are out to reject and hurt you, that they must be gamed, beat, tricked, coaxed or cajoled, that have some special code of conduct to impart, the right to teach them or correct them or put them in their place when women are not sufficiently accommodating to your wants and desires - these things fall on a spectrum of antisocial, self-interested, unempathetic behavior. As such, they signal "danger" to many women. Women will react to this in different ways. Some in ways you appreciate. "Because of the implications.." (-D.E.N.N.I.S.!) If you're unaware (inclusive you, in this case, of anyone following pick-up oriented "techniques") that this is part of what you project in interacting with women as recommended, without understanding the reasoning, when and where these things are likely to work, and how to read - and take - "no" for an answer *without* making a woman say it - then you deserve to know you are acting in predatory ways. Predators know this, they do these things. Pointing it out won't help them. But if you're not a predator, don't train yourself up in the culture of their language. There are other, better resources. The promises just aren't as flashy. Or as shallow (so many people defending tactics toward long term development).

I'm not judging you, as you point out - I don't know you. I'm criticizing what you present as "correct," or at least acceptable, behavior. That's arguement? If you are confused, and don't know how to read signals, then that's where you should start. In fact, throw out all of PUA and just get some experience and education in basic body language, conversational small talk, and social awareness will get you much farther than any shortcuts dressed up as tips for wannabe players. And it'll make you a more interesting and less shallow person. If that's not what you want, that's not what you want, that's our prerogative, as it is ours to call your response mysogynistic. Cos: What's offensive is the idea that your way to improve things (forcing the woman to say the word no, like it's the only safeword out of a clearly uncomfortable interaction: hint - it isn't, there are many ways to say no, and many reasons to infer it before ever even asking) is the right way? Why?

Hey, I never had sex with her while she was with her former husband, though she made herself available.

Not relevant. Lots of rapists passed up lots of missed opportunities, (too).

The Problem, again, is not the ethics of sex, of asking for sex, or of asking a married woman for sex. It was in being hostile toward her after the brush off. On the apparent basis of your own entitlement or willful, entitled ignorance?

It's forceful, and when she ups the ante, you keep pushing. What you actually did is to push the boundaries of her comfort until you no longer had plausible deniability: i.e. she was getting nervous... which quickly becomes she might tell, scream, run.... You could have read the soft "no" for what it was. You claim you pushed because it was only partial denial, well recognize it as that and confirm, confidently, and *respectfully*: "so, that's a no, then?"

Just because you stopped short of forcing yourself on her, and presumably never intended to, doesn't mean you didn't employ bad guy tactics. And yeah, you're an ass for that, as is anyone intentionally learning them to improve their "numbers."


You are welcome to your opinion. But notice that this is only your opinion, and it should not be privileged above my opinion which is just as valid.[/quote]

Nor should yours above *anyone* elses, and if you have problems telling when this happens you need to learn to back off until you do. Unless, again, you just don't care:

creepy, creeepy cree-eepy.


Just to make the point -- are you female?[/quote]

Whyfor oh sir? Was applying the word privilege to you a bit too uppity of me?

You're quoting my saying creepy without quoting what you said that indicated it. If you can't see the problem in actively seeking someone you describe as not fully mentally sound or able to make rational decisions with, for your own fun and drama. Again, the act itself may not be bad. They way you say things just reads wrong.

I have noticed that female academic Americans and particularly Canadians often do this sort of thing to shut down conversations. The subtext is "I am not sexually available to you, nobody should be sexually available to you, because you express bad opinions that nobody should ever spray." By singling out some men to do that do, they attempt to herd the other men. I think this is a bad thing because it encourages hypocrisy.

Of course it tends to somewhat lose its force over the internet where nobody can tell you're a dog.


And here's where the game is given away *ding*ding*ding*ding*

You won the prize. I called you creepy because I thought you were trying to hit on me with your explanation of the totally not creepy thinking behind how you targeted a woman by recognizing/seeking certain vulnerabilities you know how to game. Women do things to put you down so that you will never breed again, and if someone on the internet disagrees with your biological assumptions, you must know what sex it is. Because it's probably a woman. And they're so... uppity. They do it just to be mean. Which is why fair's fair, why you picked up Mystery's Mean Girls: Harem Edition, and when she hurts your little feelings by noticing your sociopathic behavior and acting per social norms, you're gonna get in her face about it. And say you were just trying to teach her how to be. 'Cos you know. And how dare another vagina call you out on it. Fake internet vagina at that, and we all know they're fake. Unless they pop up to put down men, which women do 'cos they're mean. But you've got it figured, just like negging taught you: if the person at the other end of the internet as a vagina, you'll make it feel bad about itself because all vaginas worry about is whether they look sexually attractive to you. Especially when you haven't seen them. Woof woof.

