Talk:Pick-up artist

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

PUAs and gigolos[edit]

Should mention be made of the gigolo and the roué - who are 'somewhat more tasteful'? (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget "rake" or "Casanova". Hell, any term would be better than yet more needless and inane initialisms. With that in mind, I've always believed that MRAs ought be called "(male) chauvinists" or even "Archie Bunkers" given their personal politics. Chair tater (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with PUAs[edit]

  • Become a put-down artist
  • Play deliberate stupid
  • 'Have you tried the Norwegian Blue method?' ([1]); 'What is your opinion of Last Thursdayism'
  • Can I invite you to my red room/will you invest in (Spanish Prisoner scam of choice) and similar.
  • I want babies - now.

Other possibilities? (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As that Boggle person added[edit]

Although Boggle left a stub, gay pickup artists do exist, and they're annoying as all hell. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 20:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(added my section at the same time, merging)It's a new user, and I'm not sure they're going to engage me here, but I'm trying to restrain my urge to revert revert revert. We document PUAs because they're profoundly misogynistic in their beliefs and actions, and their systems are founded on pseudoscience and generally supported by fallacious reasoning. It has to do with RW's mission.
Do gay PUAs exemplify some or all of these traits? Ikanreed (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. I might not make any sense trying to tell you this, but it's all put together quite nicely and coherently in my mind: The same parts of society that make the straight pickup artists misogynistic are at play on the gay ones. It becomes sort of a misogyny against men (especially when effeminate men are involved). Also, y'know how people say "feminism benefits men, too?" This is one reason for that. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 20:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's all well and good from a subjective, personal level. What about the more paper-traily way we can mock their stated beliefs and stuff? Ikanreed (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure. But, I do think that documenting it would be on mission, and I'll go research it a bit (the stub that person left could be removed, though). Also, sorry for being a bit incoherent. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC) can be very sure that at least for the active/top/dominant gay male PUA, their pick up artistry towards passive/bottom/submissive gay males is very much like that of hetero-pick up artists. I could link you to videos and images but I highly doubt you'd want to see them. There is the same trash talking, objectification, manipulation, demeaning narrative. What makes it a little difficult is to decide how much of it is a sort of ironic parody and how much of it is real (though be sure some of it is real and very obnoxious). ShabiDOO 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rules on webcomics[edit]

I want to add this relevant C&H comic to the pick up artist terminology. Is it fair use? CorruptUser (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WTF is even "game denialism"[edit]

Disclaimer: I wrote this for the talk page of the — now, wisely deleted — crank article called "game denialism", written entirely by User:Dr. Carson. The opening summary of that article was the following claptrap;

Game denialism is the belief that there is no set of techniques for sexually attracting others (especially beautiful women) that can be usefully taught. Many game denialists claim that PUAs and other teachers of game are scam artists who prey on men who want sex. Other game denialists acknowledge that game works, but claim that to the extent certain techniques do result in obtaining sex, it is because they are dishonest tricks that are not effective at getting women to fall into any kind of love that could produce a lasting, mutually beneficial relationship.

The below is written by me, in response to the mindset espoused above.

Percy's rant[edit]

First of all, I don't think there's anyone who denies the fact that: everone potentially finds any given 'outward behavior' or 'inherent characteristic' of any other person — to varying degrees — either more attractive, less attractive, or unimportant to the overall attractiveness of a person.

Surely this is, in fact, how "game" ought to be defined.

Obviously, such aforementioned 'attractiveness modifiers' derive naturally from the simple dating fact that — like counting cardsWikipedia's W.svg in Poker — statistical methods exist by which the player may lose less often (to chance). Alas, game theoryWikipedia's W.svg (read: the scientific field PUAs think they're active in) is certainly not humbug.

By my stipulative definitionWikipedia's W.svg of the rather silly word "game" (as given above), a "Poker-equivalent" dating example would be the simple statistical truth that most people don't find a completely derelict bodily hygiene attractive — so if you smell and appear homeless, wash up for statistically better human interaction. Voilá; your odds at compability with any given person just got slightly less bad.

People that "deny" the preceding don't exist; that's step one.

