Pick Up Arts: The causes of the fall, the hopes of redemption

How to Become Attracted to People Who Are Good For You? When seeing that article, I think one of the core roots of the unethical side of the PUA movement, is the decision that was made out of the observation that the kind of men women are attracted to are not necessarily the men that are good for them (of course, men have the same tragic problem): namely, to mold oneself after attractive men, rather than good men.

That usually entails making oneself ambiguous, addictive, unreliable. It means strategically withholding affection, and attention, and respect. Because that shit works, at least on the immature, the weak-willed, the lonely, and the vulnerable. Well, it works in that it gets people depending on you, malleable to doing what you want.

But that's not why we went into PUA in the first place, right? It wasn't about control. It was about obtaining genuine affection. About finding someone to go out with, and, more importantly, to come home to. Being adrift is a lot less frightening when we are adrift together.

And I get the feeling that PUA, used indiscriminately, can't get you that.

Now, conversely, what about the opposite direction? In Men & Dating: Why the Pick-Up Scene Gets it Wrong, these people argue that inner strength, a strong self esteem and sense of inherent value, is the foundation of substantial and durable success in finding a good partner and keeping them. Some people keep insisting that PUA are unsalvageable, inherently misogynistic, and basically a Dark Art.

I would agree that it's dark, but not necessarily evil.

The thing is, women, like men, are flawed, irrational, vulnerable. More importantly, women and men are treated and conditioned by society in starkly different ways, which leads to horrible misunderstandings due to blindness to each others' circumstances. Studying these inherent and acquired flaws and these external contexts with an uncompromising, hard look at the reality of things, can help us avoid stepping on landmines, inadvertently using or manipulating others, and correctly noticing both mistakes and manipulations from others.

But maybe we should rethink the whole thing from the ground up? How about, instead of calling it "the art of picking people up", we call it, "the art of reaching out to others"? Hm, Reach-out Arts doesn't sound that bad, does it?

As De Marquis pointed out in the other thread, some mad genius somewhere devised a way to actually fall in love with people. Mandy Len Catron of the New York Times describes it here, and you can get them in the form of an app here or just read them here. You'll notice those are some really damned intimate questions right there.

I wouldn't consider them part of PUA proper, because "I have found 36 questions to fall in love, and let me ask you the thirty-seventh: would you take that leap with me?" seems to already presuppose a certain degree of trust, affection, and respect. But some people are that adventurous, I guess:

edited 7th Jun '15 2:50:21 AM by TheHandle

In mod chat, there was a lack of firm consensus one way or another on this topic, so we'll let it run for a bit to see what happens. Some notes:

First, the old one died, probably through lack of interest, which is already a strike against reviving it, but there's little harm in giving it a chance.

Second, I am profoundly skeptical of any movement that implies that there is a recipe/formula/art to "attracting a member of the opposite sex". The whole idea is inherently objectifying and I don't see how to make it otherwise.

It is entirely possible (likely, even) that we seriously neglect training young adults in how to have healthy relationships, but the human species has been increasing in population for hundreds of thousands of years, so clearly something is working and continues to work. The PUA movement seems to miss this point entirely, focusing instead on the plight of individuals who feel that they "aren't getting enough" — the implication being that sex is a thing deserved or earned, not a matter of mutual consent.

I would offer the old maxim: The one universal factor in all your relationships is you. Work on that and everything else will fall into place.

Edit: I should also point out that it works both ways. It is just as objectifying for women to use the offer of sex as a tool to manipulate men.

edited 10th Jun '15 7:26:27 AM by Fighteer

There is nothing inherently wrong in trying to get attention from the opposite sex strangers in the first place. After all, if we stop doing so, there won't be population growth.

However, I would say that the real problem is how we see the idea of getting attention itself. We tend to such attempts as "must be up to something no good" regardless how true such assumption is. But how we ended up thinking like that is another issue in itself.

I find your statements somewhat self-contradictory. After all, gaining ability to pick up girls requires fixing yourself to some degree or another. On top of that, what a man does after picking up girls is unrelated to the picking up act per se. If I am picking up a girl now, I just want to get friendly with her, not getting romantically involved yet.

Few things. The idea that there might be a methodology to attract anyone you desire would fail to grasp something of the Anna Karenina principle.

It runs into the assumption that there is the possibility of making people like something they might not necesarily like. I mean. I like cookie dough. Fuck you if you prefer strawberry I ain't skipping my cookie dough for your fucking strawberries.

Psychologists can help people with empathy, and social skills, but part of this also involves having people learn, and understand, that people can be as fickle as they desire and if no means no because of whatever arbitrary reason, then it still means no.