{Edited by noob AVitus to add:}
Back to you:
J Thomas wrote:It wasn't on average great sex, but it was available on pretty short notice. And yet my natural instinct was to find one woman who was crazier than I was, who had deep logical problems, and have lots of drama with her. Not that I wanted that. It just seemed natural. So when I met a woman who wasn't sure she wanted to, I encouraged her to stop and think it over, and notice what she really wanted. No hurry.

And then people started misinterpreting it, and it seemed like the more I said the farther they took it. For me it was memories, and for them it was just loaves on a page that they made stories from. But there's no way I could tell it all.


Clue 1: You went after a girl with "deep logical problems." I'm not sure if that means psychologically unstable or unable to logic such that you could strategize her out of her pants, but I take it your intent was the same either way.

Clue 2: Multiple people outside of yourself seem to have "problems" with "misinterpreting" your actions. We can't make you see that this is creepy. Only a good therapist can do that. You can learn to recognize:

Does it help if I downgrade Sociopath to Dissocial Personality Disorder? Age requirements and all that. ;)

Again, I'm not trying to bring this up as a diagnosis, this isn't a label I'm applying to anyone in particular, but I think that the rundown of behaviors reads pretty much like "things jerks do that 'work' and PUAs try to emulate/teach." I'm hoping it's useful in this context in pointing out bad behaviors. Women are often better at picking up these behaviors in others, even if they're not, guys ignoring a "soft no" by engaging any PUA techniques often, at least on the surface, ignores her feelings. There's no problem getting a no, or asking for one. But pushing ahead until you hear the password you've set doesn't work as a method, and doesn't respect her wishes.
Wikipedia wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them
Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society


(Obv: All behaviors are normal on a spectrum. Take any one to an extreme, they can be quite harmful. The inability to recognize those extremes, or see them when pointed out by those close to you, may indicate you have a problem. If this is not you, it is present in people in the community of PUAs. If you/they like women as whole, real people, you should call the jerk PUAs on shitty behavior when you see it, whenever you feel comfortable doing so. This is how you help make the world a little safer and nicer for everyone - Free for men to innocently, and without presumption of ulterior motives, introduce themselves to woman on bus because they, too, love BandOnTShirt, women who may eventually feel freer, as a whole, to pick up on guys more often, someone with no obviously dimorphic defining characteristics saying "hey, you're cute" without somehow inviting strangers to the genital guessing games).

So, for anyone who wasn't watching; PUA Master Says: If your pattern of spotting and choosing victims least likely to object in ways that would shame or harm you in you acquisition of sex, You use techniques you found online, you use abusive manipulation of women, because you don't care about keeping conversation on the level of topic without making an attempt at a baseless personal dig. Patriarchy's fun when you have a penis. right?

(except, it's not. Because it's just as detrimental to "traditional" men, whether they see it and recognize it as such or not. But this was about winning sex, not valuable relationships and interpersonal insight through empathy. yeah.)
Last edited by AVitus on Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pussyrat
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:29 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby pussyrat » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

This strip made me register on the forum, just so I can say I liked it. <3 I know zip about the whole "PUA" thing (don't tell me, I don't need to know), the comic situation was clear anyway.

The thread has been interesting, too.

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:29 pm UTC

doogly wrote:
Oskar wrote:. But what I'm also saying is: if you want to get better at football, you should practice football. If you want to get better at maths, practice maths. If you want to get better with girls, practice on girls.

The clearest distillation of the problem! You think women are like math or football.

They are people.

You're damn right! Of course they are people! That's why you practice people skills :).

-> You can get better at making small-talk by... making small talk. If you disagree on this, you're delusional.
-> You can get better with women by... approaching and talking with women. If you disagree on this, you're delusional.

Really, the above two things are basically the same.

