what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pickup

UFOs, lost socks, discuss whatever you like here.

Moderators: Master_Kale, TNM Team

Hashi
Silhouette
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:13 pm

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by Hashi »

In more hilarious news, watch this "PUA" do his stuff. Not all pick up arts are made equal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbnrGPzYwI8

let us lol 7 mins away watching this guy, and the captions, as if all this is leet
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by AEmer »

@ DDL
Ok, well you've got my argument mostly right now. I'll try to cut to the chase with this one.

I'm actually suggesting that any criticism of one night stands is a double edged sword. If you lay into men for choosing a one night stand driven lifestyle, then what does that say about the women who choose to be with them?

While I realize you don't say 'those women are assholes', you do victimize them at best, and make them look like idiots at worst, if you fundamentally think of most ONS's as confidence scams.

In particular, since you use fertility and children as the underlying lynchpin of the argument you posed, that reflects doubly on women: If they do one night stands a lot, they're not just douchebags, they're incompetent risk takers detrimentally affecting society by their stupidity. They, after all, are in the best position to stop one night stands, and in the best position to prevent pregnancies, in the first place, and whereas men aren't fundamentally affected on their own body, women actually are.

Also, yes, I realize that there was an excluded middle, and that you were exagerating, but the fundamental argument is just so readily applicable in other contexts that I had to get into it. Like, even if you try to limit the argument to deceitful one night stands, if this is the fundamental, underlying issue, it still bleeds over into other contexts. It still asserts that bad shit results from ONS's to a certain degree.

That's why I don't think arguments relating to fertility should be used here at all. I think the presumption must be that people are mature enough to handle the fertility aspect regardless of all else that goes on, thereby decoupling the issues. It's kindof an affirmative action argument: Sure, there might be a higher risk of unwanted single motherhood if a woman has 50 partners a year than if she has none, but we should presume that any individual woman is bucking the statistic because she's being responsible. If you want to treat women who do not have one night stands, women who have some, and women who have many exactly the same, I don't see any other way to think of it.

If you want to be concrete, the girl who is seduced in the video from 3 minutes to 4 minutes that hashi linked is a good example. While she appears to be slightly drunk, there is absolutely no indication that she doesn't know what's going on. In fact, she keeps on assuming agency in various ways, but mr. douchebag keeps asserting himself and assuming some right back. Let's suppose it goes where we think it's going. How do you keep a fertility argument from reflecting badly on what her character based on what she did here? In fact, that whole situation is really muddy from an ethical standpoint, because she very clearly in this situation wants what's going down right there. At the end I believe she says 'I'm going to fuck the shit out of you'. At that point, it's pretty much above board, but I find it very hard to think of her as any kind of victim.
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by DDL »

Your stats don't work.

Thought experiment:

A hundred women have two one night stands a year.
Two men have one hundred one night stands a year.

The amount of sex is identical, but while the former could easily be a (relatively chaste) example of normal sexual activity, the latter is almost certainly not. The problem lies firmly in the pathological sex seeking of the two men, not the normal sexual activity of the hundred women.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by AEmer »

Ah but you didn't use deviance as an argument, and I'd also argue that is a bad argument when we're talking ethics. Regardless: You used babies as an argument.
While I agree that the women aren't deviant, and that the men are, that's completely besides the point. Either the underlying foundation of babies is good, or it is unsound.

I say that foundation is fundamentally unsound. I also say that other foundations are likely a lot more sound.

If those 2 men you speak of never once lied or cheated anyone, if it was as clear every single time what was going on as during that 3-4 minute encounter I pointed to before, there is nothing immoral or untoward about that on its own. That's a life style choice, and you owe it to them - and to sexual freedom for all humans - to presume that whatever they're doing with their lives, they actually have it together when it comes to babymaking.

That's my fundamental argument here. That these two concepts should be completely and utterly decoupled.
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by DDL »

I DIDN'T USE BABIES AS AN ARGUMENT, FOR FUCK'S SAKE, it was a fucking throwaway comedy example (one of many, no less) as to why having men running around lying to women to get sex was detrimental to our species. You picked up that and ran with it far, far further than I think a throwaway example has any need to be taken.