Relationships must part from consent. At least if we are talking about the common understanding of romantic relationship. The idea of the "confidence" and "inner strength" and "Sense of inherent value" seems, to me, to apply a bandaid to gaping confidence problems. In my opinion: If you have a low self esteem, telling yourself that you are awesome could make you feel better if you believe it, but you can also build skills and abilities to make you realize "Holy shit I can do shit".

And I am not talking that to have self esteem you need to become a neurosurgeon, or rocket scientist. I mean stuff as simple as picking up a manual crafts hobby. "Hey you know what fuck you I knitted a sweater and that is awesome". Just doing exercise can help. Not everyone can keep such a routine. (I can't).

I think the "Pick Up Arts" just runs on principles that are inherently flawed and some bad ideas, like the one mentioned above.

Listen. People like to fuck. Unless you castrate every single person in the world I can assure you that people will find a way to fuck each other. Even if not everyone is sporting thongs, suggestively eating a popsicle, or surreptitiously holding bananas and sausages, you will never, ever, ever get people to stop fucking.

"Picking up girls" is not an ability. Socializing, however, is. One night stands obey to far more arbitrary reasons than napoleon-like levels of strategizing that some forms of training involve.

"Crimes of Passion", as they are badly called, or "Honor Killings" in my opinion speak that this is not something new at all. The "Some entitled vocal minorities yearning for some action" thing is not new, it has existed everywhere and for a long time, and perceived slights have often led to bloodsheds. Elliot Reed is not new. He is just shocking to us in these times and days but you know...he would be just as shocking in the ancient times.

"Pick Up Arts" also, to me, invokes some insincerity. if you want someone just so you can fuck them then wooing them into it just seems to invite disaster. Remember that a lying tongue hates those it crushes...but a flattering tongue works ruin.

Personally, I started studying PUA not because I "wasn't getting enough", but because I desperately craved affection and intimacy, and wasn't getting any at all. I do believe that nearly everyone deserves to be loved, not by a specific person but in general. Or rather, that love isn't about deserving, but about necessity. It's as necessary as water and air and sunlight, and, eventually, without it, we wither away and die.

Though clearly well-meaning, "work on yourself" is not what I'd call the most useful advice. "Work on yourself" is, after all, also what PUA gurus tell their students to do, and they borrow heavily from the self-help tradition of the USA, all the way back to seminal classics such as Think and Grow Rich and How to Win Friends and Influence People. There's a lot of cross-over with salesman skills, applied to the special case that what you're trying to sell is yourself.

"Improve yourself" is a worthy maxim, always, but what counts as "improvement", exactly? And, with limited time and resources, what fields should be prioritized over others?

For instance, a fit body is not too difficult to get, though quality training can get expensive. If one takes the time to research the rules of style and good taste, one can manage to look quite good on a budget. There are probably books at the public library or on the internet to help you learn proper grammar and elocution, to properly manage your time and finances, to maintain good nutrition, etc. And, of course, all of these things are facilitated when you can hire someone to teach you. Money makes everything easier and more accessible, gives you confidence and freedom and power, is a boon so long as it's not too stressful to get and keep. But, as the Beatles famously said:

So what can "buy me love"? Actually, nothing, nothing in the world. No matter how smart, strong, skilled, rich, stylish, thoughtful, and moral you are, you may not find anyone wanting to be with you. Love is not something you win, not something you deserve. But you want it, you want it bad. How to go about getting it?

Well, it would seem that it's a specific set of social skills that does that. Again, "be a good communicator" and "be good at picking up on other people's feelings" is well-intentioned advice, but, in itself, useless. So how does one go about learning to do that? To become such that others aren't afraid of letting you in, letting you close, giving you a chance—a chance to do well by them, but also a chance to hurt them. It's a tremendous risk that they're taking.

You also have to have such traits that people want to let you in, feel not just unafraid, but also inclined to take that risk. Unfortunately, as I said in the OP, we humans often find that the traits that make someone attractive aren't the same that make them keepworthy or eligible, for lack of a better term. So how to achieve the right balance, so that love will both knock on your door and want to stay after, even when it isn't cold outside?

As for the population growing, that's just not very good evidence that "we're doing something right". The Greeks managed to have children despite despising women and making a point of avoiding their wives, and that's just the beginning of the fountain of counterexamples that come to mind. No, high birth rates are not a triumph of love.

These are some very solid observations. I myself tried very hard to follow the "fake it till you make it" creed, but it was completely counter-productive. It turns out that what I needed to grow confident, after an entire childhood of my father systematically and methodically crushing my self-esteem, was positive reinforcement from people who appreciate me for who I am, and damn if it didn't take me a long time to find them. Even today, whenever they fail to turn up to an event I try to organize, or something like that, great pangs of loneliness and fear of rejection emerge from my past and crush my chest. But I've had enough people tell me that I'm awesome that I have developed some resilience to evidence of the contrary.