Step two is that: I do, however, think that there exists a group of people who believe that it's possible to win every time, and/or to overcome any of their inherent character traits (i.e. just not being all that attractive to one's pick-up victim target) via "behavioral tricks" they've picked up (no pun intended) — ranging from bullshit pseudopsychology and "actual" brainwashing strategies (like "negging"; attacking a person's confidence + isolating him/her physically + advancing sexually) to the everyday obsessive (like 'thanklessly' pulling out chairs and holding up doors ad nauseam — slowly building misplaced frustration to the point of wanting to shoot up a women's frat house "in return").

Most concerning of all, however — the ultimate philosophical lesson procured from the entitled application of these 'modes of control' to the unsuspecting (quoteboxed to show where I sarcastically take on the worldview) is that;'s up to YOU, and thus YOUR decision to make, if OTHER PEOPLE are going to — in THEIR OWN heads — like you, or if they aren't going to like you.

And — conversely — that;

...there's nobody that YOU happen to want to bang, that you NEED — or even OUGHT — to just "leave in peace" (unconquered), since every attractive person is just yet another agentless puzzle that you haven't bothered to "socially hack" just YET.

Some are simpler, some are tougher, but eventually they could ALL crack before you.

And so, it follows by necessity that;

...the one thing that could STOP you from successfully MAKING them WANT to be with you — in THEIR OWN heads — is if you're DENIED the mere time and opportunity it takes to "brute force" their "romantic cipher".

In other words, if;'re being unjustly prevented (especially by radfem SJW cucks) from exercising what is any man's fair right — to ceaselessly attempt his homebrew mind control strategies (hey, "just until they work"!) — then that is a DEEP injustice; one which artificially GOES AGAINST the scientific psychology of mating interactions. (And BY GOD, it's your turn to mate already!!!)

Because given the time to succeed with picking them up, your targets WILL be retrospectively HAPPY that you did (and that you persisted eternally in trying), REGARDLESS of how they might feel towards you NOW — a non-problem, since THEY THEMSELVES will LATER admit to liking you (once your "recruitment strategy" has turned their minds around to that fact, that is — which just takes time and opportunity; any man's right).

This, in turn, makes the simple fact that some people, by no particular malign — and no matter how much you might secretly worship them — just don't want your nasty idiot ass ever contacting them;

...deeply unfair to YOU, something YOU should be allowed to overcome IN THEM by changing THEIR MINDS!

It makes the unwillingness of people to allow you to infinitely expose them to your overtly manipulative "strategies";

...a bullying tactic and a strong-arm strategy, designed to NULLIFY all that precious time and furious pillow-punching masturbation spent learning how to pick ladies up in the first place!

By virtue of the above, it must be stated plainly;

These hellish vixens are not just DENYING you your fair game, they're literally STEALING your PRECIOUS TIME by CAUSING it to be pissed away in the first place; this, by not please just ALLOWING you to exercise these simple tricks, the very same tricks that WOULD make THEIR minds come around ANWAYS — if you were just ALLOWED to take things to that point!

Never mind the fact that all this time YOU spent learning these tricks with desperate dedication was fueled by your BEST INTENTIONS! By your ENORMOUS love of and desire for women!

And now, these harlots won't even LET you love! Even though they clearly let SOME men love them! They're denying your essence! There's nothing good left in the world!

(Except for that intrinsic good contained in the physical application of their juicy bodies... You'll get them. Oh, be sure of that. They took this to the deep end, not you. You would have accepted their unconditional surrender at any time. But they craved war. And now they'll get war.)

And so, this — to say the least — deeply neurotic cycle loops right back to where it first began, but with a steadily increasing emotional torque to boot, digging the hole ever deeper.

Surely, these people (the views of which I parody in the above quoteboxes) are in fact the real "game denialists" (ignoring for just a moment the inherent stupidity of that particular neologist category of denialism). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it better to steal your precious bodily fluids or your precious time?
PUAs need an audience — so are they they the real victims?
Support your local PUA retirement home with generous gifts. (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Glad you like it :)
The 'gifts' can include listening to the PUA's spiel and then deliberately snubbing them/employing some of the responses to spam phone calls/asking what they charge as a gigolo. (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
See also: this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Or introduce the PUA to 'that tart/man-eater/slapper' etc or someone who 'once they get their claws into you, you can't escape' (so cramping the PUA's style).

What is the 'semantic relationship' between a gold digger and a PUA - and how would an actual relationship play out? (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)