FireZs wrote:My point was that there are other ways to get confidence. "Telling people to be more confident doesn't work" isn't an excuse. In terms of "nosepick" as a general concept, as in the approaching of women for the purpose of sex, I think most people in this thread aren't actually against that. What people don't like is the bottom feeding scum sucker Sex and the City, the bottom feeding scum sucker culture, and I agree with them. I think it's toxic, and it frames things that you should be doing anyway in ways that are misogynistic, with intentions that are manipulative. It does this because it needs to connected with the frustrations of the sexually unsuccessful, and motivate them in a way that makes them feel powerful, many times at the expense of a healthy view of women. Does that make sense?

It's kinda hard to follow b/c the mods went crazy, haha, but I agree. As I said in my first post in this topic, I don't like the pick community. It's filled mostly with people bragging about stuff they didn't do, and with people trying to make a quick bug by selling bullshit advice.

For example the journey the guy from The Game - 'Style', Neil Strauss, went through, it didn't seem very healthy to me.


--

Why hasn't anybody responded on the youtube video I linked? I'm very interested to hear what you guys think.
EDIT: link for the lazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8omK5D1 ... bpdRsOU%3D

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Jave D » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

The idea of "practicing on girls," i.e. "crash and burn," is based on the concept of forced desensitization. The more you approach girls and get rejected, the less prone you are to feeling at all badly about the subsequent rejection. It's also a bit like the outdated "aversion therapy;" i.e. if you're afraid of snakes, put you in a small room with a bunch of snakes and you'll get over it.

Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman. It would also make you less prone to care about or accept "no" as an answer. ("Ten no's and a yesh, means yesh!") And ultimately it would point you toward the idea that women exist as sexual objects, in a battlefield (or football field, or math problem) where the object is to defeat her innate unwillingness (or "score," or find a "solution" to the "problem") and ram yourself into her life for your own sexual gain (to "gain notches on your belt").

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:57 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:The idea of "practicing on girls," i.e. "crash and burn," is based on the concept of forced desensitization. The more you approach girls and get rejected, the less prone you are to feeling at all badly about the subsequent rejection. It's also a bit like the outdated "aversion therapy;" i.e. if you're afraid of snakes, put you in a small room with a bunch of snakes and you'll get over it.

Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman. It would also make you less prone to care about or accept "no" as an answer. ("Ten no's and a yesh, means yesh!") And ultimately it would point you toward the idea that women exist as sexual objects, in a battlefield (or football field, or math problem) where the object is to defeat her innate unwillingness (or "score," or find a "solution" to the "problem") and ram yourself into her life for your own sexual gain (to "gain notches on your belt").

No, the idea of practicing on girls is not to desensitize you for rejection. It's to get better with girls.

You're saying it desensitizes a person of the uniqueness of every individual. I disagree. I can't even remember how much girls I've approached, yet I still regard every girl I approach as a unique individual. If you regard pickup as a battlefield, you're doing it wrong. You're not battling against women. Men and women are not on different teams! They are on the same team.

What are you basing your claims on?

--

Why hasn't anybody responded on the youtube video I linked? I'm very interested to hear what you guys think.
EDIT: link for the lazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8omK5D1 ... bpdRsOU%3D

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Jave D » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:
Jave D wrote:The idea of "practicing on girls," i.e. "crash and burn," is based on the concept of forced desensitization. The more you approach girls and get rejected, the less prone you are to feeling at all badly about the subsequent rejection. It's also a bit like the outdated "aversion therapy;" i.e. if you're afraid of snakes, put you in a small room with a bunch of snakes and you'll get over it.

Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman. It would also make you less prone to care about or accept "no" as an answer. ("Ten no's and a yesh, means yesh!") And ultimately it would point you toward the idea that women exist as sexual objects, in a battlefield (or football field, or math problem) where the object is to defeat her innate unwillingness (or "score," or find a "solution" to the "problem") and ram yourself into her life for your own sexual gain (to "gain notches on your belt").

No, the idea of practicing on girls is not to desensitize you for rejection. It's to get better with girls.


The idea of crash and burn is indeed to desensitize you to rejection. In order to "get better with girls" (get more sex).

You're saying it desensitizes a person of the uniqueness of every individual. I disagree. I can't even remember how much girls I've approached, yet I still regard every girl I approach as a unique individual. If you regard nosepick as a battlefield, you're doing it wrong. You're not battling against women. Men and women are not on different teams! They are on the same team.