Developing abilities... didn't really work for me, on my own. Whatever my level, I always feel barely competent, and I have to catch myself from looking down on others as incompetent and lazy and they'd be barely adequate like me if they only tried. Again, I needed other people to reassure me that, yes, I was amazing... but by then I was so skilled at so many things people found me intimidating, much to my frustration. "What do you mean I'm too cool for you and hanging out for me would be bad for your ego?"

Another reason why I spent so much time and effort on PUA and other psychology is that I hate to just accept arbitrariness as such. I want to know the underlying reasons, the mechanisms, the causes and effects. Not for the sake of manipulation, but for the sake of feeling grounded, peaceful, accepting, instead of, you know, frustrated and confused and disappointed.

Oh, one more thing. "Crime of passion" is when the spouse or partner does it. "Honor killing" is when it's a relative. There's a bit of a difference between feeling jealous and fearing for one's public image.

Again, thank God that I had money to spend on professional help. That shit should be covered by the NHS. It dramatically improves quality of life and productivity, and in a way that ripples around and has a strong multiplying effect.

edited 10th Jun '15 8:21:46 AM by TheHandle

Hey. Just sayin'. If it was easy to do alone, many psychologists would be without a job. It ain't easy and there ain't no shame in requiring help.

I also did work on myself, not because I wanted to "get girls", but because I felt that I was lacking in social skills and confidence for developing meaningful relationships. It was a whole part of life that I was missing out on and wanted a part of. It was about me reaching out into that world, not expecting that the world owed me something and discovering a secret formula to acquire it.

I need to work on my procrastination. I will do it tomo

As a guy who have problem taking to women I can said the whole "just treat them like people" or "work on you first" is nice....but naive, it implied that the person in question dosetn already now that and in my cases, everything I hear or read the whole "the problema is that you are to shy" I just want to said "yeah I now sherlock, thanks", also as many other said here: PUA actually said the same thing, is just they sell this manuals or formula, at method to the madness so to speak, is easier to feel better about yourself when someone not only point out the issue with you but give you solid and easy step to avoid falling again.

Also I think many date site actually falling to said something: you can treat the other person with respect and yet still FAIL, and that is not always a bad thing, something it dosent work and ether blaimg the other sex(nice guy,PUA,etc) or blame itself, something is just happen

But well....that are just my thought about it

Sometimes this sort of thing makes me wonder if the whole situation of wanting a relationship is not the wrong question to be asking. I understand how brutally hormonal and sexual we humans can be (because All of us are humans here, specially me hahahaha ok moving on). But if the thought process is "I would only be happy if I was in a relationship" is quite patently false

We can find solace, comfort and happiness in other things and relationships are but one of them.

Folks, I think we need to use more precise expressions than "in a (meaningful) relationship". I was in a very meaningful and intense relationship with my thesis director, my mother, and my best friend, but those don't require me to use the kind of social skills I'd use for a romance.

I think that the vast majority of us are talking about romantic relationships in the context of this topic. Let's not play games with words.

If you want sex partners with no commitment, that's a significantly different approach than finding a serious romantic partner.

edited 10th Jun '15 9:34:43 AM by Fighteer

The participants of this thread are talking about romance, but PUA practitioners at large have varied needs. Plus, there's nothing wrong with uncommitted sex, per se, and saying otherwise would be slut shaming. I'm not playing with words, I'm just more comfortable with precise wording, and was genuinely confused by the expression "meaningful relationship". Please humour me.

Asur: maybe, but My point is that many dating site, even the feminist one actualt overestimed how good social skills are need and how it can fuck you up(and not in the good way) if you dont have it.

too put it better: dating feels like a game, other have the skill and other dont, PUA claims to have a manual to beat the game....you can see why people fails for it?

Dating Sites are not the same as meeting a person face to face. I reccomend using Dating sites....only to briefly chat the person and see if both are interested in meeting in real life. And if not then drop it there.

And yes, I can see why people fall for it, but this is not against what I was arguing. Simply that even if we can agree that the..."typical" tactics of the PUA are pretty much the wrong answer, the people seeking the PUA may also be asking the wrong question.

@Fighteer: In response to that, I have to say that the idea of a "pickup art" is conceptually somewhat at odds with the desire for a relationship. Fundamentally, the idea of "pickup arts" in the first place is based in the search for a trick to short-circuit a woman's brain and get her into bed (and should be taken with the same grain of salt reserved for the Dermatologists Hate Her ads you're probably seeing right now).

To the extent that there's more value in the concept than that, I would imagine it would be tricks for making first impressions (which probably can benefit from a "tricks" mentality), along with general speaking skills to avoid putting your foot in your mouth on the first meeting, and if you want to date someone and have a relationship instead of a quick shag, I hear that having a personality helps.