BUT if we're going to focus on BABIES LOL for the sake of extending an increasingly weird and frustrating argument, I'd argue that if you honestly cannot separate conception OF ANY KIND from douchebags knocking up women they've lied to, then I don't think we even have any common ground here. Hell, under your viewpoint I guess a woman impregnated by a rapist can't really object because fundamentally "babies = bad" is an unsound argument.

I just...what the fuck, dude.

EDIT: to clarify, it feels analogous to me saying "I don't want to join the military because the recruiting station is a twenty minute bus journey away. Also I don't like guns, don't want to kill anyone and am afraid of death", and then finding myself in a protracted argument about public transport and season tickets.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by AEmer »

DDL wrote: And finally:
Ultimately what is wrong with not wanting a relationship but many one night stands? Let's say we classify this as unhealthy. There are many examples of Emperors and the like having a harem of women, I guess this would just be the modern incarnation of it. Who says that everyone should always strive for a relationship and not just want one night stands for a while? Why can't this be a legitimate pursuit?
Would you rather have

1)two loving, committed parents, or
2)an unknown father and a mother with a penchant for getting knocked up by douchebags?

GOD I JUST DON'T KNOW THEY BOTH SEEM LIKE GOOD CHOICES

If I were to be truly blunt about it, it's bad because it negatively affects everything about us as a species. Furthermore, if the best example you can come up with is "emperors", that should tell you something. As a rule, how many emperors d'you get, per empire? Does that thus mean that emperors are a common phenomenon, or are they possibly a fairly clear and obvious outlier against the background of human social norms? A harem is far more an expression of power than it is an expression of "dude, I just really like porking chix, k?", and of course, you need the resources to maintain a harem: it's not a series of hookups in a bar, it's a full on "I am so wealthy and powerful I can maintain a whole damn house full of desirable women, just for me". A better modern day analogy would be a Bugatti Veyron, not demonstrable 1337 pick-up skills.


Basically it's stupid, self-destructive behaviour that detrimentally affects our entire species. It may be strongly engrained, sure, but that doesn't mean we should actively endorse it, or that I should somehow encourage you to actively pursue this mindset.

*actually probably a slander to neanderthals, since most anthropologists now seem to think they were considerably more cultured than hom sap at the time we fucked and murdered them into extinction.
This is your response in full. This is the post we're talking about. This is what I responded too.
This is the entirety of your response to Hashi asking if it wasn't a fair pursuit.

If the entirety of this was somehow a joke, I haven't got the faintest idea how I was supposed to tell. There is no 'I don't like killing people' argument here. There is only 'I don't like public transportation'.
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by DDL »

Well, there's use of language (derrogatory terminology, slang, irreverance), there's ALL CAPS, there's comedy bulletpoint list with clear and obvious excluded middle, and the fact that the start of the next paragraph pretty much segues into my actual statement as if the initial comedy example wasn't even there, and doesn't reference it as an example at any point.


There are also the multiple posts subsequently where I explicitly state this.


So yeah, comedy example (nevertheless a valid statement, but not a "lynchpin" by any means whatsoever). I'll be clear to highlight that next time.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by AEmer »

No, like, don't change your way of writing just because I didn't get it.
I still don't get it, for the record. Like, I interpret what you wrote as a response to that quote, as:

1: Here's an exagerated example of the problem.
2: The problem is essentially the worst part of humans, as I see it.
3: Furthermore, your emperor example doesn't dessuade anything
4: In summary, it's stupid and self destructive because it has a systemic effect on our entire species.

The only real argument that doesn't relate to either (presumably) oppinion or some technicality in Hashis rhetorics is number 1.

I mean, where do you get the systemic negative effect on our species from if not from the parentless children argument? You'd argued it was uncultured and neanderthal, sure, but it's also uncultured and neanderthal to pick your nose. Maybe I'm just being thick here, but if you had some other 'main' argument at this point in the thread, I can't see it.

Look, I'm sorry, I don't mean to drone on and on about this, but you asked me 'what the hell', and here it is.
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by DDL »

Beyond the "EVERYTHING IS ABOUT BABIES" argument, general encouragement of dickishness is another negative aspect. Mistreatment of people is another. Encouragement to be ruthless in search of stupid goals is another. Creating a culture of double-standards is another. Objectification of women is another. Reinforcing negative stereotypes about women is another. Reinforcing negative stereotypes about men is another. I could go on. These things all work toward undermining the increasingly liberal, honest, egalitarian and intellegent cooperative society that one would hope we're progressively working toward.