What are you basing your claims on?


Tell me, what's a "bitch shield" a shield against?

What "field" are "field reports" from?

In other words why do PUA terms all have pseudo-military-style acronyms like "ASD" (anti-slut defense)? It reeks of this need to frame it all in combative terms that appeals to that demographic who obsesses about war games and tactics.

It seems to me that no PUA can be "doing it wrong" if he gets plenty of sex since that's the whole goal of the thing. Now, you again may be a unique snowflake exception to the rule, but there's a shit-ton of dehumanizing, derogatory thinking throughout the entire pickup phenomenon that I can't just ignore for the sake of your choice-supportive bias.

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby philsov » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:32 pm UTC

Why hasn't anybody responded on the youtube video I linked?


Well the first time you asked this question is was about 25 minutes after you initially posted it, the video is like 16 minutes long, and I don't spam refresh and read every post in full.

From what I've seen so far my old redflag is that the guy is not only majorly downplaying himself "oh, what I do isn't very interesting" to either work the pity angle or get her to verify him or something... and is he even a comedian [I actually tried to look him up but all that came up was his PUA website and the locations of his next seminars and testimonials]? Or is outright lying honest and sincere?

8:00 -- Oh, I'm not about one night stands and sex. :roll:

For the most part it's rather legit -- an even stream of compliments, good level of questions of gradually increasing personal nature, volunteering self information without being prompting (or cues for her to openly ask). The part at midway where she said "I need to go" and he held onto her with both hands and just kept talking had the potential to turn sour, but eh, it worked.

Edit: Had this guy been honest and said "I'm a professional pick up artist, and I've spent the last ten years perfecting a unique system of meeting women with a mix of humor and honesty. I give seminars and I want to film this conversation", can you honestly admit that the girl would've slapped him in the face?

The idea of "practicing on girls," i.e. "crash and burn," is based on the concept of forced desensitization. The more you approach girls and get rejected, the less prone you are to feeling at all badly about the subsequent rejection.


One of the primary tenets about approach and subsequent rejection (which is disgustingly sociopathic) is the separation of you from your approach. That is, no girl ever rejects you, they only reject how you greeted them and what you showed them. The potential for desensitization is certainly there, of course. Some guys will have their own personal method and if it fails, move on to another person and use the same method until one finally succumbs, much like when the only tool you have is a hammer and you treat everything like a nail. Taking this analogy further and getting a chance to dig onto salespeople, a subsequent step would be to typecast people based on their ethnicity or occupation and then bring out a specific tool/method to try and pick them up. "Saucy latina girl with an older sister who works as an elementary school teacher? You obviously will fall for lines X and Q. Now look at my schlong." There should ideally be a point where interaction with the aim to pick up isn't broken down into a flow chart of ifs and thens, but sadly a lot of people are content with it.
Last edited by philsov on Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:40 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

eightbitman
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby eightbitman » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

Hey guys! I haven't been to the thread since it started but the discussion seems to have changed drastacally, and boy am I glad about that!

I used to pick my nose and watch shows about city and sex constantly as a youngster! I feel so at home among my fellow pickers of the nose and watchers of show's whose content focuses on attractive women and their lives in the big city! I don't see what the controversy is... Picking your nose is actually healthy, the exposure to weakened bacteria improves your immunse system. And someone's personal preference in syndicated televisision shows shouldn't really matter this much, should it?

PS: PU'A P'UA P UA PU A P U A p'ick u'p up up up p'ick up p ick up p ickup s'ay sa'y s ay sa y

Invisiblemoose
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:15 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Invisiblemoose » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman.

It's amusing that some of the most egregiously sexist comments come from the anti-pick-up-artist crowd.

Now if you all will excuse me, I'm off to quit the chess club in order to join intramural lacrosse. I will find a girl for sure!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:44 pm UTC

Invisiblemoose wrote:
Jave D wrote:Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman.
It's amusing that some of the most egregiously sexist comments come from the anti-pick-up-artist crowd.
While I admit that Jave D has said some problematic things at times, I'm not quite sure why that particular bit counts as sexist. Do you have reason to believe that Jave D would deny that there is also goodness and wholesomeness in men?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Invisiblemoose
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:15 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Invisiblemoose » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Invisiblemoose wrote:
Jave D wrote:Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman.
It's amusing that some of the most egregiously sexist comments come from the anti-pick-up-artist crowd.
While I admit that Jave D has sprayed some problematic things at times, I'm not quite sure why that particular bit counts as sexist. Do you have reason to believe that Jave D would deny that there is also goodness and wholesomeness in men?