Disclaimer: I would have more use for "one-quick-trick" to get rid of romantic attention than to seduce anyone, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

edited 10th Jun '15 11:07:44 AM by Ramidel

Women like to f*ck.

I'm being as blunt as possible because the entire notion of PUA formulas and strategies and such seem to miss this one incredibly basic concept. Women like to f*ck. They go to singles bars wearing tight miniskirts and flirt with strangers because they want to f*ck. There is no great mystery, no series of signals and clever wordplay to be decoded, no puzzle to be solved here. Women like to f*ck.

They just might not be interested in f*cking you and that's where things get ugly. Too many people treat it like a video game. You accumulate Relationship Points to unlock the Sex Minigame. That's not how people function. Women don't have sex because they feel their mate has done enough things for the relationship that they've earned a tussle; they have sex because they like to f*ck.

I thought women only farted unicorns and pooped rainbows. Fuck is such a crass word. All women are graceful and beautiful delicate petals that must never be spoken ill off for they are graceful and beautiful and are in no way susceptible to the errors and vileness of bodily functions

Your post can be summed up a lot less offensively by saying that human beings have sex drives and, all other things being equal, will seek to fuck each other with very little prompting. The pairing-off process inevitably leaves some folks out, which has been turned by the PUA crowd into a very ugly attempt to get their share by pure manipulation.

Consider that the reason they aren't getting any may be because their attitudes about sex are so blatantly wrong. After all, if you're right about what women want, then why isn't every guy who shows up getting all the sex he wants? The logic that it is somehow the women's fault is tortured.

edited 10th Jun '15 2:14:30 PM by Fighteer

But I like his post.

I think a large part of the problem and popularity behind PUA culture is that it is largely formed assumption and ideas build up around the age of 15. We tend to segregate genders in our culture and that means that the first real interaction many folks get is when they start defying the rules and going after the opposite gender, this is also the time when they start to get really horny and really stupid.

So the culture is build around what these folks needs and want, they want teenagers the same age as them, so the culture is build around how to 'get' people of that age. Teenage girls can be just as stupid as teenage boys, as such asshole tactics that show confidence and self assurance tend to work on them. PUA folks tend to have wanted to be that guy at school, so they try and become that guy, the thing they fail to understand is that those tactics only work on hormoneal teenagers with little life experience, thus why they tend to crash and burn amongst actual functional adults.

IMHO PUA is irredemably flawed, and the sooner people forget about it the better. The whole premise is based on the assumption that "Person A has to do something to Person B" in order to get person B to have sex with them. As Fighteer said, it's inherently objectifying.

PUA does not help it's adherent improve themselves in any substantial way, it focused on superficial actions intended to make a certain impression on someone. If you find yourself with less romantic companionship than you desire, and this situation has been going on for a certain period of time, then you may need to assess one or more of your core personality traits, or develop some deep skills that increase your behavioral repetoire in situation beyond romantic ones. Communication skills are a good place to start. So it examining the kinds of anxieties and fears that enter your head upon encountering a new person.

I advised someone who asked me about this to consider that instead of trying to manipulate or persuade someone to like you, you're much better off trying to recognize when someone already does like you. Attraction happens spontaneously and below the level of consciousness, and trying to manipulate it is probably a waste of time, as well as deceitful. Beyond that, as Handle mentioned, I linked him to that article about the successful use of the "36 questions" method, which relies on incrementally increasing levels of intimacy. That approach also relies on recognizing when someone already likes you. That's the way it works, it's a mutual thing.

But what if the value of PUA is getting one through the door, so to speak? I mean, we have documented in, for instance, jobs hiring that HR people in a competitive pool tend to demand a series of behaviors that really have little to do with being a good employee, a set of arbitrary hoops they have created just to separate the wheat from the chaff, ignoring the fact that the system is going to filter out a lot of potentially good employees.

We can see a parallel in dating. Especially in our culture where men are expected to be the first movers, women are going to get a lot of advances, some from genuinely good men who might, in fact, be perfect for them, but a given woman will have her set of filters which might not be attuned to that, but rather form an arbitrary set of boundaries just to keep the number of people she'll allow herself to become close to at an acceptable level.

These arbitrary barriers are where we see value in, at least, the theory of PUA. Sure, in practice it mostly ends up as a tool to bed women, but the fundamentals of it are about catching and holding women's attention, which in itself has immense value for good men who lack natural animal charm. Just because you get her attention does not mean you get to keep it or deserve to keep it, but what good's it going to do you if you're never even on the radar?

That's exactly what's flawed about it- it treats developing a personal relationship as if it were a type of job interview. You cant "get" someone's attention if they have decided not to give it to you, except by trickery. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. But if you are presentable, someone is paying attention, or would if they knew you- learn how to find them.

I'm failing to see the difference. If the result is the same, what matters the method?

Though it depends on what degree of amoral behavior you're assigning to "trickery" there.