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

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

Post by Hashi »

Another controversial topic. But what is life with boring threads?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlWrFgIR6CU
Watch up to 4 minutes.

There are many other examples you can find, I just thought this was representative of what I wanted to say for this thread. Simply extrapolate from the video when you post. Do you know that this is definitely the most extreme of it's type, and most of the pickups are not as extreme. But you get enough of an idea to post in this thread anyway.

I doubt the whole "game" is a popular concept on this forum. But let's get deeper with this. Now I don't fully agree or endorse this type of behaviour with pickup, I think it's too far, but the general principles behind game are fine to me.

We can safely assume that Julien from the video is not the only guy in the world who can do these crazy types of pickups and get laid from it. So in that sense, this kind of attitude and everything stemming from it, "works", if you will.

What do we say about this?

Let's start off with a common argument I've heard about the game. It's that it's about manipulating woman. But if you think that, then you believe the women have no agency in the matter at all, it's as if they suddenly wake up and are in bed with a guy and then must have sex from that point on. Surely we can credit women with more intelligence then that? Just how manipulative can a guy be? Surely at one point we have to allow for the fact that some women want to get laid (even in a one night stand) and are willing to play along with the game. They might just accept the "antics" from the guy because they wish to get laid too. But to say they are being 100% manipulated into sex is silly, I think. Surely women can think for themselves?

The next argument is that it demeans women. Let's say the majority of women would be demeaned by this type of behaviour toward them, but a minority are fine with it. I mean surely these women that are getting picked up aren't just dreaming all the way along and have no idea what the guy is saying or doing. At some point they have to be fine with such language and behaviour. If we say that these women are idiots and aren't representative of normal women, does that mean we label them after they have slept with such guys or can we do so before hand? Same thing for saying these women have no self respect. And when should we label these women? What if she goes home with such a guy once a year? Once a month? If some women are fine with such approaches, who are we to judge the men who do these approaches? If both the man and the woman want to get laid, what is the issue with the tactics used?

Let's look at the goal of just wanting to get laid, and not wishing to have a relationship (as everyone in RSD seems to be this way). 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?

It's safe to say these men are clear in the intent and very early on in the interaction. What about the following examples (and I know many such people): a guy buys a girl who he likes flowers in the hopes she will like him or reciprocate in return. He hopes to get in her good books and just wants to get laid, and thinks buying flowers or any other such things will do it. He holds a hidden agenda. Or he approaches a woman and pretends the conversation is going one way, but secretly wants to steer it toward getting her number. How do we judge those situations?

So if these tactics (if we call them that) work, where does the judgement start and end? If both parties in the interaction are cool with it, then where does the problem lie? If we say the men are antisocial, or that it could affect them adversely later on, and they don't care, then how do we judge?

I personally don't know what to make of such approaches. I agree they go too far, but don't know exactly when and how I should judge the situation.
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. I guess you could start by not automatically adopting a 'them and us' viewpoint, or indeed assuming your audience for this question is entirely male.

The road to enlightment begins with a single step.

....Provided that step isn't in the direction of a bar, to test 'pickup' techniques.
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 »

On this one, I'm entirely in the camp of not caring.

I don't have a savior complex. If my sister was getting picked up by one of these guys and I knew it would hurt her, I might well punch him in the mouth, or interact with him in such a way that the fun is spoilt to nip it in the bud.

On the other hand, most girls aren't my sisters, and they aren't my friends, and even if they are my friends, I probably don't know them well enough to determine whether they'll be able to think things through enough so as to not get hurt. I'd be inclined to let them make their own judgement rather than overrule it because they 'might' get hurt.

And I don't care who women sleep with. It's their business, they're typically fully cognisant adults. The women in this video are clearly inebreated, but they chose to be themselves, and again, I typically can't determine whether it's self destructive or they knew what they were getting into.

So, yeah. Guys like this are out there and do these things. I don't care one way or the other.
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 »

It's not so much about 'saving' anyone as just generally discouraging dickish behaviour. Being a douche generally spills over into all other everyday interactions.

If I had to critique hashi's common arguments, I'd suggest the following:

"it demeans women"...true, but it also demeans men. It's universally demeaning, as it assumes that we're all just grunting stereotypes with nothing to show for thousands of fucking years of cultural evolution. I would like to think that we are both more enlightened and less stupid than that, and if we're not, we should at least fucking try.

"it's about manipulating women"...true, but again, ditto for guys. You've become convinced that A) you should focus on maximal humping in minimal time, and B) the best way to achieve objective A is to behave like a fucking neaderthal*, neither of which are terribly healthy mindsets.

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.
bobby 55
Illuminati
Posts: 6354
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:15 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

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

Post by bobby 55 »

Christ! I wish I'd only watched until the 4 minute mark. I hope I've never been or ever will be that self obsessed.
Growing old is inevitable.......Growing up is optional
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

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

Post by Cybernetic pig »

The guy is a slut filter :lol:

The "aggressive" approach is a good one, but wont work on all.
The "ball rolling" he spoke of is awesome.

Unfortunately the ball rolling and fucking is the only good part, all the other bullshit can fuck off. What bullshit? Costs (money), bad modern club music, falling in love with the wrong girl or vice versa, trouble with other guys (you touching my girl etc), possible rejection after getting so far, dealing with retarded drunk people, easy girls whilst attractive are also sickening...

If something happens to my current relationship I suppose i'll be reluctantly following my penis to the clubs, or wherever my penis decides.

Fuck human nature. And penis induced mind control.
User avatar
gamer0004
Illuminati
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:53 pm

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

Post by gamer0004 »

Cybernetic pig wrote: Fuck human nature. And penis induced mind control.
Haha true that.