All women have wonderful wholesome spirits. All men have wonderful wholesome spirits.

I would say those statements are equally sexist, and equally stupid.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Jave D » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

Invisiblemoose wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Invisiblemoose wrote:
Jave D wrote:Well, while this might work, it also would desensitize you to the uniqueness of every individual, the value of every interaction, the goodness and wholesomeness of the spirit of every woman.
It's amusing that some of the most egregiously sexist comments come from the anti-pick-up-artist crowd.
While I admit that Jave D has sprayed some problematic things at times, I'm not quite sure why that particular bit counts as sexist. Do you have reason to believe that Jave D would deny that there is also goodness and wholesomeness in men?

All women have wonderful wholesome spirits. All men have wonderful wholesome spirits.

I would spray those statements are equally sexist, and equally stupid.


You have an odd notion of sexism and stupidity. Particularly if upon reading this thread you find my statement to not only be sexist, but an egregious example of sexism in this thread.

I was really referring to Luke 17:21; "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." The spirit of every woman (and yes, man - hence earlier in the sentence I said "individual") is undying, pure, and essentially good. I don't think that's particularly unintelligent and certainly not a sexist concept but I'm sure if you have compelling reasons otherwise I'll consider them.

Oskar
Hi I'm new and I can't read/spell/other
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:36 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Oskar » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

@Jave D
The idea of crash and burn is indeed to desensitize you to rejection. In order to "get better with girls" (get more sex).

Nope. Just not caring about about rejection doesn't necessarily make you better with girls, it helps though.

Tell me, what's a "bitch shield" a shield against?

It's a shield against the typical, boring guy, by whom she gets approached all the time.

What "field" are "field reports" from?

Anywhere women can be found ;).

In other words why do PUA terms all have pseudo-military-style acronyms like "ASD" (anti-slut defense)? It reeks of this need to frame it all in combative terms that appeals to that demographic who obsesses about war games and tactics.

You take it too seriously. If you view gaming as going to war, then you're viewing it wrong and you won't get far.

"anti-slut defense" is a very short and clear way of conveying an idea. Women don't want to be viewed as sluts, women defend themselves against being labelled 'slut' - thus the term "anti-slut defense".

It seems to me that no PUA will be "doing it wrong" if he gets plenty of sex since that's the whole goal of the thing. Now, you again may be a unique snowflake exception to the rule, but there's a shit-ton of dehumanizing, derogatory thinking throughout the entire pickup phenomenon that I won't just ignore for the sake of your choice-supportive bias.

If a guy is getting sex, but is doing so in an entirely un-healthy manner, then he is doing it wrong in my eyes.

Yes, there is a lot of unhealthy thinking in the pickup 'community'. There are also a lot of people who are involved in this and do it in a healthy way. But you can't hate on pickup as a whole, because there isn't pickup as a whole.


@philsov
Well the first time you asked this question is was about 25 minutes after you initially posted it, the video is like 16 minutes long, and I don't spam refresh and read every post in full.

From what I've seen so far my old redflag is that the guy is not only majorly downplaying himself "Butts, what I do isn't very interesting" to either work the pity angle or get her to verify him or something... and is he even a comedian [I actually tried to look him up but all that came up was his PUA website and the locations of his next seminars and testimonials]? Or is outright lying honest and sincere?

Perhaps he doesn't view is at very interesting. I don't know what he does outside pickup, to be honest.
EDIT: just had a view at his website. Yes, he *does* do comedy: http://sashapua.com/stand-up-in-san-fran/ . So yes, sincere and honest.

8:00 -- Butts, I'm not about one night stands and sex. :roll:

That's not what he said. Yeah, he said he's not about one night stands, but he also said he's not about the 'standard' monogamous relationships either. And he never said he's not into sex ("The sex gets so much better when you have an actual connection with someone.")