Deception, manipulation, dishonesty and general dickery are highly successful tactics, but that doesn't mean they are any less horrible, nor any more laudible.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by AEmer »

Yes but that's all the way on the bottom of page 2!
If you had said any of that instead of the baby argument, I wouldn't even have commented in the first place!
Hashi
Silhouette
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:13 pm

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by Hashi »

DDL wrote:
Beyond the "EVERYTHING IS ABOUT BABIES" argument, general encouragement of dickishness is another negative aspect. Mistreatment of people is another. Encouragement to be ruthless in search of stupid goals is another. Creating a culture of double-standards is another. Objectification of women is another. Reinforcing negative stereotypes about women is another. Reinforcing negative stereotypes about men is another. I could go on. These things all work toward undermining the increasingly liberal, honest, egalitarian and intellegent cooperative society that one would hope we're progressively working toward.

Deception, manipulation, dishonesty and general dickery are highly successful tactics, but that doesn't mean they are any less horrible, nor any more laudible.
A lot of those just look like personal opinions though. You're seeing a behaviour and want it applied to all of society for your own gain I presume. People can and will lie when it comes to dating (and its happened throughout history and society hasnt been ruined), game just happens to be more honest. You're going in and presenting what you want out of the women. It's worse to go up and hide your intentions and then try to steer the conversation to what you want. That's being dishonest. It's why there are so many guys in the "friendzone". They want her, they don't state or act in that way and just hope that one day the opportunity will come up when they can confess their feelings or can kiss her and she will realise etc. That's not how it works lol. Like a hollywood movie where at the end the guy chases the girl and she realises she loved him all along. It don't work that way.

What does it mean to be liberal, honest, egalitarian and intelligent and cooperative? Many things are in competitive, even nature. People can and will resort to dishonesty when it comes to competitions. Very few things are in harmony.

You say it's a stupid goal, but why is that? What tells you that this is a stupid goal while your own are to be lauded (well I assume you think your own goals are to be such)?

Are you concerned that the methods used or the results are bad?

People deceive, manipulate, and are dishonest all the time. How does this differ in the game?

Why can't the goals of the game be lauded? Why can't a man create options for himself when it comes to dating women? You didn't answer my questions, so again I ask you: if we're cool with rock stars, celebrities etc getting laid to many women, why can't someone perform "shortcuts", if you will, to do the same or a similar thing?
DDL
Traditional Evil Scientist
Traditional Evil Scientist
Posts: 3791
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by DDL »

"Life is shit, life has always been shit, therefore why try harder"?

That's essentially what you're saying. You're suggesting that progress is pointless because...fuck progress.

I could equally argue that people have been all stabbin' and rapin' and stealin' up this planet since we dropped down from the trees, and since we're still here, we might as well legalise knife crime, rape and theft, right? (just in case: THIS IS A RHETORICAL ARGUMENT AND NOT WHAT I AM ACTUALLY ADVOCATING)

Is it a personal opinion that we should be capable of better? Why yes. But it's also the driving force behind the progressive social changes and reforms we've experienced to date, and which we will (hopefully) continue to experience.

Think of it like the classic "hawks and doves" evolutionary example. Doves represent sharing, caring, cooperative individuals, and hawks are aggressive dickfaces that exploit those individuals.

A given society gains so much from being cooperative (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) that it can tolerate a low level of hawks. It's dickish, but it's manageable levels of dickishness. Too many hawks? Societal fail!

Here's the kicker though: too many doves? Everything is fine, and indeed, everything is better.


I would much rather live in (and thus, would much rather encourage) a dove-rich world.
AEmer
Illuminati
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:04 am

Re: what to say about "aggressive" approches at women, ie pi

Post by AEmer »

(just in case: THIS IS A RHETORICAL ARGUMENT AND NOT WHAT I AM ACTUALLY ADVOCATING)
You wound me, sir =P I always interpreted what you said in a non-literal fashion. Honestly: I love the way you write, so please don't put the hours we wasted on a relatively pointless conversation on your style... and please don't put it on me either.

You've kept arguing the fundamental validity of that particular argument all the way till we both stopped caring. It takes two to tango. I get your frustration, so if that was just you venting, fair enough, but then I'd like to add that I _share_ that frustration.

(edit: I should also add that I enjoyed the doves and hawks argument)
Post Reply