And what DDL said. I don't care whether people do it, it's not my concern. But it's rather stupid and pointless in my opinion.
User avatar
VectorM
MJ12
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:05 pm

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

Post by VectorM »

I've come to realize, that at the end of the day, working out and actually doing something worthwhile will be far more effective and acceptable than anything game can offer. Hell, you can internalize some of the things game tells you just by committing to a basic bodybuilding regime.

You can talk about behavior all day long, but fact remains, that most of these pick-up dudes are, well, good looking, athletic men. Even ethics or about the "proper, acceptable" human behavior ignored, puck-up artistry now seems like the way inferior choice.

This is all assuming you just want to get laid. If that is not your only goal, then game is really a waste of time.
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

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

Post by Cybernetic pig »

VectorM wrote: This is all assuming you just want to get laid. If that is not your only goal, then game is really a waste of time.
But you said game was about bettering yourself as a human being. :roll:
User avatar
VectorM
MJ12
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:05 pm

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

Post by VectorM »

Cybernetic pig wrote:
VectorM wrote: This is all assuming you just want to get laid. If that is not your only goal, then game is really a waste of time.
But you said game was about bettering yourself as a human being. :roll:
My opinion has changed since then. Even if that is still the case, it's ultimately a waste of time, compared to other things you could do instead, that are more cost effective and useful.

So are you ignoring me or not? :D
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:It's not so much about 'saving' anyone as just generally discouraging dickish behaviour. Being a douche generally spills over into all other everyday interactions.

If I had to critique hashi's common arguments, I'd suggest the following:

"it demeans women"...true, but it also demeans men. It's universally demeaning, as it assumes that we're all just grunting stereotypes with nothing to show for thousands of fucking years of cultural evolution. I would like to think that we are both more enlightened and less stupid than that, and if we're not, we should at least fucking try.

"it's about manipulating women"...true, but again, ditto for guys. You've become convinced that A) you should focus on maximal humping in minimal time, and B) the best way to achieve objective A is to behave like a fucking neaderthal*, neither of which are terribly healthy mindsets.

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.
What about rock stars who have slept with hundreds, if not thousands of women. Gene Simmons in one such man. He is meant to have slept with over 1000 women. But let's say that's an exaggeration and it's only "half". What do we say then? The man is by all accounts happily married now. He's not the only example. George Clooney is meant to have slept with over a thousand women too. Do we accept this or are these people scum too? And you can't single them out either, if one is scum for doing it, then they all are. If one celebrity uses his fame to get laid and is scum, so is every other celebrity. There are no differentiating factors in this situation. Are we all cool with them getting laid? Why or why not?

Is it just the techniques uses that worry us? Is that to say if you have it and can get laid easily, then it's cool, but if you can't get laid easily, to not bother learning any techniques to do so?
Cybernetic pig
Illuminati
Posts: 2284
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:21 am

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

Post by Cybernetic pig »

Hashi wrote:
What about rock stars who have slept with hundreds, if not thousands of women. Gene Simmons in one such man. He is meant to have slept with over 1000 women. But let's say that's an exaggeration and it's only "half". What do we say then? The man is by all accounts happily married now. He's not the only example. George Clooney is meant to have slept with over a thousand women too. Do we accept this or are these people scum too? And you can't single them out either, if one is scum for doing it, then they all are. If one celebrity uses his fame to get laid and is scum, so is every other celebrity. There are no differentiating factors in this situation. Are we all cool with them getting laid? Why or why not?

Is it just the techniques uses that worry us? Is that to say if you have it and can get laid easily, then it's cool, but if you can't get laid easily, to not bother learning any techniques to do so?
Not sure you read DDL's post?

His problem with it, and rightly so, is when a man leaves a trail of fatherless children behind him. In other words, as long as you rubber up, it's cool.
Well, there are other problems he mentioned, but fatherless children is the biggest issue here, in my opinion.

Generally acting like a douchebag or a "slander to neanderthals" is a secondary concern, as those people are probably douchbags regardless of whether they use game tactics or whatever.
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 »

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.
Wanted to respond to this, with a question. If you're saying, this behaviour is bad, does that mean you should actively discourage it?

And if so...where's the difference between discouraging this behaviour and slut shaming (of women)? Within that same frame of reference, aren't they both bad?
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 »

Good questions!

To the former, no. Generally "carrot or lack thereof" works better than "stick or lack thereof", particularly with behavioural norms (we tend to act in certain ways because everyone is doing it, rather than because we were told specifically not to act in other ways). Plus I don't really think it can be stomped out (or indeed if it should be -the douchebag factor may serve some vital societal role we haven't yet spotted), I just don't think it should be lauded.

To the latter, well, firstly see negative answer to the former, but also...well, I'm kinda unfamiliar with "slut shaming", but I'd assume it's basically trying to imply that "multiple partners = bad (if sex==female)"...which is a tad stupid.
I can see the merits to the idea, as a historical quirk, much as the concept of a harem also has historical roots that validate it (within a given timescale), and much like the "desire for men to hump as many women as possible" it's probably got some fairly deep-seated cultural/evolutionary basis...but also much like that idea it's unhelpful and detrimental in the present day. And probably dishonest.

The one thing both certainly have in common is they involve people acting like arseholes.

And generally, I'm not in favour of encouraging that.
User avatar
VectorM
MJ12
Posts: 320
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:05 pm

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

Post by VectorM »

Most of the slut shaming I see around here has nothing to do with the number of partners. Usually it's about what KIND of partners they are and motivations (If you can extrapolate any). So the pick-up artist might actually be a slut around here.
Post Reply