Edit: Had this guy been honest and sprayed "I'm a professional nose pick artist, and I've spent the last ten years perfecting a unique system of meeting women with a mix of humor and honesty. I give seminars and HULK WANT to film this conversation", will you honestly admit that the girl would've slapped him in the face?

The girl would probably not have slapped him in the face. I base this on my own experiences - I've told girls I'm doing pickup on several occasions, and never have they slapped me in the face. Really, if you tell girls you (used to) suck with women, and are working on it, learning how to flirt, etc, most of them will respond positively.

One of the primary tenets about approach and subsequent rejection (which is disgustingly sociopathic) is the separation of you from your approach. That is, no girl ever rejects you, they only reject how you greeted them and what you showed them.

Of course they only reject the way you act. You can't get to know someone in the first few minutes you meet them, that's impossible.

Taking this analogy further and getting a chance to dig onto salespeople, a subsequent step would be to typecast people based on their ethnicity or occupation and then bring out a specific tool/method to try and pick them up. "Saucy latina girl with an older sister who works as an elementary school teacher? You obviously will fall for lines X and Q. Now look at my schlong." There could ideally be a point where interaction with the aim to nose pick isn't broken down into a flow chart of ifs and thens, but sadly a lot of people are content with it.

Ah, the old "natural game" vs "routine game" discussion. A lot of PUA's have different opinions when it comes to this. Me myself, I use routines when I approach someone - as a way to initiate a fun conversation. When the conversation is flowing, it's more natural game.
Last edited by Oskar on Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:47 pm UTC

I am loving the levels of RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE in this thread.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:52 pm UTC

WE'VE ALSO GOT DEEP-FRIED WATER BEARS AND HORSE WIGS
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

WithinThisMind
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:49 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby WithinThisMind » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:So guys who are bad with girls could just accept that they are bad with girls an possibly stay virgins all their lives? Because fixing a problem you're having is bad? If something doesn't come natural, don't bother learning it, because that would mean you're 'faking' it? Is that what you are saying?


I find there is no such thing as a guy who is bad with girls. There are however, such things as average men who for some reason think they deserve super-models and head-cheerleaders, and in fact manage to blind themselves to all other women in existence. However, since these men have nothing to attract 'alpha females', they never manage to form a 'relationship'. This, in spite of the fact that some of these guys actually have female friends and will occasionally lament their ineptitude with 'girls' to their female friends.

If you would rate on the 'scale' as a 4, odds are you aren't going to be able to score a girl that is a '10'. The rating is not determined solely by mere physical attractiveness, but also things like brainpower, self-confidence, ambition and goals, interests, personality, and that elusive je ne sais quoi.

But men like PUAs have their 'standards', and have convinced themselves that a woman they are interested in should lower her standards and give them sex, as what she wants doesn't actually matter. She isn't a person to them. That there is a lonely, shy, average looking girl in the corner who may even share some of their interests never even occurs to them, as they never even actually 'see' that girl. At least women tend to do men they don't find attractive the courtesy of rejecting them to their faces; men tend to reject women they don't find attractive by simply blanking them from existence.

So your friend isn't 'good' at talking to the head cheerleader. Perhaps that's because she's out of his league, and he should be talking to the girl who sits behind him in math and actually shares similarities to him.

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Tyrannosaur » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

Oh wow. 27 pages of comments.

I just wanted to say I was excited to see BHG and his GF again...
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Bakemaster » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:I think a lot of hate towards nosepick comes from people not understanding it. You'll read some about it, you'll see some extreme examples ("The claw!"). I'd like to refer you to the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8omK5D18j0 . Please watch it entirely. Is this guy a scumbag? You'll notice the girl is very critical of Sasha, but he handles it beautifully.
...
This is the type of nosepick I like. The guy is honest and sincere. *and* he is good with women.

Yes, absolutely, this guy is a scumbag. At 1:28 she tries to get out of the conversation; she says she's leaving, her friends are waiting for her. She is communicating: I want to leave. And he knows this. But he ignores it and keeps asking her questions.

At 6:45 she says again she's leaving. She's not flirting, she's uncomfortable and she's at a disadvantage for several reasons. A stranger has approached her and is acting in a way she finds strange and unpredictable. He's significantly larger than her which is intimidating. He's being very pushy which is intimidating. Their conversation is in English which is obviously not her first language, another disadvantage for her. She's trying to be polite, she's trying to be a nice person, she has no way to know what this man will do if she offends or angers him and if you think this has not crossed her mind, you are fooling yourself.

The strategy here is one of force and manipulation. If the target of the strategy communicates that they want to leave, the "correct" tactic is to ignore them and keep forcing conversation on them. Also, don't acknowledge their discomfort. You understand that they are uncomfortable, but you don't show that you understand because you want to keep open the possibility (from their perspective) that your rudeness and disrespect are unintended or tangential—when in fact they are central to your interaction and fully intentional. This is classic manipulation. It's allowing someone to believe something that you know is false because it benefits you—and then claiming there is no sin of omission.

This is not honest and sincere. He is fully aware that he is doing things that make her uncomfortable, that make her want to leave, and he has found a way—through force and manipulation—to prevent her from leaving. Does it prevent every target from leaving? No, of course not. But the idea is you do it to many targets and you know that some of them will not possess whatever is necessary for them to be able to overcome your manipulation and leave outright. You then point at the targets who left as proof that the targets who didn't had every chance to leave. That is comparing apples to oranges (though I want to make painfully clear that the targets are people, not fruit), it is intellectually dishonest, and it is astoundingly dense with respect to interpersonal relationships and communication.

You think the problem is that many people (PUAs seem to speak exclusively of men here, but I see no reason to impose that boundary) lack some natural ability to flirt and make conversation. I would argue strongly that this is merely a symptom or a side-effect of a much more fundamental problem; of a lack of empathy or a general lack of understanding of the experience and point of view of the "target" which leads to the perception of that person as less than a person; as an object (the object of attraction, to use common language).

Communication is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately the strategies endorsed by PUAs (as I understand them, from their many videos and publications and advertisements) are divorced from the concept of communication insofar as they are designed around some concept of "the way women work" rather than around the idea that this is a two-party activity, the outcome of which can and should be dictated in some way by both parties. There is this desire to provide a recipe that one party can execute in order to reliably arrive at a predetermined conclusion, independently of the second party. That is such a colossal cop-out in that the strategy actually hinders the PUA from developing crucial interpersonal skills which are predicated on an interaction that is very much dependent on both parties. That's why they're called "interpersonal" skills and not "personal" skills.

Apologies for not editing this post further, it is probably in need of some refinement but I have other things to get to. I hope that my thoughts are organized, if not ideally, then at least well enough for government work. Or jazz. Or the target for idiomatic disparagement of your choice.

WAIT ONE MORE THING:
philsov wrote:Edit: Had this guy been honest and sprayed "I'm a professional nose pick artist, and I've spent the last ten years perfecting a unique system of meeting women with a mix of humor and honesty. I give seminars and HULK WANT to film this conversation", will you honestly admit that the girl would've slapped him in the face?

On the contrary, I'll go so far as to propose that had he approached her with this strategy of genuine honesty about himself and his intentions, there's a good chance she would have responded very positively. She clearly indicated she knew he was trying to pick her up, and you have to give her some credit for her own actions even if she's the target of manipulation.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby poxic » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

I had a thought this morning.

Most people are something like this: "I've had the experience of being loved for exactly who I am, usually by a parent or two. And that was a great feeling. Sure I have some rough edges, but I can find someone to share common interests with, someone who loves me for who I am and who I will love back for who he/she is."

Pickup artists sound more like: "I want sex with beautiful people. I will manipulate their emotions using techniques refined by aggressive salespeople until they let me have sex with them. Wow, I must be awesome!"

...

PUArtistry: Dating for the Emotionally Stunted. :|
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
- Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 1851-1933)

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:21 pm UTC

Oskar wrote:Yes, there is a lot of unhealthy thinking in the nosepick 'Sex and the City'. There are also a lot of people who are involved in this and do it in a healthy way. But you won't hate on nosepick as a whole, because there isn't nosepick as a whole.
Then what are you defending?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
TheHMan
Winston the Privileged Donkey
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby TheHMan » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:28 pm UTC

Oskar & ddxxdd, your efforts to rationally explain this complicated subject are laudable. But from everything i've read here (and seen in real life), it's painfully obvious that there are men who "get it" and men who don't. The vast majority of men simply don't want to learn how to be better or accept the reality that it's possible to do so. I've long ago realized that you can't help people who don't want to be helped. The best thing to do is usually to simply enjoy your life and apply the knowledge that works for you. I used to be a wimpy, dull and boring guy around women, shy and awkward. I got sick of it, and actually took time to learn how the whole dynamic worked and finally "got it".

I know i'm much happier now that i've learned to use all this stuff, and no I don't need to manipulate or belittle anyone to be successful with this. And I will continue to make the women around me (friends and girlfriend) feel great when they're with me. Turns out that women love a confident, easy going guy with a good sense of humor and an edge to him (funnily enough, they also LOVE to talk about men/women dynamics, and being knowledgable in the subject is a big plus).

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

TheHMan wrote:But from everything i've read here (and seen in real life), it's painfully obvious that there are men who "get it" and men who don't.
This much I'll actually agree with, but not for the reasons you might like.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:40 pm UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:I think there's a few of posters here like you and I that just want to take middle ground in this debate. However there's many that believe that even talking to girls that you've never met before is manipulating them, and that they could do get into a relationship like this http://xkcd.com/513/.


I don't see myself as taking a middle ground in this debate, that we are actually having here in this thread, because nobody I've seen here in this thread is advocating "white knighting"/"nice-guy-ism" or what the narrator in 513 does. I'm seeing some people advocating an objectifying, manipulative, adversarial approach to pursuing romantic relationships, and other people saying that that is wrong. Then I'm also seeing people on the former side of this debate try to frame anyone who isn't like them as being a "white knight"/"nice guy"/513-guy instead (or one of the eeevil wimminz who all think that that is a man's rightful place, unless you correct them and put them in theirs). And some others who seem like they might actually be well-adjusted people, who think that because they aren't 513-guy, they are some kind of super skilled seduction masters, falsely grouping themselves with the manipulative scum they would do better not to associate with.

And what I'm saying is, no, that's a straw man, because the people condemning objectification and manipulation do not approve of that kind of behavior either, as it is just as manipulative and objectifying. Conversely, if the PUA's entire message was "don't put women on a pedestal and supplicate to them and pretend to be their friend when you really just want to fuck them", I think their opponents would agree entirely, just for different reasons. The PUAs say it's not an effective way to get laid. Their opponents say that it's just as deceitful as what the PUAs would advocate instead; that the problem is not the technique you use to try to get laid, it's the mindset that the people whose bodies you want to have sex with are an obstacle to be overcome to get at those bodies, and that you need to brainstorm strategies to overcoming them, rather than those people being people with whom you would like to have sex (or maybe more), who are independent agents who get to choose who is worth having sex (or more) with just as much as you do, just like any other person with whom you would like to do any other activity.

Do the PUAs think, for example, that nerds need to work on their "game" for convincing jocks that they are worth playing D&D with? Instead of finding someone who's actually, honestly interested in playing D&D with them, or, all else fail, just not playing D&D if nobody is interested? Substitute men for nerds, women for jocks, and having sex for playing D&D (I'm sure there's a joke setup in here somewhere), and how is the situation any different?
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
TheHMan
Winston the Privileged Donkey
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby TheHMan » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Quick video I really like about the common misconceptions & caveats of pik-up : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW5ftkoWIgQ&feature=relmfu

FWIW this guy also did a lot of "real life" pik-up videos which are hilarious. It's very interesting to see how random women in the mall go from startled/uncomfortable to entertained/interested. That's the strength of a well executed pik-up.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: 1027: nosepick Artist

Postby Outchanter » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:49 pm UTC

Hmm, my position on this debate would be:

1) Dating advice is not inherently immoral. It's perfectly legitimate to want to better one's interactions with those to whom you are romantically attracted. Case in point: the relationships subforum on this board.
2) Some PUA techniques can be used immorally, and there may be encouragement within the PUA community to do so.
3) Similar criticisms could be leveled at female communities based on "The Rules" etc.

WithinThisMind wrote:At least women tend to do men they don't find attractive the courtesy of rejecting them to their faces; men tend to reject women they don't find attractive by simply blanking them from existence.

People can only get rejected if they initiate. Going up to someone and rejecting them to their face before they asked would be a little presumptuous, don't you think?

Most women don't initiate, but the ones who do get the same courtesy of being rejected that guys do.
Last edited by Outchanter on Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests