Pickup and Seduction Techniques for Feminists (NoH)

This comment thread is the “No Hostility” thread. Please read this and this for the ground rules. The “Regular Parallel” thread can be found here.

Nope, this isn’t a post on how to pick up feminists. It is a post on techniques and ideas in the seduction community that feminists might like.

Many people have a negative impression of the seduction community when they first encounter it. They may think that pickup artists (PUAs) are only focused on “getting laid.” If they concede that the seduction community might teach something helpful to men, they might argue that men can find similar advice outside the seduction community

All of these suspicions are unsurprising given the type of language common in the community, which can put people off from looking into it further. Yet as someone who has waded into the seduction community for years, I’ve found a lot of positive teachings in the seduction community, which shouldn’t be overlooked.

There are many pieces of advice in the seduction community that are effective, but also ethical, and which facilitate consent, mutuality, and relationships. I am going to briefly describe a few of my favorite ideas from the seduction community, most of which aren’t found outside it, at least not with such depth.

1. Avoid chasing, neediness, and desperation

PUAs believe that neediness and desperation are unattractive to women, and harmful to the men who display them. They argue that chasing women too hard when they aren’t interested pushes them away. Chasing behaviors include buying women drinks, acting overeager, asking lots of questions in a short period of time, or following women around when they haven’t displayed interest.

From Mystery1:

The path to mastery is not found by telling a hot woman that she is hot, offering to buy her a drink, being too persistent, or asking her lots of questions.

From TylerDurden (yes, the villain of The Game)2:

If you feel needy, you will tend to be unnaturally eager to have rapport with others. You might believe that you are being friendly, when in fact, you are being overly friendly. It can be seen in the way that you hold yourself, the way that you respond when people talk to you, and in the way that girls walk away from you.

Here are some of his examples of behaviors that may convey neediness:

Leaning in, or “hen pecking.”
Snapping to attention when someone speaks.
Waiting for people who aren’t coming back.
Always trailing instead of leading.
[...]
Chasing when people withdraw. If a person walks away from you, and you are lured to chase them, you will drive them to pull away even further. If you say “Where are you going?” or “Come back!” they will be even more likely to continue walking off, because you will have slotted yourself with all the uninteresting guys have done the same thing.

In addition to avoid needy behaviors, PUAs often encourage avoiding an attitude of neediness. Juggler says3:

Think about what you would want an interaction with a girl to be like if there was no need to get sex. Let’s say that sex was a given. You did not need to do anything tricky or run ‘game’ to score. How would
you like that interaction to be? Myself I want it to be fun, exciting, relaxed, playful and sharing with each other willingly. Now think about
how you can make that happen. Would you use tricks or be sneaky to get a girl to be that with you? No, that would be counter productive and/or unnecessary work. You would instead lead her by being fun, relaxed, sharing, or whatever you want the interaction to be like yourself and learn to allow and encourage her to be that as well.

It is just that most people have no idea how to allow and help someone achieve this place. Now the big mental step. Sexuality is not that big of a deal. Sure it has more important implications as far as chance of pregnancy, disease and emotional connotations. But from a ‘who has the
power’ point of view it should be regarded the same way as having fun or any of the things you want an interaction to be – it should have nothing to do with power.

I think many women would be happy if men behaved in a less sexually-needy manner, as PUAs advise, and stopped chasing or following women who have shown disinterest.

2. Attract and comfort before seduction

In Mystery Method, Mystery advocates making sure that a woman is attracted and comfortable before making moves on her. The steps of the Mystery Method are Attraction, Comfort, and only then Seduction.

Mystery argues4:

The most common error beginners make is focusing on seducing a woman before attracting her. This is putting the cart before the horse. Often, to beautiful women in particular, seduction first is little more than the equivalent of saying, “You don’t know me, but will you sleep with me?” There is a time (and a place) to begin the seduction stage, but it’s not until you first have attraction and comfort, not to mention privacy.

Seducers mistakenly begin at the end. Like the typical guy, they often blatantly disregard a woman’s comfort levels entirely. Even if there is a level of attraction based on the seducer’s appearance alone, this is superseded by her discomfort in having to deal with aggressive sexual advances from someone she doesn’t know or trust. It is best to not prematurely telegraph strong sexual interest until end-game.

And on the need for comfort5:

If you attempt to seduce a woman before building sufficient comfort, her attraction switches for you will turn off. To keep this from happening, you must build enough comfort so your seduction won’t
make her feel uncomfortable. Do not cross the line from comfort to seduction until you have developed enough comfort

If men were to follow this advice, it would again be a good thing for women.

3. Social vibing

The seduction community has a lot of excellent social advice, particularly for nerdy guys who have low emotional intelligence.

In The Blueprint, TylerDurden observes some maladaptive social behaviors:

Some people will react to their insecurities by forcing unsolicited advice down the throats of everyone around them, based on whatever topics are brought up in conversation. And other people will jump on every opportunity to show how whatever comes up in conversation has a correlation to their own life, and then use that as a window to qualify themselves. And others still will interpret conversational threads as tests of their intelligence, and respond in ways that qualify their intelligence to the people around them.

An example:6:

GOOD VIBING:

GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for.
FRIEND: Wow.. Umm, 200$.
GUY: No man. 45$
FRIEND: Wow.. Nice man.

BAD VIBING:

GUY: You’ll never guess how much I got this coat for.
FRIEND: Oh you got a deal. I guess 30$ then.
GUY: Umm, actually 45$
FRIEND: Oh.. well that’s not bad.

Notice that the friend TELEGRAPHED SUBCOMMUNICATIONS of INSECURITY.

His thought process was: “I’ll show GUY that I’m smart. I’m clever enough to
pickup on the fact that if he said “You’ll never guess what I paid”, that he
got a deal. Then I’ll have shown him that I passed his test.”

TylerDurden also observes that nerdy people often tend to believe that social interaction should require a presupposition, such as sharing information or engaging in an activity. From the Blueprint:

Social “vibing” is when we interact with each other, not just for functional reasons, but to enjoy each other’s company and mutual acceptance. We do it as a low-key way of recharging our batteries. Vibing can include anything from joking around, to telling stories, to discussing interesting topics, to rough and tumbling around, to breaking rapport with each other in a playful way that demonstrates personality and reinforces the bond.

When friends say “Let’s go out for a drink,” they aren’t convening to discuss and resolve a particular issue. That would be closer to the structured office meeting that they had to endure earlier in the day. Rather, they hang out for the enjoyment of it, both from the validation they get from being around people who are worth their time, and from the positive emotions that they get from the interaction itself.

Let’s think about the essence of being a nerd. What activities do we think of when we think of nerds? Video games, fantasy role playing games, internet chat rooms, and science projects. Why is it that these activities are stereotyped as being nerdy?

People who lack social confidence will oftentimes try to formalize their interactions in some way or other. What nerd-activities have in common is that they can act as social crutches that allow vibing to occur in a structured way, because the activity is doing the work for them.

He says that if you rely on a presupposition to have interactions with people, the interactions may collapse when that presupposition disappears:

This is a MAJOR cause of flaking. You maintained a conversation with a girl,
but the presupposition was that you were discussing an issue. You left on the high note, but didn’t realize that you were actually REINFORCING to the girl that you are not socially compatible.

When going to meet up with you again, she’ll think “Well, we really have nothing more to talk about though. I don’t want to have nothing to talk about, because that would feel unfortable”

Tyler argues that while nerdy people often believe that social interaction needs to have some “purpose,” the real purpose of most social interaction is to vibe with each other and share positive emotions. It was his writing that finally lead me to “get” social interaction, rather than dismissing other people’s conversations and smalltalk as pointless blather.

4. Direct approaches

One style of approach is to directly convey one’s intentions. Here are some example approaches, credit Pickup 101:

Him: Excuse me, do you know what time it is?
Her: It’s 2:00.
Him: Actually, I know what time it is… I just wanted an excuse to come over and flirt with you!
Her: (either runs away, or laughs)

Another:

Him: Hey… I hate to be that guy who hits on you in the mall… but I gotta be that guy.

Here is a video of the last one (yes, the woman signed a waiver giving the company permission to release it… and yes, hidden camera pickup is creepy, though once she knew about it, the woman still seemed to have a good time).

The idea behind these types of approaches is that you either boom or bust. If the woman reacts negatively, then he wastes very little of either person’s time. And if she responds positively, then she knows the man’s intentions, and may even be attracted by the confidence that he expressed them with.

5. Statement of Intent/Interest

In Juggler’s theory of seduction, a “Statement of Intent/Interest,” aka “SOI” is an explicit statement that you are interested in the other person sexually, and intend to take the interaction in a sexual direction.

Juggler explains7:

At some point you are going to have to SOI. If you try to take her clothes off, that is an SOI. You may be trying to avoid all risk until
the last moment. I’m sure you have had success with setting the mood, kinoing the girls and then building it up into sex. That can work. But your life will get much easier if you can figure out how to incorporate SOI into your game.

Remember that SOIs are delivered ONLY after she is demonstrating that
she is interested.

Since you have to display sexual interest, Juggler suggests displaying it as soon as you are confident of the other person’ interest.

Juggler explains how he came up with concept of the SOI8:

As I was sitting across from a woman at dinner I was inspired to pull a Chapstick lip-balm out of my pocket. I popped the cap off in an obvious manner and made a show of glossing my lips with the stuff. Then I said to her, ‘Not that I’m presuming anything, but in case there’s any smooching later.’

Note: he is fully acknowledging that smooching might not happen.

I’m not sure where that stroke of genius came from. I guess desperation is the mother of invention. It got a laugh and then I went right back into talking about whatever, ‘So you are going to be a marine biologist? My cousin fell into the Otter tank at Seaworld.’

We ended up making out in the restaurant parking lot
before we had even found my car.

I decided to do the same with all my dates.

It became a win-win. I could tell from a woman’s tone if she was
up for a physical connection. If she became distant after the Chapstick I would cut the date short and get home in time to watch Seinfeld. But if she stayed in there with me I knew it was ON.

Notice how Juggler carefully watches her reaction, and uses the SOI as a test of the mutuality of the interaction. He continues:

My success with women increased dramatically. My dates would even sometimes initiate the kissing. With my new found confidence I started to slow down and enjoy being around
women.

You don’t need a Chapstick to do this. That was just the prop I needed to discover this principle.

When done right, SOIs allow you to state your intentions honestly with someone, attract them, and verify mutuality, all at the same time.

Parting words

Let me know what you guys think of these ideas. Which ones do you like? Do you have problems with any of them? Did you learn anything practical? Are these teachings what you expected from the seduction community? Have you seen similar ideas elsewhere? Do you have any questions about why I think they are ethical, or effective?

  1. The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed, p. 92[]
  2. The Blueprint.[]
  3. Conversational Jujitsu, p. 3-4[]
  4. The Mystery Method, p. 49[]
  5. The Mystery Method, p. 54[]
  6. Social Intelligence – Vibing[]
  7. Conversational Jujitsu, p. 8[]
  8. How To Be A Pickup Artist[]

367 Comments

  1. Danny says:

    Many people have a negative impression of the seduction community when they first encounter it.

    Given the not always justified bad rap that is laid on the community no wonder people are prone to have a negative impression of it from get go.

    They may think that pickup artists (PUAs) are only focused on “getting laid.” If they concede that the seduction community might teach something helpful to men, they might argue that men can find similar advice outside the seduction community.

    I wonder why they would try to make such an argument. Is it because they really don’t want to see the good useful advice associated with the bad behaviors and language (which I think is a perfectly valid reason), they have decided that the SC is a source that they don’t have control over and therefore don’t approve of and don’t want people to learn from it (this would amount to jealousy and envy over someone other than themselves coming up with a good positive way to help men), or some other reason?

  2. jfpbookworm says:

    (Apologies in advance for the length of this.)

    It’s an interesting proposition, and a feminist dating guide for heterosexual men is something I’ve considered trying to compile for some time.

    Personally (and I don’t speak for anyone else here), I think the whole “seduction” framing is flawed. Anything that equates women with “status,” or tells men what they should want, or undermines a potential partner’s autonomy is problematic from the start, and any positive “social coaching” will be tainted by that context.

    Anyway, on to the actual points of the article:

    “Avoid chasing, neediness, and desperation” *can* be good advice, depending on what’s meant by it. It’s very good advice to tell men (and women) not to base their sense of self-worth on who they can attract, and not to be pushy towards people who obviously aren’t interested. I think the advice loses its effectiveness when it’s put in terms of “don’t do this because it’s unattractive.”

    “Attract and comfort before seduction” – again, good advice from one angle (yeah, you want to be sure someone is attracted to you and feeling safe before propositioning them), bad from another (the whole “Nice Guy(TM)” thing where gestures of friendship are just a pretense).

    “Social vibing” – this one I’m admittedly not too clear on, because I’m not down with the lingo (“vibing”? “flaking”?). Seems like it’d be best suited for an ancillary course for neuro-atypical folk on general social interaction, as opposed to being shunted into the “get hot chix!”

    “Direct approaches” – again, this can be a good idea, and a feminist seduction guide’s number one guideline is going to be “hiding your interest doesn’t do anybody any favors.” (The number two guideline therefore has to be “be respectful.” Unreciprocated interest is nobody’s problem but one’s own.)

    The approaches described in the OP, however, kind of creep me out, because they’re not only direct but cold. I don’t know what the context of the first one is, but “either runs away or laughs” is *not* something I’m cool with. If you’re making people run away, that’s a problem. The second approach just seems to be inappropriate in setting, but then again I’m not up on mall culture and maybe people do go there to get hit on.

    The whole “if the woman reacts negatively, then he wastes very little of either person’s time” assumes that the largest potential problem with such an approach is wasted time. While that may be true from his perspective (though for a lot of men, feeling rejected may be a bigger deal, and I think that’s a legitimate reaction), my understanding is that from many women’s point of view, the issue is not “wasted time” but feeling unsafe (because she doesn’t *know* that he’s going to leave her alone if she’s not interested), or harassed (especially if this isn’t an isolated incident for her).

    “Statement of Interest” – okay, this is more what I was getting at than “direct approaches.” The Chapstick thing strikes me as cheesy, but that’s just me. The point is to make it clear what you’re interested in, so that any potential partners can decide if they’re interested as well.

    Some of the other commentary about it “I could tell from a woman’s tone … if she stayed in there with me I knew it was ON” squick me a bit, because it makes it sound as if he’s trying to make that decision for her. And *that*, I think, is emblematic of the larger problem I have with a lot of seduction advice – not that it’s bad, but that even when the advice is good it’s tied up in a framework that’s fundamentally flawed.

  3. Danny says:

    jfpbookworm:

    Some of the other commentary about it “I could tell from a woman’s tone … if she stayed in there with me I knew it was ON” squick me a bit, because it makes it sound as if he’s trying to make that decision for her.

    Really? I don’t get that vibe. While I can understand how you got that vibe to me its sounds like he thinks he has done something to gain her attention/favor. As in if he had not done what he did she would turn him down but since he did what he did he has a chance. Either way its still her decision to react positively to him or not.

  4. clarence says:

    jfpbookworm:

    If you could explicate on what about the framework you feel is fundamentally flawed, we could respond to you a bit better.

    I do feel you misunderstand a thing or two so I will try to explain. Maybe Hugh can do it better because he write better, but I will try.

    First about the “attract and comfort before seduction” thing. You seem to misunderstand that there are two types of nice guys: the fraud, and the real one. As a real life “nice guy”, I can assure you that the hell of our existence is that we misunderstand these things and end up starting in the “comfort” phase. Where we stay. Permenently. Forever. Assuming the woman even lets us have that much of her life. Because we never build attraction there are quite a few women who want nothing to do with us at all, not because they fear we “want something” from them but because they fear we don’t. Many women do not respect eunechs. We don’t know enough theory to have a choice where we end up let alone to manipulate anyone even if we wanted to.

    As a nice guy what I wanted for years and years was mostly to be friends. Not lovers. I’d do nice things for girls I wasn’t even attracted to sexually because I felt being nice was always the best way to do things and was what decent human beings did. Instead, I’m sure some girls thought I just wanted to get in bed with them and (assuming any were interested and looking back now some of them did over the years give me what most would regard as OBVIOUS indicators of interest that I totally missed)they would be frustrated that I never initiated sexual stuff or totally turned off by the fact that I was just (to their minds) an evil manipulator. Either way, I lost, mostly getting neither friendship, nor sex. By the way, as a nice guy I’d also do nice things for men. Since I’m not bi or gay there was no sexual interest there, either. My point? There are real nice guys and frauds, and the real nice guys really do think being nice to everyone is the way to go even if its rarely ever reciprocated and thus they tend to get stuck in the so-called “comfort” zone, knowing nothing of how to attract or seduce – and partly because it is not always what is on their mind. In order to feel I was attractive sexually, I needed to feel I was a decent human being. It really hurts over the years to hardly ever have your status as a decent person validated. If I couldn’t even get that, why was I going to try to “seduce” someone?

    Direct approaches:

    Well, here’s a critique of your critique. Context, is everything , right? If I go up to some woman in a mall or bar or bookstore where there are other people around and use a corny line to try to introduce myself someone who literally runs , screaming, away has issues. If she’s setting on a bench in an isolated area 2 miles from the nearest human and its midnight that’s an entirely different matter.

    Men are expected by the vast majority of women to approach. To initiate. That you , or the feminists in general do not like this does not matter in the slightest and the men involved really have no power to change it if they want to be with women. And also, since feminism has never had an activist project to try to change women’s behaviour I find it a bit hypocritical for them to criticize men who are trying to do their best inside a “gender paradigm” that stubbornly refuses to die. When I initiate I take the risk of cruel rejections and misunderstandings entirely on my own shoulders. I do not like you attempting *at least thats how it looks to me* to make the risk I take in those situations to be nothing and to condemn my behaviour as predatory or selfish or whatever. ALL social interactions involve an initiator and all social interactions involve some risk of stepping on toes or otherwise inadvertently hurting someone even if both parties mean well. I have yet to see any feminist solution to this, instead they tend to focus on trying to make sure no-one’s toes ever get stepped on (or if there is any pain it should be on the man’s side of things of course) which is, to put it bluntly, and impossible task.

    Which is why until I see feminism and feminists (in general of course) give some useful advice on this issue I’m going to continue to ignore them.

  5. typhonblue says:

    To be honest, I’m amazed anyone has any problem with what Hugh wrote.

    I think it’s great the SC is getting guys to let go and walk away if women don’t have interest. Isn’t that the point? Not PUSHING if she doesn’t want it?

  6. jfpbookworm says:

    Well, typhonblue, if you read what I wrote you’d see that I don’t have a problem with that, except insofar as men get advised to do that because “it’s not attractive” and not because “it’s the right thing to do” or “you don’t need to put yourself through that.”

  7. jfpbookworm says:

    Clarence:

    I don’t see where your “nice guy” narrative has all that much to do with what I was saying. It sounds like the problem is that you couldn’t communicate that you were sexually interested in potential partners (been there), and whether or not you were “nice” wasn’t very relevant.

    I think that “feminist seduction” advice there would be to recognize that there’s nothing wrong with expressing interest in someone, and that if you “lose” by not getting friendship or sex then so do they, and that someone who is completely unwilling to express any positive interest in a partner is either not all that interested, or is more trouble than they’re worth.

    The initiate-response model seems awfully reductive to me; it’s not, in my experience, the way things work. While it’s true that on a basic level someone has to communicate first, in my experience it turns into a back-and-forth where people are building off of each other. If it were just a matter of extracting concession after concession from someone who wasn’t willing to meet me partway, why bother?

    The trick, I think, is not to be so afraid of stepping on toes as to never interact; it’s to be mindful of what’s likely to do this and what isn’t. I don’t think most “seduction advice” does this; I think it just tells men that it’s not their problem.

  8. jfpbookworm says:

    Danny: It’s by no means definitive; I just hope that in each case he got a more definitive yes than “she didn’t get up and leave.”

  9. Scipio Africanus says:

    jfp,

    “except insofar as men get advised to do that because “it’s not attractive” and not because “it’s the right thing to do” or “you don’t need to put yourself through that.””

    What’s the difference, though? Wouldn’t the effect be the same either way? The only difference I see is the power dynamic involved – with what you advocate, it’s the woman’s interests at the forefront of the man’s consideration, with what Hugh suggests, the man keeps his own interests first.

  10. typhonblue says:

    JFPbookworm:

    Well, typhonblue, if you read what I wrote you’d see that I don’t have a problem with that, except insofar as men get advised to do that because “it’s not attractive” and not because “it’s the right thing to do” or “you don’t need to put yourself through that.”

    A lot of lonely guys think their main problem with their life is not being attractive to women.* Maybe it would be better if they didn’t, but I think that would require society _not_ seeing manhood in terms of sexual behavior with women.

    *It’s not, of course. I’m sure what they learn in the SC helps them out even with their platonic relationships. And I’ve read a lot of SC material that suggests men should *start* with fixing their platonic and/or casual non-sexual relationships FIRST, because that’s where their problems lie. Maybe these guys would rather blame their problems on the mysterious fickleness of women rather then their own social weirdness and ineptitude because it protects their ego. So what? They’ll get the message about social weirdness and ineptitude when they’re ready to hear it.

  11. clarence says:

    JFP:

    My “nice guy” explanation was to show you that not all “nice guys” are frauds who are trying to manipulate girls into bed via passive-aggressive headgames or whatever the terminology was in that Heartless Bitches International anti niceguy screed was that I read a few years ago.

    As for the rest , I think short of obvious situations where the one whom you are initiating the conversation with has no safe way of refusing your advances , it really isn’t my problem. A few simple rules of thumb and some assumptions of good will on both parties part would go a long way towards defusing “approach minefields”. However in practice that is not what I’ve seen feminists (at least blog ones ) do when discussing these issues. Instead they either take a very narrow view of when it is appropriate to approach (say social circle to social circle, never on public transport, blah blah blah) or they refuse to provide any rules at all, instead regarding “hi, would you like to talk”? as unwarrented intrusion sort of to the extent of calling an american black person the infamous “n” word.

    In short most, feminist advice on this is useless, at least if you go by what is said on the major feminist blogs. The safest place for the average “non-heteronormative non-oppressive pro feminist male ” who is not already in a long term relationship (preferrably with a feminist of course lol) would seem to be the “comfort” zone.

    Ironically many women, heck I’d dare say the majority of women like it when you engage their emotions both positive and (within their own personal limits of course) negative. Living in the comfort zone doesn’t allow you to learn how to do that. Indeed, in feminist eschatology it would seem to be oppressive to ever give anyone a negative emotional state for any reason.

    Surely, after all JFP you’ve heard at least a few times in your life about how the girls husband initially seemed to impress her in all the wrong ways but there was “something about him”?

  12. typhonblue says:

    Clarence:

    Indeed, in feminist eschatology it would seem to be oppressive to ever give anyone a negative emotional state for any reason.

    Yep. Flattery feels good, but criticism gives you something to think about.

    And, I know this will be a shocker, there are women out there who prefer thinking over feeling good.

    I prefer a guy who challenges me rather then one who always looks to _me_ to set the emotional key of the relationship. I actually find such a man more respectful. We’re equals and he treats me like an adult human being; I’m not his Oedipal-Paternal mommy/child Frankenstein.

  13. jfpbookworm says:

    Scipio Africanus and typhonblue:

    The way I see it, “you don’t need to put yourself through that” puts the man’s own interests foremost, while “it’s not attractive” is more about conforming to what other people want.

    “It’s the right thing to do” honestly isn’t about competing interests to me; that makes it sound as if what makes it “right” is whose interests are being catered to, and that’s not the ethical calculus involved.

  14. jfpbookworm says:

    Clarence:

    Seriously? This sounds like you’re describing an alien species to me, or basing your understanding of relationships off of TV dom-coms of the “women aren’t always right, but men pretend they are to avoid arguments and get laid” variety which, I suspect, both MRAs and feminists despise.

    I’ve never once seen anyone compare someone being asked “would you like to talk?” to a racial slur–that would be fail of the highest order. Most of the consensus advice I’ve seen boils down to “be mindful of context.” If you’re talking to someone you don’t know, what you say and do is going to be different if you’re at a party versus in a subway car, and it’s going to be different if the other person is reading a book with headphones on versus making eye contact and smiling. (I think there’s often a failure to acknowledge that, even if you’re attracted to someone, it might not be appropriate to hit on them then and there.) And while sometimes you’re going to deal with people who get upset at being approached, if it’s happening on a regular basis I think you might have to wonder if you’re going about it wrong.

    The “safest” place for anyone is in that platonic “comfort” area, if by “safe” you mean “least likely to be overtly rejected”–which is why it’s so popular. If you mean “respectful,” then the “safest” thing to do is be honest about what you feel without implying that anyone else is obligated to cater to your feelings. That’s the whole Nice Guy(TM) phenomenon in a nutshell–the guy who thinks that staying in that “comfort zone” and never disagreeing with a woman entitles him to some kind of affection or attention in recompense.

  15. clarence says:

    Jfp:

    I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve ever read any feminist threads or discussions on this particular issue besides maybe the one on this site which I seem to recall you participating in maybe a year or two ago?

    I ask this because I have indeed seen people on those threads on other sites who claim to be feminists comparing approaching someone on a subway with all sorts of gender and racial oppressions. If you want I can dig a few up for you.

    I specifically said that context matters. It’s also pretty widely known in the seduction community. There is plenty of advice out there on how to avoid “creeping girls out” , most of it useful though of course some of it is contradictory.

    “Seriously? This sounds like you’re describing an alien species to me, or basing your understanding of relationships off of TV dom-coms of the “women aren’t always right, but men pretend they are to avoid arguments and get laid” variety which, I suspect, both MRAs and feminists despise.”

    I have no idea what this has to do with anything I’ve said. Could you explain, please?

    “…If you mean “respectful,” then the “safest” thing to do is be honest about what you feel without implying that anyone else is obligated to cater to your feelings. That’s the whole Nice Guy(TM) phenomenon in a nutshell–the guy who thinks that staying in that “comfort zone” and never disagreeing with a woman entitles him to some kind of affection or attention in recompense.”

    I’m almost tempted to dismiss you based on this, esp. as I just explained to you the difference between real nice guys and fake ones. Real nice guys might be called socially inept men, nerds, a bunch of names, whatever.

    What you are talking about is a manipulator. And even in my “white knight ” nice guy days, I never had any trouble disagreeing with a woman! Hey, feminism taught me that women were people too!

    Little did I know that many women will reject as any kind of serious friend let alone romantic partner if you aren’t very keen on engaging more than just their brains if you want me to be blunt about it.

    Thanks feminism! For nothing.

  16. typhonblue says:

    jfpbookworm:

    I’ve never once seen anyone compare someone being asked “would you like to talk?” to a racial slur–that would be fail of the highest order.

    Let me direct you to the Open Thread: Feminism and the Seduction Community. Take a look at Lady Raine’s comments about being approached in public.

    Clarence’s statement may be slight hyperbole. Slight.

    That’s the whole Nice Guy(TM) phenomenon in a nutshell–the guy who thinks that staying in that “comfort zone” and never disagreeing with a woman entitles him to some kind of affection or attention in recompense.

    Because society tells him it does. The SC is doing it’s level best to disabuse men of such notions from what I’ve seen.

  17. I’ve said it before, the whole “nice guy” as devious manipulator is feminist projection. A woman can get what she wants by pretending to be nice to a man. It doesn’t work the other way around. Men who try to win women’s affection by being nice to them are badly misinformed, but they’re not working some kind of scam – they’re usually doing it in good faith. They’re being nice to her because they like her and think that’s the best way to show it.

    Edited to add:

    The feminist belief that “nice guys” getting upset that the object of their affection does not return it means they believe they’re “entitled to sex” is also wrong. The “nice guy” does not believe that wanting to have sex with a woman being nice to her are mutually exclusive. In light of of that, finding that the woman you are attracted to believes your having sexual sexual intentions is somehow hostile and incompatible with your also having friendly ones, is upsetting.

  18. clarence says:

    Typhon:

    Thank you for reminding me of Lady Raines recent comments, though I’m not sure she would self-identify as a feminist or not.

    “Because society tells him it does. The SC is doing it’s level best to disabuse men of such notions from what I’ve seen.”

    Oh, and the feminist community does NOT like the seduction community for the most part. The kind of men that women are SUPPOSED to like are not the ones they actually date or go out with. That simple and observable truth drives many feminists up the wall in a major way. Yet here, JFP wants us to ascribe bad motives to all men who act in such ways even though such ways are the preferred modes of interaction in work environments where one mentally disturbed individual could take a single blunt direct comment to heart the wrong way and make a major case of it. And even though such passive modes of male -female interaction are arguably the norm on television and in the movies these days.

    One cannot act at dating as one does in an office 8 hours a day or one will quickly find their successes to be few and far between. By pretending (because it IS the only safe thing to assume legally) that men and women are always going to get along in their relationships and that men and women should be platonic and not have sexual interests in each other even when working in close proximity for hours a day for years and years (because even when two coworkers are consentsually sexual with one another what employer wants any potentially messy legal fallout?) the environment thus created is toxic to the true expressions of male female sexuality.

    So we get a culture where hugs can be regarded legally as the same as punches and almost as bad as rapes and we wonder why so many people have trouble with relating to the opposite sex when a great deal of their lives is spent watching such shows and working in such places?

    Take me for example. Shy, socially inept, christian (until I was 20), not a natural leader or anything, average height, worked in fast food joints and offices, liked computers and until about 28 or so I would have called myself a male feminist. And I very much tried to be a good person. For instance, at 15 I turned down a cute young ladies offer to go into a bathroom with her so she could give me oral sex. Assuming she was serious – and to this day I do not know if she was – I had Christian morals to worry about and that would have been a sin. So I politely turned her down, thanking her for the offer. I remember how embarrassed I was even speaking of it at the time.

    Now take all that. That was ME until I was around 30. Is there any way (short of being hunchbacked) that I could have been less of a “chick magnet” and any way I could have been any more clueless as to how to approach women?

  19. jfpbookworm says:

    Clarence:

    The last set of discussions on this issue I read were in response to an xkcd cartoon about initiating conversation on the subway. In those threads, there really wasn’t a consensus opinion; it was fairly evenly divided between “I’m on the subway to get where I’m going; please don’t hit on me” and “as long as it’s not disrespectful or threatening, and it’s not inappropriate.”

    Why I say you sound like you’re describing an alien species is because this description of gender relations doesn’t really match my own experiences. I really haven’t seen people compare saying hello to using a racial slur, whereas I have quite often encountered feminists who will state that *any* comparison of other -isms to racism is inappropriate. In the discussions I frequent, someone who said that “hi” was the n-word for women would be torn several new ones. I’ve also never seen any feminist claim anything remotely resembling “it would seem to be oppressive to ever give anyone a negative emotional state for any reason.” What all this reminds me of, frankly, are bad stand-up comics of the sort that get “family sitcoms.”

    As for the Nice Guy(TM), there’s a reason that (TM) is there. It’s because it’s NOT ABOUT ACTUALLY BEING NICE. It’s about expecting a sexual reward for acting in a way that’s “nice” in a very passive way. But really, that’s beside the point. It’s synonymous with what you call “fake nice guys.” (Though honestly, that’s a separate discussion that is (a) beside the point and (b) never gets anywhere.)

    And yeah, your complaint comes right back to “you have to actually express sexual interest and not assume that platonic ‘nice’ actions will convey that.” Which I don’t think many feminists would disagree with (yeah, yeah, I’m sure you can comb the radfem boards and find some who would).

    The problems I have with the seduction community as I’ve encountered it are as follows:

    1. It tells me what and who I’m supposed to want.
    2. It frames relationships as being primarily about power and status.
    3. It denies women any role in sexual interaction except recipient of advances.
    4. It encourages attitudes and behavior toward women which I find unethical and unpalatable.

    You say “the kind of men that women are suppoded to like are not the ones they actually date or go out with”… supposed by whom? I find a lot of very dubious analysis of why people date who they date; for one thing, women’s preferences are invariably attributed to things that men do that any man could theoretically emulate (we want cheat codes); it’s never “she put up with his bullshit because he was really hot,” even as the reverse is almost a cliche.

    As for your self-description growing up, I can’t speak to the Christian aspect of it, but if you’re turning down someone’s offer because you think that you know what’s good for them better than they do, that’s PRECISELY the problem. I just think there are sex-positive ways to get past that that don’t carry the baggage that most “seduction” advice does.

  20. jfpbookworm says:

    To elaborate on the bit that was actually my point:

    In my late teens and early twenties, I was the kind of guy who was the target demographic for the “seduction gurus” – shy, socially awkward, and believing a lot of toxic ideas about sexuality. The reason it never took is because:

    1. What I wanted (to be able to better interact in non-platonic ways with women I was attracted to) was not what the seduction community was promoting (not my type of woman, not my type of relationship);

    2. They treated relationships as a competitive endeavor, and dating success as a measure of personal worth;

    3. They didn’t actually sound like they *liked* women very much;

    4. The methods they encouraged were ones that I found abhorrent to the point where I’d rather take the chance of staying lonely than becoming a person like that; and

    5. They didn’t actually do very much to disabuse me of the ideas about sex (that women weren’t interested in it, that expressing sexual interest in someone was inherently offensive, that the way to initiate sexual activity was to push someone’s boundaries and hope they didn’t stop you) that were the biggest part of my problem. (A lot of times, they seemed to have the same ideas themselves.)

  21. jfpbookworm says:

    typhonblue: I think I found LadyRaine’s comment to which you were referring. I saw no appropriation of racism there, just an extreme quasi-separatist radfem angle which I haven’t found to be at all representative (and have only encountered in a few corners of the Internet), but which get dredged up when someone feels in need of an easy target.

  22. typhonblue says:

    You say “the kind of men that women are suppoded to like are not the ones they actually date or go out with”… supposed by whom?

    Feminist theory. As Clarisse put it, infamously, a while ago(and I’m paraphrasing): ‘How do men avoid being oppressive while remaining hot?’

    I can’t speak to the Christian aspect of it, but if you’re turning down someone’s offer because you think that you know what’s good for them better than they do, that’s PRECISELY the problem

    Um…?

    Okay, so if it’s not good to act out of what you think is right for someone else and it’s not good to act out of what you think is right for yourself, then where does that leave initiators?

    1. It tells me what and who I’m supposed to want.

    I’ve also read some SC stuff that suggests men want very different things; In fact it was really affirming to me as a woman because the man in question was urging men to go after their ‘perfect ten’ and not be intimidated by her because no man’s ‘perfect ten’ is every man’s ‘perfect ten’. (And then he listed a number of qualities he was attracted to that had nothing to do with the standard beauty ideal.)

    It was, well, sort of nice to read that.

    2. It frames relationships as being primarily about power and status.

    Dude. You really need to read Hugh’s number 3 again. It seems more like the SC is trying to get away from the idea that social relationships are primarily about power(or one upping) and more about sharing a positive emotional experience.

    3. It denies women any role in sexual interaction except recipient of advances.

    Okay, I don’t think Hugh’s quotes really address that but I’ve read stuff in the SC regarding ‘peacocking.’ Apparently one of the reasons for it is to give women an incentive and an in _to approach you_.

    4. It encourages attitudes and behavior toward women which I find unethical and unpalatable.

    You know, I understand how you feel here. Every time I turn on the TV I see multi-billion dollar advertising and media campaigns to promote attitudes and behavior towards men that I find unethical and unpalatable. For example, portraying men as stupid and inept and worthy of abuse.

    I don’t watch TV anymore(or very rarely) precisely because of this stupid shit.

    But I digress. From what I’ve read, I’m really not seeing the ‘promoting attitudes…’ at least not from the older, more mature guys in the SC*. I see it from some of the really disenfranchised young men in the community; but then, as I mentioned in another thread, sexual behavior with women improves men’s attitudes towards them. So a lot of these negative attitudes towards women can be explained by a combination of frustration over believing they’re missing out on an essential experience of manhood, being touch-starved (thus in a psychologically compromised state like being sleep-deprived), seeing women as the fickle and cruel gate keepers of everything worth having in their lives and being sexually inexperienced.

    * Every group has it’s maturity distribution curve.

  23. typhonblue says:

    JFB:

    I saw no appropriation of racism there, just an extreme quasi-separatist radfem angle which I haven’t found to be at all representative (and have only encountered in a few corners of the Internet), but which get dredged up when someone feels in need of an easy target.

    Goal-post moving. You said:

    I’ve never once seen anyone compare someone being asked “would you like to talk?” to a racial slur–that would be fail of the highest order.

    Now you have. I believe clarence was going for the ‘hate crime’ concept when he said racism, which Lady Raine appears to think men approaching women in public _is_.

    Incidentally, why are you more concerned about SC misogyny then rad-fem misandry? If we can dismiss arguments against rad-fem misandry as ‘easy targets’, why can’t we do the same for the misogyny espoused by some members of the SC*?

  24. Motley says:

    @ jfpbookworm -

    They didn’t actually do very much to disabuse me of the ideas
    about sex (that women weren’t interested in it, that expressing sexual interest in someone was inherently offensive, that the way to initiate sexual activity was to push someone’s boundaries and hope they didn’t stop you) that were the biggest part of my problem.

    I agree. This actually stood out to me quite a bit, reading your response. For instance, when you talk about how SC techniques “undermine a potential partner’s autonomy,” I feel inclined to mention that women are actually people, no more and no less. They are autonomous. You can’t undermine that; as people, they have free will, and will continue to do so no matter what you do. If you can undermine the autonomy of something, then that thing is not a person.
    And women are people. No more and no less.
    Examples abound:

    The approaches described in the OP, however, kind of creep me out, because they’re not only direct but cold.

    Women are people. You don’t have to treat them with warm fuzzies. It’s okay to just treat them like people. They’re not fragile, sacred, proto-victims; they’re people.

    I don’t know what the context of the first one is, but “either runs away or laughs” is *not* something I’m cool with. If you’re making people run away, that’s a problem.

    You can’t actually make her run away. She’s a person, free will and all that, remember? If she decides to run away, that’s on her. Her decisions don’t reflect on anyone else, because she’s the person actually making them. Right?
    You’re not making her decisions for her, she is. As such, you aren’t responsible for her decisions any more than she is for yours, because both of you are people.

    The whole “if the woman reacts negatively, then he wastes very little of either person’s time” assumes that the largest potential problem with such an approach is wasted time. While that may be true from his perspective (though for a lot of men, feeling rejected may be a bigger deal, and I think that’s a legitimate reaction), my understanding is that from many women’s point of view, the issue is not “wasted time” but feeling unsafe (because she doesn’t *know* that he’s going to leave her alone if she’s not interested), or harassed (especially if this isn’t an isolated incident for her).

    I’m a guy. Do you owe it to me to make sure that I don’t feel threatened or harassed or whatever? No?
    I agree, for several reasons. First, because I am a human being, and my feelings are mine and not yours. You don’t control them, you aren’t responsible for them
    Second, is the problematic idea that a random man is responsible for the feelings of every woman. Women are people–nothing less and nothing more. Their feelings do not matter more than those of a man. How much do the feelings of male strangers matter to you? Not at all? Right, because they are people, nothing more. Men aren’t fragile, sacred proto-victims, and neither are women.

    Some of the other commentary about it “I could tell from a woman’s tone … if she stayed in there with me I knew it was ON” squick me a bit, because it makes it sound as if he’s trying to make that decision for her.

    Nope. He’s expressing elation at the fact that she’s made a choice, that it’s a positive one, and that she’s made it somewhat clear.
    This would squick me out too, if I thought the woman in question was a fragile, sacred proto-victim. She’s none of those things, though.

    This seems to be the primary message of the seduction community: Stop treating women like fragile, sacred proto-victims and start treating them like people who might want to have sex with you. Because they are, and they might.
    It’s an extremely difficult lesson to learn for men raised in today’s culture, but an extremely important one.

  25. typhonblue says:

    It’s an extremely difficult lesson to learn for men raised in today’s culture, but an extremely important one.

    Why is it, Motley, that despite your disability you consistently come across as more ethical then people who are driven by emotion?

  26. Jim says:

    “Why is it, Motley, that despite your disability you consistently come across as more ethical then people who are driven by emotion?”

    Why is that strange? Most bad behavior comes from emotion.

  27. jfpbookworm says:

    There’s a lot of stuff here, and it’s kind of become me as critic-of-SC being dogpiled on by everyone else. So responses are naturally going to be selective.

    Typhonblue: I’m not more concerned about SC misogyny then rad-fem misandry. It’s just that this topic isn’t about radfems, and I find them to be largely irrelevant to my life (in ways that heterosexual relationship most certainly aren’t) and boring and their discussions not worth frequenting.

    I did miss the “hate crime” phrase. That’s wrong, and a gross misuse of the term.

    As far as the attitudes, admittedly my picture of a seduction community is based on encounters in the mid-90s, but I haven’t seen much reform.

    Motley: by “cold” approach, I didn’t mean emotionally cold, I meant “completely uninvited” – akin to “cold calling.” And yes, I can’t *make* someone run away in a strict sense, but if I am creating a situation in which she is afraid and thinks her best recourse is to run away, I see that as a potential problem. Wouldn’t you?

    And yes, I owe it to men as well to make sure I’m not threatening; why wouldn’t I? Now with either men or women, there’s no guarantee I won’t come off that way. But that’s not an excuse for saying that people’s reactions to me are entirely their problem; if I offend someone, I honestly look at whether there’s some reasonable action I could have taken to avoid it. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn’t.

    If the message were simply “women are sexual beings too, so let them decide for themselves if they’re interested in you,” I’d be totally on board. But the SC’s message seems to go beyond “stop treating women like fragile proto-victims” all the way to “other people are merely obstacles to you getting what you want.”

  28. Motley says:

    Why is it, Motley, that despite your disability you consistently come across as more ethical then people who are driven by emotion?

    Immanuel Kant. (I’m actually not joking there.)

    To elaborate, I’m extremely ethical, if I do say so myself. Moral, not so much. (I’m here defining “morality” as being emotion based — what feels right, while ethics is a function of logic using several preset criteria).

    @jfpbookworm –

    Motley: by “cold” approach, I didn’t mean emotionally cold, I meant “completely uninvited” – akin to “cold calling.”

    Yup, that’s how Western dating culture works; the man makes a “cold call,” and the woman decides whether to approve or disapprove.
    Are you for some reason under the impression that the seduction community invented this dynamic? If so, let me enlighten you: They did not. The seduction community seems largely like a reaction to this dynamic. Basically, “how to make the cold call without being an asshole.”

    And yes, I owe it to men as well to make sure I’m not threatening; why wouldn’t I?

    Ah, now you’re saying that I’m not a person either. Incorrect. My feelings are mine. They are not yours; you do not control them, you are not responsible for them. Similarly, I do not control yours either, and I’m not responsible for your feelings. We’re both people.*

    If the message were simply “women are sexual beings too, so let them decide for themselves if they’re interested in you,” I’d be totally on board. But the SC’s message seems to go beyond “stop treating women like fragile proto-victims” all the way to “other people are merely obstacles to you getting what you want.”

    I might agree with you, if I were unaware of the target audience. The impression I’m under is that the SC is primarily marketed to men whose problem is treating women like fragile sacred proto-victims. Tell those men to adjust their attitudes in the direction of “obstacles to getting what you want” and you’ll presumably wind up with a result that’s in the vicinity of “people.”

    Unlike certain individuals, apparently, I really don’t see the problem in trying to teach men that women are people, no less and no more.

    (*I’m here assuming that you’re a person writing this, and not a hyper-advanced spambot sent back from a machine-ruled future to spam John Connor.)

  29. Jim says:

    “And yes, I owe it to men as well to make sure I’m not threatening; why wouldn’t I? Now with either men or women, there’s no guarantee I won’t come off that way. But that’s not an excuse for saying that people’s reactions to me are entirely their problem; if I offend someone, I honestly look at whether there’s some reasonable action I could have taken to avoid it. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn’t.”

    This makes sense to me. It’s the desired end state. But theres’ a problem.

    There are only two ways to make this work. One is to negotitate this every time with every stranger you meet, and maybe every time you meet that strnager. After all, we are radically free beings, changing from moment to moment to moment; why should we be fettered by worn-out cultural norms? This is essentially the situation we have in modern America when it comes to inter-cultural and inter-ethnic communication, and it is very unwieldy . (The claim that there is some hegemonic Anglo culture in force in the US is just laughable to anyone who actually grew up in any of the various and often contradictory Anglo cultures in the US.) Is there any reason to expect any better success with this approach when to comes to sexual contact?

    What is “reasonable” and who decides that? It’s a cluster of cultural norms.

    The other option is implicitude, in which both or all parties share the same cultural schema. IOW stick with your own kind. Oh, wait, that’s a no-no too.

    That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying to develop a new framework of expectations.

  30. typhonblue says:

    Motley:

    I’m here assuming that you’re a person writing this, and not a hyper-advanced spambot sent back from a machine-ruled future to spam John Connor.

    We should totally do a road-show.

  31. Motley says:

    @Jim –

    One is to negotiate this every time with every stranger you meet, and maybe every time you meet that stranger.

    “Hi, stranger, what can I do to make you not feel threatened?… Wait, where are you going? Come back! Hey, cool taser… wait no don’t OUCH!”

    I don’t think that technique’s gonna work too well. So, if avoiding coming across as threatening is Priority One, then we’re pretty much stuck with the “lead a miserable life of solitary confinement.”

    No thanks. I prefer the risk that other people will occasionally freak out. (Hint They’ll do that anyway. People do all sorts of random stuff.)

    @Typhonblue –

    We should totally do a road-show.

    “I’LL BE BACK… with a great-value offer that’ll improve your penis size in JUST TWO WEEKS! But first, let me tell you about this new diet rule… hasta la vista, belly fat!”

  32. John Markley says:

    Patrick Brown,

    “I’ve said it before, the whole “nice guy” as devious manipulator is feminist projection. A woman can get what she wants by pretending to be nice to a man. It doesn’t work the other way around. Men who try to win women’s affection by being nice to them are badly misinformed, but they’re not working some kind of scam – they’re usually doing it in good faith. They’re being nice to her because they like her and think that’s the best way to show it.”

    Good points. A lot of the hatred of “Nice Guys” seems to boil down to disgust for men who are shy, awkward, or lacking in coincidence, and consequently are too nervous or uncomfortable to present themselves sexually (which is what asking for a date ultimately implies) to strangers- probably not coincidentally, the sort of men who are frequently looked down on by other men and considered unattractive by most women. It’s as if MRAs were to start arguing that being fat or having small breasts or blotchy skin were demonstrations of a woman’s moral depravity.

    “The feminist belief that “nice guys” getting upset that the object of their affection does not return it means they believe they’re “entitled to sex” is also wrong.”

    In my experience, many feminists draw no distinction between a man wanting something and a man thinking himself entitled to something. A man says, “I can’t get a date, and that makes me sad because I’m so lonely,” and it becomes interpreted as, “I can’t get a date, and that outrages me because women are obligated to please me.”

  33. Sam says:

    Hugh,

    “most of which aren’t found outside it, at least not with such depth.”

    that’s not true. Most of the information in the game actually *is* from outside. Magic tricks, bar games, conversational pieces, basic psychological advice, posture advice, body language studies – it’s all been around in more detail. What the SC has done, in my opinion, is to break down the process of human mating in a way that is accessible to many men, including lingo and acronyms. They have turned an interaction into a flowchart of sorts – and that’s sometimes a GOOD way to go about things, to find structure in what is perceived as chaos.

  34. Feckless says:

    About feminist opinions on approaching men this thread ( http://community.feministing.c.....ments.html )here is an example of what Clarence might have talked about:

    The reason why you are bothered by it is because it is an expression of the idea that women are sexual commodities- men can speak to them whenever they want, comment on their appearance whenever they want, and do what they want to them, whenever they want. I highly recommend you read “Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment” by Carol Brooks Gardner. Among other things, it reveals that these comments in public, sexual in nature or not, are on the same sliding scale as other misogynistic assaults, including rape. I always direct people to this reading, because I find it difficult to express WHY, exactly, public harassment makes me uncomfortable, and this book basically puts my thoughts into words. It was required reading for my Sociology major– feminist professor-approved!

  35. W says:

    Feckless: “men can speak to them whenever they want, comment on their appearance whenever they want, and do what they want to them, whenever they want.”

    There’s quite a difference between speaking to someone and doing what you want to someone. I guess it’s all on a continuum of behavior ending in rape; a continuum is a very handy tool if you wish to connect things which aren’t connected. And God save the man who suggests that there’s something wrong or sinister about women who have the idea that they can speak to men whenever they want to.

    “It was required reading for my Sociology major- ”

    She was a sociology major? Color me impressed. (Just checked Amazon. The used paperback versions of that recommended book are selling for a single penny, so I guess it wouldn’t be too expensive an addition to your libraries, in case anyone is interested.)

    I took a graduate course in sociology once; I felt that it was a vital gap missing from my background. Can’t say I was terribly impressed. The prof subscribed to all the trappings of identity politics and fashionable PC-speak. He spent a lot of time on how the nuclear family and capitalism are mutually-reinforcing systems. Later on, he would switch gears to talk of how capitalism was a force which caused families to splinter and disintegrate. (So which is it?)

    Furthermore, he subscribed to Marx’s labor theory of value. I pointed-out that no reputable economist uses the labor theory of value nowadays and instead base their models on the theory of marginal utility. In response, he said “What’s that?” and seemed as if he’d never heard of the thing. I was too polite to mention that it’s a concept you have to understand to get past the first week of Econ 101.

    Long story short, it was one of the easiest A’s I’d ever gotten in my life. Shamefully easy, in fact. I shudder to think that US society has become successful to the point that its denizens can afford the luxury of expensive educations specializing in nonsense which requires little thought and not a lot of hard work.

  36. Motley says:

    Wow. That thread is an excellent example of the “You must treat me as a sacred, fragile proto-victim, and all women must demand to be treated as such” line of “reasoning.” I mean, that paragraph about “Passing By” reveals the author’s assumption that every man is responsible for the comfort of women he passes by.

    People have opinions. About everything. They also often express them to each other. Requiring people not to have opinions is to deny their personhood; requiring them not to express their opinions to you is to deny your own.
    Believing that it’s okay to talk to random guys but not to women is the opposite of believing in equality.

    Particularly:

    Among other things, it reveals that these comments in public, sexual in nature or not, are on the same sliding scale as other misogynistic assaults, including rape.

    Perfect example. Feminists liken approaching a stranger to raping a stranger;* but our culture requires men to approach women, and there isn’t any large-scale attempt to change that.

    *For a particularly egregious example, a self-identified feminist here recently accused men of “eye rape.” (As something you do with your eyes, not something involving a victim’s eye sockets, it seems). Applying the word “rape” to all human interaction pretty much makes the word meaningless.

  37. W says:

    Haha, and does that person even KNOW what a “sliding scale” is?

    It does not mean whatever she seems to think it means! It’s a scale and it suddenly goes downhill really fast, like a slide? Ahahaha, man is it ever fun watching them throw-around grown-up sounding terms they don’t quite comprehend!

  38. What they’re demanding, when it gets down to it, is that men avert their eyes and speak when spoken to. It’s like a medieval lord who thinks his serfs are “oppressing” him by not knowing their place.

  39. Motley says:

    What they’re demanding, when it gets down to it, is that men avert their eyes and speak when spoken to. It’s like a medieval lord who thinks his serfs are “oppressing” him by not knowing their place.

    I don’t completely agree. The justification, I think, isn’t so much a matter of thinking that men don’t know their place, as actually believing that women are harmed by being looked at or spoken too.

    I don’t think it’s (necessarily) just a wanting-more-power issue; I think it’s largely due to buying into the “fragile proto-victim” dynamic.; believing that women need to be protected from people who might treat them as actual people.

  40. Motley:

    I don’t think it’s (necessarily) just a wanting-more-power issue

    Neither do I – I think it’s an expectation of deference issue. They are spoiled princesses who demand to be indulged. Such women* genuinely believe they are superior beings and entitled to be treated as such by their inferiors, and the fact that they are not is what they consider “oppression”.

    *Far from all women, and not even all gynocentric feminists, but enough.

  41. Motley says:

    Such women* genuinely believe they are superior beings and entitled to be treated as such by their inferiors, and the fact that they are not is what they consider “oppression”.

    I’m halfway inclined to believe that it’s actually a matter of them considering women lesser beings who can’t deal with the roughness of normal human existence, and therefore shouldn’t be expected to do so; believing that women are so weak and fragile and helpless that we all have to be careful how we treat ‘em ’cause they might break. Basically, the same old Victorian bullshit, only now its proponents are calling it feminism.

    Though it probably varies from one such feminist to the next; I’m sure there are just as many believers in innate female superiority as in inferiority; but I think it’s actually a mixture of the two (hence formulating it as “fragile, sacred, proto-victims”).

  42. Scipio Africanus says:

    Patrick,
    Years ago on another board I said it’s as though they want the Forbidden City from ancient China, where no one dare look at the Emperor as he passes, and that everyone actively turn around and face the nearest wall.

  43. Sorry, I didn’t read all the comments — a few of them really upset me and I don’t think I have time to pin down both those and respond to the other thread during my internet time. But here’s what I think is most interesting about this post:

    1) A lot of this advice can be refined out of, not just general Social Skills-type manuals, but female instructional stuff too (I’ve mentioned The Rules before, but here I am mentioning it again, and here is a much more entertaining link than last time: [ http://www.salon.com/life/broa.....print.html ] though I’m betting that since it’s from Kate Harding a lot of people on this site will just hate it). Women need to learn this stuff too and I maintain that a lot of us have difficulty with it.

    I found this particularly telling: “Remember that SOIs are delivered ONLY after she is demonstrating that she is interested.” So … if you only move in after an SOI from her, women must be figuring out and performing SOIs too, huh?

    2) I recognize a lot of this advice as stuff that I, too, had to learn (for example, I had to learn to like small talk with people I have nothing in common with — still have trouble with it, in fact — and used to “dismiss other people’s conversations and smalltalk as pointless blather”).

    3) Almost all of this stuff seems way too blankety for me. Just one example: “He says that if you rely on a presupposition to have interactions with people, the interactions may collapse when that presupposition disappears” … or on the other hand, future interactions may catch fire because you’ve realized how much you have in common to talk about. I’ve always personally found that it’s much awesomer to make friends with people I can talk to about things that interest me, and then sometimes date my friends. On another note, guys who are only talking to me in order to get into my pants tend to be highly irritating and often incredibly boring. And on still another note, at least one man who handily seduced me did so by luring me with many interesting activities including “presuppositions” like discussing articles, offering feedback on my writing, making a movie, etc.

  44. Jim says:

    “Almost all of this stuff seems way too blankety for me. ”

    I like the entire post, but this seems to me to be the central gem. I think engaging with the person in front of as he or she presents, without lumping them into whatever group is most comfortable for you to assign them to, is a fundamental social skill. And it seems to me that doing that well would answer most of the objectiosn people have raised.

  45. Sonja says:

    I really don’t understand any of it – not the PUA stuff or the Rules stuff.

    I never used Rules to land my other half, and he, despite being a socially awkward young man, never used PUA techniques.

    I find myself believing that people following these things are going to wind up doing nothing more than dating for the rest of their lives. If that’s what they want, then more power to them, but if they want a marriage, they’re better off throwing it all out the window and just being themselves.

  46. clarence says:

    JFP:

    This is a “NOH” thread so I am limited in the number of posts I can use to respond to you in one day. Thus, the delay. Sorry.

    Now on to your post:

    I trust due to the links that some of the others have been kind enough to provide you trust I wasn’t hallucinating or lying when I made my comment about just how serious a crime approaching a woman can be to some feminists. So no, one can’t go to most feminists and get any sort of useful advice on male/female social dynamics. You’ll quickly see that they themselves disagree about whether a hello said on the street can equated as part of a slippery slope leading to rape. The absolute best *and worst!* advice they give is to “be yourself”. But they forget that at the minimum that is not going to work if you don’t learn how to package yourself better, esp if one is shy or socially awkward. Or else maybe they are just cruel and neglect to tell one that little extra fact. So you get “be yourself” which basically means if you are hyper-moral or shy or whatever you are going into the comfort zone to stay.

    “Nice Guys”? Well, once again, I ask you to remember this: two types real and fake. Now I’m going to offer one piece of advice to the ladies. How do you tell if your “nice guy” is really nice or not? Check to see if he doesn’t just act nicely towards you but towards women and men of all ages and bodytypes. If he does , chances are he’s just socially awkward and you have someone nice instead of someone manipulative.

    As for a complaint I DO have: Well, I was never taught that if at one level you don’t engage at least her emotions or her private areas AS WELL AS her brain, she won’t often be interested in even being friends with you. In short, you have to start out of the comfort zone. And alot of feminists (no, not all!) do seem to have a big problem with that. Oh well. See what valuing women for their morals or their brains and forgetting the other parts of them got me?

    You say “the kind of men that women are suppoded to like are not the ones they actually date or go out with”… supposed by whom? I find a lot of very dubious analysis of why people date who they date; for one thing, women’s preferences are invariably attributed to things that men do that any man could theoretically emulate (we want cheat codes); it’s never “she put up with his bullshit because he was really hot,” even as the reverse is almost a cliche.

    Yes, I stand by my statement. According to feminst theory, tons of television series and movies, and many other things in our culture women are supposed to want nice men who want to commit and value them for their brains or their wit, never for their fertility or their ass.

    In practice men like me who take such messages to heart for years and years of my life get screwed over and under by many social forces, political forces, but ironically we don’t get screwed by regular women. They don’t want our boring “safe” asses. And of course trying to be a good person and live by a code of morals (ethics nowadays as I”m not relgious) as I did when I was a Christian gets you this :

    “As for your self-description growing up, I can’t speak to the Christian aspect of it, but if you’re turning down someone’s offer because you think that you know what’s good for them better than they do, that’s PRECISELY the problem. I just think there are sex-positive ways to get past that that don’t carry the baggage that most “seduction” advice does. ”

    Holy Mother of God, Batman! I can assure you I was a perfectly normal teenage male at least as far as my sex drive was concerned!!! I wanted that girl so bad I could taste it, and while I was a Christian I was never one to shield my mind so I knew what oral sex was. Plus the church I belonged to admitted the normalness and inherent decency of male sexual desire (properly inside marriage of course) so I wasn’t ashamed of myself, nor was this girl the loosest girl in school so to speak, though she was popular and had quite a few boyfriends. I wasn’t trying to “protect” her. My theology realized she had her own right to sin if she wanted to. I was instead trying to be true to my beliefs, and by the way I never looked down on her nor did I turn my nose up at my people at school for pre-marital sex. I had my beliefs but I knew that others that I respected did not share them. About the only thing I wish I had done (looking back on it today) was to have went and told her of my faith as I wasn’t the “Christian dude” who wore his faith or a cross on his sleeve. Considering how popular she was, it must have rankled her for me to turn her down and probably mystified her as well. Maybe she thought I had some sort of mental or physical problem. And since no nasty rumors floated around after that ( I was very careful to watch for the signs of them as I’d had such things happen to me in the past) I tend to think her offer was genuine and that no -one “put her up to it”. Maybe it was a curiosity thing for her, maybe it was kind of like a “mercy” fuck, I don’t know what her motive was.

    Anyway it’s quite a stretch to ascribe motives to my behaviour when you don’t even know me and then to seem to impugn these motives on top of that. Let me ask you this : Just how easy do you think it was for me to turn this down as an unpopular lonely kid at 15?

    I was to get my first kiss 6 years later.

  47. HughRistik says:

    There’s a lot of stuff here, and it’s kind of become me as critic-of-SC being dogpiled on by everyone else.

    Welcome back, jfpbookworm, and thanks for being such a good sport when you are getting so many responses.

  48. Sam says:

    Clarisse,

    “Women need to learn this stuff too and I maintain that a lot of us have difficulty with it.”

    I think I agree on that one. I would still say that women have it easier at getting what men (are supposed to) want, but not just a few women would probably benefit from learning more about human mating to be better at getting what they want (or even defining that for themselves).

    I’ve once read about a guy who’s written his doctoral dissertation about hetersexual communication/ body language and how badly women and men understand each other – T. Perper, 1985. Sex Signals: The Biology of Love, Philadelphia: ISI (this was, also, a long time before “the game”…). He concluded that only one in about 30 men correctly interpreted what women generally assumed to be clearly communicated.

    I just don’t think that learning was the point Kate Harding was making in the essay – she was saying “it’s all self-evident” and “don’t worry, I managed to catch me one without caring about it, and so can you”. Thing is, for all the feminist talk about “privilege”, essays like hers are thoroughly condescending – while being right about their subject – and appear to be completely ignoring the state of utter desperation so many people who don’t find what they’re looking for with respect to partnership and sexuality in their lives can be in. And that they will look for “whatever works” or promises to.

    And they should – they only have one life to live, even if that makes them vulnerable to exploitation occasionally – they are also responsible to choosing whose advice to buy. But if there’s one positive thing about “the community” – I think it is that it has demonstrated to a group of men who did probably not believe that before that social skills are not genetic, but can be learned and taught.

    There’s a wonderful quote by Giacomo Casanova that I think applies very well – “In wise hands, poison is medicine. In foolish hands, medicine is poison. ”

    And of course, dosage matters – there’s an interesting English short documentary about this that aired on Channel 4 UK a while ago. A bit of googling gave me this link (23mins) –
    http://video.google.com/videop.....621883092#

    And on still another note, at least one man who handily seduced me did so by luring me with many interesting activities including “presuppositions” like discussing articles, offering feedback on my writing, making a movie, etc.

    Of course. I doubt anyone has ever argued that being interesting is a bad thing. I just think that there is still a certain lack of understanding among women in particular about just how powerless many men feel in this “game” – they will usually not talk about it – and to which extent the routines taught by “the community” will give them hope, and a bit of a language to talk to women. For some guys it’s poison (Darren in the documentary), for others (Ian) it can be a part of their medicine. Like with everything in life.

    I once met a guy who started talking about having read “the game” and beginning to use some of the material. He had already approached 12 women that night, asking the same thing (“Who’s the best James Bond?”). It wasn’t about finding a girlfriend that night – it was about summing up the courage to approach at all without having to think about what to say: he had a script, and that made even rejection ok. He asked me to go with him to see how he would approach #13 that night. He was proud of his 12 approaches. Conversation #13 lasted barely a minute, as he didn’t really know what to say when she had said “Sean Connery.” But he had a new kind of confidence in his ability to be able, after all, to talk to a woman without her slapping him for daring to say “hi”. And he had talked to 13 women in one night, which, I think, may have been more than he had talked to in the year before had read the book. And I’m pretty sure, the next time he went out, he would have thought about things to say next. Maybe the night after that he’d even use another question, until, maybe, one day, he’d be able to let go of his swimmies and swim on his own. I think it’s really hard to argue that reading the book and asking the scripted question was not a good thing for this guy.

  49. Motley says:

    @Clarisse –

    Sorry, I didn’t read all the comments — a few of them really upset me and I don’t think I have time to pin down both those…

    I hope you’ve got the time at some point — ’cause I’m curious.

    A lot of this advice can be refined out of, not just general Social Skills-type manuals, but female instructional stuff too…

    Agree completely. Our culture suffers from a lack of explicit training in basic social skills; there’s the assumption that all this is “self-evident” or “just comes naturally.” (That’s what a lot of people mean when they say “just be yourself,” as far as I can tell)

    So … if you only move in after an SOI from her, women must be figuring out and performing SOIs too, huh?

    Yeah, I’d assume so (either that or the woman in question is just going off presumed intent — ie, assuming that the guy talking to you in the bar is sexually interested, ’cause why else would he be in a bar talking to women he doesn’t know, y’know?). It’s a little weird, as (as Sam mentions above) only about one in thirty* guys can be counted on to recognize a woman’s SOI, hence the need to try one of his own. The trick here, I think, is that it requires a level of subtlety that guys aren’t culturally trained to use (and since “Hey, I’m interested in some kind of sexual interaction with you, are you likewise interested?” doesn’t get looked on too kindly).

    (*1/30 sounds about right to me–basically saying it’s a very, very rare skill in men — that rarity, I think, is where a lot of the problems come from)

    I recognize a lot of this advice as stuff that I, too, had to learn (for example, I had to learn to like small talk with people I have nothing in common with — still have trouble with it, in fact — and used to “dismiss other people’s conversations and smalltalk as pointless blather”).

    Absolutely. I wish this sort of thing had been widely available when I was growing up; the big “messages” of the SC largely look to me like “basic social skills.” (I mean, broadly speaking, everything in Hugh’s post seems to me to fit under that description).

    Almost all of this stuff seems way too blankety for me. Just one example: “He says that if you rely on a presupposition to have interactions with people, the interactions may collapse when that presupposition disappears” …

    Here, I really don’t agree; I’m not seeing the blankety-ness. He’s saying that relationships based on some other thing may evaporate when that other thing goes away. They may, right? (I mean, it may rain today. I don’t think that’s a blanket statement.) What I mean to say is that I have a hard time taking anything with “may” in it as a blanket sentence. If he’d said “will” or “always” instead of “may,” then I’d probably agree completely. Are there other blanket statements here that I’m missing? (Though I should note that talking about general trends always sounds like making blanket statements, but I don’t think it actually is).

    @ Sonja –

    I find myself believing that people following these things are going to wind up doing nothing more than dating for the rest of their lives. If that’s what they want, then more power to them, but if they want a marriage, they’re better off throwing it all out the window and just being themselves.

    I think this is marketed towards men for whom “just be yourself” equals “be too shy to approach a woman.” I don’t get the impression that guys who turn to the SC are casting aside a real life of blissful marriage in exchange for a few dates. They’re casting aside being-too-shy-to-get-a-date (and therefore being too shy or awkward to get a marriage, either) in exchange for a few dates. And dates sometime turn to marriage.

    I mean, it looks like this particular subset of men tend to be lacking in basic social skills, and tend to be viewing women with a mixture of reverence and fear. Learning the basic skills, and learning to tone down the awe,* seems to be the core of what the SC really teaches.

    *By which I don’t mean “treating women like objects;” I think it’s actually the opposite. Basically, tone things down so that you can treat women like people, rather than as terrifying objects of reverence.

    Now I’m sure that plenty of women like being worshiped, but it’s not really ethical to tell men that that’s the proper way to be, or that it’ll get you what you want (I don’t think it’s okay to tell men that women are more than “people” any more than it’s okay to tell men that women are less than people). Which is why I’m pretty suspicious of the “just be yourself” advice; it frequently comes across, to me, as “don’t attempt to tone down the reverence, worm,” sometimes with the addendum “and don’t you dare teach anyone that it’s okay to treat us as though we are mere humans.” Not really a sentiment for which I have a lot of sympathy.

  50. Sonja says:

    Motley: That’s not how I see the phrase, but I can certainly see your point.

  51. Hugh,

    I like these, particularly the confidence and self-possession encouraged in the first: “Avoid chasing, neediness, and desperation.” I’d follow that right now, and suggest that we need not desperately concern ourselves with whether feminists like these or not. Men can find the right thing to do without feminists.

    I don’t have any problem with any of these techniques. They feel right and I can see where they might be effective in many situations. There were times in my life I could have followed these techniques to my benefit, and I would have welcomed a group of men who could have encouraged and assisted me in using them. I could see myself doing all this and having fun with it, enjoying the chase. I could see myself doing all this without feeling like I was harming myself or anyone else.

    In fact, come to think of it, there is no reason I couldn’t use some of this advice even now, and seek some new bliss even in someone I’ve seemed to know forever.

    Still, I’m less troubled by how PUAs hunt than I am with what they seduce men into hunting.

  52. Jim says:

    “Still, I’m less troubled by how PUAs hunt than I am with what they seduce men into hunting.”

    If the SC is going to show me how to seduce men, I’m IN!

  53. clarence says:

    Funny, and on-topic enough I think:

    http://www.theonion.com/conten.....o_approach

  54. clarence says:

    Oh, and this one since we’ve dealt with the topic of nice guys not really being so nice. Well, for real nice guys, reality more commonly lives up to this:

    http://www.theonion.com/conten....._dating_it

    Guys, follow the advice at the top of this post. And read this Onion article here and don’t ever let it happen to you.

  55. Clarence,

    Both of those links are great, but especially the second! When I first started hearing feminists whine about out Nice Guys(TM), I know there was some truth in what they were saying. But I also knew – I just knew – that there had to be a female compliment to the syndrome. The laws of the universe almost demanded it. It’s like the particle physicists saying that because they found this type of particle, then there just has to be this particular type of Boson with this spin, and this charm. And they always find it.

    But I never could quite picture the woman in my mind, until I followed the second link. It’s perfect! Thanks!

  56. Jim

    If the SC is going to show me how to seduce men, I’m IN!

    I’m so hoping that you’ve read the other thread! – I want to inform you that there are indeed seminars and workshops available on how to get someone to shove muffins into their ears.

  57. Schala says:

    I definitely get the let’s be friends forever thing. I’m so glad I’m a girl now.

  58. Brandon Berg says:

    It is a post on techniques and ideas in the seduction community that feminists might like.

    Why? When it comes to politics, I can understand why you’d want to win feminists (among others) over to our side. Since we live in a more or less democratic society, they, as voters, have some measure of power over us, and there’s some value in convincing them not to use that power unwisely.

    But does it really matter what feminists think about seduction theory? What are they going to do about it? Do you really having anything to gain by seeking their approval?

  59. Okay, the second link is funny, but here’s my problems with it. (Any irritation telegraphed by the comments below is not aimed at anyone on this thread, just so y’all know.)

    Anything can happen once you bring romance in. Think about how awful my last relationship was at the end, remember? The guy I’d call you crying about at 3 a.m. because he wouldn’t answer my texts? The guy I met at the birthday party you threw me? I had insanely passionate sex with him for four months and now we don’t even talk anymore. God, I would die if something like that happened to us.

    I mean, this is actually a pretty good description of what happens after a lot of relationships, right? So … what exactly is wrong with trying to avoid that with one’s best friend? In fact, I recently had a conversation with a man who told me that he specifically doesn’t want to sleep with his female best friend because it would ruin the friendship. [begin irony] Wow! What a jerk! He must be stringing her along so that he can get stuff out of her! [/irony]

    Also, the Nice Guy ™ / Seduction Community assertion that “women never date their close male friends” never fails to piss me off because at least two of my more serious relationships stemmed out of extremely close friendships (one of which lasted several years before we dated). Can we get acknowledgment that this does happen sometimes? Like, any acknowledgment? At all?

    Also, what exactly is someone supposed to do if a close friend is in love with them and they’re not interested? Seriously, I’d love some actual concrete advice on this problem rather than aimless bitching about “being taken advantage of”,* because it’s a problem I’ve had in the past and it sucks on both sides. If a close friend is attracted to you and you’re not attracted back, and you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in a relationship, then what exactly are you supposed to do? Break off the friendship and quit talking to them because you’ve decided that you know what’s best for them? Sleep with them out of guilt and then feel trapped and awful?

    * Also sometimes known as “doing favors for friends without any indication or communication whatsoever that it bothers one, and then flipping out later about how one has been manipulated”. Which is also known as “one’s own damn fault”.

    ….

    Back to the actual thread topic.

    So … here’s the thing. HughRistik started his post by saying that “If they concede that the seduction community might teach something helpful to men, they might argue that men can find similar advice outside the seduction community” and “There are many pieces of advice in the seduction community that are effective, but also ethical, and which facilitate consent, mutuality, and relationships.”

    It’s possible that these ideas can’t be found in such detail outside the community, but I don’t see how that invalidates feminist critiques of the gross and toxic seduction community framework that, once again, encourages deceit and exploitation. While some have argued that stripping away the seduction community framework/vocabulary reveals that these are awesome ideas, that argument perforce sidesteps the argument because the entire problem a lot of feminists have with the SC is the framework/vocabulary.

    Some people are arguing that the SC doesn’t have to get feminist approval — fine. Feminists certainly aren’t seeking the SC’s approval. But if the SC (or members thereof) want feminist approval, or — to put it in a more realistic and compromising way — want to evolve a philosophy compatible with feminist ideals, then I doubt that the correct approach will be to try to “sell” the SC in its current form to feminists. Instead, the correct approach will be to take the positives from the SC, remove them from the awful bits of the SC, and present them on their own. A relevant example would be the dude I already cited: [ http://www.datinggroundwork.com/communitybeliefs ] who, I believe, runs his own sex/dating advice site in which he teaches some SC tactics outside the SC.

    Some people on the other thread appear to be assuming that when I say the SC has an awful framework, and when I say that I approve of people who sidestep or avoid that awful framework (aka “try to honestly be themselves”), I’m saying that men don’t deserve to learn how to find sex and companionship. That’s not true. What I’m saying is that I think men (and women, but men are the current topic because we’re on the SC, remember) are morally obligated to learn how to find sex and companionship in a moral way. Like the dude I cited above, it’s obvious that it’s possible to take these concepts and use/promote them outside the awful SC framework. It’s obvious that people can learn positive SC concepts and still “try to honestly be themselves”. The choice does not boil down to black-and-white “be a deceptive asshole or never have a relationship again”. I don’t know how to make my angle any clearer than that, so henceforth, any comments that accuse me of “approving of men suffering a lifetime of loneliness” or whatever will be ignored.

    Also: Sorry I lost my temper in the other thread. It can be stressful to discuss these things in this environment. I get that the mods are doing the best they can to make this blog open to feminists, and I really do like the way it challenges my mental frameworks, but you have to admit that there are a lot of antifeminists around here, and it can get really hard to continue arguing nicely and rationally when I feel surrounded by people who aren’t even trying to give me the benefit of the doubt (or who pepper their comments with sexist assertions that collapse upon examination and may even be withdrawn by the commenter, but serve to make me feel angry in the meantime).

  60. This sentence:

    “While some have argued that stripping away the seduction community framework/vocabulary reveals that these are awesome ideas, that argument perforce sidesteps the argument because the entire problem a lot of feminists have with the SC is the framework/vocabulary.”

    would be clearer if it read:

    “While some have argued that stripping away the seduction community framework/vocabulary reveals that these are awesome ideas, that argument perforce sidesteps the feminist critique of the SC because the entire problem a lot of feminists have with the SC is the framework/vocabulary.”

  61. typhonblue says:

    Once again I’m rather amusingly struck by the fact that if male sexuality was considered a benefit to women, we wouldn’t be concerned about men ‘exploiting’ women by providing it(even if they were using exploitative language*). Instead we’d be embarrassed for men who are being scammed into benefiting women whilst being convinced they’re not benefiting women and hiding this silly state of affairs behind ego-preserving ‘playa’ language.

    I am trying to work up a head of moral outrage over these guys, but I just can’t help but see how they are dupes in a sucker’s race, regardless how they hide this fact from themselves with nursery-rhyme rationalizations.

    And the more other people feed into the ‘reality’ of these rationalizations by getting offended at them, the further the cycle goes.

    Humans. If I wasn’t one I would laugh. Instead I feel sort of ashamed.

    * Could you imagine someone telling you how they forced two thousand dollars of their hard earned money on some random stranger in terms of ‘yeah, I really suckered HIM!’ ‘I got him to take it in twenty seconds too, new record!’ Really only makes partial sense in a world where taking money from strangers is a black mark on your reputation. Well, no it still doesn’t make sense.

  62. typhonblue says:

    STF:

    I’m so hoping that you’ve read the other thread! – I want to inform you that there are indeed seminars and workshops available on how to get someone to shove muffins into their ears.

    This mis-interpretation is silly.

    The SC is talking about consensual muffin-eating behavior. Abnormal muffin-eating behavior would be getting underage or non-consensual eaters to eat muffins. Any way that two consenting adults eat muffins is not ours to judge.

    As for getting women to eat muffins _quickly_ … sorry, still thinking that the ‘exploitation’ is in the framing that muffins are bad things that people have to be tricked into eating. Get rid of that and any and all talk of ‘exploiting muffin eaters’ becomes absurd. The more extreme the ‘exploitation’, the more absurdist it becomes.

    Welcome to dadaist conceptions of sexuality! We have one toe in subreality, and the other fifty-three in paint buckets full of sesame seeds.

    Anyway, I’ll try again with another thought experiment.

    Let’s imagine a society in which boys and girls are both born with a wonderful, beautiful, precious, vulnerable gift that they(when they come of age) can share with each other to the benefit of both.

    In this society boys are never taught that their gift is anything but wonderful and precious; but they’re also taught that girl’s gift is foul, filthy, revolting, diseased and twisted–subhuman.

    When they come of age, girls and boys naturally want to share and feel they have something positive to share. But girls look at their own filthy gift in the face of boy’s good and beautiful gift and feel ashamed. To get away from feelings of shame, they embrace what they’ve been told all their lives. Their gift is grotesque and it exploits boys. They make that part of their identity and they start getting a thrill out of ‘forcing’ boys to hold the disgusting filth that they have inside them. They brag about how long and how quickly they can get boys to hold it–partly because it’s a relief–it provides an outlet for all those feelings of shame–but also because it’s the only way they have of valuing themselves.

    So, ladies and gents, where’s the real problem in this hypothetical society?

  63. clarence says:

    Clarisse:

    I’m working on a post to answer your questions and add my own thoughts.

    Thanks for your patience :)

  64. @typhonblue — As is usually the case, I agree with you about the larger systemic issue, but it seems to sidestep the argument because the argument is about how to work within our current reality, not utopia. As eg Motley has said, description is not endorsement. Sure, in a utopian world men’s sexuality would not be stereotyped as exploitative, and there wouldn’t be a community designed around men who are really pleased with themselves about how awesome they are at sexually exploiting women. But it is, and there is, so it seems to me unavoidable to conclude that it’s work within that framework without resisting the exploitative elements.

  65. @Clarence — Cool. But FYI (I guess this goes for the rest of y’all, too) I’m headed off the grid first thing tomorrow morning and won’t be back till Tuesday. Sorry, it’s a casualty of my work in Africa.

  66. Motley says:

    @typhonblue –

    So, ladies and gents, where’s the real problem in this hypothetical society?

    And the more we talk about it, the more it comes down to that. I mean, the primary criticism seems to be the linguistic framework. That “linguistic framework” being the fact that it’s written in the manner in which guys talk about sex. It’s not surprising that people aren’t aware that the way women talk about sex isn’t the only way to do so, but this assumption that “not girl-talk” equals “toxic” is a bit odd.

    And the assumption that the way guys talk about sex being inherently toxic comes, I’ve begun to suspect, directly from the assumption that male sexuality is a toxic, tainted thing. Because, after all, they’re talking about sex from the perspective of the people with the evil genitals. If you take this as a given, then all the criticisms we’ve seen so far make perfect sense.
    I do know something about sexuality that’s actually toxic, so the nigh-universal “blood libel about ordinary men seems pretty laughable.

    I mean, the SC doesn’t advocate non-consensual sex (quite the opposite), nor does it seem to advocate deceiving people about one’s intentions (though it does advocate acting as though one’s own sexuality isn’t toxic, so people who take that toxicity as a given are understandably confused about this).

    @ Clarisse –

    Also, the Nice Guy ™ / Seduction Community assertion that “women never date their close male friends” never fails to piss me off because at least two of my more serious relationships stemmed out of extremely close friendships (one of which lasted several years before we dated). Can we get acknowledgment that this does happen sometimes? Like, any acknowledgment? At all?

    In the other thread, you objected to LR neglecting to differentiate between “Lady Raine” and “women.” I think you were right to do so. So I’m going to make the same objection now.
    The SC statements about what “women” do, seem to be written with the assumption that the intended audience is able to figure out that they mean “Ms. Average” and not “all women everywhere with no exceptions whatsoever under any circumstances.” It’s… really not a difficult thing to assume, if one has any interest in “understanding what they are saying” rather than “looking for things to condemn.”

    “While some have argued that stripping away the seduction community framework/vocabulary reveals that these are awesome ideas, that argument perforce sidesteps the feminist critique of the SC because the entire problem a lot of feminists have with the SC is the framework/vocabulary.”

    Yeah. The feminist criticism seems to be that it isn’t written in feminism-jargon (well, there’s first the assumption that feminism-jargon is the only non-toxic way to talk about sex). I don’t think this is a valid criticism. It’s written in guy-speak, by guys, for guys. It seems a little bit like criticizing a guide to English puns for not being written in Chinese.
    Next, even if it were a valid criticism – if guy-speak were inherently toxic – it wouldn’t be a valid criticism of the SC, it’d just be a valid criticism of the entirety of Western culture. Note that Shakespeare uses much the same framework/vocabulary that the SC uses.

    This goes into the SC’s goals; it isn’t making any of the rules, it’s just teaching guys what they are. The sexual dynamics of our culture are what they are; the people who are explaining to guys what the rules are and how to play their assigned role didn’t invent any of it, and aren’t to blame for it.

    Re: the Onion article:

    Also, what exactly is someone supposed to do if a close friend is in love with them and they’re not interested? Seriously, I’d love some actual concrete advice on this problem rather than aimless bitching about “being taken advantage of”…

    Check the article’s title again. As far as I can tell, the proper things to do in this circumstance is, first, refrain from telling guys that being a girl’s eunuch-friend will, at some indeterminate point in the future, make her sexually interested (this is essentially saying “keep giving me all of the benefits of friendship, in exchange for the hope that someday I will suddenly want to date you” when you know that that’s not going to happen). He’s been told this a lot – mostly by feminists – and he believed it, which is how this problem happened in the first place.
    Next, I’d recommend refraining from taking advantage of your “friend.” (If you’re about to say “But I don’t!” then that means that you’re one of the exceptions to the trend; it doesn’t mean that the trend doesn’t exist. Assuming that you’re correct, of course; casual manipulation and exploitation of men is so omnipresent in our culture that it’s usually done unconsciously).

    Third, I’d recommend introducing said “friend” to people who will explain that just following a girl around like a puppy, doing whatever she wants, and never voicing interest in her (’cause that would be, like, assaulting her) will magically make her interested.* That programming needs to be un-learned.
    Basically, if that friend were part of a community that teaches guys to take a girl at her word when she indicates that she’s not interested, this problem wouldn’t happen.

    *Yeah, I know that sometimes it actually does happen. But telling people to expect that to happen is pretty lousy advice, akin to telling people who are having trouble paying the rent that they should just stand outside and hold out their hands – I mean, there have been times when money has fallen from the sky, but waiting for it to happen isn’t the best way to go about making a living.

    @STF –

    Still, I’m less troubled by how PUAs hunt than I am with what they seduce men into hunting.

    I’m pretty sure that men who aren’t looking for advice in hunting what the SC teaches people to hunt don’t end up shopping for their stuff. I mean, if you’re looking for a sandwich, you’re probably not in danger of being “seduced” into buying a car instead, since you’d presumably know enough to go to a sandwich shop and not a car dealership.

    (And if this does happen to people, well, I’m not sure how it’s anyone else’s fault).

    I’m so hoping that you’ve read the other thread! – I want to inform you that there are indeed seminars and workshops available on how to get someone to shove muffins into their ears.

    Not yet there aren’t… but soon, soon! Motley’s Mysterious Muffin Shop isn’t open yet, but one day it will be. One sweet, sweet day…

    @ Schala –

    I definitely get the let’s be friends forever thing. I’m so glad I’m a girl now.

    Yeah, that does make it kinda tempting. I mean, _I_ had to work really hard to get people to a condition where they’ll give me everything I want in exchange for the vain hope that, someday, I might give them what they want.

    EDIT (replying to several posts that appeared while I was writing this one)

    As is usually the case, I agree with you about the larger systemic issue, but it seems to sidestep the argument because the argument is about how to work within our current reality, not utopia.

    I might be putting words in TB’s mouth here, but I more got the impression that she was saying that your criticism was rooted in your own assumption of inherently toxic male sexuality. Not that she was criticizing society, but that criticizing your criticism which was based on society’s centuries-old criticism of male sexuality.
    There must be ways to fit more uses of the word “criticize” into that sentence, but, like lunch, they’re eluding me at the moment.

    …and there wouldn’t be a community designed around men who are really pleased with themselves about how awesome they are at sexually exploiting women.

    The point was, that nobody’s being exploited. Unless we assume that male sexuality is toxic, and that therefore to have consensual sex with a man is to be exploited. If we do make this assumption, then yes, you’ve summed up what the SC is. But only if we assume that male sexuality is toxic.

  67. typhonblue says:

    Clarisse:

    But it is, and there is, so it seems to me unavoidable to conclude that it’s work within that framework without resisting the exploitative elements.

    I’m having trouble parsing this.

    Sure, in a utopian world men’s sexuality would not be stereotyped as exploitative, and there wouldn’t be a community designed around men who are really pleased with themselves about how awesome they are at sexually exploiting women.

    Here’s the thing. The girls in my hypothetical example are not exploiting the boys, no matter how much they think they are or the boys think they are or society in general thinks they are.

    Get rid of the baseless attitude that girl’s gift is ugly and gross and befouling to boys and the exploitation vanishes.

    And the girl’s _belief_ that they are exploiting boys becomes something sad, even pitiable. A result of a value system that ultimately disenfranchises them more then it ever did any of the boys they ‘exploit.’

    Saying that we should instead ignore this dynamic to focus on stopping(some of) the girls from patting each other on the back for ‘exploiting’ the boys, seems rather, well, hollow. I mean really. If we don’t address girl’s negative attitudes towards their gift, then what do we replace this sad little attempt at feeling better about themselves* with after they’ve made a boy touch their dirties? Crippling self-loathing? Suicidal regret? Seppuku?

    I’m afraid I’m having trouble understanding your final sentence. But I will say this, deciding that a world in which men’s sexuality isn’t stigmatized is utopian and thus unobtainable is really, really depressing.

    I mean, really, WTF is the point if this kind of bullshittery is the eternal future of the human race?

    *For as long as humans are human, these girls will attempt to turn a negative identity into a positive. Instead of subhuman gross-nuggets, they can see themselves as cool tricksters stickin’ it to da MAN.

  68. Motley,

    Sometimes an insurance salesman will try and sell you more than you intended to buy. I can join a mob because I want to steal from others, and become seduced by the culture into becoming a killer, because those guys really respect and admire killers. It isn’t unknown for people to climb the ladder of success and status, and discover they climbed to a way of living they never really wanted.

    So I can want something and be seduced into doing something else that I didn’t want.

    I mean, the primary criticism seems to be the linguistic framework.
    That “linguistic framework” being the fact that it’s written in the manner in which guys talk about sex

    That’s certainly not my primary criticism. I don’t like their attitudes towards the world and other people.

    Typhonblue,

    Any way that two consenting adults eat muffins is not ours to judge.

    I haven’t thought much about the ethics of muffin eating and muffin shoving – I’m happy to defer to your considered judgment of these difficult issues.

  69. Shari says:

    Hugh: “Have you seen similar ideas elsewhere?”

    Yeah. Not all feminists will like these books, but you can find a lot of the same info on confidence, body language, and conversation elsewhere.

    To my knowledge, none of these books listed instruct readers to disrespect men while promoting women’s interests.

    Similar healthy info can be found in:
    John Grey’s ‘Men are From Mars…’
    Andrew Carnegie’s ‘How to Win Friends…’
    A book my friend has called ‘No More Mr. Nice Guy’ (See http://www.nomoremrniceguy.com)
    ‘For Men Only’ and ‘For Women Only’ by Shaunti Feldhaun
    Any good body language book
    Any good emotional intelligence book
    Any ethical dating advice online that doesn’t promote “mastery” over women OR men
    ‘The Wonder of Boys’ and ‘The Wonder of Girls’ (for those interested in biological gender differences)

    For women:
    ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’ (Which also covers how to weed out dishonest and disinterested guys.)

    Steve Harvey’s ‘Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man’ (Which also teaches some protective measures, along with how to have a good relationship.)
    Try his 90 day benefit rule on a PUA and see what happens! Yikes.

    The controversial Dr. Phil’s ‘Love Smart’ (Laugh if you want, but it’s got a lot about confidence and choosing wisely.)

    Those books are by men and don’t teach how to trample on men’s boundaries in order for a woman to be happy and healthy while dating. Among the basic social and emotional tips, they help women to be wise and not end up in unhealthy or manipulative relationships. I have no problem with men learning similar skills. When materials ask you to look down on the opposite sex in order to build yourself up…that’s messed up. Any group that promotes disrespect has lost credibility. Don’t trust ‘em with your emotional and sexual life.

    P.S.: Juggler has articles on creepy NLP methods, so how would a guy know when to trust him as an “expert”? I recall you linked us to a YouTube video where he kept saying how honest he is. Not really.

    P.P.S.: I am not British, for those who assumed that. Lived there for a while.

  70. Schala says:

    ‘The Wonder of Boys’ and ‘The Wonder of Girls’ (for those interested in biological gender differences)

    Funny how gender and sex (as terms) are used interchangeably so often I couldn’t guess wether it speaks of gender differences, sex differences, a mix of both or what have you.

    Those books rarely speak to me though. Wether the book would consider me male, female, a man or a woman, it wouldn’t quite capture my experience and speak to who I am. That’s because those books tend to speak in generalities, and I’m everything but easily categorizable.

  71. BASTA! says:

    Clarisse Thorn wrote:

    “On another note, guys who are only talking to me in order to get into my pants tend to be highly irritating and often incredibly boring.”

    Thank you for demonstrating why men need SC.

    The reaction you admit to is very typical in women (though exceptions do exist), and highly atypical in men (though exceptions do exist), if only for the relative dearth of opportunities for it to even manifest in men. This is just another facet of the fundamental asymmetry of sexual desirability between men and women. As long as this asymmetry exists (read: until we evolve into a successor species), you just don’t get to ignore it completely while moralizing (as in “men are morally obligated to learn how to find sex and companionship in a moral way”) and still retain any relevancy. The asymmetry affects the negotiation of what is and isn’t moral, or at least it should.

  72. Shari says:

    Schala: “Those books rarely speak to me though. Wether the book would consider me male, female, a man or a woman, it wouldn’t quite capture my experience and speak to who I am. That’s because those books tend to speak in generalities, and I’m everything but easily categorizable.”

    Have you read “those books,” out of curiosity?

    Basta: Reading your comment, I’m not sure I understand it. Are you saying because men desire sex more, we can’t judge them if they act selfishly to “get sex”? How does this asymmetry impact morality?

  73. Motley,

    The point was, that nobody’s being exploited. Unless we assume that male sexuality is toxic, and that therefore to have consensual sex with a man is to be exploited. If we do make this assumption, then yes, you’ve summed up what the SC is. But only if we assume that male sexuality is toxic.

    That’s your point, not mine.

    I’m willing to simply suppose that someone who feels exploited actually has been harmed, and that harm may feel quite real and painful to them. So if a woman feels exploited, she may really have been exploited. If a man feels that he has been seduced into chasing something he didn’t really want, and has started acting in a selfish manner he feels shame about, then that man may feel real regret and loss over what he has become. He may have done real harm to those around him. A man who takes pride in all he’s taken, and how little he’s given, and who is contemptuous of people who cannot take, and who are unworthy of being taken, does not get respect or explanations from me, even if his actions could be considered beneficial.

  74. typhonblue says:

    STF;

    I’m willing to simply suppose that someone who feels exploited actually has been harmed, and that harm may feel quite real and painful to them.

    So the problem is that some girls want to pretend they’re cool tricksters instead of sub-human gross-nuggets. And not the fact that society thinks girls are sub-human gross-nuggets in the first place.

    Extending this thought experiment into the real world; letsay there are men in certain african countries who feel sexually exploited if they accidentally have sex with women who haven’t been genitally mutilated.

    So if these guys _feel_ exploited then they are exploited?

    Can this extend to other groups of people throughout history who truly, madly, deeply _felt_ exploited by other groups of people? Is it always just based on a subjective experience, no need to look at context or facts?

    Or does that only work if the group that feels ‘exploited’ is comprised of people you sympathize with?

  75. My last sentence should have been just “does not get explanations from me” rather than “does not get respect or explanations from me.” I shouldn’t have implied that anyone here was showing respect.

  76. TB,

    As I’ve said before, I see no need for theory here, and no worthy beneficiaries for such efforts. I see some people who are either indifferent to hurt they might cause, or who take a certain smug pride in getting what they want regardless. I see people who have contempt for people with moral scruples.

  77. typhonblue says:

    I shouldn’t have implied that anyone here was showing respect.

    Right. Moving on…

    Here are girl’s choices in a society that thinks their sexuality is subhuman.

    1) Embrace social attitudes and feel self-loathing for the rest of their lives over their natural desire to have sex.

    2) Embrace social attitudes and think of themselves as cool tricksters ‘cheating the system’ by ‘deceiving’ boys into having sex.

    3) Ignore social attitudes and believe their sexuality is not subhuman.

    People who have immense difficulty ignoring social attitudes are quite common. That’s why social attitudes have such staying power. So for every girl who isn’t a superhuman law unto herself, she has a choice between 1) or 2).

    2) is basically turning a negative identity into a positive identity(for her, not society) and will be very attractive to those girls who aren’t strong enough to completely ignore social pressures but still want to see their sexuality in some sort of positive, subversive way. 1) is only attractive for those girls who have deeply accepted self-loathing as their lot in life.

    STF:

    I see some people who are either indifferent to hurt they might cause, or who take a certain smug pride in getting what they want regardless. I see people who have contempt for people with moral scruples.

    I guess your moral scruples are entirely incompatible with mine. Because I do see the girls in question as worthy of compassion for the initial injury to their self-worth. Their attempts to make lemonade from diamonds does not change my attitude.

    The fact that they don’t have the emotional strength to totally challenge the bullshit they’ve been taught is unfortunate but understandable.

    And, you know what, I think my attitude towards the SC has evolved. I don’t even think I can even muster up the initial disgust that I had a few days ago.

    In fact my disgust is now directed more towards people who will chide girls for embracing 2) and try and force them into 1) without helping them get to 3) by challenging the over arching social attitudes that girls are gross-nuggets.

    I’m starting to feel this disgust because, to be honest, it’s looking like these people just care more about boys and maybe really do think girls are gross-nuggets and deserve to be seen as such.

  78. HughRistik says:

    BASTA! said:

    The reaction you admit to is very typical in women (though exceptions do exist), and highly atypical in men (though exceptions do exist), if only for the relative dearth of opportunities for it to even manifest in men. This is just another facet of the fundamental asymmetry of sexual desirability between men and women.

    Yes, women are more selective, about who they are sexually attracted to, and about what conditions sex will occur with someone they are attracted to. Simultaneously, women typically expect men to initiate. These preferences put men into a moral bind.

    If a man is interested in a woman, she is less likely to be interested in him. As a result, any advance from him will have a risk of creeping her out.

    As long as this asymmetry exists (read: until we evolve into a successor species), you just don’t get to ignore it completely while moralizing (as in “men are morally obligated to learn how to find sex and companionship in a moral way”) and still retain any relevancy.

    Hey, I think it’s perfectly fine to say that “men are morally obligated to learn how to find sex and companionship in a moral way,” as long as the notion of morality actually makes sense. That “moral way” must take into account the realities that men face when dating women, must not contradict a belief that identical or analogous female behaviors are OK, must not assume that every male behavior that women/feminists are uncomfortable with must be wrong, and must not make it impossible for men to learn how to improve their ability to interact with women on a sexual level. If a notion of morality fails to do all these things, then there is probably something wrong with it.

    Since women typically expect men to initiate, sexual ethics must take into account the fact that men must initiate under conditions of uncertainty about the woman’s response. As a result, it must be ethical for men to take calculated risks that their advances will creep women out, because if it wasn’t, then any scrupulous man would merely select himself out of being considered datable by gender-typical women. This would create a bizarre situation where only unscrupulous men who don’t listen to feminists are datable to most women… a situation which isn’t good for anyone except that unscrupulous contingent of males.

    I think sexual ethics are important, and that PUAs should be talking about them more. Simultaneously, for anyone proposing sexual ethics, the burden is on them to argue for those ethical standards and justify them. They really need to think it through and ask if their moral principles would destroy heterosexual interaction between most people. If the answer to that question is “yes,” then your sexual morality sucks… go away and come back when you’ve figured out one that doesn’t paralyze scrupulous men and hand women on a silver platter to the unscrupulous jerks.

  79. Tamen says:

    Shari: If I recall correctly the “He’s just not that into you” book breezily explains to women that if a guy was interested in you, he would make a move. That’s it. Every single time. Which is precisely the expectation which also underlies the SC. The difference being that the book says that women should be passive (let him make the first move to prove that he’s into you) while the SC says that women mostly are passive.

    As for the “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man” I don’t like men being reduced to simpletons by statements like: “There is no truer statement: men are simple”. And then there’s the 90 days rule; which I suspect will accomplish absolutely nothing except making sure that neither has sex for 90 days.
    He also produces blueprint of behavior, attitude and practical actions that women could engage in to let men know that they were keepers. Which to me doesn’t sound that different from what PUA do – except they do it primarily to get laid instead of a committed relationship.

  80. typhonblue says:

    Which to me doesn’t sound that different from what PUA do – except they do it primarily to get laid instead of a committed relationship.

    And considering the relative risks to person between ‘getting laid’ and ‘entering into a mariage…’

    Um… yeah…

  81. Sam says:

    Hugh,

    I’m not sure you’re aware of a discussion on Clarisse Thorn’s blog about the morality of initiating and issues with a similar structure (tops/bottoms) –

    http://clarissethorn.wordpress.....-followup/

    It’s very, very long (very good) thread covering a larger number of topics, but I’d suggest my comment #70 as a starting point for the conversation about this matter.

  82. HughRistik says:

    Thanks, Sam… I’ll check it out.

  83. HughRistik says:

    Sam, I agree with your formulation in this post:

    I have no experience in this whatsoever, so all this is speculative, but I suppose that there is also a tension between safety and a certain transgression – I mean, any interaction with a woman starts by making her feel safe. For sexualised interactions, she needs to feel so safe that she feels she can let go. But – at this point, any kind of initiation implies moving out of safe, known area, into the unknown. It must be safe, safe enough to let go, but “unsafe enough” to still be exciting – all at the same time… do you know what I mean?

    I think we are talking about the same thing.

    It seems that the typical feminist approach to sexual ethics is to emphasize one goal: protecting women from harm and discomfort. Yet the only way a man can be sure to avoid making a woman sexually uncomfortable is to never make an advance on a woman. Most feminists aren’t advocating that men never make advances, but they do talk way more about when and how men should put on the brakes, rather than when men should step on the gas. The net effect of that discourse can make men sexually paralyzed, or at least more hesitant than most women are looking for.

    Feminists are deficient in teaching men to recognize and respond to “yes” (rather than just “no”), and the seduction community makes up for this deficiency.

  84. Jim says:

    “Feminists are deficient in teaching men”

    I think you could have ended your sentence right there, for this or any other subject.

  85. Shari says:

    Tamen: “Shari: If I recall correctly the “He’s just not that into you” book breezily explains to women that if a guy was interested in you, he would make a move. That’s it.” That’s certainly the thesis, but I remember it describing how over a period of time, a guy has to keep making efforts. Not just ask you out on one date, call time to time, etc. If it’s a string-along, you should move on. That’s not a relationship.

    I have no problem saying that men are usually expected to initiate. It’s just how they do it and what their intentions really are….and personally, if I’m into you, I’m glad you’re pursuing me. Pursuit is not the issue. It’s the mind and heart behind the pursuit.

    “As for the “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man” I don’t like men being reduced to simpletons by statements like: “There is no truer statement: men are simple”. And then there’s the 90 days rule; which I suspect will accomplish absolutely nothing except making sure that neither has sex for 90 days.”

    Depends on the man. My friend’s husband often says men are simple. He’s a very bright atty. I wouldn’t agree 100% either. Take it up with Steve, I guess. I think the 90 day rule would accomplish this: any man who waited that long would only stick around if he really, really cared for the woman.

    I understand your concern that it sounds like a game to get a committed relationship, but I don’t think you can force commitment. You can certainly show it’s what you want and behave accordingly, but you can’t make someone be so compatible that they end up sticking around. I think it’s more of a filter–those who want to stick around, do. If they’re sport fishing, they can move along if you aren’t up for being tossed back into the water.

    jfp: I like your explanation about the insurance salesman getting you to do something you didn’t originally want.

    Hugh: “It seems that the typical feminist approach to sexual ethics is to emphasize one goal: protecting women from harm and discomfort. Yet the only way a man can be sure to avoid making a woman sexually uncomfortable is to never make an advance on a woman. ”

    Pursuit is fine, as I said above. Just don’t cause harm by being disingenuous and running through methods to get her in bed. If you treat her like a whole person who you ALSO find attractive, you can make a “moral” advance. Flirting skills are one thing. Embracing the PUA mindset is another. You take the risk and see what happens. Padding the risk by following SC stuff is not the best idea….

    “Feminists are deficient in teaching men to recognize and respond to “yes” (rather than just “no”), and the seduction community makes up for this deficiency.”

    We are supposed to teach you? That could be a good discussion. (Maybe we need a book, “She’s just not that into you…”, if it’s not already out there, so we can analyze real interest.) I really think a lot of material addresses that. Don’t think the SC is the best guide to knowing if a girl actually likes you or is actually saying yes. I think the SC is often more about getting “yes” from a stated “no.”

  86. Schala says:

    @Shari

    Schala: “Those books rarely speak to me though. Wether the book would consider me male, female, a man or a woman, it wouldn’t quite capture my experience and speak to who I am. That’s because those books tend to speak in generalities, and I’m everything but easily categorizable.”

    Have you read “those books,” out of curiosity?

    No, I haven’t, but any books that want to speak of a whole category never speak to me, wether they’re ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, studies, tendencies, standards, norms – don’t speak to me at all.

    Besides innately resisting testosterone, not having an uterus, having socially transitioned to female, having Asperger syndrome, being ideological in pretty much everything and staying virgin until 25 out of being asexual (which I’m not now, incidentally), I’m pretty much the female of the 21st century prototype aren’t I?

    Depends on the man. My friend’s husband often says men are simple. He’s a very bright atty. I wouldn’t agree 100% either. Take it up with Steve, I guess. I think the 90 day rule would accomplish this: any man who waited that long would only stick around if he really, really cared for the woman.

    Why would *I* wait 3 months though? Unless I only see him monthly. If he’s up for it, and I am (which tends to be the case if things work out), we’re ‘doing it’ within a week or two. And I don’t do dating. Been ‘steady’ for over 8 months now, and living together for 6.

    It’s not that my libido is so grandiose, but I don’t see myself escalating close to sex, and saying ‘no’, and I don’t see myself not kissing, not fondling out of some principle.

  87. Tamen says:

    Shari: You said: “…if I’m into you, I’m glad you’re pursuing me…”. Someone has to initiate and the one initiating usually have no idea whether the move will be appreciated or regarded as creepy. So, yes, initially there has to be a (short) pursuit. I for one would like for the expectation of initiating to be more evenly distributed among the genders. To both relieve men of the pressure as well as giving women more options and greater agency.
    When someone were into me I expected them to meet me on equals terms, not demanding or expecting me to keep pursuing them. I would drop them concluding either that they’re not really into me or that they’re too immature and like playing games.

    Likewise with that stupid 90 days rule. If someone did that to me I would either conclude that sex is not important to her (perhaps she’s asexual?) and that I wouldn’t be a good match for her (me being neither asexual nor hypersexual) or I would conclude that she’s incapable of actually communicating with me and needs to devise stupid hoops and test for me to jump through – not qualities I were looking for in a long term partner.

    Even though the social script says men are always ready for sex there are plenty of men which are asexual or have a low libido. Be aware that those are more likely to stay with a woman following the 90 days rule and that they may not be compatible with the woman’s libido if she wants to crank up the heat after those 90 days.

  88. Motley says:

    Likewise with that stupid 90 days rule.

    …Yeah. Someone remind me why it’s okay for a woman to cruelly and deceptively manipulate a man, but the reverse is a vile injustice?

    Yeah, I’m aware of the idea that “women want relationships, men want sex” and that relationships are therefore good and sex is therefore bad, since men are supposedly inherently evil, and women the opposite.

    I’m aware of this idea, but I reject it as categorically untrue.

    Aside from “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” there doesn’t seem to be a lot of reasoning behind this idea.

    Shari offers a good example of this assumption:

    I think the 90 day rule would accomplish this: any man who waited that long would only stick around if he really, really cared for the woman.

    Why are we conflating “really, really cares for a woman” with “willing to be treated like a doormat and have his needs be completely neglected for her amusement”?

    It’s actually possible to care for a person without abandoning all self-respect. Why should a guy really, really care about a woman who obviously doesn’t care about him in the slightest?

    Is it okay for guys to deceptively manipulate women into providing 90 instances of sex before any talk of relationships?

    @ Schala –

    Why would *I* wait 3 months though?

    Yeah. I mean, think about what would have to be wrong with you for you to think it’s okay to make you and your boyfriend go without for three months just to prove some abstract point. You’d have to have complete contempt for both his needs and your own, I’m guessing, right?

    That’s a pretty odd worldview that these things seem to be pushing.

    On a completely unrelated note:

    …being ideological in pretty much everything…

    Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “ideological?” I’ve seen you use it in self-description a couple times, but I don’t know what you mean (unless you mean “idealistic” or something?).

  89. Shari:

    I think the 90 day rule would accomplish this: any man who waited that long would only stick around if he really, really cared for the woman.

    Problem is, as I’ve said in the other thread, really, really caring for a woman from the start is not a viable strategy for men. If you invest that much emotionally in a woman before you establish a relationship with her, it will hurt like hell if (as is far more likely than not) she rejects you, and it will be very hard to let go (what Typhonblue has called “one-itis”) particularly if she has encouraged your feelings for as long as she can pretend she hasn’t noticed them, getting your hopes up while having no intention of reciprocating them, for the sake of her ego or extracting favours – which is, in my experience, also more likely than not.

    Edited to add: Plus, once you start testing a man’s feelings like that, be aware that sooner or later you’ll test them to destruction.

  90. elementary_watson says:

    “I think the 90 day rule would accomplish this: any man who waited that long would only stick around if he really, really is quite a bit of a stalker at heart.”

  91. Schala says:

    Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “ideological?” I’ve seen you use it in self-description a couple times, but I don’t know what you mean (unless you mean “idealistic” or something?).

    Yeah idealistic, sorry. I wear clothes because I like them, and believe people shouldn’t cave in to social pressure to do X, Y or dress like A or B. Express yourself, not society’s disdain with difference. I believe relationships shouldn’t have mind games and people should be as honest as possible within that relationship.

    So I’m not against SC more than I am against The Rules. I equally don’t like them. Not for me.

  92. Danny says:

    Patrick:

    Problem is, as I’ve said in the other thread, really, really caring for a woman from the start is not a viable strategy for men. If you invest that much emotionally in a woman before you establish a relationship with her, it will hurt like hell if (as is far more likely than not) she rejects you, and it will be very hard to let go (what Typhonblue has called “one-itis”) particularly if she has encouraged your feelings for as long as she can pretend she hasn’t noticed them, getting your hopes up while having no intention of reciprocating them, for the sake of her ego or extracting favours – which is, in my experience, also more likely than not.

    And not only that but the idea that a man needs to “act right” for 90 days pretty much puts all the onus on him as the performer and puts the deciding vote in her hands as the judge. Well if it takes two for a relationship to work but one of them is simply testing the other to see if he is good enough for her then how can there be a chance at a real connection? (This 90 period becomes basically her chance to test drive him.)

  93. Jim says:

    “I think the 90 day rule would accomplish this: any man who waited that long would only stick around if he really, really cared for the woman.”

    As has been stated above, any woman who would impoe sucha condition would hardly be worth wasting a day on, let alone 90.

    This is one more example where feminsism and patriarchy are indistinguishable – this 90 day rule is right out of a fairly tale where the pronce has to do three tasks to prove he’s wiorthy of the princess, who by the way doesn’t ahve to do anything to prove shit. Ah, well, why should she; she’s a prize to bo won. So this rule just objectifies her.

    Oh, and its chivalry on steroids. Is this someone’s idea of feminism?

  94. Motley says:

    Yeah, I’m currently of the opinion that a lot of “feminism” seems to’ve been taken over by a chivalry-on-steroids movement. Particularly when it comes to views of men, radical feminism and hyper-Victorianism are basically the same.

  95. @Motley — The SC statements about what “women” do, seem to be written with the assumption that the intended audience is able to figure out that they mean “Ms. Average” and not “all women everywhere with no exceptions whatsoever under any circumstances.”

    Okay. But I’d still like to see evidence for the assertion that even “Ms Average” never dates her male friends. Because it seems like the “evidence” usually boils down to “well my personal Ms Average has never dated me!”

    It’s written in guy-speak, by guys, for guys. It seems a little bit like criticizing a guide to English puns for not being written in Chinese.

    Then why are there guys who consistently criticize it? Did you read the link I posted to the dude who came out of the SC, wrote a huge long critique, and then started his own outside-the-SC dating website? People seem to keep defaulting to this “well, it’s for men, it’s not for you” argument, but the fact is that there are a number of men who agree with me and see the same problems I do and are, in fact, often alienated from the SC because of those problems. An actual man even started this thread.

    This goes into the SC’s goals; it isn’t making any of the rules, it’s just teaching guys what they are.

    Except that we’ve established that people can and do have relationships outside those “rules” and norms. So the SC presenting all this stuff as “just the way it is” seems … limited, at best.

    @typhonblue — “But it is, and there is, so it seems to me unavoidable to conclude that it’s work within that framework without resisting the exploitative elements.”
    I’m having trouble parsing this.

    That’s because it sucked. Sorry. I should have said something like, “But it is, and there is, so it seems to me unavoidable to conclude that it’s immoral to work within that framework without resisting the exploitative elements.”

    If we don’t address girl’s negative attitudes towards their gift, then what do we replace this sad little attempt at feeling better about themselves* with after they’ve made a boy touch their dirties?

    Remember how I mentioned on the other thread that there’s a short term, a medium term, and a long term? I feel like right now, in this thread, we’re talking about the short/medium term because we’re talking about concrete tactics that are usable now, today, and how to represent those — whereas changing overarching societal attitudes is the long term. That’s what I meant. Not that it’s invalid, just that it’s separate from the question of how advice could best be framed now.

    @Hugh — Hey, I think it’s perfectly fine to say that “men are morally obligated to learn how to find sex and companionship in a moral way,” as long as the notion of morality actually makes sense. That “moral way” must take into account the realities that men face when dating women, must not contradict a belief that identical or analogous female behaviors are OK, must not assume that every male behavior that women/feminists are uncomfortable with must be wrong, and must not make it impossible for men to learn how to improve their ability to interact with women on a sexual level.

    I’m down with this. So, given this description, Hugh, I’m wondering if (and how much) you see me falling into any of the fallacies you proscribe.

    Feminists are deficient in teaching men to recognize and respond to “yes” (rather than just “no”), and the seduction community makes up for this deficiency.

    I think this is the next step in feminist theory. A big theme in sex-positive feminism lately is the idea we should be teaching people how to learn and express their sexual desires in a positive way rather than just teaching them to say no once a boundary is hit. I’ve actually done workshops on this, seriously. (obligatory note due to my activist nature) And there’s lots to learn from the BDSM community on this topic! (/obligatory) In fact, the huge awesome bestselling recent feminist anti-rape anthology is titled Yes Means Yes.

    @Patrick Brown — If you invest that much emotionally in a woman before you establish a relationship with her, it will hurt like hell if (as is far more likely than not) she rejects you, and it will be very hard to let go (what Typhonblue has called “one-itis”) particularly if she has encouraged your feelings for as long as she can pretend she hasn’t noticed them, getting your hopes up while having no intention of reciprocating them, for the sake of her ego or extracting favours – which is, in my experience, also more likely than not.

    Argh. Perfect example of a comment that I find upsetting. I don’t agree with Shari — I tend to think that “rules” like the 90-day one are misguided — but …. This whole comment is slanted towards assuming that women are hypocritical and manipulative. A person (not just women do this, by the way) who consciously ignores another’s romantic feelings is, in my experience, probably trying to be sensitive and not put the other person on the spot — not manipulate them. I mean, “more likely than not”? Really? Can you prove this? Or produce some evidence, any evidence, that more than 50% of women (since you say “more likely than not”) who are continuing to be friends with someone who have a thing for them (a) have definitely figured it out, (b) specifically are continuing the relationship to prop up their ego or extract favors?

  96. Drudge says:

    I can think of lots of instances where the opposite of the 90 day rule is advocated to women. I don’t have a source off the top of my head, but I’ve read/heard of women being advised to go ahead and sleep with a man fairly early. That way, if he was just looking for sex you find out quickly, and if he sticks around afterwards you are a step closer to a relationship. This sounds much more ethical and practical to me. But of course, sex is a finite resource and must be conserved and withheld, right?

  97. Danny says:

    Jim and Motely seem to be on to something. Yes it is amazing that for a woman to be on a pedastal to be won is a problem when a man does this on his own but for a woman to put herself on a pedastal to be earned (maybe the difference in the wording?) is how “its supposed to be”.

    Pelle Billing recently did a post on femnism and chivalry that might be worth reading to you (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/.....ment-83276)

    It seems to me that feminists that want to cherry pick from chivalry may be trying to strike a nerve in men to get them to act right. In short shaming. (Something along the lines of, “If you were a real man you would _____”.)

  98. Jim says:

    “But of course, sex is a finite resource and must be conserved and withheld, right?”

    Actually the fact that sex is a practically infinite resource is what makes all the conservation and withholding so necessary. Anxiety over protecting market share is what motivates “respectable” women to hate so hard on prostitutes. And let’s be very clear, the real opposition to prostitution comes from “respectable” women and their chivalrous [male] running dogs.

  99. Colette says:

    Somebody up thread mentioned the bind het men may find themselves in because men are socialized to do the initiating. That is true and understandable, though I think there is more cross-over than people would think (more on that below). But for the men who feel obligated to initiate due to socialization and would love to be approached, there are women who would love to initiate but wait passively as they’re socialized to not be assertive, told that kind of behavior is slutty or pushy, and who have in fact had those experiences when they have taken the initiative. Men are forced (I use “forced” in a social context) to be in a position to risk rejection with already more apparently selective women which limits the numbers. Women are forced to be in a position where their needs/preferences aren’t important because they’re not supposed to initiate and all these men who aren’t as selective about their choices as they would be are coming up to them, which limits the numbers. Then men find themselves hurt by the rejection and having to take that risk like a “real man” all the time or have nothing and women find themselves having to sit passively like a “good girl/Virgin Mary” then not hurt the feelings of the guys they do not want but still never get their needs met. Same coin, different side.

    I work in a bar and have been working in bars since July of ’08. Based on my admittedly limited experience, there are men who wait for women and there are women who initiate contact. I’m not saying it still isn’t overwhelmingly the other way (though maybe not even overwhelmingly…), but sometimes I feel like people allow what they see in sit-coms or read in Maxim or Glamour influence their perception; I’d bet my money (which isn’t much, heh) it isn’t THAT clear cut. Nonetheless, I couldn’t tell you how many times I’ve seen women initiate contact with a man and when she walks away, he and his buddies start talking about what a whore, or “skank” (usually skank), she is, or how she must be a crazy stalker. Of course when she comes back, they don’t let her on to this.
    On the other hand, when a VERY handsome, polite man with braided hair and tattoos came into my work the other day, my co-worker and I took notice. I’m currently in a relationship with an amazing man who is down to earth and a great father to his son, so I suggested to her that she approach him. Well she never did and he left after playing a game of pool (I KNOW the guy knew we looked at him and was probably hoping we’d come up to him). In fairness to her, she may have been busy, but I told her that she’s got to not just sit and wait if she really was interested! My point is that even when somebody steps out of the gender roles, it doesn’t mean those expectations and preconceived notions will vanish as the morning mist and we all have to check ourselves about it.

    As for a feminist dating guide/pick up thing, my opinion is that the whole pick-up thing is pointless. Among other things, it is so easy (in this case, for hets) to just dismiss one’s lack of success as the fault of the other sex’s gender roles. It is easy to say, “well men are just after sex and shallow” and it is easy to say, “well women are just picky and shallow” and while in some cases, SOME men may be rigidly gendered and SOME women may as well, the only common denominator is YOU (whether you’re a he or a she).The most one can do is improve themselves and treat people like individuals and I don’t think dating guides/pick-up type things allow that, no matter from who. It’s just phoney, I believe, and things should come naturally. If it doesn’t happen as fast as one would like, tough. Chances are, if a person is that in need of a partner that it defines their life, it probably has to do with their self-esteem and they’re just going to an apple tree for an orange because validation from (in this case) the opposite sex isn’t going to fix it. I’m not trying to sound judgmental or lecture-y, but I’m a sufferer of depression, anxiety, and was in a co-dependent position growing up and it really irks me that there is so much emphasis on this type of thing.

  100. Clarisse Thorn:

    I mean, “more likely than not”? Really? Can you prove this?

    Of course not. That “in my experience” was carefully inserted to mark that as anecdote. Maybe it’s not typical, and maybe it is, but it is my honest experience of trying to pursue relationships with women on the terms described.

    Incidentally, it isn’t my experience that these women ignore another’s romantic feelings out of sensitivity. I’m talking about those women who deliberately encourage them with carefully deniable hints and behavioural cues, tied with requests for favours. I’ve had it done to me, I’ve seen it done to others, I’ve known women who’ve boasted about doing it. The common factor is always a man who has been misled into believing that the way to a woman’s heart is to show her how much you really, really care about her.

  101. typhonblue says:

    Patrick:

    The common factor is always a man who has been misled into believing that the way to a woman’s heart is to show her how much you really, really care about her.

    Hm…

    I think better, more practical advice would be to say… show a woman you have something* to offer her that complements what she can offer** you (and does not involve a one-way provision of material goods.)

    *Your version of masculinity.
    **Her version of femininity.

    Clarisse:

    Remember how I mentioned on the other thread that there’s a short term, a medium term, and a long term? I feel like right now, in this thread, we’re talking about the short/medium term because we’re talking about concrete tactics that are usable now, today, and how to represent those — whereas changing overarching societal attitudes is the long term. That’s what I meant. Not that it’s invalid, just that it’s separate from the question of how advice could best be framed now.

    Thought experiment. If you go back and re-read my Feb 28th, 9:47 post, think about this…

    If we want to start changing girl’s adversarial attitudes towards dating, even in the short term, do you think it’s better to talk about how they shouldn’t disrespect boys by framing sexual relationships with them in terms of ‘tricking’ or do you think it’s better to suggest to them that they’re disrespecting _themselves_ by seeing their sexuality as something boys need to be ‘tricked’ into sharing?

    The first accusatory message will polarize and re-enforce the ‘trickster’ persona. After all there’s no subversive, counter-cultural ‘tricking’ without a disapproving Aunt Prudence, tsk tsking at the bad little girls. (Which you’ve just provided them.) The second framing is more likely to get all but the most hardline ‘tricksters’ thinking in a new direction. At least subconsciously.

    Incidentally, I’ve read SC members who’ve already started to point this stuff out.

  102. Colette says:

    “I’m talking about those women who deliberately encourage them with carefully deniable hints and behavioural cues, tied with requests for favours. I’ve had it done to me, I’ve seen it done to others, I’ve known women who’ve boasted about doing it. The common factor is always a man who has been misled into believing that the way to a woman’s heart is to show her how much you really, really care about her.”

    The woman is a jerk, as is anybody who DELIBERATELY* encourages persuit despite not having mutual feelings, and then even boasting about it whether they’re “just friends” or not. I went through something similar with two men. Somebody can like another person and care for them all they want, but what it comes down to is that the other person has to also be interested romantically. To me, it appears in the instances you demonstrate the man/men were mislead into believing the women were INTERESTED,** as was I in my cases (and they WERE interested in what they could get out of me and fulfilling their own needs). I didn’t go in, however, with simplified ideas of what “wins” or entitles (or that I win or am entitled) me to a man’s affection and nor did I leave with such. If he doesn’t like me like that, he doesn’t like me like that but be honest about it. Though on my part, I should have just gotten out instead of putting up with that kind of behavior as if it’s the proper, healthy way to treat somebody, as should those men.

    * I say deliberate because I’ve experienced that politeness, smiling, going to a man’s house, or having cleavage are taken as cues that I’m interested. I’m bi-sexual, yet this doesn’t happen to me with women in my experience.

    ** I don’t know the code for tags here so forgive me if I appear to be shouting.

  103. typhonblue says:

    Colette:

    I say deliberate because I’ve experienced that politeness, smiling, going to a man’s house, or having cleavage are taken as cues that I’m interested. I’m bi-sexual, yet this doesn’t happen to me with women in my experience.

    Well, there is always the effect of hope on a person’s perceptions.

    It seems that society thinks men should take responsibility for women’s ‘hope’ that certain behaviors indicate the possibility of a relationship when they don’t.

    For example, any behaviors up to but exclusive of verbal consent to a relationship.

    Polite society certainly looks down on men if they don’t live up to women’s ‘hopes’ in the relationship department. Thus all the shaming terms for men who don’t: cad, playboy, creep, gigalo, peter pan.

    Wow. Imagine if polite society looked down on women for not living up to men’s ‘hopes’ in the sex department. Prude and frigid come to mind, but those seem to apply only to specific women in a relationship(not all women everywhere) and aren’t usually bandied about in mixed company.

    Scenario one: Woman complains about a man who won’t commit in a mixed sex group at coffee break in her office. Reaction? Sympathetic murmurs from men and women.

    Scenario two: Man complains about a woman who wouldn’t put out at a bar the night before in a mixed sex group at coffee break in his office. Reaction? Awkward, disgusted silence. Lawsuit.

  104. Schala says:

    Tags use those brackets “<" and include bold, italic, underlined etc.

  105. typhonblue says:

    Italic
    Bold

    This is a blockquote

    How it’s done:

    [i] Italic [/i]
    [b]Bold [/b]

    [blockquote] This is a blockquote [/blockquote]

    Replace [ with the symbol on the comma key(Shift+,) on your keyboard and ] with the symbol on the period key(Shift+.)

  106. Schala says:

    Not everyone uses English-only keyboards. My message was partially erased because I can’t type the symbol in question to show it. Anyways, 2nd row of letters, 12th key, and then with shift for the other, for my Canadian bilingual keyboard design (the stickers on it say that) and when used in Canada-French typing but English language setting, it corresponds.

  107. Colette says:

    Well, there is always the effect of hope on a person’s perceptions.

    ???

    It seems that society thinks men should take responsibility for women’s ‘hope’ that certain behaviors indicate the possibility of a relationship when they don’t. Polite society certainly looks down on men if they don’t live up to women’s ‘hopes’ in the relationship department.

    I don’t know about that, at least the way you phrase it. On the other hand, society tells women they’re fun-killers who shouldn’t tie men down (but they’re spinsters/failures if they don’t marry). Does society believe men should “take responsibility for women’s hope that certain behaviors indicate…” or does society believe men should be clear they only want sex/something casual? I believe that is true, just as I believe women should be clear if they want a relationship and people would be disgusted/annoyed if a woman isn’t clear on that. Or for that matter, if a woman only wants sex/something casual or a man wants a relationship.

    In my case, one of my exes (for lack of a better word) and I decided at the time that if something isn’t broken, then don’t fix it. Thus we didn’t call ourselves boyfriend and girlfriend (I always have had trouble with those labels, myself). But when I later expressed that to my sister (“no, we’re not boyfriend and girlfriend”), he was upet about it. Umm … okay. Eventually, I told him I’m cutting things of between us, whatever “us” was, mostly due to his drinking and his temper, and we’re going to just be friends. Well we were out one day with mutual friends (by “out” I mean “I drove everybody around at noon and we stopped at the bar because they wanted to”) and he started behaving in an unfriendly, ungrateful manner. One concerned patron turned to me and said, “I hope you’re driving your boyfriend home” and I said, “he’s not my boyfriend, but yes” and he was upset again. It was … surreal. Obviously, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too: that I wasn’t his girlfriend, but he was my boyfriend, and even after I cut things off! After screaming at me and calling me a dyke one night after I’d driven 30+ miles to help him out again, I told him I wanted him out of my life for good (we were friends at that point). He claims I was just angry because I’m in love with him. I honestly wanted to put my head through a wall.**

    For the next guy, I made it clear I’m done with the casual thing and if something sexual develops between us, then it’ll be in the context of a relationship. When it was clear he was misleading and wishy-washy, I broke things off. That apparently prompted him to say he wanted an official boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and he was just going to tell me. Well too late, plus I wouldn’t want a relationship with a guy who, after an accident with a condom (which I had to fight him to wear), told me he didn’t want to be bothered because he “was relaxing and wanted to be alone” when I called him explaining I had to leave work early because I’m in the process of miscarrying a pregnancy I wasn’t aware of.**

    I hope society would look down on them.

    Thus all the shaming terms for men who don’t: cad, playboy, creep, gigalo, peter pan.

    Playboy and peter pan can go either way. In fact, I see those used in a positive light more than negative. They even have a magazine and a whole empire called ‘Playboy.’ Heck, I didn’t even know ‘gigalo’ could even be used to shame; most of the time I’ve seen it used, it was by guys who proudlyreferred to themselves as such. ‘Bachelor’ is another one, which is neutral. Those words are often used synonymously with ‘stud,’ which is another, and what a ‘slut’ would be if she were a man.

    Wow. Imagine if polite society looked down on women for not living up to men’s ‘hopes’ in the sex department.

    Tease, cock-tease, bitch, “playing hard to get,” stuck-up… Also if women don’t want relationships or to “settle down,” they’re called everything from “slut” to having their very femininity questioned.

    Prude and frigid come to mind, but those seem to apply only to specific women in a relationship(not all women everywhere)…

    Heh, the only times I’ve heard words like tease, cock-tease, and prude has been outside of relationships! A lot of the time, they were directed at me (“stuck-up cunt” to be specific).

    and aren’t usually bandied about in mixed company.

    What the hell?! They certainly are, though I’d concede – especially in American culture – any type of words directly pertaining to sex are “iff”y.

    * He is currently incarcerate for his third DUI and, I believe, second felony conviction.

    ** Went in the next day to two different hospitals by myself, paid for the UTI medication by myself (which may have ben the cause or affect of the miscarriage), and now must take care of the bill by myself even though he said would. Apparently, he has no money, but has to audacity to say he wanted to buy me a drink when we ran into each other at a club. He also keeps asking for sex, even though I have a boyfriend.

    Thanks, hope the tags work.

  108. W says:

    Motley: “Yeah, I’m currently of the opinion that a lot of “feminism” seems to’ve been taken over by a chivalry-on-steroids movement. Particularly when it comes to views of men, radical feminism and hyper-Victorianism are basically the same.”

    There is so much overlap between the two things that it’s impossible to deny. Feminists _absolutely_ expect men to act in accordance with what best serves women (that they consider this synonymous with “equality” does cause some confusion in the messaging, however). That men need not follow the directives of “Ladies first” with a bow and a tip of the hat is something of an innovation, but I think the major difference is that the modern variant of chivalry has it that women shouldn’t _have_ to act like “ladies” in order to benefit from “ladies first.” Acting like a “lady” is just too much of a burden and competely ridiculous to boot. Be ladylike towards the oppressors?? Ridiculous.

  109. typhonblue says:

    Hey, HughRistik! Check your e-mail! :P

  110. Danny says:

    W:

    Acting like a “lady” is just too much of a burden and competely ridiculous to boot. Be ladylike towards the oppressors?? Ridiculous

    Not just ridiculous but sexist as well. Why on earth should women be expected to return kind treatment?

    Colette:

    Does society believe men should “take responsibility for women’s hope that certain behaviors indicate…” or does society believe men should be clear they only want sex/something casual?

    Well considering that for men making it clear they are only looking for sex/something casual is a surefire way to get them labeled as afraid to commit, womanizers, dogs, sex addicts, (there doesn’t seem to be as much of the “stud” labelling of this behavior as feminists would have us believe) I’m not sure what society wants men to do. Sidebar: I was reading a post at Feministe today about a survey about reactions to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. It seems that there was a good number of men who did not have a negative reaction. Well it didn’t take those folks long to attribute those reactions to sinister motives. Some people just seem to not like anything men think/feel/say.

  111. Colette says:

    Well considering that for men making it clear they are only looking for sex/something casual is a surefire way to get them labeled as afraid to commit, womanizers, dogs, sex addicts, (there doesn’t seem to be as much of the “stud” labelling of this behavior as feminists would have us believe)

    You’re conceding that “society” says men can either be seen as “dogs” and such or as “studs” as such for the same behavior (though the credit you give “feminists” is bemusing to me). “Sex addict” isn’t specific to men (and just seems to be the new excuse for the moment) and “womanizer,” like “playboy,” may be just as easily applied in a positive light. I think “being afraid to commit” is misapplied by you here and refers to remaining in the early stages of relationships for generally decent periods of time without taking it to the next level rather than being up front about wanting “just sex, just sex, just sex” from multiple women.

    I’m not sure what society wants men to do.

    Since men may be “studs” or “dogs” for the same behavior, it seems the man-ness doesn’t determine whether casual sex with multiple women is inherently positive or negative in the eyes of “society.”

    Sidebar: I was reading a post at Feministe today about a survey about reactions to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. It seems that there was a good number of men who did not have a negative reaction. Well it didn’t take those folks long to attribute those reactions to sinister motives.

    I’d read that study only at another site, but I went ahead and checked it out and, I have to say … wow. You’re very selective. I saw a few comments sympathizing with men and suggesting the change of heart from “it’s very important to not have babies” to “… but I’d be very pleased if there was an accident!” is due to societal pressure men may feel to not admit they want a family at a young age when they actually may. I saw others saying there are several reasons and not to put much into one survey anyway. I saw yet others – a good number, in fact – that said nothing of motives but expectations placed on girls VS boys from birth about what having a baby means and that may explain the favorable answers from men VS women. Some made jokes in the context of MRA claims that women love to steal men’s sperm (and they were funny). A few men and women bonded over how sexual/titilating the notion of making a baby is (hey, okay!). A couple were irked their male partner would be happy something was going on in his partner’s body which she didn’t want (which is understandable) while others said he is probably more happy about the notion of a baby. There was some evo-psych back-and-forth too. Within the first 10 comments, there was a man who showed up with snide, passive-agressive comments about birth control and wanting a survey of women who deliberately get “accidentally” pregnant.

    But with that all, you come away saying that? It’s not just undue weight, it borders on misrepresentation.

    Some people just seem to not like anything men think/feel/say.

    Gee, they responded to one survey and were overwhelmingly reasonable. If there is anybody not liking what somebody says no matter what, it is you in this instance.

  112. Colette:

    Those words are often used synonymously with ’stud,’ which is another, and what a ’slut’ would be if she were a man.

    The “slut-stud” double standard, for all the hay feminists continue to make of it, appears to be dead. Did anyone express any public admiration for Tiger Woods’ “indiscretions”? Did anyone express any public disapproval of the women he was “indiscreet” with?

  113. Danny says:

    Colette:
    You’re conceding that “society” says men can either be seen as “dogs” and such or as “studs” as such for the same behavior (though the credit you give “feminists” is bemusing to me).
    The reason I give them such credit is because honestly the insistence that men that have lots of sex are studs and women that have lots are sex are whores mostly comes from that camp these days. Yes that idea is represented in today’s pop culture some but nowhere to the extent they insist. Some of act as if its still the 50s.

    I think “being afraid to commit” is misapplied by you here and refers to remaining in the early stages of relationships for generally decent periods of time without taking it to the next level rather than being up front about wanting “just sex, just sex, just sex” from multiple women.
    Which is often attributed to his maturity level, hatred of women, and so on.

    But with that all, you come away saying that? It’s not just undue weight, it borders on misrepresentation.
    Because the presumption of negatives motives happened so quickly and seemed to only get piled on and people that seemed to disagree were attacked. And considering that the very first comment was a generalizing of MRAs that would probably never be allowed if it were about any other group. I especially love the person that commented that men get to pick their level of involvement. Its pretty clear that the only way a man can pick his level of involvement in a child’s life is if the mother okays it or he runs out and actively ducks her and the law. Their conversation totally ignores maternal gatekeeping as if mothers have no say so in the involvement of the dad in those chidlren’s lives. Granted I should have probably quantified with using “some” or something like that in my original statement but the attitude is still there.

    Gee, they responded to one survey and were overwhelmingly reasonable. If there is anybody not liking what somebody says no matter what, it is you in this instance.
    No.

  114. Sam says:

    Clarisse,

    “Then why are there guys who consistently criticize it? Did you read the link I posted to the dude who came out of the SC, wrote a huge long critique, and then started his own outside-the-SC dating website.”

    I have to say, I wonder what “inside” and “outside” means in that respect. Citing from Elana Clift’s thesis – (foreword) -

    https://webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf

    The “Seduction Community” broadly defines a subculture of men who follow varying philosophies and methods to achieve success with women. … The purpose of this project is to determine the social context that has given rise to such a vibrant subculture, and to speculate on its broader gender and social significance. In attempting to deconstruct the American cultural climate that has produced the Seduction Community, I examine a few concrete factors: the continuously shifting aspects of men’s culture, the collapse of elaborate courtship rituals, the impact of feminist ideals on popular thought, and the proliferation of the Internet. Although these distinct elements can be identified as causes for the community’s existence, they are also intertwined in a complicated web. By recognizing these distinct aspects, however, I distinguish the motivations behind the formation and explosion of the Seduction Community. I determine that the community is composed of many elements that are borrowed from America’s cultural past, making it more reflective than revolutionary. I propose that what is unique, however, is the distinct manner in which these various elements have coalesced to form a community of men, bonding through shared experiences and acting together to accomplish similar goals.

    By that definition, the discerning element of the “community” would not be specific teachings, but the community aspect, real or virtual, including those who criticize. By that definition, I suppose one may also question whether a large number of the companies now offering their respective fool proof “methods” should be seen as part of “the community”… Or maybe the reality has changed so much since Ms Clift has finished her thesis that her definitions are no longer valid, and “the community” is now defined not by community (and indenpendent of individual teachings) but by companies copying what’s been written in “the game”.

    In the latter case, people who believe that there is a positive, and necessary, core to the original idea would have to decide whether it is worth defending the term, reclaiming the term, making sure the term is not constantly misunderstood – or whether it would be better to find a new umbrella brand. Kind of like the feminist sex wars, I think.

  115. jfpbookworm says:

    Wading back in…

    typhonblue:

    Once again I’m rather amusingly struck by the fact that if male sexuality was considered a benefit to women, we wouldn’t be concerned about men ‘exploiting’ women by providing it (even if they were using exploitative language*).

    I think you’re on to something, but conflating two problems. Men (who are attracted to women)’s sexuality is *not* acknowledged as a benefit to women (who are attracted to men). Under that narrative, *all* expressions of male sexuality are exploitative (so why worry about ethics at all?).

    I think that under a narrative that men’s sexuality isn’t innately harmful to women, we should still be concerned about exploitative expressions of sexuality–in fact, we should be more concerned, and this is why some feminists (including me) have a problem with the pro-exploitation attitudes we see in the “seduction community.”

    Motley:

    And the more we talk about it, the more it comes down to that. I mean, the primary criticism seems to be the linguistic framework. That “linguistic framework” being the fact that it’s written in the manner in which guys talk about sex.

    I disagree, both that that’s the primary objection and that that’s the way men talk about sex. In my experience as a man, it’s definitely *not* the way I talk about sex; it’s the way I’ve sometimes been pressured to talk by folks who are policing masculinity, but it’s a performance, not something natural to me (and these days I simply don’t play that game). It’s one of the things that, early on when I had precisely the sort of problems the SC folks claim to be able to help with, turned me off of it.

    Do you consider ads like this to be accurate in their depiction of men talking about sex? I’d call it misandrist in the extreme (and would point out that the folks behind this ad aren’t feminists, but social conservatives).

    Sweating Through Fog:

    If a man feels that he has been seduced into chasing something he didn’t really want, and has started acting in a selfish manner he feels shame about, then that man may feel real regret and loss over what he has become. He may have done real harm to those around him.

    And I think it’s obvious in this case that he himself has been harmed by this as well.

    typhonblue again:

    Here are girl’s choices in a society that thinks their sexuality is subhuman.

    This is the gender-flipped AU? Because I’d argue that we live in a society that thinks that both women’s *and* men’s sexualities are subhuman, only in different ways.

    Anyway, I don’t disagree with those choices, but if we’re talking about helping people, shouldn’t we try to help them into category 3 and not category 2? If the individual benefit is at the cost of treating other people like

    In fact my disgust is now directed more towards people who will chide girls for embracing 2) and try and force them into 1) without helping them get to 3) by challenging the over arching social attitudes that girls are gross-nuggets.

    I disagree that this is as common as it’s implied to be – I think a lot of feminists *are* encouraging option 3, only to be blamed for the sex-negative and non-feminist messages out there about men’s and women’s sexualities.

    Shari: the insurance salesman metaphor wasn’t mine, it was Sweating Through Fog’s.

    Re this “90 day rule”: I think it’s a dumb “rule” to set for other people. If one wants to set it for themselves, that’s one thing, but if they do I feel it’s incumbent upon them to let their partner know what’s going on (which means not just explaining the rule, but avoiding using it as a cop-out to avoid saying “I’m not interested in sex with you”). And if a partner *didn’t* keep me in the loop about that, I ask, and if I don’t like the response, I don’t have to stick around.

    Clarisse Thorn:

    A big theme in sex-positive feminism lately is the idea we should be teaching people how to learn and express their sexual desires in a positive way rather than just teaching them to say no once a boundary is hit.

    Yes, yes, yes. This is where a feminist-positive guide for men interested in women should start. And this is where I get confused about all the anti-feminism that gets thrown about here: it seems to totally ignore this large and vocal segment of sex-positive feminism in favor of railing against the radfem fringe over and over (and then using them to tell all the non-radical feminists what they really believe).

  116. typhonblue says:

    JFP,

    Because I’d argue that we live in a society that thinks that both women’s *and* men’s sexualities are subhuman, only in different ways.

    Society thinks sexuality is gross. However only women seem to be able to rise above it, unless they don’t in which case they’re tainted by association with men. Who are permanently branded by the icky sex.

    Or is there another way that women’s sexuality (absent men) is branded as subhuman? (Outside of fundamentalist’s weak assertion that they ‘also dislike lesbians, but only as sort of a footnote to the real problem which is male homosexual depravity.’)

    Since I can walk into a mom and pop convenience store in the middle of nowhere and find a hollywood video about two women ‘experimenting’ and have _never_ found the reverse… I think our society is pretty down with the female-female intimacy in a way it isn’t with male-male.

    I disagree that this is as common as it’s implied to be – I think a lot of feminists *are* encouraging option 3, only to be blamed for the sex-negative and non-feminist messages out there about men’s and women’s sexualities.

    Where did I ever say that feminism was responsible for this? I think I stated pretty explicitly that it started with Christianity and Saint Augustine’s self hatred.

    As for feminists perpetuating negative attitudes towards men’s sexuality; I’ll leave that up to feminists to decide how much they’ve personally contributed to making men feel like shit about themselves sexually.

  117. Scipio Africanus says:

    JFP,

    but if they do I feel it’s incumbent upon them to let their partner know what’s going on (which means not just explaining the rule, but avoiding using it as a cop-out to avoid saying “I’m not interested in sex with you”).

    My understanding of how the 90 Day rule is frequently and typically practiced is that the woman usually doesn’t inform the man about it. The point being similar to the criticsm of declaring publicly a timetable on pulling troops out of the Middle East – the guy will just wait it out if he knows his chances of success are super-high by doing so. So by keeping it a secret, or maybe even denying it, she is forcing the guy to take a great risk (opportunity cost of focusing on this woman, money, mental and emotional investment, etc.), thereby “proving” he’s worth her lovin’.

  118. Sam says:

    jfpbookworm,

    “it seems to totally ignore this large and vocal segment of sex-positive feminism in favor of railing against the radfem fringe”

    well, I think the inter-gender discourse has some structural deficits that mostly have to do with lack of empathy on both sides and the feminist claim of an epistemic privilege for women in these matters, which leads many – certainly not all! – feminists to an attitude of (public) dismissal of male voices based on their axiomatic belief that *they* are the socially oppressed voice. Sadly, given that the gender discourse is happening largely in feminist spaces (online, and offline) many of them don’t seem to be aware that this debate is – if at all – largely happening on their terms.

    The core problem, it seems to me is that there is a social narrative, conservative *AND* feminist, describing male sexuality as exploitative, and hence, female sexuality as exploited. As long as this basic notion stands, neither female nor male sexuality can be free. Feminism is advocating against double standards like slut shaming, but by – at least implicitly, often explicitly – buying into the male sexuality is exploitative narrative, they are contributing to the very thing they say they want to abolish. As long as that narrative stands, a woman who is sexually self confident and wants to take what she wants will still feel exploited, simply because in this setup, male touch is worth less than female touch. She’s losing “value” by doing what she’s told to do, he’s “winning”, but he’ll have to deal with the feeling of exploiting her.

    This is largely Naomi Wolf territory. But as for the *large and vocal* segment of sex positive feminism – if you look at the website for the book Clarisse mentioned, and click on the manliness category, you’ll get a collection of links all but one are about rape. If you go to, say, feministing.com and check the archives about posts in which male sexuality is described positively, you’re gonna spend a long time.

    I think it’s natural to complain about stuff that is seen as problematic, and it’s also common to equate that stuff with all there is. You see that happening here, but the same problem is apparent in feminist discourse – the one that really matters in this subject area.

    I’m only an occasional commenter, but I was seriously impressed by Clarisse’s determination to transcend this rift with her manliness series, particularly with the thread about feminism and manliness, which has received more than 600 comments since early December and is still going strong. It takes a while and probably a lot of trust to enter such a debate. It cannot be done with an attitude of “I am right, who wants to hear about it today”. And, sadly, that is the tone of voice of a lot of the gender debate…

  119. Schala says:

    I like to prove I’m also worth his loving, that way I have some agency and am not simply a prize for him to win.

    That’s why since I’ve been with my boyfriend I do much efforts to understand what he likes and doesn’t, and to please him sometimes.

  120. jfpbookworm says:

    typhonblue:

    Society thinks sexuality is gross. However only women seem to be able to rise above it, unless they don’t in which case they’re tainted by association with men. Who are permanently branded by the icky sex.

    Well, the flip side of that is women aren’t seen as just “able” to “rise above it”–they’re *obligated* to. (See all of the posts by figleaf at Real Adult Sex about the “no-sex class.”) Society permits a man to have a sex drive and still be “normal” (albeit “gross”), while a woman who expresses a desire for sex that’s not merely “reflective” (i.e., a woman who doesn’t “rise above it,” who admits to wanting sex and who takes initiative in finding partners) is seen as grotesque and abnormal when she’s present, dismissed as nonexistent when she’s not.

    This is actually one of the biggest obstacles a lot of guys who are sexually interested in women face: they see it as impossible that their interest could be reciprocated, and so they take one of two approaches:

    1. They pre-emptively remove themselves from consideration as a sexual partner out of a misguided attempt to be considerate; or

    2. They decide that reciprocal interest from a sexual partner is not actually necessary.

    These roughly correspond to your options (1) and (2) described above. And really, we need the equivalent of option (3), which is to acknowledge that women are interested in sex as well, and that men shouldn’t have to settle for less than enthusiastic and reciprocal interest.

    Scipio:

    My understanding of how the 90 Day rule is frequently and typically practiced is that the woman usually doesn’t inform the man about it.

    If that’s the case, then that’s kind of underhanded (though not quite as bad as saying “I’ve got a 90-day rule and that’s why I won’t have sex” when that’s not the real reason), and what it’s really going to do is select for asexual or low-libido partners.

    Sam:

    I think you’re being reductive in your description of feminism as a single bloc; you’re effectively responding to my claim that voices outside the radfem fringe are being dismissed by saying that it’s “many, certainly not all” and then ignoring those other voices. I think there’s also an expectation (not just from you) for feminist discussion to be perfect at all times and never drag in harmful messages from the kyriarchic society in which we live, and that when those larger social messages creep in the proper response is to blame feminism for not having eradicated those messages.

  121. Sam says:

    jfpbookworm,

    I didn’t say feminism is a single bloc, I’m saying that I don’t hear a lot from the voices you’re saying are loud and clear – and when I’m hearing sex positive voices it’s usually from people who have significant issues with (their) feminism.

    “I think there’s also an expectation (not just from you) for feminist discussion to be perfect at all times”

    No, I just think that some awareness by feminists that their discourse isn’t perfect and they are fallible, too, would be a good thing.

  122. Motley says:

    @ typhonblue

    I think I stated pretty explicitly that it started with Christianity and Saint Augustine’s self hatred.

    Holy crap I thought I was the only one who ever noticed that. Seriously. I mean, it wasn’t something I really looked into much, but still. (And from you, of all people… given that you’re pretty much my exact opposite in most defining characteristics, that’s really weird.)

    I think our society is pretty down with the female-female intimacy in a way it isn’t with male-male.

    Y’know, I’ve never really looked at it thus before, but yeah. As long as there’s none of that filthy male sexuality involved, then everything’s fine. But gay men get extra hate, ’cause there’s twice as much of the evil kind of sexuality.

    As for feminists perpetuating negative attitudes towards men’s sexuality; I’ll leave that up to feminists to decide how much they’ve personally contributed to making men feel like shit about themselves sexually.

    Hmm. I don’t know much about sex-positive feminism, but I don’t think I’ve seen very many of ‘em voice any concern whatsoever about standard male sexuality, or their own attitudes toward it. Quite the opposite, actually; even having that thought is condemned (and dismissed as a “what about the menz?” argument). Pro – female sexuality, pro- alternative sexuality, but still coming across as totally on board with “normal males are all subhuman gross-nuggets.”

    (Also, I like the phrase. I think it and my own “fragile, sacred, proto-victim” terms are going to be things I keep.)

    @ W –

    There is so much overlap between the two things that it’s impossible to deny.

    Not that that stops anyone, unfortunately… Though I am still confused why a movement that wanted to get rid of all of the negatives of that half of the gender binary, but keep all the positives, ended up thinking of itself as an “equality” movement. (Though feminism itself does talk about how privilege is invisible to people who have it; I happen to agree. But I’m surprised and disappointed to note that it doesn’t seem to occur to mainstream feminism that female-privilege is as real as the male kind).

    Quick way to lose feminist friends: Treat ‘em the way you treat a guy (y’know, as equals) for a day or so. Tried this once.

    @ JFP –

    I think that under a narrative that men’s sexuality isn’t innately harmful to women, we should still be concerned about exploitative expressions of sexuality–in fact, we should be more concerned, and this is why some feminists (including me) have a problem with the pro-exploitation attitudes we see in the “seduction community.”

    I think the point was that, if you grant the simple fact that male sexuality isn’t inherently exploitative, then it becomes really hard to find anything that actually is exploitative about the SC. And even harder to find exploitative behavior on the part of the SC that isn’t mirrored by nigh-identical behavior on the other side. And criticism of tactics used by both sides is a criticism of the game, not criticism of a school teaching the rules of the game.

    If “men looking for sex” is not presupposed to be inherently more exploitative than “women looking for relationships,” criticism of the SC itself (at least, what I’ve seen so far) seems to completely fall apart.

    I disagree, both that that’s the primary objection and that that’s the way men talk about sex. In my experience as a man, it’s definitely *not* the way I talk about sex…

    Right, sorry. It’s a troublesome artifact of the circles with which I usually communicate (namely poli-stat) that I tend to assume that statements of trends will be interpreted as statements of trends, even when I don’t bother to include words like “tend to” or “usually.” So yeah, my fault.

    Unless you were already correctly interpreting my statement, but were claiming that one exception disproves a trend, or that you are all men… but I’m going to here assume that that’s not the case, as that’d be absurd.

    I’ll have to get back to you on the ad, once I get somewhere that I can watch videos. Provisionally, though, I’ll just point out that yes, the way guys have to talk about sex (since it’s inside the “gross-nugget” space) is problematic; but pointing that out really isn’t a criticism of the seduction community.

    This is the gender-flipped AU? Because I’d argue that we live in a society that thinks that both women’s *and* men’s sexualities are subhuman, only in different ways.

    If that were true, then there’d be no “men have to earn sex with women” narrative. If permitting women to enjoy men’s sexuality were seen as having the same value as the reverse, then our society would be very different.

    EDIT: (Hmm, a lot happened while I was writing that)

    @ Sam –

    well, I think the inter-gender discourse has some structural deficits that mostly have to do with lack of empathy on both sides and the feminist claim of an epistemic privilege for women in these matters, which leads many – certainly not all! – feminists to an attitude of (public) dismissal of male voices based on their axiomatic belief that *they* are the socially oppressed voice. Sadly, given that the gender discourse is happening largely in feminist spaces (online, and offline) many of them don’t seem to be aware that this debate is – if at all – largely happening on their terms.

    Yeah. The discrepancy between noticing the privilege of others, noticing that privilege is invisible to the ones who have it, and then not even considering the possibility of having privilege yourself… Wow.

    @ JFP –

    while a woman who expresses a desire for sex that’s not merely “reflective” (i.e., a woman who doesn’t “rise above it,” who admits to wanting sex and who takes initiative in finding partners) is seen as grotesque and abnormal…

    …That’s because, remember, that male sexuality is a gross and exploitative thing, so clearly anyone who actually wants that is abnormal.

    …which is to acknowledge that women are interested in sex as well, and that men shouldn’t have to settle for less than enthusiastic and reciprocal interest.

    and to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with normal male sexuality. This underlying assumption leads inevitably to the society we have. As long as the gross-nugget narrative stays, the rest is never going to budge. I really don’t think that “More freedom for women, less for men*” is going to be the solution here. At some point we have to stop pretending that all normal men are the villains of the story.

    *To put it differently: “Less social pressure on women” will not cause everyone to suddenly stop defining male sexuality as inherently exploitative. The reverse, though, might work.

  123. jfpbookworm says:

    Hmm. I don’t know much about sex-positive feminism, but I don’t think I’ve seen very many of ‘em voice any concern whatsoever about standard male sexuality, or their own attitudes toward it. Quite the opposite, actually; even having that thought is condemned (and dismissed as a “what about the menz?” argument). Pro – female sexuality, pro- alternative sexuality, but still coming across as totally on board with “normal males are all subhuman gross-nuggets.”

    I think it really depends where you look. Somewhere like figleaf’s is going to have a lot about male sexuality (I don’t know what “standard” means in this case), because that’s where he’s coming from. A sex-positive feminist whose focus is on reclaiming women’s sexuality as something that isn’t dependent on men’s validation probably *isn’t* going to say much about male sexuality, because they’re trying to get out from under that shadow. (Even then, I haven’t seen much in the way of the “gross-nugget” approach; it’s far more common to see posts about what they find attractive about men.)

    I think the point was that, if you grant the simple fact that male sexuality isn’t inherently exploitative, then it becomes really hard to find anything that actually is exploitative about the SC.

    No, not really. There’s still the policing of male sexuality (e.g., “this is what you should want,” “this is how you should talk about sex,” etc.), the perceived attitudes of “boundaries aren’t to be taken seriously” and “women are puzzles, trophies or goals, not people,” the battle-of-the-sexes framing, and the consequent impression that the SC doesn’t actually like or respect women all that much.

    In another discussion I read a while back, the distinction was drawn between “sex-positive” and “getting laid-positive.” The SC as it presents itself is definitely in the “getting laid-positive” camp.

    …and to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with normal male sexuality

    Of course there isn’t, and that narrative should be combated at every opportunity. On the other hand, I’ve seen a lot of effort to include attitudes like “women are here for my pleasure” or acts like cat-calling/wolf-whistling as part of “normal male sexuality,” and I’m not down with that. In fact, I’d say that one of the big factors in creating that “option 1 vs. option 2″ divide is that the *primary* models of male sexuality are entitlement-focused, boundary-transgressing, etc., to the point where men can’t imagine an expression of sexuality that doesn’t work that way.

  124. typhonblue says:

    JFP:

    A sex-positive feminist whose focus is on reclaiming women’s sexuality as something that isn’t dependent on men’s validation probably *isn’t* going to say much about male sexuality, because they’re trying to get out from under that shadow.

    Hm… and what about men who are trying to reclaim men’s sexuality as something not dependent on a woman’s validation?

    In fact, I’d say that one of the big factors in creating that “option 1 vs. option 2″ divide is that the *primary* models of male sexuality are entitlement-focused, boundary-transgressing, etc., to the point where men can’t imagine an expression of sexuality that doesn’t work that way

    Uh-uh-uh. I see what you did there.

    So how are men supposed to see their sexuality as not ‘entitlement-focused’ in a society where men take sex while women give? How are men supposed to see their sexuality as not ‘boundary-transgressive’ in a society where their sexuality degrades women?

    So we’re right back in the same problem. Men have two choices in a society that sees their sexuality as innately ‘entitlement-focused’ and ‘boundary-transgressing’.

    They can either live in shame or embrace it as a badge of honor.

    But I suppose that one day men woke up and said, ‘you know, for shits and giggles rather then seeing my sexuality as a benefit to women I’m going to start thinking of my sexuality as exploitative towards women. Oh, the fun that I shall have!’

  125. jfpbookworm says:

    Hm… and what about men who are trying to reclaim men’s sexuality as something not dependent on a woman’s validation?

    I wouldn’t expect them to talk about women’s sexuality either. (I also think they’ll have an easier time of it, because we don’t typically acknowledge women’s sexuality, just their sexiness.) Is this anything more than a gratuitous gender-flip?

    So how are men supposed to see their sexuality as not ‘entitlement-focused’ in a society where men take sex while women give? How are men supposed to see their sexuality as not ‘boundary-transgressive’ in a society where their sexuality degrades women?

    By not buying into that framing, and doing our damnedest to show that those aren’t the only options. That’s the whole fucking point. The message needs to be that het sex isn’t about “men taking what women give,” and that men’s sexual attraction to women is not inherently degrading. Tips on how to trick women into bed or into relationships (and without acknowledgment of women as sexual agents or men as potentially attractive, that’s what “seduction” boils down to) aren’t a substitute for that.

  126. Sonja says:

    “acts like cat-calling/wolf-whistling as part of “normal male sexuality”"

    Here’s something I really don’t understand. A lot of feminists talk about how this is sooo degrading and so on.

    Is the issue with giving voice to the appreciation of physical form, or is it that the physical form is being admired at all?

    Personally, if someone were admiring me, I would want to know about it. Not so I could tell them off for doing it, but to make me feel good about how I look and try to combat the perpetuated idea of what is beautiful at this time.

  127. Scipio Africanus says:

    Sonja,
    My undrstanding of the beef with catcalling is that it’s essentially sub-humanizing. I agree with that point.

    However, I *have* read and heard the sentiment that if a man checks a woman out, no matter how discreetly, he’s violating her somehow. This was big after one of those Super Bowl commercials aired where a guy is on a date with a woman who has a young son, checks her out as she walks into another room, only to be smacked by the young son and told to keep his hands off the child’s mother. The outcry was over the fact that he checked her out at all, irrepective of the fact that he thought no one could see him doing it. That’s ridiculous to me, and it’s a perfect illustration of vilifying normal het male sexual attraction and desire.

  128. Danny says:

    Sonja:

    Is the issue with giving voice to the appreciation of physical form, or is it that the physical form is being admired at all?

    Well I’ll give them enough credit to think that most of them are talking about the voice of appreciation itself. Its one thing to walk up to woman and tell her how attractive she is and try to start conversation. Its quite another to yell, “Hey baby do fries come with that shake?” Nothing wrong with admiring the form and nothing wrong with expressing the admiration in and of itself. Just so long as its in a respecatble manner.

    Or at least I hope that’s what they mean.

  129. jfpbookworm:

    In fact, I’d say that one of the big factors in creating that “option 1 vs. option 2″ divide is that the *primary* models of male sexuality are entitlement-focused, boundary-transgressing, etc., to the point where men can’t imagine an expression of sexuality that doesn’t work that way.

    Fairly typical internalised-feminist attitude that sees gender issues only in terms of how men are doing it wrong.

    “Boundary-transgressing” I can see, but it’s a bit of a nasty, blame-laden and accusatory way of saying “expected to initiate”. But “entitlement-focused”? Men desire sexual relations with women, and know that to get it we must pursue it, must be able to offer something more than the pleasure of sexual relations with us to be worthy of it, and more often than not will be rebuffed. Where’s the entitlement?

    Meanwhile, women assume they have the right to dictate the terms of all sexual interaction. They expect men to initiate, to pay, to entertain them, and to prove ourselves worthy of them. They expect relationships to develop on their terms and their timetable, and shame men who won’t do what’s expected of them as “commitment-phobic”. They expect a man to spend three months salary on a bit of jewellery to signal his commitment, and then expect a lavish wedding at which she is the centre of attention and he is barely involved. Thereafter, if the relationship fails, she expects him to be indefinitely obligated to her, but accepts no further obligation whatsoever to him.

    No. Like so many of the evils that feminists ascribe to men, “entitlement” is pure projection. Sadly, they’ve been unchallenged so long that many men, like yourself, internalise what is projected onto them.

  130. typhonblue says:

    Patrick;

    Fairly typical internalised-feminist attitude that sees gender issues only in terms of how men are doing it wrong.

    After having re-written what JFP wrote, I think it’s possible that we both mis-interpreted or at least, that what he originally wrote can be seen as ambiguous.

    Perhaps he means that current models are “entitlement-focused” precisely because society sees that men take sex while women give. Since men get something from sex, and women give, how is it possible to frame sex in any terms _but_ male entitlement?

  131. Typhonblue:

    Since men get something from sex, and women give, how is it possible to frame sex in any terms _but_ male entitlement?

    Nope, can’t see the logic in that at all. If men get something from sex, and women give, then men only get what women deign to give them, and women expect – are entitled to – things above and beyond sex in exchange.

  132. Motley says:

    Nope, can’t see the logic in that at all. If men get something from sex, and women give, then men only get what women deign to give them, and women expect – are entitled to – things above and beyond sex in exchange.

    …And people buying in to this notion will perceive a community that teaches men how to attract women well enough to get sex while giving only sex in return, as a horrible affront.

    Brief digression:
    I’m reminded of some (feminist, actually) author who discussed, quite rightly I think, of the ways in which privilege defends itself — that people who have privilege won’t be able to see a threat to that privilege for what it is (a step towards equality) but will instead see it as an unjust threat to their own well-being.

    Basically, the way a lot of white people during the civil-rights era perceived the appearance of black people at their lunch counters as an attack on white people, rather than as equality for black people.
    I suspect this is because of an innate tendency to want to believe that we have the advantages we have because we deserve them, rather than because the system unfairly favors us.

    Digression aside,

    @ JFP –

    There’s still the policing of male sexuality (e.g., “this is what you should want,” “this is how you should talk about sex,” etc.), the perceived attitudes of “boundaries aren’t to be taken seriously” and “women are puzzles, trophies or goals, not people,” the battle-of-the-sexes framing, and the consequent impression that the SC doesn’t actually like or respect women all that much.

    I really, really don’t think it’s valid to blame a community for traits that are nigh-omnipresent in our culture and that predate that community by centuries.

  133. Jim says:

    “Meanwhile, women assume they have the right to dictate the terms of all sexual interaction.”

    Even when that is between men! No women involved at all! I remember how gob-smacked I was when Qgrrl made some slighting remark about bath houses here a couple of years ago – nice stinking piece of homophobia and misandry there – in tangent to some other topic. The amazement at her presumption have never really left me. Entitlement mentality indeed.

    “No. Like so many of the evils that feminists ascribe to men, “entitlement” is pure projection. ”

    Poor Little Rich Girls. Spoiled White Women. The list goes on. And they spin the whole situation to make themselves look like the victims, because then the White Knights come out of the woodwork. And that is a general observation, not directed at you JFP.

  134. Shari says:

    I haven’t looked at this for days, but I’ll comment on the 90-day rule:

    I don’t think Harvey tells women to hide the fact they use that rule. And I think any guy is free to leave if he’s just not interested enough in the girl to wait and see if there’s something there. Maybe they aren’t even compatible, so it’s not much of a loss. I don’t know how many people will actually follow that rule, but it’s definitely going to sort out the guys who only want some fun really quick.

    Regarding having sex quickly…I do know research shows lasting relationships rarely begin with sex on a first date. So if your goal is an actual relationship at some point, it’s not the best route. Not sure about within the same week. But if you slept with every person you ever went out with (on a date), I would think your partner count would get really high and you’d have a lot of health concerns on your hands.

    Regarding initiation, my friends and I have determined things rarely go well if the woman approaches the man first. Sorry. If the guy is shy, we’ve seen it work out, but most of the time when we’ve pursued a guy, he hasn’t been very interested. If he were, he would have done something by then….sad but true. There are always exceptions, of course. I think the whole system is annoying for both parties!

    PB: I am not, not, not saying you have to have a strong emotional attachment to pursue a woman at all. It’s just a date/ask out/approach. That’s it. I have only advocated getting to know someone before you could potentially become parents together. That’s all. So no, I am not a supporter of hook up sex.

  135. HughRistik says:

    Shari said:

    Regarding initiation, my friends and I have determined things rarely go well if the woman approaches the man first. Sorry. If the guy is shy, we’ve seen it work out, but most of the time when we’ve pursued a guy, he hasn’t been very interested.

    I’ve heard women say this. I’ve also heard of women talking about successfully initiating with men, so I don’t know what conclusions to draw.

    I can think up a few other reasons why a woman might experience a bunch of rejections when trying out the role of initiator:

    1. If her sample size of approaches is low, then she may be having bad luck. There is a saying in the seduction community: “the first X approaches don’t count,” where X is 100, 500, or even 1000. The idea is that you have to do a certain amount of approaches for it to be comfortable and successful, and until then, you just have to suck up rejection and try to take your ego out of it. Women may have a learning curve, too.

    2. She is approaching guys who have a higher level of attractiveness (not just in looks), and who view her as “not in his league,” and are “just not that into her.”

    3. She is approaching a guy who is very attractive to women, and he already has plenty of female attention. This would be the case if it’s true that women try to “date up” in terms of attractiveness and status. Guys at the top are going to have lots of options.

    4. Men who are highly attractive to women might prefer to be the initiator, or find it unattractive when women initiate. The same psychology that causes them to be attractive to women could also be related to preferring the role of initiator.

    Since women are more selective than men, it is reasonable to speculate that when women find it worthwhile to approach men, those men are either at a higher percentile of male attractiveness than the women are of female attractiveness, or those men are a high percentile of male attractiveness where most women are focusing on.

    I would be surprised if women who approach men at their level of attractiveness and accomplishments, who aren’t chasing hypermasculine badboys with harems, and who put in a little bit of practice, are still getting rejected most of the time when they initiate.

  136. Shari:

    Regarding initiation, my friends and I have determined things rarely go well if the woman approaches the man first.

    That’s also true when the man approaches the woman first. The difference is, when it’s an obligation rather than an option, you just have to keep trying until it does go well, or resign yourself to a life of celibacy.

  137. HughRistik says:

    Sweating Through Fog said:

    On 9 I’d just point out that some language PUAs use reveals an attitude of contemptuous dismissal of the unworthy. I see a distinction in kind between someone who uses “target” and someone who uses “Dumpster Diving” for dating someone beneath you. Or just simply FUG. Terms like that bother me more.

    They bother me, too. I don’t hear those two used that much. But I have seen a lot of the term “warpig” for a “4 or below.”

    Motley said:

    Point 9 seems to be stating that just because you can interpret something in a problematic way, doesn’t actually mean that the most problematic possible interpretation is the correct one.

    I’d go so far as to say that “the most offensive way possible” is actually usually the wrong way to interpret a statement. Though it’s usually the way we want to go, ’cause everyone gets off on being offended.

    I certainly agree with this point in general. I see a lot of bias in criticisms of the seduction community where look at ideas with multiple possible interpretations, choose the most offensive one, and then place the burden on others to disprove the offense interpretation.

    For this particular case, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to read “contemptuous dismissal” into a term like “warpig” or “Fucking Ugly Girl.”

    Clarisse said:

    Now …. Are you thinking of starting some kind of feminist-friendly sub-seduction community? You’ve said before that you want to take the good bits of the SC and leave the rest, but what are you planning to take them for? Are you going to start a dating advice company or something? Do you have a larger purpose to trying to cross-pollinate feminists and the seduction community? It’s okay if you’re just doing it because it’s theoretically fun, but I’m curious to know if there’s a Next Step.

    I wish I could say that I have some sort of master plan, but I really haven’t thought that far. I don’t consider myself qualified to start a dating advice company yet (maybe in a few years), though I am mentoring a few people.

    What has prompted my recent posting is that I don’t like seeing feminists unfairly trashing the seduction community. I share a lot of particular feminist criticisms, as you can see from my list. Though my view of the big picture is different. I think that if we toss out a number of particular objectionable ideas/techniques, translate PUA language into mundane language, and recognize the necessity of certain types of “fake it ’til you make it” conversational aids, there is still a lot of positive and useful stuff left. In my view, most problems with the seduction community fall into the weird but harmless category. My other two common objections are not that a particular tactic or mindset is actively unethical, but that they create (a) a negative and undesirable interaction, or (b) they have a worse cost-benefit ratio than another tactic or mindset.

    For example, PUAs often use forms of combative teasing, and “cocky/funny” to generate attraction in women. While such behavior is attractive to many women, it has the downside that it can inhibit rapport and connection when done wrong, or even when done right. Some male and female personalities can have enjoyable and positive interactions that consist entirely of verbal sparring, but this isn’t the case for many people.

    Is it actually unethical to tease the heck out of a woman? No. Is it “manipulative”? No (to me, “manipulation” means “unethical social influence”). I learned a lot of social skills from learning how to do cocky teasing. But eventually I realized that there were other ways to attract women that felt more congruent with my personality, and I gravitated towards them instead.

    At a broad level, there is a similarity between feminism and the seduction community, in that both seem to want to teach men to fulfill women’s mating criteria, and be people that women want to have enthusiastic, consensual sex with.

  138. @typhonblue — If we want to start changing girl’s adversarial attitudes towards dating, even in the short term, do you think it’s better to talk about how they shouldn’t disrespect boys by framing sexual relationships with them in terms of ‘tricking’ or do you think it’s better to suggest to them that they’re disrespecting _themselves_ by seeing their sexuality as something boys need to be ‘tricked’ into sharing?

    Interesting framing. I’ll probably filch it sometime.

    It seems that society thinks men should take responsibility for women’s ‘hope’ that certain behaviors indicate the possibility of a relationship when they don’t.

    In fairness, society also thinks that women should do the same with men. That’s where we get the “short skirt” argument, and that’s also where we get a lot of the bitching from Nice Guys ™.

    @Sam — I have to say, I wonder what “inside” and “outside” means in that respect

    Good point. It could be seen as kind of unfair of me to talk about the SC as negative and then take critiques I consider positive and say, “well, those are outside the SC”. But I believe that the guy at datinggroundwork, for example, has explicitly stated himself that he sees himself as outside the SC, and furthermore has encouraged people (and cited encouragement from within the SC) to basically dash into the community, grab what they need, and get out.

    @Sonja — Here’s something I really don’t understand. A lot of feminists talk about how this is sooo degrading and so on.

    It’s super contextual, I think. If a friend of mine wolf-whistled at me after I dressed up for a party, then I’d feel pleased that he complimented my appearance. It’s even okay with me if I’m walking through NYC in broad daylight, with a friend, and a construction worker flashes me a friendly smile and wolf-whistles. In cases like that, I just smile and give a thumbs-up.

    The problem starts when you have women who are alone, in unfamiliar territory, being heckled by unfamiliar men, particularly if they are trying to avoid attention. Yes, granted, part of the problem is that male sexuality is seen as threatening, and yes, granted, this sucks for men. But given that members of our society know that lone women constantly have to watch our backs, be careful, fear for our safety, etc. — and given that overt expressions of male sexuality are widely known to be considered threatening outside the proper context — yes, I do consider it to actively be an asshole move for a man to (for example) wolf-whistle at me when I’m walking home alone from the Chicago Red Line.

    And by the way, street harassment goes WAY up when I’m in unfamiliar neighborhoods (or countries — I live in Africa) where I obviously stand out because I’m white. I DO NOT BUY that it goes up because guys are more attracted to me in these places. I am positive that it goes up because these guys are partly specifically trying to point out that I don’t belong, that I’m threatened, that I shouldn’t be there and would run if I knew what was good for me. I used to volunteer in a really bad neighborhood on the Chicago South Side, and I recall that once the street harassment got to me such that I couldn’t ignore it, but I didn’t want to flip out angrily — so I just turned around and smiled sweetly at the guy. “Sorry,” I said, “I have a boyfriend.” He looked stunned, then embarrassed, and he apologized. “Aw,” he said, “you’re nice.” If he’d legitimately been trying to express a harmless attraction, then he would never have felt ashamed at his actions once he figured out that I’m “nice”.

    @Hugh — In terms of initiating, I can attest that from my own experience of trying to initiate (I’ve done some small-scale “approaching people experiments” in my time — this was usually in my teens though) that I probably tended to be more successful than a man would, but that before I tried my “approaching people experiment” I had to brace myself for the potential of really scary attention. I am reminded of a guy I started talking to on the subway once about a totally unrelated subject (marmosets) who changed the subject, halfway through the conversation, to how hot my breasts looked when I came down the escalator.

    I wish I could say that I have some sort of master plan, but I really haven’t thought that far. I don’t consider myself qualified to start a dating advice company yet (maybe in a few years), though I am mentoring a few people.

    Well, let me know when you do. The PUA I knew in Chicago and I chatted a couple times about trying to do an advice column or something together, but it didn’t have a chance to materialize before I left the country … that’s the kind of collaboration I could see you doing really well with sex-positive feminists.

    I don’t have much to add to the feminist perspectives in this thread (esp. jfpbookworm) except that I agree with most of what they’re saying. Again, this isn’t to say that I don’t acknowledge the difficulties men face, but I do think that these feminist perspectives are reasonable.

  139. Motley says:

    @ jfpbookworm –

    In another discussion I read a while back, the distinction was drawn between “sex-positive” and “getting laid-positive.” The SC as it presents itself is definitely in the “getting laid-positive” camp.

    What, exactly, is wrong with “getting laid-positive”?
    (Yeah, I know it’s because it’s framed as some variant on “Because it’s what men want and not what women want.” Care to establish why “what men want” is evil, and what women want is not?)

    This is another “men’s sex drive is evil” “criticism.” Those are invalid, because (and this is important): there is nothing wrong with normal male sexuality.

    I’m a little confused, not just here but in general, as feminism in general and you in specific seem willing to acknowledge this, but then seem to base all judgments on the opposite assumption.

    To clarify: If you’re going to call a man’s behavior “exploitative” you need to provide some kind of reason for that other than the fact that he’s trying to get laid, if you actually believe that sex isn’t inherently exploitative.

    @ Hugh -

    For this particular case, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to read “contemptuous dismissal” into a term like “warpig” or “Fucking Ugly Girl.”

    …and that would be a valid criticism of the seduction community, I think, if contemptuous dismissal were an invention of that community, or if it were a unique practice of that community, or indeed anything other than a universal tendency of humans.*

    I think it’s important to refrain from mistaking criticisms of human interaction as a whole for criticisms of the seduction community (this is the same reasoning behind my criticism of jfpbookworm’s blaming the SC for things in Shakespeare).

    *Unless you’re saying this is more common in the SC than in society in general; I haven’t seen anything at all that would give that impression (it’s really common in society-in-general), but you’d know more about the seduction community than I do.

    (to me, “manipulation” means “unethical social influence”).

    Oh!
    ….a lot of things you’ve said, make more sense now.

    @ Clarisse -

    That’s where we get the “short skirt” argument, and that’s also where we get a lot of the bitching from Nice Guys ™.

    The distinction here is that Nice Guys have spent a lifetime having women tell them that behaving in a certain manner will attract women. In the same way that men would be responsible for women’s false hopes if we nigh-universally told women that our sexual interest always, always indicated an interest in a relationship. The bitching of Nice Guys comes from a sense of betrayal, and a justified one (since he’s discovering that the thing feminists have told him his whole life turns out to be patently false, that “politically correct” and “attractive” turn out not to be the same thing at all).

    If he’d legitimately been trying to express a harmless attraction, then he would never have felt ashamed at his actions once he figured out that I’m “nice”.

    He’d also feel such shame if he’d been conditioned from birth to believe that male attraction can never be harmless.

    Which, as it happens, is exactly what our culture does.

  140. jfpbookworm says:

    Patrick Brown: Either my connotations aren’t as clear as I thought, or you’re being disingenuous and trying to map what I say onto your preceonceptions of feminism.

    The point isn’t “men are doing it wrong.” The point is “men are expected to do it wrong.” A lot of men, in fact, *aren’t* doing it wrong, but they’re having to go against social narratives to do so; a lot of other men are stuck because they don’t have any model about how to do it *right*.

    “Boundary-transgressing” is emphatically *not* “expected to initiate,” and I don’t even know how the two could be synonymous. It’s not about who talks first, it’s about the idea that the typical heterosexual narrative is a man convincing a woman who doesn’t want sex to change her mind, rather than a man propositioning a woman who enthusiastically takes him up on it.

    “We must be able to offer something more than the pleasure of sexual relations with us to be worthy of it.” This is the problem: no, in fact, you *don’t* need to be able to offer more than that. What happens is that guys buy into this to the point where it becomes all about proving themselves worthy and the whole idea of sexual relations being mutually pleasurable becomes secondary at best. (And then the “nice guy” who’s been trying so hard to prove himself worthy gets bitter about the “jerk” who only offers sexual pleasure.)

    typhonblue: Yes, that’s much closer to what I meant by entitlement-focused; it’s that the whole framing is that heterosexual sex is by women, for men. (And I shouldn’t even have to point out that this framing is *wrong* – not in an “ought” sense, but in an “is” sense.)

    Motley:

    I really, really don’t think it’s valid to blame a community for traits that are nigh-omnipresent in our culture and that predate that community by centuries.

    This is a fair comment, though I’d point out it applies equally as well to feminism. For instance, the idea that male attraction can never be harmless well predates feminism, but it’s feminists that get blamed in discussions like these. (That’s one of the things that’s so frustrating about this; it’s all infighting between men and women, pickup artists and feminists, when there’s this big kyriarchy in the room that’s dragging *everybody* down.)

    Shari: If you’re not interested in “hook up sex,” that’s fine, but I’m dubious about the research about a negative causation between “sex on a first date” and “lasting relationships.” For one thing, sexual relationships that no party intends to be “lasting” (and why should they, if that’s not what they want?) will confound the results. I’m also a bit put off by the normativity about what relationship people are implicitly supposed to want. (FWB is “real” even

    If the guy is shy, we’ve seen it work out, but most of the time when we’ve pursued a guy, he hasn’t been very interested. If he were, he would have done something by then….sad but true.

    There’s an obvious selection bias here. You’re comparing the sample of guys you approach because you’re attracted to them (who may or may not be attracted to you), with the sample of guys who approach you because they’re attracted to you (while you may or may not be attracted to them), but using attraction to you, not mutual attraction, as the criterion for success. Of course they guys who approach you are more likely to be interested in you, or else why would they approach you?

    In my social circle, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of discouragement of women approaching men. (Possibly because a lot of the men are clueless geeks, and if women waited to be approached they’d be waiting forever.)

    Motley again:

    What’s wrong with “getting-laid-positive” is not that it’s “what men want and not what women want”; it feels like you’re being disingenuous here. Hell, it’s not even so much that “getting-laid-positive” is wrong as just that it’s *not* as sex-positive as it claims to be, and it has a morally neutral self-focus. (Though when it casts people who turn down to a sexual proposition as prudes, uptight, repressed, etc., and tries to pressure people into doing things they don’t want, then it crosses the line into unethicality.)

  141. Clarence says:

    Motley:

    About Nice Guys:

    Clarisse used the trademark signature, indicating she was talking about the manipulative frauds, not the shy , clueless or easily -taken advantage of real nice guys.

    Your larger point about the societal messages does stand, but there are differences between people putting on a mask of behaviour for an ulterior motive and someone like me, who naively took these messages to heart for years and years of my life.

    I think my advice earlier about how a “niceguy” treats people in general is good advice to separating the frauds from the real ones, but that’s a bit off-topic at this point.

  142. Clarence says:

    jfp:

    Feminism gets the blame because it is the activist and political arms of the feminist movement that have helped to put into place many of these “neo-victorian” laws. Sure, they may have taken advantage of a strategic alliance between them and certain types of religious and conservative political thought, but in almost all cases it was a feminist who came up with the proposed legislation or brought “the problem” (lets not argue which problems feminists think women face are real and which aren’t ok?) to the attention of the legislators. Practically the whole of US sexual harrasment law can be traced back to the writings and lobbying of one person, Catherine McKinnon. And despite conservative religions demonizations of male sexuality (not that they are much better with female sexuality mind you) to my knowledge no religious or conservative thinker ever came up with “all heterosexual sex is rape”, which is indeed a fair reading of some radicals like Dworkin.

    Then we have the “yes means yes” movement which sounds so good on paper but still seems to be mostly focused on rape when you to their websites or read their books and complains about behaviours such as a leprachaun hat on halloween.

    It was, once again, a feminist activist who declared “the personal is political” and another who declared “women need men like pigs need bicycles”. I’m afraid most of the blame placed on feminism is fair. It lost its way when it got through most of its earlier easier victories and true radicals took over.

  143. Sam says:

    jfpbookworm,

    “In another discussion I read a while back, the distinction was drawn between “sex-positive” and “getting laid-positive.” The SC as it presents itself is definitely in the “getting laid-positive” camp.”

    I think Motley has a point here – check out, say, feministing.com and you’ll find passionate articles defending a woman’s right to hook up. It’s ok when women are “getting laid” positive, but it’s problematic when men are. I’d call that a double standard.

  144. Motley says:

    @ Clarence –

    Clarisse used the trademark signature, indicating she was talking about the manipulative frauds, not the shy , clueless or easily -taken advantage of real nice guys.

    That’s what I meant by the capitalization. “Nice Guys” refers to the mythical “manipulative fraud,” while “nice guys” is how I refer to guys who are nice. The difference between the two consists largely of projection and bitterness (the bitterness being what makes nice guys into Nice Guys when they realize how false the “just be nice” advice is).

    Your larger point about the societal messages does stand, but there are differences between people putting on a mask of behaviour for an ulterior motive and someone like me, who naively took these messages to heart for years and years of my life.

    I think I’ll call “myth” on this one. People we like, who do this, are just nice guys who’ve gotten some bad advice, people we dislike are “manipulative frauds” for believing that same advice.
    Nope, it’s all the same. They do the same thing for the same reason; whether we like ‘em or not doesn’t actually change their motives. (some of ‘em are also jerks, too, but that doesn’t have anything to do with anything.)

  145. jfpbookworm says:

    I think Motley has a point here – check out, say, feministing.com and you’ll find passionate articles defending a woman’s right to hook up. It’s ok when women are “getting laid” positive, but it’s problematic when men are. I’d call that a double standard.

    Feministing isn’t on my list of “read every article” from. Have they actually said it’s problematic when men hook up? I don’t recall ever seeing that.

    Saying that coercing a partner into sex is something different. In fact, the last post I read there was this user-contributed post about a female friend having coerced her boyfriend into sex, and how she wasn’t sure if this was problematic. She got called out for this double standard both in the comments (though, alas, not unanimously; it tends to read like a lot of the other discussions about sexual coercion, actually) and in several other bloggers’ posts on the topic.

  146. Danny says:

    jpf:

    This is a fair comment, though I’d point out it applies equally as well to feminism. For instance, the idea that male attraction can never be harmless well predates feminism, but it’s feminists that get blamed in discussions like these.

    I think part of the reason they get that blame is because feminists posture themselves as fighting these presumptions, stereotypes, etc…. (and in some case as “the ones” as if they are the only ones doing so) but will then turn around and ignore and in some cases defend and indulge in those very same stereotypes, presumptions, stereotypes. Such hypocrisy is not unique but that nonuniqueness does not give them a pass to do so.

    (That’s one of the things that’s so frustrating about this; it’s all infighting between men and women, pickup artists and feminists, when there’s this big kyriarchy in the room that’s dragging *everybody* down.)
    It seems to me that part of the reason that people can’t see that its a kyriarchy in effect is because they have their minds set on who the enemy is. As far as many feminists are concerned we live in patriarchy as if the binding linking between the evils that ail us is male gender. Yes there are some bad men out there but they are a small portion of the male population. (Bonus question: How is it that a small subset of men coming down on men and women alike to maintain their own power are enough to call it a patriarchy but a small subset of feminists that support misandrist tactics in the name of women’s liberation are not enough to label the movement as evil?)

  147. jfpbookworm says:

    I’m not going to 101 over what people mean by patriarchy; it’s not relevant, and it’s not a term that anyone identifying as a feminist has even used in this thread.

    This is turning back into the generic FC “defend everything any feminist has said, ever, including things that they didn’t actually say” (crossed with “why won’t feminists focus on *my* issues?” and “how dare feminists absorb the culture in which they live? What are they, human?”). You want to perpetuate the eternal thread about how feminism is evil, feel free, but don’t expect it to ever get anywhere.

    There doesn’t actually seem to be disagreement here that there are really toxic narratives about men’s sexuality that need to be countered. But instead of asking “what should we do about this?” (which we may still disagree on), it’s all about “who can we blame for this?” And that’s fucking tragic.

  148. Motley says:

    “how dare feminists absorb the culture in which they live? What are they, human?”

    Well, for my part, I was mostly just trying to get you to notice that this was a lot of what you were criticizing the SC for…

  149. Sam says:

    jfp,

    I now read the context of your quote up-thread because your reply made me think I was missing something… Fair enough. It’s bad phrasing though. There’s nothing inherently wrong with getting laid, so using “getting laid positive” in a negative way is a bad way to express what I think you’d like to express, and instead reinforces negative stereotypes about male sexuality.

  150. Danny says:

    jfp:

    There doesn’t actually seem to be disagreement here that there are really toxic narratives about men’s sexuality that need to be countered. But instead of asking “what should we do about this?” (which we may still disagree on), it’s all about “who can we blame for this?” And that’s fucking tragic.

    I’d like to move on to what to do about it as well but that will never happen as long as the blame game continues and each side is expecting the others to cease fire and let them alone continue (and its not “why won’t feminists focus on *my* issues?” its more “why do feminists insist on speaking on the issues that affect me as if they are the the final authority on them?” to be exact) with aggression.

    You’re right its an ugly standoff but until everyone can put their guns down (instead of expecting everyone else to disarm while keeping their own) the blame game will continue. I’ll even go on to say that figuring out why everyone is armed in the first place is a good place to start with ending the hostilities. Hence my questioning.

  151. Clarence says:

    Danny:

    I hate to sound all marxist and all, but really would you posit the SC and even the MRA’s as being “similarily situated” in terms of political and cultural power?

    Because if they are not then blaming feminism for some of this stuff makes perfect sense -not because of WHO THEY ARE – or even THE PHILOSOPHY ITSSELF – but because of WHAT THEY’VE DONE. Not shouting. Emphasizing.

    Depending on what aspect of “toxic narratives about men’s sexuality” you wish to talk about you can often find a feminist hand either behind it, or perpetuating it. And yet JFP won’t I’m sure publically disavow NOW or the National Feminist Lawyers Guild for something and say “That’s not MY feminism”, now will he?

    No, many feminists on the ground- Clarisse for example- have nothing to do with spreading these memes nor do they support them. And not every negative aspect of male sexuality can be laid at the feet of feminist organizations. Some of it did indeed predate any modern gender movement, indeed any modern political state.

    But often, proclaimed feminists or proclaimed feminist organizations are indeed shoring these stereotypes up where it suits them – See for example just about ANY domestic violence campaign – or inventing new ones. For example the “yes means yes” idea which seems to have been put together using bits and pieces from some of the old stereotypes of male sexuality and seems prone to be yet merely another vehicle to try to control the “dangerous” sexuality of men and fit it into a feminist narrative. Like I say, writing on the wall when one can complain about a silly hat.

    Until that stuff is fixed, until parts of the feminist legal communities and domestic violence organizations are repudiated publically by a sizeable group of feminists , I say the blame is fairly opportuned even if not in this particular thread with this particular group of feminists.

  152. Clarence says:

    OPPORTIONED. *blame is fairly divided*

    Can’t edit my previous comment because the darn AJAX application is broke and continiously scrolls back up, never letting one edit the bottom of the post.

    Frustrating.

  153. typhonblue says:

    I’d like to expand on a point made by Motley which I will now title Motley’s Law. You can’t blame a subculture for a dynamic that’s also present in the larger culture.

    When I point out X dynamic that exists in the larger culture(which SC is a part), I’m not doing it to pass blame, but to point out Motley’s Law is in effect.

    STF:

    On 9 I’d just point out that some language PUAs use reveals an attitude of contemptuous dismissal of the unworthy.

    Motley’s Law. I’ve commonly heard women, in public places, contemptuously dismiss men they found ‘unacceptable’. Usually calling these men ‘bums’. (See also: stupid-man ads and other ubiquitous male-bashing in old media.)

    The SC did not invent being shitty to the opposite sex; it inherited a well developed dynamic of being shitty to the opposite sex from society.

    JFP:

    For instance, the idea that male attraction can never be harmless well predates feminism, but it’s feminists that get blamed in discussions like these.

    In honor of this I’m going to propose an addendum.

    Typhon’s Addendum to Motley’s Law: A subculture is not responsible for a dynamic also present in the larger culture, unless one of its foundational principles is to change that dynamic.

    As far as I can tell feminism explicitly stated that it is about changing the gender status quo to create ‘equality’.

    Here’s the thing. When feminists get blamed for only addressing the female side–slut shaming–while perpetuating the social attitude that ‘male sexuality is gross-nuggets’, it’s not because they’re responsible for having created the overall dynamic, which they are not, it’s because they bill themselves as a movement for ‘equality.’ (Which, as far as I understood, was about Ending This Stupid Crap. Or ETSC for short.*)

    If they really meant ‘equality just for women’, fine. But, to be honest, I find that revelation bone-chilling because how do you know when things are equal if you’re only measuring one side.

    Clarisse:

    I am positive that it goes up because these guys are partly specifically trying to point out that I don’t belong, that I’m threatened, that I shouldn’t be there and would run if I knew what was good for me.

    I’m going to reveal a man-secret to you. Guys also feel afraid when they’re in environments where they are exhibiting obvious cultural mis-match with the indigenous. In fact guys should be _more_ afraid because they’re more likely to be left to die in a puddle of their own piss, shit and blood in such environments.

    No-one really knows the relative danger for men or women for being sexually attacked in these environments either, because men don’t disclose. Some men seem to be very aware of this possibility; one man I know fought off several knife wielding assailants (in Brazil) because he knew they weren’t going to ‘just take his money and leave’.

    I used to volunteer in a really bad neighborhood on the Chicago South Side, and I recall that once the street harassment got to me such that I couldn’t ignore it, but I didn’t want to flip out angrily — so I just turned around and smiled sweetly at the guy.

    Another man-secret. He was harassing you because he’s used to higher class women treating him like he’s invisible; much like royalty would to a peasant. He wanted to make himself visible to you, to prove that he exists, in whatever way he could, including abusive language. When you responded to his bitchiness with a polite affirmation of his humanity, he felt like shit because you proved you weren’t ‘one of those upper-class snobs’ and thus his bitchiness was misdirected.

    Also, he was engaging his monkey brain and not his lizard brain around a potentially vulnerable person, so likely not a sexual predator.

    I had to brace myself for the potential of really scary attention. I am reminded of a guy I started talking to on the subway once about a totally unrelated subject (marmosets) who changed the subject, halfway through the conversation, to how hot my breasts looked when I came down the escalator.

    Scary? Awkward, yes. But scary? Aren’t marmoset’s marsupials? That’s quite the mental leap he made there from marsupials to the secondary sex characteristics of placental mammals.

    JFP again:

    (Though when it casts people who turn down to a sexual proposition as prudes, uptight, repressed, etc., and tries to pressure people into doing things they don’t want, then it crosses the line into unethicality.)

    Take a look at this:

    http://www.rooshv.com/brazilian-guy-game

    A bunch of north american PUAs basically trash bazilian guys for being ‘cavemen’ or too aggressive.

    In PUA parlance, a ‘caveman’ is a man who pressures women into having sex, rather then seducing her into desiring sex. They seem to have great contempt for such tactics.

    This is excellent. If I’m going to be propositioned, I’d rather be propositioned by someone who thinks using high-pressure and even physical pressure in the complete absence of signs of reciprocal interest in the woman in question is beneath him.

    The more I read the more I get the sense that the SC can be summed up like this: using behavioral cues to create arousal in women with the ultimate goal of said women initiating sex.

    Wow. Beauty.

    * Anyone else want to join my Ending This Stupid Crap movement and become an ETSCer?

  154. jfpbookworm says:

    Clarence:

    And yet JFP won’t I’m sure publically disavow NOW or the National Feminist Lawyers Guild for something and say “That’s not MY feminism”, now will he?

    STOP DOING THIS.

    I don’t tell you what you think, or pretend you said something just because I think it’s the kind of thing you’d say.

    Frankly, it’s *not* my feminism. I’m of the mind that NOW is a bunch of boomers trying to retain clout as The Voice of Feminism that they haven’t deserved for a long time, and the way individual chapters of NOW tried to leverage the name as they went PUMA back in 2008 underscored that. And I’ve never even heard of National Feminist Lawyers Guild (and neither has Google). They’re certainly not central to my feminism.

    I keep hearing that “Yes Means Yes” – which is, honestly, the closest thing I’ve encountered to this feminist-friendly dating advice we’re claiming to be looking for – is really all about calling men rapists and “controlling” them. WTF? (If it’s about rape because rape is sexual behavior without consent, then it’s also about great sex because great sex has enthusiastic consent.)

    typhonblue:

    Your “corollary” makes no sense to me. Feminism has an ethical responsibility that SC doesn’t, because SC doesn’t even try? Anyone who slips up in social justice work becomes the person to blame for injustice?

    Cop-out.

    And your example strikes me as the equivalent of the folks who say feminists should STFU as long as things are worse in the Middle East or other places.

    EDIT: I actually was way too lenient. That post had plenty of examples of the sort of problems people have with SC, beginning with the whole “getting bangs” approach, the whole “salesman” paradigm with sex as something women are to be convinced to part with, and the cultural elitism that makes the folks on that thread look like creepy sex tourists. This shit isn’t incidental; you can’t just say “well there’s some good ideas buried in there” and ignore all the toxicity around it.

  155. Danny says:

    jpf:

    Anyone who slips up in social justice work becomes the person to blame for injustice?

    They aren’t to blame for the injustice itself they are to blame for their hypocrisy of claiming to be about ending injustice for a group (in their call all people) but then do things that contradict that claim. And if their contradiction does support that injustice then yes they should be blamed for at least perpetuating that injustice.

  156. jfpbookworm says:

    Danny: There’s a difference between calling someone out for doing things which perpetuate injustice, which is a useful thing to do, and claiming that trying to remedy it and falling short means they’re the ones to blame for it, which is a bullshit derailing tactic.

    I’m coming to the conclusion that this was a loaded discussion from the start, given the way it keeps veering from “how do we provide positive examples of male sexuality?” to “the lack of positive examples is feminists’ fault!”

    I’m still convinced that promoting positive examples of male sexuality is necessary. I just don’t think this can be the place for it.

  157. Sam says:

    jfp,

    “I’m still convinced that promoting positive examples of male sexuality is necessary. I just don’t think this can be the place for it.”

    Well, what place do you have in mind?

  158. I still agree with JFP. In particular ….

    @Motley — This is another “men’s sex drive is evil” “criticism.” Those are invalid, because (and this is important): there is nothing wrong with normal male sexuality.
    I’m a little confused, not just here but in general, as feminism in general and you in specific seem willing to acknowledge this, but then seem to base all judgments on the opposite assumption.

    I want to highlight this earlier paragraph from JFP:

    I think that under a narrative that men’s sexuality isn’t innately harmful to women, we should still be concerned about exploitative expressions of sexuality–in fact, we should be more concerned, and this is why some feminists (including me) have a problem with the pro-exploitation attitudes we see in the “seduction community.”

    And add this, which I thought JFP had said at some point, but I can’t find it now:

    If we acknowledge that there is a stereotype of men’s sexuality as exploitative — and we obviously do — then we have to acknowledge that not only will women genuinely feel exploited in certain circumstances that play into the stereotype, but also that men will genuinely feel that they are exploiting women in those same circumstances.

    I agree that male sexuality shouldn’t be popularly framed as an exploitative thing. But it is. And we can’t erase that context and pretend it doesn’t exist, just because we don’t want it to exist. Which means that as long as men choose to act within the exploitative framework in a traditionally “exploitative” way, their actions will be problematic. (As will women’s when they take advantage of the same framework in their own ways, such as by disrespecting men’s boundaries because they know men’s resistance will be written off because men are “always up for it”.)

    @Clarence — Then we have the “yes means yes” movement which sounds so good on paper but still seems to be mostly focused on rape when you to their websites or read their books and complains about behaviours such as a leprachaun hat on halloween.

    … Leprechaun hat? Are you referring to the Christmas mistletoe hat? Because if that’s what you’re referring to, then, wow, way to disappear the entire actual argument about why the hat was weird and problematic.

    @typhonblue — I’m going to reveal a man-secret to you. Guys also feel afraid when they’re in environments where they are exhibiting obvious cultural mis-match with the indigenous.

    Okay. But my point is that street harassment, sexually-themed, is one particular weapon used to make me feel anxious and out of place in these environments. I was noting this because there was a comment about how someone couldn’t understand how street harassment could seem problematic. Men, even men with obvious cultural mismatch, don’t get the same kind of harassment, at least not in areas I’ve experienced.

  159. Jim says:

    “For instance, the idea that male attraction can never be harmless well predates feminism, but it’s feminists that get blamed in discussions like these.”

    This is a misrepresentation. Feminism gets blamed here for moralistically claiming to oppose this trope and then utilizing it in its activism and legislative advocacy.

    “Feminism has an ethical responsibility that SC doesn’t, because SC doesn’t even try?’

    What I hear TB saying is that feminism has a responsiblity to put up or shut up. Either it opposes traditional gender dynamics or not. It’s that simple. The SC does not claim to do that, but in fatc may be doing it more effectually.

    “I’m still convinced that promoting positive examples of male sexuality is necessary. I just don’t think this can be the place for it.”

    I think a more reasonable conclusion is that feminism is not the means for it rather than FC not being the place for it. Feminism either can not or simply has not made any useful contribution to this effort. Fifty years of failure is enough. If that failure turns out upon firther analysis to in fact be due to its own counter-productive doctrines, then so much the worse. That si the point of that lobe of the discussion.

    Clarisse,
    “Men, even men with obvious cultural mismatch, don’t get the same kind of harassment, at least not in areas I’ve experienced.”

    We get the same shit, but the key difference is that it is not expressed in sexual terms. It is typically epxressed in threats of overt physical violence. The psychological net result is probably exactly the same.

  160. Scipio Africanus says:

    Clarisse,

    Men, even men with obvious cultural mismatch, don’t get the same kind of harassment, at least not in areas I’ve experienced.

    To your mind, would the threat of getting physically attacked in general (what any given man in this situation could very well be faced with) qualify? I note you say “same kind”, so I’m asking.

  161. Danny says:

    jfp:

    Danny: There’s a difference between calling someone out for doing things which perpetuate injustice, which is a useful thing to do, and claiming that trying to remedy it and falling short means they’re the ones to blame for it, which is a bullshit derailing tactic.

    Yes there is a difference but I have to honestly wonder if they were really trying and slipped up or were they double speaking from the get go on some of those subjects. And given how they react to attempts to point out their slipups the answer starts to show on its own.

    So on to positive male sexuality. As has been pointed out we have a serious problem with male sexuality being demonized in just about every way possible. It wouldn’t be so bad if it were just as matter of bad behaviors being associated with male sexuality. Problem is male sexuality in and of itself, not just the behaviors but the very thing itself, has been characterized as bad. I’m talking “male sexuality = bad” here. This is why there are regulations on some airlines that say men (not any passengers, just men) will be asked to move if they are next to an unaccompanied child and men that take pictures of their own children playing may get the cops called on them.

    I would presonally like to see the day when male sexuality isn’t inherently bad or good. Good or bad you will end up with a set of limiting and sexist presumptions (what we have now are people assuming male sexuality is bad, if the presumption was changed to good you would likely end up with a repeat of the way female sexuality is treated now, something pure, holy, and on a pedastal so that it can be protected at all costs). I think its best left up to trying to just one’s sexuality on an individual basis.

    So how does one balance a scale? Pull out positive examples. And truth be told just like I can’t think of any inherently bad examples of male sexuality (oh I can think of plenty of things about male sexuality that can used in bad ways but doesn’t mean those things are bad in and of themselves) I can’t think of any inherently good examples of it either.

  162. Motley says:

    EDIT: Gah! Jim types a lot faster than me!

    @ typhonblue –

    …which I will now title Motley’s Law.

    I’m flattered :)

    I’m going to reveal a man-secret to you…

    …yeah.

    This one, though, I don’t necessarily agree with:

    Also, he was engaging his monkey brain and not his lizard brain around a potentially vulnerable person, so likely not a sexual predator.

    I don’t think monkey-brain activity is much of an indicator of harmlessness… most violence is done by normal people, with fully-functional monkey-brains.

    and

    Scary? Awkward, yes. But scary? Aren’t marmoset’s marsupials? That’s quite the mental leap he made there from marsupials to the secondary sex characteristics of placental mammals.

    I dunno… still sounds pretty creepy-weird to me.

    @ jfpbookworm:

    Clarence:

    “And yet JFP won’t I’m sure publically disavow NOW or the National Feminist Lawyers Guild for something and say “That’s not MY feminism”, now will he?”

    STOP DOING THIS.

    I don’t tell you what you think, or pretend you said something just because I think it’s the kind of thing you’d say.

    Frankly, it’s *not* my feminism.

    HA!
    Nah, he wasn’t doing any of those things, man, he was predicting something you’d say, and doing it correctly.
    If it’s a joke, though: well played, well played.

    Feminism has an ethical responsibility that SC doesn’t, because SC doesn’t even try? Anyone who slips up in social justice work becomes the person to blame for injustice?

    Nope; “social justice movements” don’t get slack for causing more of the particular type of social injustice that they allegedly exist to prevent. Things that aren’t social justice movements – like the seduction community, or your local auto mechanic – don’t get blamed for the culture in which they exist. Because they aren’t responsible for it, nor do they claim to exist to change it.

    Motley’s Law especially applies when the cultural trait existed before the community did.

    The corollary especially applies when the phenomenon in question is demonstrably the deliberate creation of the given social justice movement.

    And your example strikes me as the equivalent of the folks who say feminists should STFU as long as things are worse in the Middle East or other places.

    Gross misinterpretation. What you’re describing is people who think that if the theory of “patriarchy” can’t explain the difference between Middle-Eastern cultures, several of which are obvious patriarchies, and ours, which isn’t, then that indicates a real flaw in patriarchy-theory.
    “That theory has some evident flaws” is not the same as “STFU.”

  163. Motley says:

    @ Clarisse –

    If we acknowledge that there is a stereotype of men’s sexuality as exploitative — and we obviously do — then we have to acknowledge that not only will women genuinely feel exploited in certain circumstances that play into the stereotype, but also that men will genuinely feel that they are exploiting women in those same circumstances.

    I don’t understand. I also don’t think that the fact that people buy into the mass slander of men makes the slander true.

    I agree that male sexuality shouldn’t be popularly framed as an exploitative thing. But it is. And we can’t erase that context and pretend it doesn’t exist, just because we don’t want it to exist. Which means that as long as men choose to act within the exploitative framework in a traditionally “exploitative” way, their actions will be problematic.

    No. Everyone says male sexuality is inherently exploitative; but it still is not. So no. If you acknowledge that men’s sexuality isn’t inherently exploitative, you don’t get to say that “well, society thinks it is, so any man who fails to suppress his sexuality is therefore being exploitative.”
    Also you don’t get to accuse normal men of being exploitative when they’re practicing their normal sexuality. (To prove exploitation, you need more than “he’s trying to get laid.”)

    Nobody’s asking anyone to ignore that framework. What people are asking is to stop pretending that it’s true.

    Men, even men with obvious cultural mismatch, don’t get the same kind of harassment, at least not in areas I’ve experienced.

    Nope, instead, they get murdered…?

    To address that point of jfp’s:

    I think that under a narrative that men’s sexuality isn’t innately harmful to women, we should still be concerned about exploitative expressions of sexuality

    Yes, but only the ones that are actually exploitative. Yes, this means having to separate out between things that are actually exploitative and things that just look exploitative to you because you’ve been conditioned to see all normal male sexuality that way.

    ..in fact, we should be more concerned…

    NO. Men are being viciously slandered as nigh-mindless rape-machines. This does not mean we should be more concerned about women.
    Let me get this straight: When things are good for men, this means we should devote extra concern to the plight of women.
    When things are bad for men… this means we should devote extra concern to the plight of women? WTF?
    Hint: Your agenda is showing. And that agenda is anti-equality, and unethical.

  164. Clarence says:

    Clarisse:

    Excuse me, it’s been a few months since I read that thread. My impression was it much ado about nothing.

    Here’s a nice thread on that blog where they seem to be saying that even saying hi to someone in public can be considered oppressive.

    http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpre...../#more-687

    Do you really want me to dig up more or point out the logical conclusions of this kind of circle chasing?

    You want me to believe that “yes means yes” is some kind of sex positive movement that feminism can take credit for, but meanwhile you have the vast majority of the commenters in that thread comparing the responsibility of having to say “no” if someone chooses to try to initiate a conversation with you in public in the most friendly of terms with oppression of women and rape?

    I was going back to try and find the Christmas Mistletoe post and stumbled into that schroedingers thread apparently.

    People that don’t grasp that being politely propositioned for a conversation isn’t some form of horrendous gender based male “entitlement” oppression aren’t the first people I’d think to trust about whether pretty much ANYTHING was “weird and problematic” and I hope you can see why.

  165. Motley says:

    @ Clarence -

    Interestingly, that article comes up a lot. I (and I’m not alone in this) actually read the article not as an accusation towards men, but as something that would fit in well with SC advice (basically “how to tell when it’s worthwhile to approach, and when you’d just get shot down, and why”).

    The commenters, in complete contrast, seemed to nigh-universally take it as a stereotypical crazy anti-male screed, and to approve enthusiastically.

    Odd.

  166. Jim says:

    “I don’t understand. I also don’t think that the fact that people buy into the mass slander of men makes the slander true. ”

    She’s not saying the slander is true, but that it is believed, which is a fact in and of itself that has to be dealt with. I agree with her if that’s what she’s saying.

    Clarisse, is that what you mean?

  167. Clarence says:

    Motley:

    The blog owner (I think) Thomas was in the thread as well and was basically giving the poor “foil” hell for having the audacity to apparently believe that one has the right to attempt to initiate conversations in public. And even though our guy was saying that he’d try not to be rude, would normally wait for another time, differentiated why one might try it in one setting (subway train, might never see the other person again) and not in another, the majority of commenters piled on him as if he was saying “I can touch her breasts anytime I want to, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it!” or something similarily outrageous.

    It was a very scary, sad, and offensive thread quite frankly, which along with the fact that the blog buys into “rape culture” totally uncritically, seems focused only on females (and particularily feminist females) ideas on power and sexual dynamics, and seems very unsympathetic to the problems mean face sexually in the culture. Indeed, in the three months or so worth of archives I searched there not a single post was about any male issues concerning sex or sexual relations, and probably there was not a single post that didn’t assume as a matter of course that cis het men had all the privileges in the world.

    What’s the point of such a movement if all it can do is point out what people do that is wrong?

  168. Motley says:

    @ Clarence –

    The blog owner (I think) Thomas was in the thread as well and was basically giving the poor “foil” hell for having the audacity to apparently believe that one has the right to attempt to initiate conversations in public.

    Oh, I’m not disagreeing about the culture of the place — whenever normal male sexuality comes up, it’s because they’re talking about rape, which they do pretty constantly, and seem to generally embrace the “men are gross-nugget rape-machines” narrative — I was mostly struck by how the article seemed to me to be a male-friendly explanation for the way women act in certain circumstances, and what you can do (if anything) to get the response you’re looking for.

    Basically, it seems (to me) like the article itself would fit in quite well with any of the advice in Hugh’s original post for this.

    …And practically nobody else in that thread read it that way. Weird.

    What’s the point of such a movement if all it can do is point out what people do that is wrong?

    Well, if the movement-claiming-to-be-for-gender-equality pointed out all of the relevant mistakes being made, rather than just the particular ones that they could benefit women and hurt men by pointing out, it would bother me a lot less.

  169. Clarence says:

    Clarisse

    While you had to go away and I put this off until Tuesday and then never actually was able to get around to it, I do feel I owe you my answers to your questions. So:

    I mean, this is actually a pretty good description of what happens after a lot of relationships, right? So … what exactly is wrong with trying to avoid that with one’s best friend? In fact, I recently had a conversation with a man who told me that he specifically doesn’t want to sleep with his female best friend because it would ruin the friendship. [begin irony] Wow! What a jerk! He must be stringing her along so that he can get stuff out of her! [/irony]

    Well the Onion thing was a spoof as you know, and its obvious from what she says that she is not really his friend and is only using him for validation and favors and indeed, seems to enjoy torturing him a bit. So no, in her case that wouldn’t be a legitimate worry because she doesn’t care enough about him anyway.

    A real friend? Well, PRESUMABLY a real friend would get some reciprocity from you, even if it wasn’t sexual in nature, at least I would hope so!

    Dating “friends”? Well that was already dealt with and it is a good generality. For most guys you quickly find that if you are in the friends zone you are going to have a hard to impossible time to ever get any place else.

    Also, what exactly is someone supposed to do if a close friend is in love with them and they’re not interested? Seriously, I’d love some actual concrete advice on this problem rather than aimless bitching about “being taken advantage of”,* because it’s a problem I’ve had in the past and it sucks on both sides. If a close friend is attracted to you and you’re not attracted back, and you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested in a relationship, then what exactly are you supposed to do? Break off the friendship and quit talking to them because you’ve decided that you know what’s best for them? Sleep with them out of guilt and then feel trapped and awful?

    Well, you’ve already done the most important ethical thing by telling them there is no hope for a relationsihp. I might also suggest either hooking them up with a friend or giving dating advice if you can see that they need it. Do I really think it would HURT to have sex with a friend or best friend that you let know you weren’t interested in a relationship with? Probably not, but it’s not something one is obligated ethically to do, though that friend of yours might really, really appreciate it.

    Sorry for the delay in answering your questions. I really enjoy talking with you and it does seem that I and feminists like you can agree on some things.

  170. typhonblue says:

    Way to go hanging in there, JFP and Clarisse. This has been one of the better discussions here. BTW, if it’s any consolation, I think the commentators here would probably be arguing over:

    1. Evolutionary theory
    2. Politics
    3. The Weather

    If you guys weren’t here to argue with us. :D

    JFP:

    Feminism has an ethical responsibility that SC doesn’t, because SC doesn’t even try?

    Yep. Because Feminism _claims_ something about itself that the SC doesn’t. And, you know what, when you give your word, you should keep it.

    And your example strikes me as the equivalent of the folks who say feminists should STFU as long as things are worse in the Middle East or other places.

    Um… This is definitely not what I was getting at with my example.

    This shit isn’t incidental; you can’t just say “well there’s some good ideas buried in there” and ignore all the toxicity around it.

    I can see we have very different ways of processing information.

    When I read that thread what I got out of it is that the SC is against ‘caveman’ approaches, ie. really aggressive sexual approaches. Which, filtered through typhon’s cost-benefit analysis, means that the SC is working towards a society in which typhon is going to be dealing with fewer aggressive sexual approaches.

    To be honest I ignored most of the rest of the rhetoric in favor of how the bottom line affects me, as a woman. I don’t really care if getting to the point of respecting my space means using a lot of crass ‘men’s sexuality is exploitative’ jargon, probably because I’m a really, really lazy human being and thus my ability to maintain offense is limited. (Outside of feeling personally betrayed which has only kicked in a half dozen times in my lifetime.)

    Motley:

    I don’t think monkey-brain activity is much of an indicator of harmlessness… most violence is done by normal people, with fully-functional monkey-brains.

    But not in monkey-brain mode. When they’re behaving in a predatory manner, humans drop into a different mental mode and a different set of behaviors. Which is a detectable difference in attitude–people in this mode aren’t after social respect(as this man was, although he went about it badly) nor would they respond with shame should someone they were socially disrespecting turned around and showed them respect. Cats don’t give a shit about the social respect of mice.

    I’m going to offer up something with the whole approaching in public thing. I think a lot of the animosity is due to simple cultural differences between men and women. (I’m going to liken people to animals in my next analogy; please don’t take offense.)

    In a lot of ways male-culture reminds me of dogs or wolves. Very physical, very high energy, very friendly. If they see someone who looks interesting they’re going to trot over and say hi.

    Of course the problem is that female-culture seems more cat like–more individual, more ‘give me my space’, quiet, subdued and subtle. (Three cats can sit in a room and, apparently, have a conversation in complete, immobile silence.)

    When a guy comes up to a woman she’s interpreting his gesture in terms of her own culture and it feels threatening. He’s bigger and more ‘in your face’ and he doesn’t have as strong an instinct for her boundaries as another woman would. And it gets worse if she’s been taught to be phobic.

    As much as I understand how the woman feels; I can’t help but feel sorry for guys. They’re being taught that they’re monsters for simply being what they are. And I think we’re in the process of loosing something very worthwhile if we continue to treat men like monsters without trying to make some sort of compromise.

    Danny:

    I can’t think of any inherently good examples of it either.

    Male sexuality? Well, good sex can make you feel like you can take on the world. And male sexuality has a strange way of affirming femininity in a way I’ve never experienced from anything else. (Consumer culture seems to want women to see femininity in terms of dieting, makeup and expensive clothes. I think I prefer mother nature’s method.)

  171. Sam says:

    Clarisse,

    “I agree that male sexuality shouldn’t be popularly framed as an exploitative thing. But it is.”

    I’m not sure I understand – are you saying this – “But it is [framed as a an exploitative thing]” (and that narrative should thus inform our actions? Or are you saying something else?)

    I think this thread is losing focus, I think.

    Everyone seems to agree that teaching social skills to people who don’t have them is a good thing.

    Everyone agrees that the “community” approach is useful to some people in some ways but also agrees that there are issues that are/can be problematic.

    Everyone agrees that it is a problem that male sexuality is tainted as exploitative but that there is not much to do about it.

    So, I think, we’re basically down to two questions:

    a) what’s the appropriate course of action for women and men given the social narrative is “institutionalised” and won’t go away because we wish so (this is important because of this problem, noted by Clarisse, ‘[w]hich means that as long as men choose to act within the exploitative framework in a traditionally “exploitative” way, their actions will be problematic.’), and

    b) how are we going about deciding what is ok and what not (eg, what’s “pro-exploitative”)?

    It seems to me that a lot of the disagreement here is about the male feeling that their position is not taken as equally valid to the female/feminist perspective. They then tell the feminists that they have no right to determine on their own what’s ok and what’s not. And that’s true. Yet at the same time, the basic premise of this thread (and the other threads on this blog about this issue) seems to be to get feminist approval. In a way, that’s a bit oxymoronic.

  172. Tamen says:

    jfpbookworm:

    This shit isn’t incidental; you can’t just say “well there’s some good ideas buried in there” and ignore all the toxicity around it.

    Isn’t this what you’re doing with feminism? Ignoring toxicity like Kiuku’s separatism and men are evil screed and Mary Daly’s transphobia?

    No movement or organizations will be free of toxicity and one has to do the best to filter out the toxicity. Hugh Rustik seems to have gone through that process with SC with some thought and diligence. However, to varying degree you, Clarisse, Shari and others seems to be willing to throw out the rest of the SC stuff because it’s tainted by the toxic stuff. Which is not that different from saying that all of feminism is tainted by the toxic stuff. Some commenters here may agree to that, but I don’t and neither does it seems like the bloggers here do either – see: http://www.feministcritics.org.....got-right/

  173. machina says:

    I think that the term “filter” used by Shari upthread for the 90 day rule is useful, particularly as something different from boundaries. A lot of feminist discussion of sexual relationships emphasises defending women’s boundaries but I don’t think that all of the issues that are raised are about boundaries. Some of them are filters that are either meant to protect a person from abuse or meant to screen for a suitable mate. A filter like the 90 day rule is meant to screen for a suitable mate, while a filter that eliminates potentional mates that interrupt reading is meant to protect a person from abuse; the interruption is itself a fairly harmless boundary violation but indicates potentially more harmful behaviour.

    The difference between filters and boundaries is that women want men to (try to) pass through their filters but they don’t want them to pass through their boundaries. If you’re not aware of the difference then it can be confusing, as then women appear to want men to transgress their boundaries. However the process of attracting men and filtering through them is how many heterosexual women find sexual partners, so the filtering process is very important. These women want men to openly and honestly present themselves in the right context. Two important aspects here are that women dislike behaviour that makes it hard for them to apply their filters, so that seduction is viewed with great scepticism, and also dislike behaviour that bypasses filters. An example of the latter is the neg, this aims to bypass the filtering process women apply to strange men trying initiating a sexual relationship.

    That being said, I’m not certain that all seduction techniques that aim to pass through, or even bypass, filters are bad. For one thing, many men are unaware of these filters, or simply don’t bother trying to pass through them through lack of self esteem. Having some knowledge of what women are looking for, and particularly what they looking out for, in important if you’re going to be successful finding a sexual partner. Also, filters are quite often very indiscriminate and screen out plenty of suitable men, so I think there’s some value in being able to acertain that a filter is being applied indiscriminately and find ways through it so that you can work out whether you’re otherwise a match. Bypassing filters is more dangerous, since it can make it difficult for women to enforce their boundaries. However it’s probably not unreasonable for a man to bypass a filter that screens out all strange men who try to build a sexual relationship if they don’t bypass the filters that otherwise protect a woman from abusive or undesirable relationships.

  174. Tom Nolan says:

    Machina

    The difference between filters and boundaries is that women want men to (try to) pass through their filters but they don’t want them to pass through their boundaries. If you’re not aware of the difference then it can be confusing

    Do boundaries and filters look any different? Or is the only difference between them to be found in the motive for adopting them?

  175. machina says:

    Tom, that’s a good catch because I was going to post something similar a few days ago but thought that the differentiation between the two wasn’t good enough, so I decided to think about it a bit, then I just decided to post what my thoughts were at this stage. So I’m not sure if there is a difference, or at least a visible difference, since both seem to be invisible from the outset. If they’re both invisible I guess it’s just a matter of convention.

  176. Jim says:

    “I think a lot of the animosity is due to simple cultural differences between men and women. ”

    As well as cultural differences between, um, cultures. Years ago I was involved in a situation where men of one ethnicity were steadily offending women of another ethnicity with their continual attentions. When it came up in discussion, the men were flabbergasted that the women found this offensive; in their own culture it would have been pointedly offensive, a very overt insult, not to offer those attentions.

  177. Tom Nolan says:

    Machina

    This puts men interested in a romantic and/or sexual encounter in a bit of a bind. They cannot tell whether a rebuff is to be understood as a test of their long-term intentions (if that was the case they might persist in their suit) or as a definitive rejection (if that was the case they should desist at once from their suit).

    The result is bound to be that those who care first and foremost about the ethics of their sexual interactions will err on the side of caution: ‘ “no” means “no”, because even if it actually means “yes, but not just now” I have no way of knowing such to be the case – and I don’t want to risk breaking a woman’s boundaries.’

    All else being equal such men are going to have less sexual and romantic success than those who are unconcerned about sexual ethics and work on the assumption that ‘ “no” sometimes means “yes, but not just now” – so I should keep working away at those defences. They aren’t there to deter me but to test my mettle.’

    What do you think of that outcome?

  178. @Jim and others — We [men] get the same shit, but the key difference is that it is not expressed in sexual terms. It is typically epxressed in threats of overt physical violence. The psychological net result is probably exactly the same.

    All I know is that (a) the American men I work with acknowledge that I get considerably more street harassment in general than they do; (b) when I got my safety training along with 30 other Americans, a disproportionate focus was on sexual safety, and almost none of the focus was on safety from overt physical violence; (c) sexual harassment/violence is a considerably more commonly reported threat by Americans in the areas I have experience, than overt physical violence or threat thereof.

    Furthermore, we’ve gotten sidetracked by the Oppression Olympics, which I wasn’t even trying to do, so you can’t blame the feminist for this round. Even if men do experience the threat of overt physical violence at the same rate as women experience the threat of sexual violence, it still doesn’t invalidate the point I was making, which was that sexualized street harassment can be genuinely scary and threatening and in fact is often intended to be scary and threatening, particularly when the victim is in an unfamiliar context.

    @Motley — If you acknowledge that men’s sexuality isn’t inherently exploitative, you don’t get to say that “well, society thinks it is, so any man who fails to suppress his sexuality is therefore being exploitative.”

    That’s not what I said. I said that as long as male sexuality is commonly considered to be exploitative, and is in fact commonly considered that way by men themselves, that men are still morally obligated not to act in a stereotypically exploitative way. But there are lots of non-stereotypically exploitative ways they can act. As I’ve already pointed out.

    As Jim said, “She’s not saying the slander is true, but that it is believed, which is a fact in and of itself that has to be dealt with. I agree with her if that’s what she’s saying.” Also Sam summed up my perspective pretty well, too.

    @Clarence — You want me to believe that “yes means yes” is some kind of sex positive movement that feminism can take credit for

    I acknowledge that much of the yes-means-yes movement focuses on sexual assault. I encourage you to look into aspects of the movement that don’t. You could start by reading the actual book rather than the blog, which is more slanted.

    @typhonblue — BTW, if it’s any consolation …

    Hahaha. I love you, typhonblue. I have to say, this thread is much more interesting than Feministe these days. All I can do over there is complain about Jill’s snide and negative and judgmental opinions on body-modification (to which she replied something like, “Hell yeah I’m judgmental,” as if it were a badge of pride … oh well).

    As much as I understand how the woman feels; I can’t help but feel sorry for guys. They’re being taught that they’re monsters for simply being what they are.

    Yeah, and I have to say that I think a lot about this here in Africa. True, I get more street harassment (and the host country national women get it too, though not as much as white women I think) and men have more power and control etc etc, but one flip side of that is that “good” men never come anywhere near an unfamiliar woman — a man who so much as talks to me in the supermarket checkout line is acknowledged to be crossing a social boundary. And men and women just aren’t friends, for the most part …. It’s sad.

    @Sam — a) what’s the appropriate course of action for women and men given the social narrative is “institutionalised” and won’t go away because we wish so (this is important because of this problem, noted by Clarisse, ‘[w]hich means that as long as men choose to act within the exploitative framework in a traditionally “exploitative” way, their actions will be problematic.’), and
    b) how are we going about deciding what is ok and what not (eg, what’s “pro-exploitative”)?

    Sam! Always the peacemaker.

    I know I always say this, but I really think that a lot of the most awesome tactics for actually dealing with this stuff can be found in the BDSM community. And I know I always recommend The Book, but there is an excellent essay in there by Hazel/Cedar Troost the amazing trans activist in which ze talks about how ze specifically started requesting/requiring consent for every kind of touch — even just hugs — which had the effect of (a) showing up people’s entitlement but also, on a positive note, (b) making it absolutely clear whenever touch was wanted or unwanted.

    I have taken Hazel/Cedar’s approach on many occasions and let me tell you, it really works. For example, a few months ago I had a tense moment with my boyfriend CB that I really didn’t know how to defuse. My instinct was just to kiss him, but I wasn’t totally sure, so I said, “Can I kiss you?” CB relaxed, thought about it, and said, “Not just yet, but can I hug you?” and things got much better from there and we ended up making out anyway. The thing is that acknowledging and working around boundaries has to be the first step, always, in a YMY movement — to get to YMY we’ve got to first totally accept no-means-no. Totally accept it, and encourage it, and support it, and make space for it. Ok now I’m just ranting so I’ll stop.

    @Jim again — Years ago I was involved in a situation where men of one ethnicity were steadily offending women of another ethnicity with their continual attentions. When it came up in discussion, the men were flabbergasted that the women found this offensive; in their own culture it would have been pointedly offensive, a very overt insult, not to offer those attentions.

    Be careful when it’s men claiming these things, though, seriously …. Men around my area will also claim that if they don’t act that way, they’ll offend women by failing to give enough attention. Yet I remember that a few months ago I decided to skip out on a cultural event because within the first five minutes, three guys (I think at least one of them was somewhat drunk) had proposed love to me. So I went home. Later, one of my host country national female friends asked why I wasn’t there and when I told her, she said, “I knew it!” and gave me a comforting pat on the arm. “I really don’t like it when they say those things either,” she confided, but she said it like it was kind of a secret.

    It’s probably dependent on context in their culture, too ….

  179. Motley says:

    It’s it’s an interesting bind produced by all of the “don’t push women into having sex, ’cause that’s the same as rape” logic (which gets extended to “don’t talk to women in public places, ’cause that’s the same as rape” that you see over on the yes-means-yes blog).

    Basically, the effect of that is to screen out men who care about women’s boundaries.

    Similarly, saying “no” when a woman means “wait a while, so I can tell if you really care,” screens out the men who take “no” to mean “no.”
    It also encourages men who might otherwise have taken “no” to mean “no” not to take “no” for an answer, both by rewarding boundary-violations, and, more importantly, because men know women do this. Once the word got out that “no” doesn’t always mean “no,” (and it did, a long time ago) then there’s a lot of (frankly dangerous) ambiguity in there.

    @ Tamen -

    Isn’t this what you’re doing with feminism? Ignoring toxicity like Kiuku’s separatism and men are evil screed and Mary Daly’s transphobia?

    Maybe certain guys should start practicing the phrase “That’s not my seduction community.”

    EDIT:

    @ Clarisse –

    All I know is that (a) the American men I work with acknowledge that I get considerably more street harassment in general than they do;

    In a society that conditions us all to think this, the fact that people think this is neither surprising nor meaningful.

    But the rest of this seems to be primarily about a culture that isn’t this one, right?

    That’s not what I said. I said that as long as male sexuality is commonly considered to be exploitative, and is in fact commonly considered that way by men themselves, that men are still morally obligated not to act in a stereotypically exploitative way.

    …I must (still) be reading you wrong, because you just said precisely the same thing again. What I’m pointing out is that the behavior that you are describing as “stereotypically exploitative” is not exploitative. The fact that all male sexuality is stereotyped as exploitative does not make it so.

    You’re a BDSMer; does the fact that BDSM is stereotyped as “sick” obligate you not to engage in BDSM?
    No?
    The same is true for men, whose sexuality is also stereotyped as tainted.

    Furthermore, we’ve gotten sidetracked by the Oppression Olympics, which I wasn’t even trying to do, so you can’t blame the feminist for this round. Even if men do experience the threat of overt physical violence at the same rate as women experience the threat of sexual violence, it still doesn’t invalidate the point I was making,

    The point came across as “the streets aren’t safe for women” which is only meaningful if they are safe for men… which they’re not. We’re all conditioned to think that men are safe outdoors and women aren’t, but it isn’t true.

    …to get to YMY we’ve got to first totally accept no-means-no. Totally accept it, and encourage it, and support it, and make space for it.

    I’d agree with this, if “no” always meant no, rather than just being used as a means of controlling other people (ahem, “filter”).
    We don’t live in that world, though, and nobody anywhere seems to be telling women “don’t say ‘no’ unless you mean ‘no,’ because the rest of us want ‘no’ to actually mean something,” so I don’t see this happening any time soon.

    (A problematic consequence of feminism’s experience with victim-blaming is this extreme reluctance to acknowledge problematic behavior on the part of women. It causes problems because sometimes women’s behavior does contribute to larger problems, and those problems can’t be fixed without addressing the behavior that causes it. Which we can’t do, since one cannot criticize female behavior without approaching that third-rail of victim-blaming.)

  180. Scipio Africanus says:

    Motley,

    Maybe certain guys should start practicing the phrase “That’s not my seduction community.”

    That could/should really catch on.

    Clarisse,

    All I know is that (a) the American men I work with acknowledge that I get considerably more street harassment in general than they do; (b) when I got my safety training along with 30 other Americans, a disproportionate focus was on sexual safety, and almost none of the focus was on safety from overt physical violence; (c) sexual harassment/violence is a considerably more commonly reported threat by Americans in the areas I have experience, than overt physical violence or threat thereof.

    Furthermore, we’ve gotten sidetracked by the Oppression Olympics, which I wasn’t even trying to do, so you can’t blame the feminist for this round. Even if men do experience the threat of overt physical violence at the same rate as women experience the threat of sexual violence, it still doesn’t invalidate the point I was making, which was that sexualized street harassment can be genuinely scary and threatening and in fact is often intended to be scary and threatening, particularly when the victim is in an unfamiliar context.

    Regarding your first para., points (a), (b) and (c) all suggest to me that threats against men aren’t held in as high regard, nor are they perceived to be as highly self-reported than threats against women. If you take it as a given what many people here are saying about how men are conditioned into stoicism, then all three of your points are to be expected outcomes of that.

    Regarding the Opression Olympics, you could easily have made the point you claimed to be making without trying to purposely distinguish sexualized street harassment as a women-mostly phenomenon (which I agree it is) as worse than what the typical man would face, with the perceived implication looking like an attempt at Opression Olympics on your part. All of that could have been avoided if you had simply said “sexualized street harassment can be genuinely scary and threatening and in fact is often intended to be scary and threatening, particularly when the victim is in an unfamiliar context.”

  181. typhonblue says:

    Motley:

    We’re all conditioned to think that men are safe outdoors and women aren’t, but it isn’t true.

    It’s interesting to me, that the reverse is true. Men have more to fear from strangers then women.

    Yep, there’s another bit of gender-based fear-baggage that I can jettison. Although I may be different from other women in that I place getting the ever-loving crap kicked out of me on par(in terms of fear) as sexual assault. Getting beaten up is horrifying–I sometimes wonder why we make that big a distinction between the two.

  182. Jim says:

    “All I know is that (a) the American men I work with acknowledge that I get considerably more street harassment in general than they do;”

    I think that would true in the setting you have described. I just meant that men cna anad do experience that kind of thing, and that reading was possible from the way you phrased that sentence I was responding to, and then too your refinement on that isa slo reasonable in light of the rest of your comment.

    It comes down to power and the ethnic and gender parameters fom power in each situation. I don’t know where in Africa you are working, but if it’s in east Africa, it may be much more accepted to have a foreign man just walking down the street, not acting like a some kind of master, just a regular with enough strut in his step to assert his equality. He’ll get left alone. A woman, foreign or whatever, is not going to be left alone because simply walking down the street may be an unaccpetably aggressive assertion of equality, and an intolerable affront if it’s coming from a white woman. So you have to be taken down. I imagine it also depends on what flavor the foreigner is; whites may get treated in one way while South or East Asians experience something else entirely.

    “it still doesn’t invalidate the point I was making, which was that sexualized street harassment can be genuinely scary and threatening and in fact is often intended to be scary and threatening,”

    Sexualized – this is what is different in the treatment you get, and it is specifically because you are a woman. Sexuality just happens to be the effectual weapon that comes to hand. However it can be used on men also, and then it is really menacing. Whereas this kind of harassment from men doesn’t defeminize you, the intent when it is aimed at a man is to demasculinize him. The sticky point is that sexual harassment aimed at a man can backfire on the harasser a lot more easily, especially in the cesspit of homophobia that East Africa appears to be, so it probably occurs several orders of magnitude less often. Bottom line – women get the sexualized harrassment.

    The malice towards the outsider is still the same. That was my only point in bringing the OO into it.

  183. Linda says:

    I consider myself somewhat of a feminist and have read a substantial amount of literature on it (I have an undergraduate degree in gender studies.)
    About six months ago my boyfriend told me that he was involved in the Seduction Community.

    I was horrified. But he lent me a book by the Seduction Expert Swinggcat. My mind was quickly changed. His advice to men is harsh but, surprisingly, spot on. I also liked his stuff about how most people are naturally attractive, but all of our bad social programming prevents us from attracting the opposite sex.

    I don’t know if the other seduction gurus are well versed in feminist literature but Swinggcat appears to be. He quotes Beauvoir’s the Second Sex and works by Judith Butler. For some reason, that made me like him more.

  184. Jim says:

    “I sometimes wonder why we make that big a distinction between the two.”

    I doubt that you wonder long. I can see how in this society people would be socialized to rate severe injury to a man or a boy’s body in street violence below desecration of a woman’s Sacred Feminine. I

    Clarrisse,
    Good point about not taking the men’s take on the catcalls and comments at face value. This is definitely a case where there are two sides ot it. In this particular situation – Germany – Army – ’79 – it was black Southern men making general coments to white women from Mountain states and similar backgrounds. Black Southern women in that setting appeared to me to appreciate and perhaps even expect those comments. That kind of behavior transgressed lots of cultural norms for those white women, gender relations being only one. These were women from ranching and small town backgrounds, not suburban Denver etc. What was encouraging was how readily the men heard the women’s objections, once they understood that it was cross-communication.

  185. Colette says:

    Danny -

    The “slut-stud” double standard, for all the hay feminists continue to make of it, appears to be dead.

    Bull.

    Did anyone express any public admiration for Tiger Woods’ “indiscretions”? Did anyone express any public disapproval of the women he was “indiscreet” with?

    So this all comes down to Tiger Woods? I’m not really buying this logic.

    But since you mentioned it, the public has expressed disapproval of the multiple women with whom Tiger Woods had unprotected sex without their knowledge. Basically calling them bimbos and whores and doing their damndest to prove they’re whores, gold-diggers, whatever. The criticism of Woods come more in terms of the supposed image he must uphold. While nobody has written an article going on about how awesome he is for having affairs, the criticism appears to me to be framed in terms of how unwise it was for a married man (remember – he is married) to risk his image and thus his financial sources by being so bold.

    Yes that idea is represented in today’s pop culture some but nowhere to the extent they insist. Some of act as if its still the 50s.

    So because you, as a man who doesn’t feel the short-end of the stick with this issue, don’t feel the double-standard is as significant as whatever arbitrary standard you’ve set, the unstated extent you attribute to feminists insisting it exists is exaggerated? Sounds like the perfectionist fallacy to me.

    You actually believe it only exists in pop-culture? Do you actually believe people will react the same way to men sleeping with multiple women as a woman sleeping with multiple men?! Heck, even when it’s the men sleeping with multiple women they’re the ones considered whores.

    Which is often attributed to his maturity level, hatred of women, and so on.

    But now you’re not even addressing the original issue.

    Because the presumption of negatives motives happened so quickly and seemed to only get piled on and people that seemed to disagree were attacked.

    Actually, it didn’t, and personally I didn’t see much of it at all. Should people have only attributed positive motives? They were already overwhelmingly positive or neutral. Undue weight and misrepresentation have nothing to do with that anyway. You’ve given undue weight to something and it is dishonest on your part.

    And considering that the very first comment was a generalizing of MRAs that would probably never be allowed if it were about any other group.

    It wasn’t a generalization, it was mocking a popular claim. Also, what do you mean by “group?”

    Granted I should have probably quantified with using “some” or something like that in my original statement but the attitude is still there.

    Yeah, you should have because it makes you look dishonest. Particularly when you attribute to them the attitude that men can’t do or say anything “right” when it fact they were overwhelmingly reasonable and it was you demonstrating that attitude.

    Society thinks sexuality is gross. However only women seem to be able to rise above it, unless they don’t in which case they’re tainted by association with men. Who are permanently branded by the icky sex.

    I believe, as is usually done with sexuality, you’re starting and stopping with men. Saying “tainted by association with men” is a simplification that neglects to consider that women’s sexuality is societal terms in non-existent (i.e., women don’t desire sex and those who do are whores) except to the degree men are affected (that they’re sexy), othered (women are more selective, women may or may not ejaculate, women usually don’t orgasm through just intercourse alone, etc), or dangerous (women make men do things with their short skirts, breasts, and demeanor). The degree that which heterosexual men benefit from and perpetuate this is being ignored and so is the notion that het men and het women can do things to change this. Well, at least it is when it comes to het men.

    Or is there another way that women’s sexuality (absent men) is branded as subhuman?

    It is branded non-existent because it isn’t about men, thus women sub-human and unimportant.

    I think our society is pretty down with the female-female intimacy in a way it isn’t with male-male.

    They are to the degree it satisfies the sexual desires of heterosexual men. I wouldn’t consider commodification “down.”

    TB -

    Hm… and what about men who are trying to reclaim men’s sexuality as something not dependent on a woman’s validation?

    Being a sex-positive feminist, I’d say go for it. Being a femme bi-sexual, slightly gender non-conforming woman who is a biological female, there isn’t much input I can give him though I’ll stand in solidarity.

    However, I would that in terms of just sexuality, I don’t know if I believe the validation from women is required for het men, though I do understand who you’re getting at. Certainly the compliance of women is and I believe that is what contributes to the manipulative and often malicious nature of PUA.

    Motley -

    The bitching of Nice Guys comes from a sense of betrayal, and a justified one (since he’s discovering that the thing feminists have told him his whole life turns out to be patently false, that “politically correct” and “attractive” turn out not to be the same thing at all).

    The Nice Guy has to understand that women are individuals thus complex, and have feelings, desires, and preferences just as he may and they are just as important as his.

    Nah, he wasn’t doing any of those things, man, he was predicting something you’d say, and doing it correctly.

    Of course he predicted something that would be said. When you set somebody up to prove that they’re not something, or won’t say something, and then launch a pre-emptive strike against legitimate criticism of your own illogic so either way they can’t “win,” you’re going to get the exact answer you’re going for.

    Also, how about having the people on the receiving end of obnoxious, intrusive cat-calling and comments decide whether it’s okay or not rather than silly theories about monkey brains?

  186. typhonblue says:

    Collette:

    women are individuals

    I’m not!

    Or is there another way that women’s sexuality (absent men) is branded as subhuman?

    It is branded non-existent because it isn’t about men, thus women sub-human and unimportant.

    Having trouble parsing this.

    I think you’re saying that because women’s sexuality, absent men, is, well, absent men, it’s considered unimportant thus subhuman.

    I disagree.

    Our society hates sex. Absolutely hates and reviles and loathes it. If it associates sex with either gender it’s usually to that gender’s detriment.

    Society may ignore women’s sexuality but the only interest society seems to show to men’s sexuality is to blame it for existing(while simultaneously appealing to it to sell goods); occasionally media will show a male character that has sex with lots of women–and also portray this behavior as shallow, childish, empty or worse, predatory. Usually these characters either see the light and change their ways or are believed to be punished with a meaningless, unfulfilling existence.

    I know you’re trying to say that mainstream society celebrates men’s sexual prowess but I’m just not seeing it. Maybe from subcultures of men or in the porn industry(which also seems to celebrate the same sort of sexual availability in women) or in hip hop, but certainly not in mainstream media.

    Here’s a challenge; name one character from a Hollywood film or tv show that’s a ‘playa’ and portrayed as wholesome, healthy, upstanding person who doesn’t need to learn a lesson about changing his caddish ways.

    They are to the degree it satisfies the sexual desires of heterosexual men. I wouldn’t consider commodification “down.”

    Let me put it another way. Society sees women’s sexuality as a benefit to men in a way that it does not see men’s sexuality as a benefit to women.

    Why can’t men’s sexuality be ‘commodified’ for the benefit of women?

    However, I would that in terms of just sexuality, I don’t know if I believe the validation from women is required for het men, though I do understand who you’re getting at.

    Um… I actually believe validation from women is pretty much the basis of a het man’s _male_ identity in a way validation from men never will be for a het woman’s _female_ identity.

    Thus we don’t hear the spectrum of ‘real woman’ insults from men towards women.

    It’s sort of like this… imagine all men are actually FtM transexuals… their sexual identity, which is foundational to their self-worth, is contingent upon ‘passing’ as a man which is something decided upon by the women around them and can be taken away at any point should they fail to live up to these women’s definition of ‘man’. Try to imagine what that must feel like.*

    Validation for women from men seems to be in terms of grades of attractiveness; which is hugely bizarre to me. Why do women feel entitled to being perceived as attractive?

    Get this. One day every woman who is attractive will no longer be attractive. This is a fact of life. If you base your identity as a woman on being attractive you will run face first into this fact of life.*

    Certainly the compliance of women is and I believe that is what contributes to the manipulative and often malicious nature of PUA.

    Compliance? As long as it’s not achieved with violence, threats of violence, threats of violence by proxy or threats to survival… then I don’t see a problem.

    In fact what I see from the PUA is that their concept of seduction is only using words and attractive non-aggressive behaviors to influence women to engage in sex with them.

    It’s so bloody innocuous, I can see why they need to dress it up with a few proverbial f-bomb and c-bombs to get young men’s ears perked up. It’s practically Guy Smiley trying to be hip and down.

    Also Roissey is painfully ‘omega’*. It seeps through his writing like a bad smell.

    * I point this out not to play OO, but as a wake-up call. To men I suggest you base your manhood on something other then approval from women as basing your manhood on approval from women makes you easily manipulated and also makes no f-ing sense. They’re women, they don’t have a clue what a man is. To women I suggest you learn to base your self worth on something other then sexual attention from men otherwise 35-40 is going to hit you like the mac truck of anti-princess.
    ** Silly term. I use it because I can’t think of anything snappy off the top of my head. He’s got some sort of hollow aggressiveness going on. Or maybe I’m just bitter because I scored -29 on his Hot Babe test. *grump*

  187. Doug S. says:

    “We must be able to offer something more than the pleasure of sexual relations with us to be worthy of it.” This is the problem: no, in fact, you *don’t* need to be able to offer more than that. What happens is that guys buy into this to the point where it becomes all about proving themselves worthy and the whole idea of sexual relations being mutually pleasurable becomes secondary at best. (And then the “nice guy” who’s been trying so hard to prove himself worthy gets bitter about the “jerk” who only offers sexual pleasure.)

    As a matter of empirical fact, men do need to “offer” something other than sexual pleasure in order to get women to sleep with them. There’s a rather famous psychology experiment in which good-looking college students went up to other college students that they didn’t know and said:

    “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

    69% of male students agreed. 0% of female students agreed.

    So the mere offer of sex, on its own, isn’t enough to get a woman to accept such an offer. (As far as I can tell, women are indeed interested in sex, but they’re not, in general, particularly interested in sex with strangers.)

    (A sillier take on the same observation.)

  188. typhonblue says:

    Doug S.

    As a matter of empirical fact, men do need to “offer” something other than sexual pleasure in order to get women to sleep with them.

    But they don’t, necessarily, need to offer something more then _themselves_. The study doesn’t take into effect EQ–which must be demonstrated but still is a feature of the man in question.

    Also are women more picky because they are innately, or are they more picky because they can be?

  189. Doug S. says:

    But they don’t, necessarily, need to offer something more then _themselves_.

    I agree with this.

    Also are women more picky because they are innately, or are they more picky because they can be?

    I don’t know, but a small change in the way speed dating is conducted significantly reduces the observed difference in how selective men and women are in choosing who they would be interested in meeting again.

  190. typhonblue says:

    Doug S.

    I don’t know, but a small change in the way speed dating is conducted significantly reduces the observed difference in how selective men and women are in choosing who they would be interested in meeting again.

    Interesting. The act of making an effort(approaching) creates value.

    Some related notes:

    Dogs like to earn their food and tend to neurotic behavior if they don’t get a sense of self-worth by earning their keep.

    There’s a multi-billion dollar industry based entirely on making people earn something. Gaming.

    I wonder if women are more picky simply because they’re expecting men to make up the difference in value that actually earning something for themselves would create. Men get a wonderful feeling of _earning_ their mates, thus adding to women’s value; women don’t, and this detracts from men’s value.

  191. HughRistik says:

    Doug S said:

    I don’t know, but a small change in the way speed dating is conducted significantly reduces the observed difference in how selective men and women are in choosing who they would be interested in meeting again.

    What’s interesting about that study is that nobody has actually looked at the data. Changing whether men or women rotated in the speed dating scenario didn’t really change women’s selectivity. It changed men’s. Men got pickier when they didn’t rotate, and women seemed to be doing the approaching.

    In general, the study doesn’t show much about people’s preferences because it created an artificial situation by forcing women to approach.

  192. Colette says:

    I think you’re saying that because women’s sexuality, absent men, is, well, absent men, it’s considered unimportant thus subhuman.

    Not quite. It goes in context with what I said above the above. Women’s sexuality is non-existent (or they’re whores) except to the degree which it affects men. Sexuality is very human and they’re denying women’s sexuality and making it all about men thus women are sub-human or unimportant by those terms.

    Our society hates sex. Absolutely hates and reviles and loathes it. If it associates sex with either gender it’s usually to that gender’s detriment.

    I get what you’re saying but I’d characterize society as having a guilt complex with sex, not necessarily hating it. In terms of values, either sex can be associated with sex to their detriment but clearly it is applied to men and women differently in terms of roles and expectations.

    Society may ignore women’s sexuality but the only interest society seems to show to men’s sexuality is to blame it for existing(while simultaneously appealing to it to sell goods);

    I believe that is a bit off the mark.

    occasionally media will show a male character that has sex with lots of women–and also portray this behavior as shallow, childish, empty or worse, predatory. Usually these characters either see the light and change their ways or are believed to be punished with a meaningless, unfulfilling existence.

    There are plenty of male characters who have lots of sex with multiple women but are not considered childish or empty, and there are plenty of male characters who are in media portrayals. So basically, the media is saying, hey, men can have sex with multiple partners and be a-okay … but sometimes they aren’t. Though even when it’s portrayed as him finally “seeing the light,” it is framed in terms of him being over it and not it being bad or wrong that he did it.

    Here’s a challenge; name one character from a Hollywood film or tv show that’s a ‘playa’ and portrayed as wholesome, healthy, upstanding person who doesn’t need to learn a lesson about changing his caddish ways.

    If I could do that, there would be no conflict for a story! That isn’t exactly what I was saying though, nor do I believe every man that is portrayed as having casual sex with multiple women is portrayed as a ‘playa.’

    Let me put it another way. Society sees women’s sexuality as a benefit to men in a way that it does not see men’s sexuality as a benefit to women.

    Society doesn’t believe, or it has a problem with, the very notion that women like sex.

    Um… I actually believe validation from women is pretty much the basis of a het man’s _male_ identity in a way validation from men never will be for a het woman’s _female_ identity.

    I just don’t see that, particularly the second part.

    Thus we don’t hear the spectrum of ‘real woman’ insults from men towards women.

    There inherent implication, along with forcing men to be just one thing or they’re “out,” is that anything non-male/cis/straight is illegitimate, incompetent, and unimportant. Of course you’re not going to hear about a “real woman” because, in terms of how “real man” is used, women aren’t important except as supporting roles to get men there. If the notion of having the status a “real man” can have isn’t even on the table for women, why should they face the rigidity in the same frame that which men will?

    However, being a “lady” and the such undertones is different terms where the woman knows her place, isn’t aggressive, selfish (god forbid), and is attractive.

    Validation for women from men seems to be in terms of grades of attractiveness; which is hugely bizarre to me. Why do women feel entitled to being perceived as attractive?

    I think women feel they need to be attractive because they’re told everyday it is the most important thing. I don’t believe women feel anymore “entitled” to being perceived as attractive than men are as being perceived as “a real man” and, to a degree, I can blame neither.

    Compliance? As long as it’s not achieved with violence, threats of violence, threats of violence by proxy or threats to survival… then I don’t see a problem.

    As I said, I don’t believe it is validation overall but compliance. It is bad because nobody should require validation or compliance. It is bad when it comes to PUA, I believe, because they will use premeditated and deliberate manipulation of women to get the compliance.

  193. typhonblue says:

    Collette:

    Sexuality is very human and they’re denying women’s sexuality and making it all about men thus women are sub-human or unimportant by those terms.

    Sure, sexuality is human. But we’re talking about a society that loves to deny that fact and treat sexuality as some sort of… well… sin. An original sin, as it were.

    By making sexuality all about men, they’re making a definite statement about men and it isn’t a positive one.

    So basically, the media is saying, hey, men can have sex with multiple partners and be a-okay … but sometimes they aren’t. Though even when it’s portrayed as him finally “seeing the light,” it is framed in terms of him being over it and not it being bad or wrong that he did it.

    Isn’t that sort of what media is saying about women now? Look at Sex in the City, Desperate Housewives, Tudors, hell… Farscape, Star Trek, Firefly. Female characters with multiple partners (even adultery) is seen as positive or neutral in these shows.

    If I could do that, there would be no conflict for a story! That isn’t exactly what I was saying though, nor do I believe every man that is portrayed as having casual sex with multiple women is portrayed as a ‘playa.’

    No. But I don’t see women being portrayed as bad for having casual sex either. I don’t remember, off the top of my head, _any_ stories about reforming women who define their lives by casual sex.

    I just don’t see that, particularly the second part.

    It sort of comes out of the insults that you see people leveling to other people of the opposite sex.

    Woman to man? Insult his gender identity.

    Man to woman? Insult her attractiveness. (But not her gender identity.)

    There inherent implication, along with forcing men to be just one thing or they’re “out,” is that anything non-male/cis/straight is illegitimate, incompetent, and unimportant.

    Okay. Interestingly the whole male/cis/straight thing stigmatizes men who _aren’t_ interested in women thus not controlled by female sexuality.

    Of course you’re not going to hear about a “real woman” because, in terms of how “real man” is used, women aren’t important except as supporting roles to get men there. If the notion of having the status a “real man” can have isn’t even on the table for women, why should they face the rigidity in the same frame that which men will?

    The way I’ve seen ‘real man’ used is to shame men into acting for the benefit of the women around them–ie. chivalry. I’m not sure how you’ve seen it used, but I’ve noticed this use of the term is common in media as well so I’m inclined to see it as a widespread. A ‘real man’ is someone who is strong so he can sacrifice for women’s benefit.

    I suppose if women’s gender identity was as contingent upon sacrificing to benefit the men around them, then they would have access to earning a term roughly equivalent to ‘real man.’

    However, being a “lady” and the such undertones is different terms where the woman knows her place, isn’t aggressive, selfish (god forbid), and is attractive.

    You know, I’ve lived my whole life and not once has anyone admonished me to ‘be a lady’. Nor have I seen it often in media outside of period pieces or the quaint mannerisms of some character who is either woefully out of touch with reality or a bitch/asshole.

    A few generations ago this might have made more sense.

    I think women feel they need to be attractive because they’re told everyday it is the most important thing.

    So? To be honest I find the implications of this sort of offensive. So women aren’t capable of making up their own minds? You know, that was an argument used to prevent women getting the suffrage once.

    I don’t believe women feel anymore “entitled” to being perceived as attractive than men are as being perceived as “a real man” and, to a degree, I can blame neither.

    As far as I’m concerned everyone is entitled to basic respect for their gender identity. They are not entitled to anyone finding them attractive.

    It is bad when it comes to PUA, I believe, because they will use premeditated and deliberate manipulation of women to get the compliance.

    Again, as long as they’re not using violence, threats of violence, threats of proxy violence or threats to survival needs then they can do whatever they like.

    As an independent woman I’ll use my incredible superpower of independent thought to fight them off.

  194. HughRistik says:

    Colette said:

    As I said, I don’t believe it is validation overall but compliance. It is bad because nobody should require validation or compliance. It is bad when it comes to PUA, I believe, because they will use premeditated and deliberate manipulation of women to get the compliance.

    Colette, could you give an example of a technique in the seduction community that you consider manipulative? And how are you defining “manipulation”? People define that word in a lot of different ways; for instance, some people consider “manipulation” to be unethical by definition, and other people define it as morally neutral.

  195. machina says:

    Tom: Machina

    This puts men interested in a romantic and/or sexual encounter in a bit of a bind. They cannot tell whether a rebuff is to be understood as a test of their long-term intentions (if that was the case they might persist in their suit) or as a definitive rejection (if that was the case they should desist at once from their suit).

    The result is bound to be that those who care first and foremost about the ethics of their sexual interactions will err on the side of caution: ‘ “no” means “no”, because even if it actually means “yes, but not just now” I have no way of knowing such to be the case – and I don’t want to risk breaking a woman’s boundaries.’

    All else being equal such men are going to have less sexual and romantic success than those who are unconcerned about sexual ethics and work on the assumption that ‘ “no” sometimes means “yes, but not just now” – so I should keep working away at those defences. They aren’t there to deter me but to test my mettle.’

    What do you think of that outcome?

    Well by the same token a person who follows ethical business practices is putting themself at a competitive disadvantage against people who don’t. I agree that those are likely outcomes and they’re not ideal. I’m much more interested in coming up with ways of getting better results than talking about those problems though. So as far as the dynamic above goes, the important point to me is that both types of guys come from a position of ignorance. I think working what are common filters and what are common boundaries should resolve alot of the difficulties with ethical seduction.

  196. You’re a BDSMer; does the fact that BDSM is stereotyped as “sick” obligate you not to engage in BDSM?

    It obligates me to be careful when I engage in BDSM, and to be aware of the pressures that might come along with specific SM practices, and to prioritize consent and mutuality above everything — even my own pleasure. Which is all I’m asking of men.

  197. clarence says:

    I do want to say that BDSM does have some useful advice in regards to sex relations.

    I’m not going to bring up my own experiences or experiments here, not that I think anyone would lose their lunch – I’m the milder end of “kink”- but because its nobodies business.

    Here are the useful concepts:
    A. Safety in play or sex. One learns all kinds of things about sharp objects, melting parafins, fire, and various positions of intercourse if one hangs out with anyone from the community for any length of time. People often don’t think that regular heterosexual intercourse has any risk of physical injury except maybe disease. Wrong.

    B. The fact that almost all types of sex involve some power exchange, and a concept of how to test for boundaries within sex and sex play. Gradations of boundaries : safewords and “consensual nonconsent”.

    There’s probably one or two more things I’m forgetting but it is rather early here, and I”m tired.

    Clarisse:
    It’s still ok not to necessarily be aware of all the (psychological?) pressures that go along with all the various SM practices as one can not always read anothers mind and until both parties have tried something they often don’t each know what they think about it. I’m not saying to ignore R.A.C.K or SSC, I’m saying that its ok to make minor mistakes so long as you’ve done the best to fullfill the conditions of safety and mutuality. No one is ever guaranteed a good time with any type of sex. In other words give yourself a break. You are not the parent and your partner is not a child.

  198. Motley says:

    @ Clarisse -

    It obligates me to be careful when I engage in BDSM, and to be aware of the pressures that might come along with specific SM practices, and to prioritize consent and mutuality above everything — even my own pleasure. Which is all I’m asking of men.

    I disagree quite strongly. I don’t think that lies told about you actually impose any obligation on you at all.

    You may have all of the obligations you mention; but do you really think that the source of the obligation is the various slander that gets hurled your way?

    If I start telling everyone that Clarisse Thorn is a psychotic serial killer, or hugely fat, does it suddenly become unethical for you to touch a sharp object, or eat?
    No.

    If that lie becomes extremely widespread?
    Still no.

    Duty is not contingent on what lies are told about you.

    @ Machina –

    Well by the same token a person who follows ethical business practices is putting themself at a competitive disadvantage against people who don’t.

    Good analogy.

    My “defense” of the SC is thus: Learning how to come up with a cool logo, a snappy advertising jingle, and buying ads on TV are not unethical.

    …Unless the product you’re selling is innately toxic.

  199. Doug S. says:

    What’s interesting about that study is that nobody has actually looked at the data. Changing whether men or women rotated in the speed dating scenario didn’t really change women’s selectivity. It changed men’s. Men got pickier when they didn’t rotate, and women seemed to be doing the approaching.

    I looked at the data; women were *slightly* less picky when they rotated than when they were seated, although not by very much. The effect on men was, as you say, much bigger.

    I don’t remember, off the top of my head, _any_ stories about reforming women who define their lives by casual sex.

    Black Snake Moan?
    The Sweetest Thing? (awful movie, don’t see it!)
    Pretty Woman?

  200. Shari says:

    Hugh said, “I would be surprised if women who approach men at their level of attractiveness and accomplishments, who aren’t chasing hypermasculine badboys with harems, and who put in a little bit of practice, are still getting rejected most of the time when they initiate.”

    Hugh, I am older than you, so get ready to be surprised. It’s the way it usually goes. Some of my male friends say guys like the idea of having to work hard to get a girl…they like challenges. So no, it’s usually not in woman’s interest to chase a guy. There are always exceptions. (And sometimes interest just is not reciprocated, regardless of who approaches.)

    I’m sure if you went to the regular relationship section of the bookstore, you’d find plenty of people who back me up on that. Doesn’t mean I like the reality of the dynamic.

    Machina: I like the whole filter and boundaries discussion. I think both sexes are often using filters as they date and try to figure out who is compatible with their wants, needs, desires, etc. And I see how the SC heavily focuses on screwing up the screening process for selfish gain.

    General: Comparing the the bulk of the SC to bad parts of feminism does not make sense to me. That’s just finger pointing and not admitting that something is seriously wrong with most SC stuff.

    When the *majority* of feminists say really disrespectful things about men, I’ll see it as a fair comparison. Until then, I only have the cheesy sex-obsessed PUA sites to go from, and I know you can find a lot of the positive bits about social skills and sex in more respectable, better-studied resources. The SC does NOT own good dating advice–they didn’t come up with it themselves. Perhaps some people are not motivated to go find higher-quality resources, or maybe they don’t realize the junk they are taking in is twisted and will have lasting effects. Maybe they are so hopeful to get “the secrets” of dating that they forget to look at more credible sources. Using the SC stuff is like buying a vacuum cleaner from the late-night infomercial on TV instead of getting a better, trustier one at a quality store.

  201. Lady Raine says:

    Okay, woaaaaah.

    I am extremely confused, here.

    I don’t think anyone can argue that the PUA Community is notorious for “loathing” Feminist Women, Career Women, and sometimes even Feminist influence.

    They typically consider those women “too masculine” and therefore disturbing to the “natural order of things” (meaning what PUAs believe to be the natural order of things) because they’re not submissive to the dominant male and don’t “let him lead”.

    I have seen that belief and attitude repeated in the PUA Community….so basically what I am saying is why do you WANT to Game a Feminist if you are a PUA?

    If you are so loathing of Feminists why are you interested in sleeping with, dating, or having a relationship with one?

    I’m not being a smart ass (for once) I am genuinely confused.

    For example: the man I’d be least attractive to would be a emotional, clingy, sensitive guy with a “paper pusher” type job with misogynistic or creationist-based beliefs.

    So I would never seek out a way to DATE a man like that on purpose. I certainly wouldn’t SLEEP with a man who was basically “everything I loathe in men”.

    Do men do that? Date a woman who represents everything he hates?

    If yes, then can you honestly still say that PUAs are NOT out to make an “enemy” or women or “prey” on them just for sex?

    I just don’t understand (or believe) that most men who study PUA have interest in a long term or even semi-serious relationship with a Feminist.

    It sounds like they want to just sleep with them out of revenge. I mean….what else makes logical sense?

    Maybe I’m wrong, though and since I genuinely am not understanding this I’ll just ask that you explain this one to me, if you don’t mind.

  202. typhonblue says:

    Lady Raine:

    It sounds like they want to just sleep with them out of revenge. I mean….what else makes logical sense?

    Um… I’m afraid I can’t follow the thread of most of your post but I thought I’d pull this part out.

    Men sleeping with someone out of revenge is simply bizarre behavior and a seriously misandrous framing of male sexuality. Could you imagine how bad a woman’s self esteem would have to be before she started to envision her sexuality as something she can _inflict_ on another human being for revenge-purposes?

    Get these boys some self-esteem for f-sake.

    Shari:

    When the *majority* of feminists say really disrespectful things about men, I’ll see it as a fair comparison.

    The majority of everyone says really disrespectful things about men! Look at commercials!

    One really great example are the new Ikea ads. Apparently they’re telling men to buy their products to pre-emptively prevent domestic violence from their abusive wives. Yuck. Oh, so yuck.

    Comparing the the bulk of the SC to bad parts of feminism does not make sense to me.

    Comparing the bad parts of the SC to identical dynamics in wider society does make sense to me.

    I think part of the problem with this blog is that every criticism made by a non-feminist-aligned contributer is going to end up sounding like a criticism of feminism.

    It’s not. A lot of it is a criticism of crappy traditional gender-dynamics. In fact most of it, and criticism of feminism only gets in there when feminist thought appears to overlap with crappy traditional gender-dynamics.

    That’s just finger pointing and not admitting that something is seriously wrong with most SC stuff.

    Okay. You think there is something seriously wrong with SC stuff. I don’t. At least I don’t see anything seriously wrong with SC stuff _in terms of women_.

    Some of the SC stuff encourages men to hold on to an incredibly negative view of male sexuality*. This is bad and I agree it should be changed.

    * It’s hard not to have a negative view of your own sexuality without also having a negative view of the people who share it with you. I understand this dynamic very well.

  203. clarence says:

    Well, LadyRaine:

    I don’t know about YOU but as for me I like to be tied up, dressed in a maid uniform and have the word “pig” sprayed all over me in multi colors and be disciplined constantly. I find that many feminists are perfectly willing to do provided they know that I lean MRA and belong to the seduction community.

    Actually , the above was very tongue in cheek. I don’t desire sex with feminists per-se, they’d have to treat me well before I’d consider putting my male member anywhere near them. There are lots of physically attractive feminists on the web that make me wilt as soon as they open their mouths and let me know what they really think about men.

    I don’t believe most PUA’s want to go after known feminists of the type that are very critical of the community. A part from the scenerio above, the only other reason I can think of to have sex with a “gynocentric” feminist would be bragging rights, like “Hey! I entered the secret cave of the feminist she beast and survived” or to prove their theories that all women are all the same and all go for dominant males. I certainly have never ran into a r/l PUA who bragged about having “bagged” a known feminist.

  204. HughRistik says:

    Lady Raine said:

    I have seen that belief and attitude repeated in the PUA Community….so basically what I am saying is why do you WANT to Game a Feminist if you are a PUA?

    Lady Raine, nobody is talking about PUAs gaming feminists, except me when I was being tongue-in-cheek:

    Nope, this isn’t a post on how to pick up feminists. It is a post on techniques and ideas in the seduction community that feminists might like.

    Does that make more sense?

  205. typhonblue says:

    Collette:

    As I said, I don’t believe it is validation overall but compliance.

    I think I’ll expound a bit more on this after having read a PUA declare that ‘all women respond to game’.

    I was once waiting for my husband in the company of a male acquaintance I’ll call ‘B’. I later figured out that B is a PUA. At the time I was unaware.

    Whilst I was waiting, B initiated a bizarre little interaction that began with him ‘negging’ me. He then proceeded to use what I later identified was a neuro-linguistic programming method on me–which amounted to telling me a long, involved, very emotional story. Towards the end, I was feeling an intense sort of rapport with B.

    It was at that point I got a ‘what the fuck’ feeling. Just as B was leaning in, I said, ‘Wow. I hope my husband gets here soon. I miss him.’

    The pole-axed look on B’s face was priceless.

    Normally I wouldn’t delight in someone else’s discomfort(I lie) but, really… he knew I was waiting for my husband. In fact I would never get with a guy who didn’t respect another guy’s LRT or any guy who didn’t demonstrate a ‘brotherhood first’ mentality.

    Supposedly the neg and neurolinguistic programming are SC’s nuclear warheads of seduction. So what? If you have principles you hold to, then they don’t work.

    So much for ‘compliance’.

  206. Sam says:

    Shari,

    “The SC does NOT own good dating advice–they didn’t come up with it themselves.”

    no, certainly not. But what it has done is give more men than previously the feeling that *change is possible*. The SC has demonstrated that social skills aren’t completely innate, that it *is* possible that a shy guy can learn how to be a sexually attractive man. That’s an immensely liberating realization, and – again – one that I would, on some meta level, even call feminist: it’s about learning how to *perfom masculinity*. It’s too bad if some people aren’t able to tell valuable advice from less valuable advice, but that’s usually a skill reserved to people with a broader range of knowledge who do know there *is* something to compare with.

    But to be honest, if I were a shy 16yo and I’d have no clue where to look for better advice, and I’d google and end up on fastseduction.com, then that would be prefeable than not doing anything about my perceived limitations. Most of the better quality advice is NOT written with this kind of guy in mind. There *is* a reason the SC has become so big – it *is* supplying a particular target group with advice that was previously largely ignored.

    And, that said, it’s, in a way, an interesting cultural artefact of gender relations and discourse that a) this target group was apparently previously ignored while b) so many people seem to be shocked now by how big it appears to be.

  207. clarence says:

    Typhon:

    I tihnk it is obvious you did respond to “game”. However you had the internal control to over ride it.

    Also NLP is not something I can ethically promote , and I’m willing to be there are other techniques you’d respond to as well and many -perhaps most- you wouldn’t. You are a very intelligent and self-controlled lady.

  208. typhonblue says:

    Clarence:

    I tihnk it is obvious you did respond to “game”. However you had the internal control to over ride it.

    Oh, I know I responded. However responding does not mean sealing the deal. I maintain that if a woman truly does not want to have sex, she won’t.

    I maintain this despite other commentator’s concern over the ethics of the seduction community because the cost of not maintaining it is too high.

    If you truly believe that women are incapable of making a correct choice(for them) in the face of the most innocuous kind of pressure (I mean, really, non-aggressive verbal persuasion, wtf?) then how can you logically believe that women are capable of making decisions under catastrophic levels of pressure. For example, in the board room or on the battle field. (Or even in political elections.)

    Promoting the idea that women have no ability to risk-manage thus need others to manage their risks for them promotes a vision of women that is incompatible with any sort of independence. If women really do have no ability to risk manage then they have no ability to be responsible for anything; any society that embraces the former view necessarily embraces the later view.

    Boys are expected to manage their own risks; the results are that boys wash out more (homeless, prison) but also that boys achieve more. Anyone who thinks they can create a system in which women do not risk manage yet achieve on par with men is deluding themselves.

    If we don’t get rid of these cultural attitudes against women being able to risk-manage then I guarantee in a few generations we’ll see a rise of ‘for your own good’ legislation that will reverse every legal gain women have achieved over the last century.

    Women need to be able to fall and fall hard; and thus the women who get up to climb again can truly say they learned and ultimately earned their responsibilities.

    Either that or we go back to the way things were. *sigh* We’re all making the choice right now.

  209. Colette says:

    Sure, sexuality is human. But we’re talking about a society that loves to deny that fact and treat sexuality as some sort of… well… sin. An original sin, as it were.

    I don’t believe we’re dealing with a society that denies sexuality is human, I believe we’re dealing with a society that requires we have some degree of a guilt complex about it.

    By making sexuality all about men, they’re making a definite statement about men and it isn’t a positive one.

    Ahh, it isn’t a completely positive one, but it also isn’t completely negative. In this, men are allowed to be persons who desire sex and women can only be sluts or sexy (for men), not sexual (for themselves). Since women’s sexuality is all about men, it means that even when a woman isn’t being sexual, she is being sexual because a man decided so.

    Isn’t that sort of what media is saying about women now? Look at Sex in the City, Desperate Housewives, Tudors, hell… Farscape, Star Trek, Firefly.

    Half of those aren’t even on anymore (and I’d disagree about ‘Firefly’) and what made those shows so groundbreaking is that they did what they did. However, you still see the women of SatC and DH get made fun of for being “old” and having sex. They’re fodder all over the place where men, who are in those same roles everywhere, are not.

    But I don’t see women being portrayed as bad for having casual sex either.

    Really? Watch teen movies, watch slashers, watch “bro” movies. Though I should ad, since women aren’t as often featured as the protaganist but rather the LI or whatever supporting role, not enough is focused on them in the first place to establish character but there is always enough let on the audience to know she’s a “good girl.” Then even when they’re not featured as “bad” perse, they’re killed off after having sex.

    Okay. Interestingly the whole male/cis/straight thing stigmatizes men who _aren’t_ interested in women thus not controlled by female sexuality.

    Except, as I explained, I don’t believe het men are controlled by female sexuality. In the eyes of people who think this way, women don’t have sexuality. They just have sexiness, something decided by other people. So what are they being controlled by – “women’s sexuality,” or what straight men are told they’re supposed to want to be real men? Either way, women don’t have much to do with it except, as usual, supporting roles to get men there.

    Also, I believe that comment brushes over homophobia and transphobia by making it all about straight men.

    The way I’ve seen ‘real man’ used is to shame men into acting for the benefit of the women around them–ie. chivalry.

    Simultaneously, it is used to shame men for doing things like considering the feelings of women (only WUSSES do that), wanting to do things with them, believing it is important to keep plans they make, sharing the TV, etc. Why? Because all that chivalry functions as is a means to reward women who know their place. Let it die and let’s just all be polite to each other because it’s a good thing to do.

    You know, I’ve lived my whole life and not once has anyone admonished me to ‘be a lady’

    *shrugs* Lucky you, I guess. I had a male boss call me “potty mouth” and not allow us to wear jeans because he doesn’t think women should. I had a male aquaintance tell me “that’s not how girls act!” completely uninvited, and like he is my father or something, for doing exactly what the many men were doing. I’m constantly told to sit like a lady, to “smile, honey, you’re too pretty” (I HATE that), and told that Good Girls Don’t Act Like … all the time. Likewise, if I relayed complaints men give her to my male friends, they’re look at me like I said I just saw a unicorn. And they have.

    So women aren’t capable of making up their own minds?

    And men aren’t?

    I’m not saying women aren’t capable of making up their own minds, I’m telling you what they’re told all the time. It’s one thing to say that there is a choice and it is another to acknowledge the actual options. I choose to sell my house if I get cancer, but I really didn’t have a choice if I wanted to pay for my medical bills. I’m perfectly capable of making up my mind, however.

    As far as I’m concerned everyone is entitled to basic respect for their gender identity. They are not entitled to anyone finding them attractive.

    …Which creates a problem when certain behaviors are so tied to gender identity. It isn’t just attractiveness that is tied to (cis, het) women’s gender identity.

    As an independent woman I’ll use my incredible superpower of independent thought to fight them off.

    So will I. But that doesn’t change that they are deliberately and premeditatedly manipulative. And when you’re dealing with people who are overwhelmingly taught to be “good” and “nice” and not assertive, it makes it even worse.

    So much for ‘compliance’.

    Good! Not sure what that proves though, except you have had similar situations as I, though I busted out in a fit of laughter and then rolled my eyes. I too don’t like to take delight in the discomfort of others (especially given my anxiety; it feels horrible to be trapped in one’s skin and I’ll often take people aside to try and help, men or women) but if somebody is trying to be an ass, then what else is there.

  210. typhonblue says:

    Collette:

    What I’m getting from your post is that you think women are helpless and can’t manage their own risks.

    Chalk another vote up for the ‘for your own good’ laws of the future!

  211. typhonblue says:

    Let me explain where my conclusion is coming from.

    On the one hand you deny that men can be controlled by women’s sexuality. Yet on the other you believe that women can be controlled by men’s sexuality.

    How come social pressure is a one-way street (man to woman)?

    Ahh, it isn’t a completely positive one, but it also isn’t completely negative. In this, men are allowed to be persons who desire sex and women can only be sluts or sexy (for men), not sexual (for themselves).

    It’s really hard to be sexual just for yourself since, afterall, sexuality is a team sport.

    BTW, men are allowed to be people who desire sex but they are not allowed to be people who are desirable.

    Since women’s sexuality is all about men, it means that even when a woman isn’t being sexual, she is being sexual because a man decided so.

    These are some incredible mind-bending powers men have here. Because a man has decided a woman is something, that makes her so?

  212. HughRistik says:

    Welcome, Linda.

    I consider myself somewhat of a feminist and have read a substantial amount of literature on it (I have an undergraduate degree in gender studies.)
    About six months ago my boyfriend told me that he was involved in the Seduction Community.

    I was horrified. But he lent me a book by the Seduction Expert Swinggcat. My mind was quickly changed. His advice to men is harsh but, surprisingly, spot on. I also liked his stuff about how most people are naturally attractive, but all of our bad social programming prevents us from attracting the opposite sex.

    I don’t know if the other seduction gurus are well versed in feminist literature but Swinggcat appears to be. He quotes Beauvoir’s the Second Sex and works by Judith Butler. For some reason, that made me like him more.

    I’m curious, could you say a little more about what led you to initially be horrified by the seduction community? And what led you to change your mind?

  213. machina says:

    Motley: Good analogy.

    My “defense” of the SC is thus: Learning how to come up with a cool logo, a snappy advertising jingle, and buying ads on TV are not unethical.

    …Unless the product you’re selling is innately toxic.

    I think that analogy has been used in slightly different ways on this site before, so I won’t take credit for it. It’s an interesting analogy also because while most people find advertisements annoying, they generally aren’t considered unethical despite the fact that they are trying to get through the filters put up between them and our money. And people quite often like clever ads.

    Shari: I like the whole filter and boundaries discussion. I think both sexes are often using filters as they date and try to figure out who is compatible with their wants, needs, desires, etc. And I see how the SC heavily focuses on screwing up the screening process for selfish gain.

    I think you’re right that both sexes using filters, but I think there’s a particular strategy that is based on attraction and filtering. I think mostly women use this strategy. Not all women use it but the likely targets of pick up artist targets do, and they put a lot of effort into both attraction and filtering. So pick up artists are mainly working in the context of women with fairly strong filtering systems.

    Now as far as “screwing up the screening process” I think that’s true to extent, but the first problem is that there isn’t really much knowledge of what constitutes a boundary, and since a model of female behaviour that seeks to rationalise sexual behaviour along fairly simple lines that reduces the kinds of conceivable boundaries a woman can have is sometimes used, I think the largest potential damage is from inadvertedly violating boundaries. But when it comes to screwing with screening processes, first I think there are two main types of screen: one to protect from abuse and one to screen out undesirable mates. Perhaps strangely, I think screwing with the first is actually better than the second, assuming you’re not actually intending to abuse the woman. This goes back to the Shrodinger’s rapist idea, a woman mightn’t know that a man is going to rape her or not, but the man presumably does (assuming they have a reasonable knowledge of actual boundaries). So being able to put a woman at ease in this case, which I think is just a nicer way of screwing with those filters, is actually a reasonable thing to do since she doesn’t want to screen you out anyway, at least not using that particular screen.

    Screwing with the second kind of screen/filter seems more problematic since no-one wants to screw an undesirable mate. Now undesirable doesn’t necessarily mean unattractive. I’m a straight guy, and have had gay men try various methods of seduction on me, none with the chance of success because I’m just not attracted to them. Yet I’ve had to work much harder to resist having sex with women who were trying to seduce me, whom I had reasons to not want to have sex with, because I was attracted to them. Undesirable means that meet your requirements. The problem here is that these requirements don’t exist in a vacuum and are constantly evolving. Perhaps seduction can be a legitimate part of that process, I guess this is where my thinking on the matter is up to now.

  214. W says:

    typhon: “Anyone who thinks they can create a system in which women do not risk manage yet achieve on par with men is deluding themselves.”

    This ought to be framed in gold leaf. Women entrepreneurs understand this lesson. Women athletes understand this. Adepts of “gender theory” seem not to.

    Just to throw an interesting anecdote into the mix, today I went out for a stroll through a Chinese neighborhood and stopped by at a food stand. I had a beer and chatted-up the ladies there in my decent Mandarin. 10 minutes into the conversation, one of the women asked for my phone number and expressed interest in getting to know me better. No manipulation was required. No “techniques”. No “game”. There was no adversarial posturing. It was charming, friendly and forthright. Why on earth is that so hard?

    Well, I suppose it’s only hard if a large number of women instinctively view their sex-appeal as a bargaining chip and a means of manipulation. And, no surprise, if enough women do that for long enough, it’s predictable that a community of men might eventually develop in order to do a bit of manipulation of their own. One really cannot condemn the latter party without condemning the former party as well.

    (Oh, riiiight, I’m forgetting how _oppressed by patriarchy_ the former party is…)

  215. typhonblue says:

    W, Collette;

    The point(aside from a desire to chat about myself) was that even using the strongest SC tactics, B wasn’t able to get into my pants.

    I really don’t think I possess any parts that any other women doesn’t possess. Which means women can still choose not to have sex even when a seduction artist tries his damnest.

    So any moral concern over the techniques creating ‘compliance’ in women infantilizes them (and will eventually encourage ‘for your own good’ laws.)

    I didn’t mention my experience in order to pass judgement on the techniques he used. I see both ‘negging’ and NLP to be morally neutral. Nor did I mention it as some sort of ‘laugh in his face’ girl power thing.

    The only reason I saw his behavior as immoral is because he was trying to seduce a woman who was _married_. If he had succeeded he would have ended up hurting another man(of course he would have done so with the consent of that woman). B also started to ‘neg’ on my husband as well; I think he was trying to get me to justify cheating on him because of some imagined bad behavior. Well, unfortunately I’m aware someone else’s bad behavior doesn’t excuse mine so…

  216. Tom Nolan says:

    Machina

    Well by the same token a person who follows ethical business practices is putting themself at a competitive disadvantage against people who don’t. I agree that those are likely outcomes and they’re not ideal. I’m much more interested in coming up with ways of getting better results than talking about those problems though. So as far as the dynamic above goes, the important point to me is that both types of guys come from a position of ignorance. I think working what are common filters and what are common boundaries should resolve alot of the difficulties with ethical seduction.

    I suppose what I was getting at was this: women who are giving out negative signals in order to filter (i.e. test a man’s level of desire and his character) depend for the success of their strategy on the men they want to test being none-too-ethically sensitive. If all the men such women wanted to test were to say to themselves: ‘oh dear, getting some negative signals here, better leave this woman alone’, then, evidently, no man would ever make it through the filter.

    But all men are not so easily put off, with this result: that the filter excludes men with the sort of sexual ethics that feminists traditionally approve of (‘if a woman says “no”, if she even looks uncomfortable in your presence, then you and your sense of entitlement should back right off!’) and admits men with the sort of ethics that feminists traditionally don’t approve of.

    It isn’t a question of less scrupulous men taking advantage of a comportment which would normally function to benefit the more ethical, it’s a question of a comportment which will with absolute predictability favour the less scrupulous.

    I think working what are common filters and what are common boundaries should resolve alot of the difficulties with ethical seduction.

    So the idea would be to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous signals: ‘If a woman crosses her legs whenever you come into the same room as her, and pointedly ignores your conversational overtures – that means she’s actually testing your resolve and character: she wants to know if you really mean it before committing to you romantically and sexually. Don’t be put off.’ On the other hand: ‘If a woman changes the subject when you mention how lonely you’ve been feeling lately, or if she refuses to take a chocolate from the bag you offer her, that means she has no romantic or sexual interest in you, and you should back off.’ – Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

  217. Doug S. says:

    So the idea would be to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous signals

    Said signals may be ambiguous for a reason – plausible deniability. It’s not always good to express one’s interest in a way that anyone can recognize; in a negotiation, the one who can walk away more easily has more power and revealing your exact level of interest tips your hand, so to speak.

    And if you take all the indirection out of human communication, you’ll probably end up with something that sounds like this.

  218. clarence says:

    Doug S:

    Wow, that was cynically disgusting.

    I doubt even most club one night hookups have quite as toxic internal communication as that. I’m surprised they didn’t kill each other.

  219. machina says:

    Tom: “I suppose what I was getting at was this: women who are giving out negative signals in order to filter (i.e. test a man’s level of desire and his character) depend for the success of their strategy on the men they want to test being none-too-ethically sensitive. If all the men such women wanted to test were to say to themselves: ‘oh dear, getting some negative signals here, better leave this woman alone’, then, evidently, no man would ever make it through the filter.”

    I guess the issue here is ambiguity. If a women is rebuffing your sexual advances for 90 days, but otherwise is showing interest in you, and in developing a relationship with you, then you have to balance these two messages. The important point to me is that women often have conflicting desires themselves. Understanding that and trying to find some clarity should lead to better results.

    “But all men are not so easily put off, with this result: that the filter excludes men with the sort of sexual ethics that feminists traditionally approve of (’if a woman says “no”, if she even looks uncomfortable in your presence, then you and your sense of entitlement should back right off!’) and admits men with the sort of ethics that feminists traditionally don’t approve of.

    It isn’t a question of less scrupulous men taking advantage of a comportment which would normally function to benefit the more ethical, it’s a question of a comportment which will with absolute predictability favour the less scrupulous.”

    Right, and like I said, that has broader applications in areas like business. Behaving ethically is generally disadvantagous when it comes to getting sex volumetrically. However, broadly defined, I don’t think sex is all that great when it comes to pleasure, so defining it more narrowly for yourself will probably lead to better sex. I said in a reply over at Clarisse’s site that sex for men is mostly about accomplishment rather than pleasure. I think part of the probem here is getting sex for the hell of it, as an accomplishment in itself, rather than as something that serves some personal pleasurable end.

    “So the idea would be to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous signals: ‘If a woman crosses her legs whenever you come into the same room as her, and pointedly ignores your conversational overtures – that means she’s actually testing your resolve and character: she wants to know if you really mean it before committing to you romantically and sexually. Don’t be put off.’ On the other hand: ‘If a woman changes the subject when you mention how lonely you’ve been feeling lately, or if she refuses to take a chocolate from the bag you offer her, that means she has no romantic or sexual interest in you, and you should back off.’ – Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?”

    I… don’t think so. The problem with all of the above examples is context. All of them are saying “no” in some way or another, but what are they saying no to? I think that the way that someone says no is less important than the context. Are they saying no, flat out, to a cold approach? Are they saying no to sex after two dates? Are they saying no intimacy from a stranger? I think context of these messages is far more important than the yes/no message.

    [Good comment, machina. Please don't rely on italics for quoting; use quotation marks or the 'blockquote' function. —ballgame]

  220. Scipio Africanus says:

    Machina,

    I don’t think sex is all that great when it comes to pleasure, so defining it more narrowly for yourself will probably lead to better sex. I said in a reply over at Clarisse’s site that sex for men is mostly about accomplishment rather than pleasure. I think part of the probem here is getting sex for the hell of it, as an accomplishment in itself, rather than as something that serves some personal pleasurable end.

    This reads really presumptuous and kind of fascist, to me. You’re saying less sex is more. Sex isn’t really that good, so people shouldn’t try to go for volume. Men don’t really enjoy sex (or maybe they *shouldn’t* really enjoy sex) and merely want to conquer a woman.

    The overarching implication is that women “have it right” in their common attitudes, practices and mentalities regarding sex. This is full of the notion that sex is something with little inherent value and should be avoided, or at least regarded as merely an accent of pleasure tacked onto something greater.

    I would so hate to live in a world where this mentality is fashionable and it is expected for men to buy into it.

  221. Tom Nolan says:

    Machina

    Right, and like I said, that has broader applications in areas like business.

    But business and commerce can perfectly well function (and in fact function best) when buyers and sellers, wheelers and dealers, behave in an ethically scrupulous fashion. What I’m trying to point out here, is that the ‘filter’ – which doesn’t actually look any different to a ‘barrier’ – can only work if men are unscrupulous enough not to take ‘no’ (whether expressed vocally or through behavioural- and body-language) at face value. Can you see the distinction I’m making here?

    Are they saying no intimacy from a stranger? I think context of these messages is far more important than the yes/no message.

    Perhaps, instead of extensive training for men, so that they can distinguish between types of ‘no’ (‘This “no” means: “no, I am not interested in you as a sexual/romantic partner,” whereas that “no” means “no, not just now, though I might be prepared to consider you a sexual/romantic partner some time in the future.” ‘) it would be simpler to encourage women to be a little more decisive in their desires and to learn to express those desires in a less ambiguous way? After all, if we aren’t prepared to tackle this question of ambiguous signals, all the education and prepping of men in the world will be of no help: so long as a signal can mean one of two things, men cannot help but be unsure about what the intention behind it is. Of course context is not irrelevant: if I approach a woman with my bag of chocolates on a deserted railway platform, negative signals will most likely mean: ‘just go away!’ But there is no situation, is there, where a woman’s negative signals can with certainty be interpreted as being a qualified “yes”?

    Agree or disagree?

  222. Scipio,

    You’re saying less sex is more. Sex isn’t really that good, so people shouldn’t try to go for volume. Men don’t really enjoy sex (or maybe they *shouldn’t* really enjoy sex) and merely want to conquer a woman.

    I would so hate to live in a world where this mentality is fashionable and it is expected for men to buy into it.

    I don’t think you are reading Machina fairly.

    From PUAs I get the message that my worth as a man is measured by the quantity of sex I have, the community rating of the women I have sex with, minus any exertions I go through to get it. That’s certainly not a world I want to live in.

    I can like sex, and consider sex a good thing, and not necessarily believe my happiness is served my maximizing my sexual activity.

  223. Scipio Africanus says:

    STF,

    I don’t think you are reading Machina fairly.

    From PUAs I get the message that my worth as a man is measured by the quantity of sex I have, the community rating of the women I have sex with, minus any exertions I go through to get it. That’s certainly not a world I want to live in.

    At the very least, the paragraph of mine you quoted seems to correspond point for point with what Machina said. If anything I got a little creative with the second para., not the first, so I’m not understaning how I was unfair in that first paragraph.

    But to your points, based on my limited knowledge of the PUA community, I would disagree with the idea that PUA’s promote that type of mentality – “that my worth as a man is measured by the quantity of sex I have, the community rating of the women I have sex with, minus any exertions I go through to get it.” If anything, I’d attribute the propogation of that thinking to society at large, strictly.

  224. Motley says:

    @ STF -

    I don’t think you are reading Machina fairly.

    It’s the same reading I got (actually a slightly more generous reading than the one that, to me, seems most accurate). In that the part you quote seems to be a simple restatement of what Machina was quite explicitly saying.
    But you apparently read it differently–how so?

    From PUAs I get the message that my worth as a man is measured by the quantity of sex I have, the community rating of the women I have sex with, minus any exertions I go through to get it. That’s certainly not a world I want to live in.

    Motley’s Law. You actually get this message from everywhere, and instances of this message appear in literature that is centuries old. We don’t get to blame PUAs for it, any more than I get to blame you for the Boston Massacre.

  225. machina says:

    Scipio Africanus: This reads really presumptuous and kind of fascist, to me. You’re saying less sex is more. Sex isn’t really that good, so people shouldn’t try to go for volume. Men don’t really enjoy sex (or maybe they *shouldn’t* really enjoy sex) and merely want to conquer a woman.

    Ok, I mightn’t have been clear there, what I meant was that the societal message to have lots of sex crowds out any discussion of pleasure, so that the sex that results isn’t that good.

    The overarching implication is that women “have it right” in their common attitudes, practices and mentalities regarding sex. This is full of the notion that sex is something with little inherent value and should be avoided, or at least regarded as merely an accent of pleasure tacked onto something greater.

    I don’t think women “have it right” so that implication is accidental, nor do I think sex should be avoided, however I do think seeking it for a sense of accomplishment has negative consequences. I’m not sure what you mean by inherent value here.

    Tom: But business and commerce can perfectly well function (and in fact function best) when buyers and sellers, wheelers and dealers, behave in an ethically scrupulous fashion.

    Collectively, or systematically, they can function well when everyone is scupulous, but an individual is often far better off by being unscupulous and deceptive, at least if they can get away with it.

    What I’m trying to point out here, is that the ‘filter’ – which doesn’t actually look any different to a ‘barrier’ – can only work if men are unscrupulous enough not to take ‘no’ (whether expressed vocally or through behavioural- and body-language) at face value. Can you see the distinction I’m making here?

    Ok, I think I get what you’re saying, although I don’t think women generally require men to break though the filters. There are some women that have that dynamic going on, and I find it particularly annoying, but a lot of women are capable of making a yes or no decision.

    Perhaps, instead of extensive training for men, so that they can distinguish between types of ‘no’ (’This “no” means: “no, I am not interested in you as a sexual/romantic partner,” whereas that “no” means “no, not just now, though I might be prepared to consider you a sexual/romantic partner some time in the future.” ‘) it would be simpler to encourage women to be a little more decisive in their desires and to learn to express those desires in a less ambiguous way?

    I think that’s a good thing to do and the outcome would be ideal, and also I guess there’s a problem with working out how to better negotiate ambiguous dating methods in that it can reinforce them.

    After all, if we aren’t prepared to tackle this question of ambiguous signals, all the education and prepping of men in the world will be of no help: so long as a signal can mean one of two things, men cannot help but be unsure about what the intention behind it is. Of course context is not irrelevant: if I approach a woman with my bag of chocolates on a deserted railway platform, negative signals will most likely mean: ‘just go away!’ But there is no situation, is there, where a woman’s negative signals can with certainty be interpreted as being a qualified “yes”?

    Agree or disagree?

    I agree… yet I think you can also say there’s no way a woman’s positive signals mean an unqualified yes, because like of the possible confliction. Even an explicit yes mightn’t be without a fair amount of underlying conflict that’s not visible from the outside. That’s not to say that that completely invalidates what is said or done, it just means you can never really know what’s going on in someone’s head. It’s even possible for a woman to say “yes” to something, but from the context of the situation to figure out that it’s not a good idea to proceed anyway.

  226. Motley’s Law. You actually get this message from everywhere, and instances of this message appear in literature that is centuries old. We don’t get to blame PUAs for it, any more than I get to blame you for the Boston Massacre.

    Motley’s Law isn’t really a Law, since it makes no claim or observation about reality. It is more like a Commandment, setting bounds on when it would be legitimate and proper to levy “blame.” Now if you want to follow your own Commandment, and hold all rapacious subcultures blameless for what they are and what they do, under the principle that rape and pillage are hardly new or original inventions, you are free to do so, of course. I’m under no obligation to respect any such Commandment.

    I’m not blaming anyone for anything here. I’m not even evaluating the ethics of what PUAs teach and do. I’m stating my view the PUA view of men is not how I want to measure myself and other men, and not how I want to approach the world.

  227. Lady Raine says:

    “I don’t believe most PUA’s want to go after known feminists of the type that are very critical of the community. A part from the scenerio above, the only other reason I can think of to have sex with a “gynocentric” feminist would be bragging rights, like “Hey! I entered the secret cave of the feminist she beast and survived” or to prove their theories that all women are all the same and all go for dominant males. I certainly have never ran into a r/l PUA who bragged about having ‘bagged’ a known feminist.”

    Hello, Clarence haven’t heard from you in awhile…..

    Okay, well see you just proved my point. Hugh says he does NOT believe in “using” and manipulating women for malicious purposes (for lack of better words). He says he does not teach/use “Game” or Seduction techniques to abuse women or to teach OTHER men to abuse women.

    But then he posts about “techniques Feminists might like”. I’m not LOOKING for something accusatory here I am GENUINELY still confused.

    What you are saying (Clarence) is basically what I’m getting at. Most PUAs have a pretty *sour* opinion of “Feminists” as a whole. They don’t typically look at them in a favorable light for dating, for sex, and certainly not for relationships.

    So basically the only reason I can see a PUA to post this info…..would be to do exactly what you said. Basically “use and abuse” a Feminist sexually and then brag about it.

    That’s what I’m confused on. Why would someone who does NOT believe in using Game to “abuse women” would post info on techniques to use on Feminists (that you supposedly dislike and don’t want) unless it was to seek revenge?

    I’m basically seeing a bit of a contradiction here from what is preached to what is actually being taught here in front of my eyes.

    Does Hugh believe that perhaps many PUAs DO want to “date” a Feminist and just feign dislike of them because they don’t want to be rejected by them?

    Or is he offering men a way to “get back” at Feminists and Feminism?

    (Which is an idea I still don’t understand, because were it not for Feminism….men would still have to have provider status to even THINK about getting a decent woman/wife.)

  228. Motley says:

    @ STF -

    Motley’s Law isn’t really a Law, since it makes no claim or observation about reality.

    Claim: If something happened before you existed, then you did not contribute to its happening. This is also an observation of reality: If it happened before you existed, then it is incorrect to assume that you made it happen.

    This part of the law can be summarized with the phrase “Causality matters” or “time is linear.”

    Now if you want to follow your own Commandment, and hold all rapacious subcultures blameless for what they are and what they do, under the principle that rape and pillage are hardly new or original inventions…

    Re-read typhonblue’s definition of the law.
    Rapacious subcultures of rapacious cultures are not to blame for the rapacity of the culture in which they exist, especially if that aspect of the greater culture predates the subculture.
    Your hypothetical new literature club is not to blame for racism. Even if it had some racists in it.

    I’m not blaming anyone for anything here.

    When you notice that PUAs say something disagreeable, that the entire culture as a whole also says, and act as though this has meaning when applied to PUAs, that’s what blaming is.

    PUAs mostly have hair, too. If you don’t like hair, this doesn’t actually say anything negative about PUAs. People in our culture tend to have hair; the fact that PUAs also tend to have hair says absolutely nothing about PUAs one way or the other.

    I’m stating my view the PUA view of men is not how I want to measure myself and other men, and not how I want to approach the world.

    This also says nothing about PUAs.
    Also, there isn’t actually any “the PUA view of men.” Our culture has a certain view of men. PUAs seem to share it.
    This says absolutely nothing about PUAs, other than that they exist in our culture, and therefore share (at least some of) its views.

    @ LR

    That’s what I’m confused on. Why would someone who does NOT believe in using Game to “abuse women” would post info on techniques to use on Feminists (that you supposedly dislike and don’t want) unless it was to seek revenge?

    What on earth are you talking about?
    Are you referring to something?
    Or is this posted in the wrong thread?

  229. clarence says:

    LadyRaine:

    Not all PUA’s are the same and certainly not all Feminists fall into the “gynocentric” camp. I can think of a few moderate feminists I might be interested in, I’m sure Hugh can as well.

    The title of this thread is about what techniques in the seduction community might meet with some feminist approval , NOT about how to actually “pick up” feminists.

    I hope this clears things up for you.

  230. Colette says:

    What I’m getting from your post is that you think women are helpless and can’t manage their own risks.

    Then I don’t know what to tell you. But I could say the same thing about you with men, except you blame women for it.

    On the one hand you deny that men can be controlled by women’s sexuality.

    No, I deny that society is trying to say that men should be controlled by women’s sexuality, or that female approval of men is the most important thing. When I attempt to explain this, you neglect to respond to why and then proceed to draw your own conclusions from it and attribute views to me that do not belong.

    Yet on the other you believe that women can be controlled by men’s sexuality.

    I believe that society tells women the most important thing for them to do is have a man’s approval. From all the arguments I’ve seen, from everything I’ve observed, and from the way that our culture functions, I also believe society tells men the most important thing for them is to adhere to strict cultural masculinity that theoretically means winning the approval of other men. In this frame, being a “real man” is all that matters thus a woman’s opinion is unimportant, even if her opinion coincides with Real Man/Lady crap because that is just incidental.

    It’s really hard to be sexual just for yourself since, afterall, sexuality is a team sport.

    What I mean by that is to desire sexual pleasure and be a sexual creature.

    BTW, men are allowed to be people who desire sex but they are not allowed to be people who are desirable.

    … If you define sexually “desirable” by the stilted ways that women are supposed to be.

    These are some incredible mind-bending powers men have here.

    Anybody can have these “powers,” it is just that in the eyes of society it is one-sided.

    Because a man has decided a woman is something, that makes her so?

    I do not see what is difficult to understand about the idea that attractiveness is something decided by observers.

    Which means women can still choose not to have sex even when a seduction artist tries his damnest.

    It doesn’t mean the tactics are not manipulative.

    So any moral concern over the techniques creating ‘compliance’ in women infantilizes them (and will eventually encourage ‘for your own good’ laws.)

    That is a false dichotomy.

    The manipulation will either work or it won’t; that is why it is manipulation. But the PUAs are still doing it. I’m not sure why you brought laws into this.

    Nor did I mention it as some sort of ‘laugh in his face’ girl power thing.

    *shrugs* I’ll laugh in anybody’s face if I see they are attempting to manipulate me.

  231. Motley,

    Rapacious subcultures of rapacious cultures are not to blame for the rapacity of the culture in which they exist, especially if that aspect of the greater culture predates the subculture.
    Your hypothetical new literature club is not to blame for racism. Even if it had some racists in it.

    I made no assignment of blame for anything – you are the one that stated when blame was or was not legitimate. I said that your Law – or Commandment really, left no legitimate basis for “blaming” any subculture for anything. If you are trying to work your way out of that implication you are doing quite poorly, and perhaps you should rewind and have another go at it. I didn’t make any hypothesis about any club, so I have no idea what you mean by that.

    This also says nothing about PUAs.
    Also, there isn’t actually any “the PUA view of men.” Our culture has a certain view of men. PUAs seem to share it.
    This says absolutely nothing about PUAs, other than that they exist in our culture, and therefore share (at least some of) its views.

    If I followed Motley’s Commandment, I could never legitimately make any value judgment about any subculture, because it is always possible to locate the source of any distinguishing belief a subculture has – however extreme it might be – in the “entire culture.” I would have to maintain a completely neutral view of all extremists. In fact, I am Commanded not to notice any extremism:

    When you notice that PUAs say something disagreeable, that the entire culture as a whole also says, and act as though this has meaning when applied to PUAs, that’s what blaming is.

    There’s that rascally “entire culture” again, used the way feminists use Patriarchy to redirect attention.

    I stated my view that PUAs believe the worth of a man is measured by the quantity of sex he has, the quality of women he has sex with, with points taken off if he has to work hard for it. That’s the view of men that distinguishes PUAs from, say, soldiers, who have a very different model of the ideal man. Or foreign currency traders. Or Franciscans. Or roofers. That’s not to say that every PUA believes all that, or that no non-PUA believes that. Nor is it to say that PUAs invented this view of men. It is not a judgement of any PUA as a person, or any of their acts.

    It is more an observation of of how status and respect is gained in a culture. How credibility is gained. I think it is perfectly valid to draw inferences of what a culture believes by the people they admire, and the people they mock.

    So yes, there are aspects of this view in wider society also, just as there are sources in wider society for the trader’s view of men, or the monk’s view, or the Promise Keeper’s view. In fact lots of woman share the PUA view of the ideal man. The difference between what the “entire culture” believes and what PUAs believe is one of degree and emphasis. In a subculture, many or most members share views that are less prevalent outside their subculture.

    I don’t want to judge myself, or judge others, by PUA standards, and so this is not a subculture I have any regard for.

  232. HughRistik says:

    Lady Raine said:

    Okay, well see you just proved my point. Hugh says he does NOT believe in “using” and manipulating women for malicious purposes (for lack of better words). He says he does not teach/use “Game” or Seduction techniques to abuse women or to teach OTHER men to abuse women.

    But then he posts about “techniques Feminists might like”. I’m not LOOKING for something accusatory here I am GENUINELY still confused.

    Hi Lady Raine, I’ll see if I can clear up the confusion.

    As you know, I’ve observed a lot of recent criticism of the seduction community from feminists. While I agree with some of the problems that feminists object to in the seduction community, I don’t think that everything, or even most of what the seduction community teaches is flawed or unethical, even from the standpoint of mainstream feminists.

    When I titled this post “Pickup and Seduction Techniques for Feminists,” it is not to suggest that PUAs necessarily use these techniques with feminists. Instead, the “for” means “pickup techniques that I am presenting to feminists,” rather than “pickup techniques I am presenting to PUAs for use on feminists.”

    The reason I am presenting these techniques and ideas to feminists is because I think mainstream feminists may view most of them as positive, ethical, or at least non-objectionable. I want feminists to realize that there are positive and ethical ideas in the seduction community, instead of framing it as primarily deceptive, misogynistic, and harmful to women. Even if feminists might initially have trouble believing it, there is a baby in the bathwater.

    Personally, I do date feminists, though that’s not what this post was about. I like women who think about gender politics, read books, and have opinions on things. As long as they are open-minded, it’s not important that they agree with me 100%. In real life, I’ve often found feminist women to be great people. Run-of-the mill feminists in real life seem less likely to have the kind of dogmatism that I often see in feminists on the internet, and I often find them sympathetic to men’s issues.

  233. typhonblue says:

    Collette:

    I believe that society tells women the most important thing for them to do is have a man’s approval.

    From all the arguments I’ve seen, from everything I’ve observed, and from the way that our culture functions, I also believe society tells men the most important thing for them is to adhere to strict cultural masculinity that theoretically means winning the approval of other men.

    These are the two main statements I’m getting from your post.

    1) Society tells women that the most important thing is to have a man’s approval.

    2) Society tells men that the most important thing is for them to adhere to a strict cultural masculinity that theoretically means winning the approval of other men.

    Looking at 2), I see that ‘theoretically winning the approval of other men’ adds little because these same men are going to be ‘adhering’ to a strict cultural masculinity as well and their approval will be granted only as much as other men adhere also.

    So the slimmed down version of 2) is:

    2) Society tells men that the most important thing is for them to adhere to a strict cultural masculinity.

    In both cases we have a standard that society is trying to *enforce* on a group of people.

    I’m getting the sense from previous posts that you believe men are more capable of defying the standards set to them by society.

    Let’s look at a case study: Jane and John Average.

    Both Jane and John have no direct control of media; they’re just consumers. Although John may share anatomy with the media guys on top, he has no more ability to influence their decisions–thus what ends up on tv–directly then Jane.

    How is John more able to defy society’s standards then Jane?

  234. W says:

    Collette: “From all the arguments I’ve seen, from everything I’ve observed, and from the way that our culture functions, I also believe society tells men the most important thing for them is to adhere to strict cultural masculinity that theoretically means winning the approval of other men.”

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but if it is your opinion that masculinity is chiefly about winning the approval of other men, then you will be barking-up the wrong tree for a _very_ long time to come.

    By what kind of cherry-picking did you manage to come-up with that, Collette?

  235. Motley says:

    @ STF -

    I said that your Law – or Commandment really, left no legitimate basis for “blaming” any subculture for anything.

    If you are trying to work your way out of that implication you are doing quite poorly…

    I’m not, because that “implication” is a straw man you invented.
    I’m similarly not going to bother responding to the rest of the first half of your post, for the same reasons. The “implication” you claim to see doesn’t exist, and would only be possible to see if one was deliberately making a wild misinterpretation. Given that you’ve made that choice, I’ll stop trying to explain Motley’s Law to you.

    There’s that rascally “entire culture” again, used the way feminists use Patriarchy to redirect attention.

    I stated my view that PUAs believe…

    So other cultures aren’t monoliths, but “PUAs” are? Interesting. Note, however, that you don’t know what “PUAs” believe, because a)I’m pretty well convinced you don’t know any, and b) as PUAs are human, and humans believe different things, it’s ridiculous to assume that they all believe the same thing. Especially when that thing is a belief that you perhaps love to hate. (Translation: Those PUAs of whom you disapprove? The thing they all have in common is that they’re made of straw)

    That’s the view of men that distinguishes PUAs from, say, soldiers, who have a very different model of the ideal man.

    I know quite a few soldiers. They’re as likely to believe the definition of manhood that you ascribe to straw-PUAs as actual PUAs are.

    Or foreign currency traders.

    I don’t know very many currency traders, but they are, if anything, more likely to hold the view of manhood that you ascribe to strawPUAs. (Though that’s likely distorted by the small size of the sample group surveyed).

    Or Franciscans. Or roofers.

    I don’t know any Franciscans, so I don’t know what sort of views they tend to hold on manhood. Do you? I do know some roofers though, and they’re as likely to hold the views you dislike as PUAs are, in my experience.

    But this is interesting:

    That’s not to say that every PUA believes all that…

    Here’s you, from the beginning of that same paragraph, saying that PUAs believe all that:

    I stated my view that PUAs believe the worth of a man is measured by the quantity of sex he has, the quality of women he has sex with, with points taken off if he has to work hard for it.

    You go on to say that this view distinguishes PUAs from soldiers, roofers, and currency traders; but it does not. Any of those are as likely to hold these views as a PUA is, in my experience. Some do, some don’t.

    If you have some actual reason to think that PUAs, as a subculture, hold these beliefs more than, say, roofers do, I’d love to hear it.

    The difference between what the “entire culture” believes and what PUAs believe is one of degree and emphasis.

    So, tell us, how many PUAs do you know? (I mean actual men who are PUAs, not the strawPUAs that you imagine). What is it that you claim to know about “PUA culture?” Given that you seem to feel quite confident making sweeping claims about what a subculture believes, I assume you’ve surveyed the entire culture thoroughly… or are you strawmanning again?

  236. Danny says:

    TB:

    Let’s look at a case study: Jane and John Average.

    Both Jane and John have no direct control of media; they’re just consumers. Although John may share anatomy with the media guys on top, he has no more ability to influence their decisions–thus what ends up on tv–directly then Jane.

    How is John more able to defy society’s standards then Jane?

    Simple. Somewhere along the line it was decided that merely sharing gender with those few media guys at the top was a greelight to hold us all accountable for the sins of the ones at the top.

    This is why despite having lots of men who don’t actually don’t hold women to unfair beauty standards we still hear, “Its men who hold women to unfair beauty standards.”

    This is why despite Elite Joes forming a very small subset of the male population we still hear blanketing statements like, “Men are privileged as a class.”

    This is why despite that men who are rapists are only s small portion of the male population we are told its okay to assume that all men are potential rapists.

    How is it okay when talking about men to use a small sample as representative of the entire whole?

  237. Motley says:

    How is it okay when talking about men to use a small sample as representative of the entire whole?

    I won’t address “okay,” but I will say it’s very common to assume that any “enemy” group is a monolithic hive-mind, for a variety of reasons.
    Most such reasons seem to revolve around the fact that it’s easier to drum up hate for a monolithic entity than for a bunch of people who may or may not have anything in common.

  238. Motley,

    I’ll stop trying to explain Motley’s Law to you.

    Consider me grateful.

    So other cultures aren’t monoliths, but “PUAs” are?

    I guess you didn’t read this:

    That’s not to say that every PUA believes all that, or that no non-PUA believes that.

    … or this

    In a subculture, many or most members share views that are less prevalent outside their subculture.

    My use of the words “many” and “most” together with the fact that I explicitly said that I didn’t think all PUAs held all those views shows I do not have a monolithic view of PUAs.

    This is in marked contrast to your monolithic view that PUAs, roofers, and foreign exchange traders all measure men by the same identical standards:

    You go on to say that this view distinguishes PUAs from soldiers, roofers, and currency traders; but it does not. Any of those are as likely to hold these views as a PUA is, in my experience. Some do, some don’t.

    If you have some actual reason to think that PUAs, as a subculture, hold these beliefs more than, say, roofers do, I’d love to hear it.

    Note in particular the “as likely to hold these beliefs” – which means you believe that if you pick a random roofer and a random PUA, they will each have the same measure of what being a man means. I don’t know any other way to interpret “as likely to hold these beliefs.”

    Subcultures of men value things in different proportions. They respect different things in different proportions. They admire a man as more or less ideal depending on different characteristics, in different proportions. Soldiers place more emphasis on honor and leadership in measuring each other than PUA’s do; Roofers tend to emphasize hard work as something important to being a man; Foreign currency traders place more emphasis on money and risk. Most groups of men value sex fairly highly, but that is by no means true of all groups – that was why I mentioned Franciscans as one example. If you ask a PUA and a fighter pilot what their ideal “wingman” would be like, you’d get two entirely different men. One is just a useful prop, a supporting actor. A buddy. The other is someone who will, quite literally, take a bullet for you.

    And even more simply: I know roofers that exhibit pride in the amount of money they send home to their wives, and it would not surprise me to hear PUAs mock someone like that as the gold standard of what being a fool looks like. If there has ever been a PUA that has ever beamed with pride on the amount of money he was able to send home to a wife he rarely sees, then I’d have to imagine that his workshop circuit was a sparsely attended one. If you throw darts at soldiers and PUAs, and you hit someone who is married, it is more likely to be a soldier than a PUA – and I’ve never heard any PUA claim that marriage had no effect on a man’s outlook. Similarly, if you throw darts at PUAs and foreign exchange traders, and you hit someone who has a daughter, I think its a bit more likely to be a foreign exchange trader. Again, a significant distinction that affects your views and your values, a difference that makes a man measure himself by different standards.

    So it just plain wrong to suppose, as you do, that all the groups I mentioned have the same beliefs and values about what a man should be, and that PUAs have precisely the same ideals about being a man than other groups of men do. There can be a continuum of beliefs both within a group of men, and across different groups of men, while at the same time there can be distinctions in what the several groups believe. Men have many different heights, women can have many different heights, and yet it is still true that men are generally taller.

    So there are indeed distinguishing aspects of PUA culture. I’d already made it quite clear that I don’t know any PUAs, and I’m in no position to judge any PUA as a person. I do see some value in some of the techniques they use, and some value in the way they encourage men to surmount inner and outer barriers to getting what they want. Techniques and advise are one thing – but PUA beliefs about men and women? The attitude of contemptuous dismissal of the unworthy I see so often on PUA blogs and forums? That’s not something I want any part of. I could care less if the feminists run the PUAs out of town.

  239. Colette says:

    I’m getting the sense from previous posts that you believe men are more capable of defying the standards set to them by society.

    Well that isn’t what I believe. Anybody is “capable” of defying standards; capability isn’t even a factor in what I believe.

    I believe when it comes to norms/expectations/acceptable behavior in terms of gender, the factors are asymmetrical despite the detriment to both men and women. Again, please take this in context to what I’ve said about chivalry and how a Real Man is supposed to treat a woman because I really hate repeating myself. To put it one way – men, in having to be a Real Man, have the potential to lose in a way a women never would in having to be a Lady. But being a Lady doesn’t leave women the option to have the status that being a Real Man allows in the first place. In other words, women can’t lose the game … but they’re not allowed to play in the first place. If they want to play, then they’re not a Lady.

  240. Motley says:

    @ STF -

    Let’s first look at this:

    Note in particular the “as likely to hold these beliefs” – which means you believe that if you pick a random roofer and a random PUA, they will each have the same measure of what being a man means. I don’t know any other way to interpret “as likely to hold these beliefs.”

    In two parts.

    Note in particular the “as likely to hold these beliefs” – which means you believe that if you pick a random roofer and a random PUA, they will each have the same measure of what being a man means.

    False. It means that one may hold a given belief, and the other may as well, and that the odds aren’t particularly more for one than the other.

    I don’t know any other way to interpret “as likely to hold these beliefs.”

    Focus on that “likely” part. The word actually means something, and was used deliberately.

    My use of the words “many” and “most” together with the fact that I explicitly said that I didn’t think all PUAs held all those views shows I do not have a monolithic view of PUAs.

    Yes, and you also stated “PUAs believe…” in that very same paragraph. So, in one paragraph, you stated that PUAs believe one thing, and then stated that you didn’t think that PUAs as a group believed it.
    In other words, you generalized about the group as a whole, and then claimed not to be generalizing about the group as a whole.
    It’s not that I didn’t read what you’re saying, it’s that I don’t believe it. And I don’t believe it because it contradicts other statements in the very same paragraph, and thus I can’t believe you, because that claim is visibly false.

    I’d already made it quite clear that I don’t know any PUAs, and I’m in no position to judge any PUA as a person….

    Or PUAs as a group. Zero data about individuals provides zero data about the group. If you’ve never seen a tree, your claims about what forests are like aren’t likely to be correct.
    What you are doing, right now, is claiming to know things about forests when you don’t, by your own admission, have any knowledge of trees.

    Soldiers place more emphasis on honor and leadership in measuring each other than PUA’s do; Roofers tend to emphasize hard work as something important to being a man; Foreign currency traders place more emphasis on money and risk.

    Do you know any soldiers? I know plenty. They’re all people, and as varied as people anywhere. Ditto for roofers. Ditto for foreign currency traders.
    What you’re talking about aren’t actual PUAs, or actual soldiers, or actual roofers, they’re the ones you’re imagining.

    For example:

    If you ask a PUA and a fighter pilot what their ideal “wingman” would be like, you’d get two entirely different men. One is just a useful prop, a supporting actor. A buddy. The other is someone who will, quite literally, take a bullet for you.

    Since you don’t know any PUAs, you have no idea how “a PUA” describes an ideal wingman. (You may know that some people wrote some stuff on the internet. This is different from “knowing.”)
    Do you know any fighter pilots?
    If not — and I’m assuming not, from the example — how is it that you think you know what “a fighter pilot” looks for in a wingman.

    You seem to be basing your arguments on your preconceived notions of what PUAs are like, what fighter pilots are like, and so on.
    Needless to say, your preconceptions are not actually useful in the way that you’re attempting to use them.

    I could care less if the feminists run the PUAs out of town.

    Hmm. Do you mean “couldn’t” instead of “could?”

  241. Sam says:

    Colette,

    re double binds for women and men, I’ll point out you to the same discussion I told Hugh about above -

    http://clarissethorn.wordpress.....-followup/

    It’s very, very long (very good) thread covering a larger number of topics, but I’d suggest my comment #70 as a starting point for the conversation about the double binds for women and men with respect to initiating.

  242. clarence says:

    Motley:

    I’ve followed this discussion all th way through and at this point you’ve stopped making your case.

    I’ve recently been in the seduction community for instance, and STF is entirely right about the different uses of wingman in the community versus in the airforce.

    At this point it’s looking like you don’t want to “lose” so you are nitpicking.

    It’s also ridiculous to say that since you “dont’ know any” personally of “group x” you can’t say anything at all about them. I don’t know any nazis or neo-nazi’s. Does that mean that their recognized websites, documented past history, etc tells me nothing about them? I may know 2 feminists r/l but I don’t know any policy makers or movers and shakers in the legal or political feminist movements. Does that mean I know nothing about them and can’t generalize some of their beliefs by paying attention to their own words on their websites or the language and stated intent of the laws they have proposed and/or gotten passed?

    There are alot of problematic behaviours and beliefs in the seduction community. Anyone who has been “on the ground” in it as I have, and Hugh has can tell you that. Many, I dare say most of the PUAs on the ground do have at least SOME of the ideas and attitudes that STF has said made him feel uncomfortable. Stuff that you find on Mystery’s website or on David Deangelos place I can assure you is stuff that is popular in the community so to the extent that some of it might be problematic there is nothing wrong with straightforwardly facing it and admitting it.

    I’m inclined to defend the SC. I know that not all the feminists criticisms are fair, I know that lots of this stuff is the result of socialization that predates feminism and the SC and indeed, the culture in general. I also know that some of the “pushback” the feminists get from the SC community is entirely the political arm of the feminists movements fault. But for all that, there are problematic aspects of it, and I fully respect STF’s right to come down on the side of not being involved with it due to those toxic elements.

  243. Motley says:

    I don’t know any nazis or neo-nazi’s. Does that mean that their recognized websites, documented past history, etc tells me nothing about them?

    Nice Godwin. Anyway, this may come as a shock, but the Nazis were a political party. As such, they were a unified group, with a single agenda, to an extent that the seduction community isn’t. Similarly, “auto mechanics” aren’t a political party, and you don’t get to ascribe a certain “platform” of beliefs to them.

    At this point it’s looking like you don’t want to “lose” so you are nitpicking.

    Nope. I don’t like being strawmanned, I don’t like seeing it, and I don’t like people deliberately misinterpreting my statements.
    For instance, when someone claims that “equally likely” means “invariably,” and claims not to be able to see it any other way…
    Not a fan.

    I am, however, making fun of STF a bit, which tends to be my response to absurdity. And claiming that “PUAs tend to think in a certain way” when in truth “men in our culture” tend to think in that certain way, and claiming that this is somehow a valid criticism of PUAs as a whole (basically, that a society of men contains men who think the way men often think).

    There are alot of problematic behaviours and beliefs in the seduction community.

    The joke about Motley’s Law began because those same behaviors and beliefs are also present in the rest of society.

    In order for the presence of those beliefs to have any validity in a criticism of the seduction community, you have to prove that it is in some way relevant.

    For example:
    The SC probably has its fair share of racists; every group (of sufficient size) does.
    But that, alone, does not mean that it’s reasonable to say “I disapprove of racism, so therefore I disapprove of the SC.”
    It would be reasonable if and only if you can prove* either that racism is an essential part of the subculture, or that it actually encourages racism, or anything like that. You don’t get to skip that step and just assume it.

    *Note the word “prove” being different from “assert.”

    If anyone actually has such proof, I’d be happy to see it.

    To clarify: There are plenty of valid criticisms about the SC, I’m sure. But the claim that “they tend to hold the same beliefs that men in general tend to hold” is not one of them.

  244. cib says:

    Well, Motley:

    You don’t get to tell me or anyone whether we can or cannot ascribe as a stereotype (remember, stereotypes are harmful to those who don’t fit them, but they do have the positive aspect of being generally true)to a given group of people or not.

    There are some people for instance Mystery, whose teachings are an established and acknowledged source of seduction community beliefs. Such teachings can be criticised and insofar as they are represented in the community as a whole, they can be ascribed to it as a whole.

    And I am glad to know you were playing stupid. To assert that PUA’s are likely to use “Wingman” in the same sense that an airforce pilot does is rather ludicrous.

  245. typhonblue says:

    Does the SC contain a larger percentage of men that think men should be ranked based on how many attractive women they can ‘score’? Considering that the SC is specifically about men making themselves attractive to women sexually, I imagine men who buy into this belief are likely drawn to the SC, so yes.

    Further there seems to also be a not insignificant number of men who are interested in the SC so they can remain attractive to a single woman, their wife. And, in fact, there are popular SC sites dedicated to helping men do exactly that.

    From what I can see the SC, simply, explains to men in clear terms what makes men attractive to women. I can see that in a community dedicated to improving men’s attractiveness to women, a lot of men would be prone to seeing their identities in terms of how attractive they are to women. Every single philosophy ever, every single belief system ever, has it’s ‘hammerites’ that see every problem as a nail and judge everyone by how well they hammer.

    But providing even more motivation to the SC’s ‘hammerites’ is the fact that the overarching society provides no positive identity for men. Feminists say that men’s roles as protectors and providers oppress women, thus we’ve seen the widespread deconstruction of that role. So where are these young men supposed to look to find a positive male identity? Much less a positive male _sexual_ identity?

    We can glare daggers at the SC all we want, but it really comes down to that.

  246. Motley says:

    Re: Sam’s

    It’s very, very long (very good) thread covering a larger number of topics, but I’d suggest my comment #70 as a starting point for the conversation about the double binds for women and men with respect to initiating.

    …Though me, Clarisse, and Schala do get into two lengthy semantic arguments about what the word “gender” means to whom, and who gets to define it… may wanna skip those parts ;)

    @ cib –

    You don’t get to tell me or anyone whether we can or cannot ascribe as a stereotype (remember, stereotypes are harmful to those who don’t fit them, but they do have the positive aspect of being generally true)to a given group of people or not.

    I disagree.
    When someone takes a preconceived hypothetical individual, applies a stereotype to their preconceived hypothetical behavior, and then claims that that stereotype therefore applies to a group of real individuals?
    Then yes, they’re being absurd, and yes, I get to point that out. And I’m likely to actually do so, as picking on people for saying absurd things is a hobby of mine.

    (Especially on Tuesdays, when I’m inexplicably full of rage.)

    And I am glad to know you were playing stupid. To assert that PUA’s are likely to use “Wingman” in the same sense that an airforce pilot does is rather ludicrous.

    What I was asserting was that STF doesn’t actually know what “PUAs” mean by “wingman,” and that I’m additionally quite skeptical as to whether or not he knows how Air Force pilots use the term.

    I’m confident in this assertion, because I know more than one Air Force pilot, and they don’t really look for the same things in the “ideal wingman,” and I know a couple of guys who could be described as PUAs* as well, and neither of them has the same idea of what the “ideal wingman” is, either.

    *There’ve been times in my life when I could’ve been described as a PUA, and my definition of the “ideal wingman” is varies from all of the above, as well.

    Strangely, it’s almost as though all of the above are actually people, and it’s unreasonable to believe that a group of people all hold the same belief about anything.* Weird, huh?

    *Exceptions made for political movements, or other movements that define themselves by a stated belief. In those cases, it’s reasonable to ascribe those stated beliefs (but not necessarily any others) to the membership of the group.

  247. Motley,

    False. It means that one may hold a given belief, and the other may as well, and that the odds aren’t particularly more for one than the other.

    So if someone picks a man at random from a population of equal part roofers and PUAs, and they pose the question: “what is the sign of a true man” and he says: “He provides for his wife and children.” I bet you $1 he’s a roofer- you bet even money that he’s not? He says: “A true man maintains control over any relationship – even with an HB10″ I bet you $1 he’s a PUA – you’d bet me even money that he’s a roofer? We pick from equal parts soldiers and PUAs, and the answer we get is “A true man puts his unit before his own safety” – you’d bet me even money he’s the PUA?

  248. Motley says:

    @ STF –
    Heh.

    If we pick a man at random from a group, and ask him if success with women indicates Real Manhood, and he says yes, how much will you bet me that he’s a PUA and not a roofer, soldier, or foreign currency trader?

  249. cib says:

    Motley:

    Trying to redefine the question doesn’t work for you. STF asked about a mixed population of roofers and PUA’s and made his bet based on that. You try to redirect the question to a group made up of ALL MEN. Won’t work.

    You also digress on the subject of a “good wingman” and say that different PUA’s mean different things by that. Well, yes, within a limited range , but what PUA’s NEVER mean by that term is “will lay down his life for mine” whereas I’m willing to bet quite a few airforce pilots would indeed mean so.

    You need to compare apples to apples and take into account context. PUA’s are focused on picking up women or otherwise improving their relationships with them. This does not include the threat of death by any reasonable standard.

  250. Motley,

    Leading questions skew results in matters like these. Open ended questions are more discriminating. I never claimed that any such vague aspiration as success with women was a distinguishing belief of PUAs. I don’t know where you got that idea.

  251. Motley says:

    …what PUA’s NEVER mean by that term is…

    See, there, that’s what I mean. For you to reasonably make that claim, you’d have to have surveyed every single PUA. And I don’t believe you have.

    Trying to redefine the question doesn’t work for you. STF asked about a mixed population of roofers and PUA’s and made his bet based on that. You try to redirect the question to a group made up of ALL MEN. Won’t work.

    Nope; STF tried to redefine the question, and I wasn’t buying.
    STF claims that thinking that manhood can be measured by success with women is a trait of PUAs more than of other men. I’m calling bull.
    (Unless STF cares to offer more evidence than, y’know, his assertions).

    You need to compare apples to apples and take into account context.

    That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

    If you’re going to assert that the belief that “manhood is defined by success with women” is a problem with the seduction community, then you have to prove that this is more prevalent within the SC than within the rest of society.
    This involves having actual evidence for how common it is in the SC, and evidence for how common it is in the rest of society.
    I’m not convinced you’ve got either.
    (Assertions, strawPUAs, and imaginary Air Force pilots are not actually evidence.)
    (Hint: If this were the case, the seduction community, if it even existed, would be so insignificantly tiny that we wouldn’t be having this conversation)

  252. typhonblue says:

    Why am I being ignored? Do I need to flutter my eyelashes or something?

  253. Jim says:

    Uncross your legs. We can’t tell what you mean by that gesture. Or is it a tactic? It’s all too ambiguous.

    Whatever happened to that business about you being accused of being hostile and so on?

  254. Motley says:

    Here’s STF, claiming to have never said what I mention that you said:

    I never claimed that any such vague aspiration as success with women was a distinguishing belief of PUAs. I don’t know where you got that idea.

    Here’s STF, saying exactly what you’re currently denying having ever said:

    [You really don't need to be snarky to say this. —Hugh ]

    I stated my view that PUAs believe the worth of a man is measured by the quantity of sex he has, the quality of women he has sex with, with points taken off if he has to work hard for it. That’s the view of men that distinguishes PUAs from, say, soldiers, who have a very different model of the ideal man.

    If you’re wondering why I keep picking on you, it’s because ya keep doing things like this.
    Similarly, if you’re wondering why I seem to’ve stopped giving you the benefit of the doubt with your assertions, it’s because you keep making assertions that are obviously false, such as “I never said that thing that I just said,” which makes me disinclined to believe your other assertions.

    Though you seem to be suggesting that there are two entirely different people posting to this thread under the name Sweating Through Fog. If that’s the case, I apologize to both of you for not being able to tell you apart.

    @ typhonblue -

    Why am I being ignored? Do I need to flutter my eyelashes or something?

    Well, it’s Tuesday… so apologies in advance. But in fairness, you did ask for it :p

    1. Does the SC contain a larger percentage of men that think men should be ranked based on how many attractive women they can ’score’? 2.Considering that the SC is specifically about men making themselves attractive to women sexually, I imagine men who buy into this belief are likely drawn to the SC, so yes.

    Bolding and numbering mine.
    1 does not follow from 2. Arguably the opposite, actually, given the “should” part.
    Also, I have seen zero evidence supporting the notion that anyone in the SC (to say nothing of a disproportionately large percentage) believes that men should be ranked according to success with women. The difference between “men should be ranked” and “men shouldn’t, but do get ranked by society anyway” is significant, I think.

    Further there seems to also be a not insignificant number of men who are interested in the SC so they can remain attractive to a single woman, their wife. And, in fact, there are popular SC sites dedicated to helping men do exactly that.

    Really?

    From what I can see the SC, simply, explains to men in clear terms what makes men attractive to women.

    Agree completely. This, and only this, is the defining characteristic of the SC, as far as I can tell.

    Every single philosophy ever, every single belief system ever, has it’s ‘hammerites’ that see every problem as a nail and judge everyone by how well they hammer.

    But apparently in the case of the SC, this is somehow a valid criticism, per my interlocutors. I’d love it if they could explain why.
    (Hint: I very much suspect that I already know why this is okay for everyone except PUAs…)

    We can glare daggers at the SC all we want, but it really comes down to that.

    And glaring daggers at someone, and claiming moral disapproval, makes us feel better about ourselves. See, we get to claim not to be like those other guys… see… ?
    Especially when the people of whom we’re disapproving are guys who are getting laid… (but slut-shaming is totally okay when it’s directed at guys!)

  255. Motley,

    Telemarketers can value “success with women.” So can rapists, husbands, politicians, and employment recruiters. I’m sure that there are many morticians that take a quite decided pride in their success with women.

    Anyway, both of us accept your apology.

  256. typhonblue says:

    Motley:

    Agree completely. This, and only this, is the defining characteristic of the SC, as far as I can tell.

    Yeah, pretty much. Everything else can either be traced to a larger dynamic or is an attitude that other men buy into as well.

    If women posit their sexuality as a goal that men have to jump through hoops to get there will inevitably arise a group of men who base their self esteem on how quickly they can jump through those hoops and how many women they can impress with hoop-jumping.

    Jim:

    Uncross your legs. We can’t tell what you mean by that gesture. Or is it a tactic? It’s all too ambiguous.

    I see you’ve raised the ambiguity stakes.

    Whatever happened to that business about you being accused of being hostile and so on?

    I’ve stopped posting on that thread. Don’t know what else to do. Daran gave me a breakdown but the whole hostility charge started waaaaay before so… still have no clue.

  257. HughRistik says:

    I don’t have a problem with STF, or anyone else, making generations about the seduction community. PUAs might indeed have differences average attitudes from other groups of men. People should be able to advance hypotheses about PUAs in general without being an expert on them.

    At the same time, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for Motley, or anyone else, to ask for evidence and reasoning to support these generalizations.

    If you are generalizing about the seduction community and you are only encountering it recently, please be sure to make note of how speculative your conclusions are, and what they are based on. Instead of saying “PUAs believe X,” say something like “Based on what I’ve read from Mystery so far, it seems like PUAs following Mystery Method often believe X.”

    If you are questioning a generalization someone else is making about the seduction community, I think it’s useful to ask what sources from the community they are basing their conclusion on. Then we can discuss how typical that view may be.

  258. HughRistik says:

    Shari said:

    Hugh, I am older than you, so get ready to be surprised. It’s the way it usually goes. Some of my male friends say guys like the idea of having to work hard to get a girl…they like challenges.

    We’re just trading anecdotes, here. My male friends and I are fine with women initiating. And Clarisse seems to have had positive experiences initiating. I don’t think we have any way of knowing who’s anecdotes are more representative.

    So no, it’s usually not in woman’s interest to chase a guy.

    This doesn’t follow. I think what you mean is that it usually isn’t in a woman’s interest to chase guys who are like your male friends.

    There are always exceptions.

    We don’t know that approaches going well for women is rare enough to be called an “exception.”

    General: Comparing the the bulk of the SC to bad parts of feminism does not make sense to me. That’s just finger pointing and not admitting that something is seriously wrong with most SC stuff.

    There only seems to be something wrong with “most” SC stuff because you have limited exposure to it, and the bad is jumping out at you more. And because you often insist on taking the worst possible interpretation of certain language and ideas.

    Personally, I would say that there is something majorly wrong with a minority of ideas in the seduction community, and something minorly wrong with many more.

    …and that’s exactly the same opinion that I have of feminism.

    When the *majority* of feminists say really disrespectful things about men, I’ll see it as a fair comparison.

    The majority of feminists *do* say disrespectful or exclusionary things about men, or use concepts that imply those things. Our argument at FC is that there are fundamental problems with the notions of “patriarchy,” “privilege”, and “oppression,” and it seems that most feminists use those terms. However, I do realize that feminists use these terms in different ways. Even though I think that a term like “patriarchy” is inherently problematic and should be phased out, I do acknowledge that some feminists can have gender egalitarian views (according to me, not just according to some of the weird notions of equality in feminism) despite using that term.

    Both feminism and the seduction community have:
    - A sexist radical fringe
    - Ideas from the sexist radical fringe filtering into the rest of the movement
    - Fundamentally problematic core concepts
    - Fundamentally positive core concepts
    - Language with problematic and sexist implications, but these implications are not held to the same degree (or at all) by every member of the movement.
    - Different schools of thought within the movement, that criticize each other vocally

    To me, a comparison seems pretty fair.

    The SC does NOT own good dating advice–they didn’t come up with it themselves. Perhaps some people are not motivated to go find higher-quality resources, or maybe they don’t realize the junk they are taking in is twisted and will have lasting effects.

    Is any idea really new? Who knows. Even if we grant that no idea or practice in the seduction community is novel, the whole package is. Even with all the crap in it, the seduction community has the highest concentration of helpful advice for men who face certain difficulties. Even if every thing in the community can be found elsewhere, the synthesis of them in the community is new. And perhaps most importantly, it has a community of men facing similar problems, many who have conquered those problems, who can help you out.

    As for motivation to find higher quality resources: part of the “quality” of a resource is how motivating it is.

    Me and a lot of guys (like, in the hundreds of thousands) have found the resources of the seduction community to be the highest concentration of useful advice for us. And we have been exposed to conventional dating advice and therapy, and found that it was lacking. You are welcome to speculate that certain other resources you are exposed to could have helped us. But to state as a fact that we could have found the positive aspects of seduction community advice is to deny our experience in favor of your speculation.

    Maybe they are so hopeful to get “the secrets” of dating that they forget to look at more credible sources.

    There are no other credible sources for the niche that the seduction community fills, which are also as comprehensive. Conventional advice focuses on shyness-recovery or basic social skills training, and relationship skills… but leaves out the steps in between: having the skills to interact with the opposite sex, gain choice in partners, and actually get into a relationship in the first place. Most of what relationship “experts” say is not empirically tested. There is some great advice from ex-seduction-community guys like Succeed Socially, but it is not comprehensive and more geared towards basics.

    There are no empirically tested programs in mainstream psychology that claim to teach men success with women, going from shyness to a high level of success and choice in the opposite sex. In contrast, the seduction community has over a 10-year track record of taking men that nobody else could help, and giving them dramatic improvements to their success with women.

    There isn’t any contest between traditional dating advice/therapy and the seduction community. The seduction community already won, years ago. PUAs have already proven at least a certain level of success in themselves and their teachings to journalists. Consequently, it is the gold standard that everything else should be trying to beat. And I really do hope something can beat the seduction community in success, while throwing away the harmful and dogmatic crap that in it… maybe even part of the seduction community itself can rise to the challenge.

    Using the SC stuff is like buying a vacuum cleaner from the late-night infomercial on TV instead of getting a better, trustier one at a quality store.

    The seduction community is kinda of like getting an unreliable vacuum cleaner… as an upgrade from a damp rag.

    There is no higher quality and trustier alternative for men certain types of problems. Your experience as a woman and your ready of dating advice isn’t a sufficient basis for you to so confidently claim otherwise. You simply don’t know enough about dating problems certain types of men face, or about the kind of improvements that the seduction community can offer.

    I can’t tell you to take my experiences, and the experiences of many other men who have attained practically miraculous increase in their success with women thanks to the seduction community, at face value. I’m not asking you to just automatically roll over and believe our interpretations of our experience, and agree that the seduction community was really the highest concentration of good advice for us. You are still welcome to skepticism, but I think you should grant the plausibility of our perceptions, rather than dismissing them.

  259. Sam says:

    hey, did anyone, particularly the women in this thread, by any chance watch the latest episode of “How I met your mother?” Please do…

  260. Lady Raine says:

    Personally, I do date feminists, though that’s not what this post was about. I like women who think about gender politics, read books, and have opinions on things. As long as they are open-minded, it’s not important that they agree with me 100%. In real life, I’ve often found feminist women to be great people. Run-of-the mill feminists in real life seem less likely to have the kind of dogmatism that I often see in feminists on the internet, and I often find them sympathetic to men’s issues.

    Okay, well see that’s the reason I was confused whether you were offering advice to DATE a Feminist or you were presenting “Feminist-Friendly” advice (which are obviously very different).

    As I’m sure you are aware there are many, many PUAs who seem to clump all kinds of “Feminism” and Feminists into the “dirty word” meaning of the word like Feminazi and Radical Feminists that truly DO hate men and wish to eradicate them.

    THAT was where my confusion came from…..PUAs seem to often generalize as all Feminists/Feminism as being “bad” for their sexuality and their “natural needs” as men, so I couldn’t figure out why you’d be offering either ONE of those things in this post…..

    But now by the quote above I see that you have the more rational, accurate description of what a “Feminist” is. Sorry I saw that several people seemed to interpret your post different ways and since I was a bit unsure myself, I figured I should ask.

    I have not seen other “Game Teachers” offering ANY advice regarding Feminists other than “avoid and ignore” them like the Plague.

  261. HughRistik says:

    Clarisse said:

    I know I always say this, but I really think that a lot of the most awesome tactics for actually dealing with this stuff can be found in the BDSM community.

    I do really like the clarity of communication over consent in the BDSM community. Though I will point out that communication over consent is also probably more possible in the BDSM community, because the people who are in it are different. Like with feminists, people in the BDSM community are disproportionately gender-atypical and nerdy, for some reason, people with those profiles seem to like sexual communication more.

    Furthermore, in BDSM subculture, there is a much greater need for communication, particularly over consent. Consequently, verbal communication about consent doesn’t make the initiator look unconfident. Whereas in mainstream culture, people do not perceive such a great need for communication, so someone attempting it will look more weird or unconfident.

    Sexuality in alternative subcultures (including feminism and kink) is easy mode.

    And I know I always recommend The Book, but there is an excellent essay in there by Hazel/Cedar Troost the amazing trans activist in which ze talks about how ze specifically started requesting/requiring consent for every kind of touch — even just hugs — which had the effect of (a) showing up people’s entitlement but also, on a positive note, (b) making it absolutely clear whenever touch was wanted or unwanted.

    I’ve always had mixed reactions when I encounter the idea that asking for explicit verbal consent. I agree that it’s a very ethical thing to do. Personally, I like being able to ask for consent (I’ll explain why I say “being able” later).

    Where I become a bit skeptical of the the “always ensure explicit verbal consent” for all advances perspective, is that I’m not convinced that it is the only ethical way to engage in sexual relations. Several objections to the ethical necessity, or the practicality of requiring explicit verbal consent come to mind:

    1. Many people in mainstream culture do not require explicit verbal consent for many sexual activities (e.g. perhaps for initiation of sex or oral, but nothing else). An excellent example of this point came up by Humbition in a discussion a while ago:

    My own evolving position is that, “rape culture” exists and interprets American patterns of flirting and courtship to its own perverse ends, but that American patterns of flirting and courtship are not intrinsically or of themselves “rape culture.” And that to say that they are, is to demand of would-be feminist men that they perform their sexual attraction according to some standard of post-revolutionary praxis that does not exist, while of course leaving the field open to non-revolutionary men (many if not most of whom will use their supposedly contaminated, typical American courtship styles to develop pretty normal, consensual, mutual relationships).

    For some reason, a lot of people just aren’t into the “explicit verbal communication” thing over most sexual activities, particularly minor ones. They find it unimportant, or even unattractive. I don’t think it is self-evident that all these people are deluded. Even though I completely agree with feminists that going without explicit verbal consent increases the risk of someone’s boundaries being pushed, that might just prove that nonverbal negotiation of boundaries can be done wrong, not that it is fatally flawed.

    Furthermore, some people may dislike verbal communication over sex (especially receiving requests for consent) that they would prefer to take a risk of being creeped out by someone moving too fast. Is this not a tradeoff that people can consent to?

    2. It is possible to engage in non-ambiguous nonverbal communication (or at least, nonverbal communication that is no more ambiguous than verbal communication). For instance, moving your face close to someone, pointing at your lips and cheek, and raising your eyebrows is a non-ambiguous indication that one wants to be kissed. There is no reason that someone would be engaging in that collection of behaviors if they didn’t.

    3. As many feminists would surely agree, verbal consent is not sufficient to establish consent. If someone gives a half-hearted “yes,” then perhaps the other partner should investigate before proceeding further. Reading nonverbal communication is necessary to conduct sexuality ethically. Ironically, PUAs teach men more about reading women’s nonverbal signals of attraction and discomfort better than feminists do (these are the concepts of “Indicators of Interest”, “comfort” and “calibration”, which I will explain later). When PUAs are doing feminism better than feminists, you know something is wrong.

    4. Some people can only decide if they want to engage in a certain activity when the other person initiates it. (I saw a study somewhere which found that a certain percentage of women said that they mainly feel sexual when a man initiates something with them, and that is when they decide if they want it.) Consequently, it is impossible for them to say “yes” prior to an activity… the only way to proceed is for the other person to make a move, and then they can decide if they are into it. Under explicit verbal consent, these people would never be able to have sex, ever. I’m skeptical of a view of ethics that would make it ethically impossible for a nontrivial percentage of people to have sex.

    5. Some people find people asking for explicit verbal consent to spoil the mood. Feminists often scoff at this, and argue that asking doesn’t have to spoil the mood, or that if the mood was spoiled, it wasn’t much of a mood. This is mere ideological judgmentalness and close-mindedness. Even though some people can learn to communicate verbally about sexuality and enjoy it, it doesn’t follow that everyone can do so, or that they have something wrong with them if they can’t. Some people might abhor explicit verbal communication so much that it will destroy any mood, not just precarious ones. Just because feminists can’t relate to this preference set (heck, I can’t relate, either) doesn’t make it go away, and doesn’t stop the people who have it from incentivizing their partners to not ask.

    6. There are several other weird issues with asking. In our culture, asking may communicate a lack of confidence (“if you aren’t making a move, then you aren’t confident of my attraction”), or that the receptive person should have doubts (“hmm, I thought that I wanted to kiss you… but now that you are acting like I should want to say no, maybe I should look harder and try to figure out if I do have a reason to say no”) , or a lack of interpersonal perception (“what, you can’t tell that I want you to make a move?”). You cannot neutrally measure consent; any attempt at measurement (especially verbal) interferes with what you are trying to measure. This can lead to the bizarre situation where someone could be consenting to a move that you make without asking, but if you ask, it causes them to change their feelings and no longer consent. This is the nightmare scenario for any initiating partner, because it’s the Oscar Wilde situation of “no good deed ever goes unpunished.” Getting punished for trying to do the right thing feels horrible, especially when you aren’t even sure that your saintly stance was actually required.

    I looked up an interview by Hazel, who says:

    The way we think about consent now is based on what I call a ‘map of consent’–that consent to X implies consent to Y, and consent to either X or Y is generally seen as connected to one’s (emotional) intimacy with another person, which is busted. We might call one map unreasonable because it says that consent to kissing is consent to fucking, but we also have to challenge the idea that consent to fucking is consent to kissing–consent that’s real consent is consenting to a particular activity at a particular time, and has as much or more to do with how much one enjoys that activity than with how close you are to someone.

    I think this notion of “maps of consent” is a brilliant observation. I’d have to read the book to fully understand the argument about why these maps are “busted,” but I am not yet convinced. Hazel’s description of the maps in this interview is obviously wrong: people don’t think that consent to kissing is consent to fucking. But they might think that kissing is consent to passionate kissing after a few minutes, and passionate kissing is consent to touching someone’s butt, as long as this is done slowly.

    People do indeed have cultural maps, where if you have stopped at one point on a route long enough, then it is acceptable to move on to the next stop. And in some versions of the script, you don’t just barrel into the next stop. You try it tentatively, and watch how the partner responds. If they respond positive, you keep going.

    We can say that this is a script of “rebuttable consent to an attempt at initiating the next activity in a sequence of intimate activities.” The receptive person isn’t actually consenting to the activity occurring for more than 1 second. They are consenting to the other partner trying it. That 1 second of initiation (e.g. putting a hand on someone’s butt) is a request for consent to that activity continuing. In the absence of a negative reaction (which rebuts the assumption of consent), consent is assumed to be given (some versions of this script might require a positive reaction, not just the absence of a negative reaction). Of course, the risk of this script is that someone get an unwanted hand on their butt for a few seconds; many people don’t seem to mind this risk, as long as their partner is quick to move the hand away at a sign of nonverbal discomfort or a verbal objection.

    Another methodology is to move slowly and obviously towards a certain activity (e.g. move in slowly for a kiss, move a hand slowly to a certain place). In this case, the telegraphed motion is the request for the activity (and it is pretty non-ambiguous, just like verbal communication), and not getting out of the way or saying “no” is considered to be consent. This script avoids the problem of the one above, because it doesn’t require a second or two of the activity in question; the receptive partner can put on the brakes before it happens.
    Certainly “not getting out of the way” shows less than explicit verbal consent, but is is really not a form of consent? Many people seem to feel that it is, and I’m hesitant to declare them categorically wrong.

    In mainstream culture, “rebuttable consent for the next step” for some activities is combined with explicit consent for others. I can see obvious problems with this system (people having different ideas about which activities you need to ask for and which you can just initiate with the assumption of rebuttable consent, or survivors being triggered by the “try it for a sec and decide if you like it” approach to consent). Still, I’m hesitant to say that these scripts are broken. Many people seem to like them. Some people seem to require them. And the scripts can work.

    I think the real problems occur when there is a difference in the scripts that people are following. For example, say that the initiating partner is running a script that assumes more rebuttal consent (or using the “not getting out of the way of a telegraphed advance = consent” script), while the other person is running a script that requires more explicit communication over consent. In this case, the receptive partner may feel pressured. Conversely, if the initiating partner is running the explicit verbal consent script, and the other partner prefers they shut up and make some moves, and may reject the initiating partner for being too wimpy (yes, this is mainly something men encounter at the hands of women).

    Feminists seem to argue that men should follow the explicit verbal consent script because it is safest, even if some women may not prefer it. This view is reasonable, but idealistic and perhaps impractical if the percentage of women who dislike or are indifferent to requests for explicit verbal consent and prefer men to make incremental and rebuttable assumptions about consent. I don’t know what this percentage is, but feminists don’t either. If it’s big, then it would mean that men who ask are at a disadvantage to men who don’t… and ethical men are going to spend a lot of time on the sidelines watching unscrupulous men scooping up the women. Regardless of whether these men are doing the “right thing,” from a descriptive standpoint, they will only have so much tolerance for martyring their romantic lives for no observable ethical benefit (since, as humbition observes in the thread I linked to, men not following feminist ethical principles do just fine with women, and most mainstream women seem to either prefer them or at least don’t object to their behavior). Men are likely to stop asking when they are taught that if you have to ask, the answer is “no.”

    I’m going to make a hypothesis. This is just a suspicion of mine, which could be wrong. The main reason that we don’t have a standard of explicit verbal consent is due to women’s preferences, not men’s. It is women, not men who are pickiest about sexuality, the behavior of mates, and the conditions in which sexuality occurs. So if we see any sexual or romantic dynamic, the first place we should always look is women’s preferences. Anecdotally, we can observe women who prefer that men not ask for explicit verbal consent; the less intimate the activity is, the more women dislike men asking to initiate it (most women probably prefer that men not ask when initiating minor physical touch, though plenty of women probably prefer communication about sex itself).

    If this hypothesis is correct, then perhaps feminists are barking up the wrong tree by encouraging such an emphasis on asking as a way to achieve explicit verbal consent. Maybe it not the askers who are discouraging explicit verbal consent! It is the people being asked (typically women). Feminists really need to work this out with mainstream straight women and get back to men. They need to figure out why so many women don’t like to be asked for explicit verbal consent, and how big this percentage is. For a universal standard of asking explicit verbal consent to work, feminists need to convince this subset of women to want to be asked. Feminists need to retrain these women to find men’s requests for explicit verbal consent sexy, rather than wimpy (I’m using the word “retrain” to be deliberately creepy, because feminists declaring that the preferences of a subset of women are “bad,” or “encouraging violation” is eerily similar to unsophisticated arguments against BDSM). I’m not optimistic about this working, because of the failure of feminists from discouraging other politically incorrect preferences in women, such as submission and masochism (whatever underlies those preferences could also underly a preference for people to make moves on you without asking).

    The other problem with the feminist focus on explicit verbal consent is that ethical methods of nonverbally initiating and establishing consent are under-explored. And also, it misses out on ways to get explicit verbal consent without asking for it! I like explicit verbal consent, but I do acknowledge the risk that asking for it can be unattractive. So I’ve figured out ways to “ask” without looking like I am asking. Me (in dirty talk voice): “Hmm, I’m thinking about doing X.” (then wait and do nothing). Her: “Ok!” Then I proceed. This way, I try to make it easy for her to say both “no” and “yes,” rather than making it easy for her to say “no” in a way that could make it impossible for her to say “yes” (because giving someone sexual choice means that they must have the choice to say “yes”). “May I…” may not be the best way of asking. It sounds too much like “May I take a cookie from the cookie jar, mommy?” Yet again, the best way to accomplish a feminist goal in the real world comes from outside feminism.

    Surely there is a better solution than expecting all men to move at the speed of the woman with the slowest scripts. Instead of a one-size-fits solution like “ask for explicit verbal consent first,” a better solution would be for people to have a way to communicate about what their preferences for communication are prior to sexual activity occurring.

    Sorry this post is so long and rambling… I still haven’t figured out my thoughts or made up my mind on any of these issues.

  262. Jim says:

    ” but we also have to challenge the idea that consent to fucking is consent to kissing…”

    This is absolutely true with gay men. In gay hook-up sex, fucking is typically seen as a lot less personal than kissing, for obvious reasons – the mouth is a much more the center of conciousness and self than the genitals are – and kissing requires separate consent, wich is more seldom forthcoming.

    “I think this notion of “maps of consent” is a brilliant observation.”

    Yes, and on many levels. It is the framwork for discussion about various maps of consent, dependent on culture, and for a discussion about conflicting maps of consent and rape as a failure of communication.

  263. Sam says:

    Hugh,

    interesting comment – I’d say that there is, once again, a discoursive disconnect going on.

    http://clarissethorn.wordpress.....mment-1203

  264. HughRistik says:

    Sam, I read the comments in that thread and I found them very interesting, but the disconnect is not immediately jumping out at me. Could you elaborate?

  265. Sam says:

    What I got from having that excellent discussion with Clarisse was the impression that feminist discourse is not usually thinking about sequencing and breaking down the mating process in a structure like you do here. General statements like the demand for verbal consent are probably often made with a different implicit understanding with respect to their supposed applicability. So, “there should be verbal consent” may mean both “let’s work towards a better idea of each other’s desires and a better concept of consent in our sexual interactions” and it may mean “don’t attempt to kiss a girl lest you have positive knowledge of her consent after she has given you explicit verbal permission and explicitly pointed out the scale and scope of her agreement”. If one party tries to say the former and the other party hears the latter, chances are there will be a misunderstanding.

    I suppose that men, particularly those in gender discourse, are more likely to hear the latter, given that they, being more likely to be initiators – are faced with the inherent contradictions of such assumed *general* behavioural demands.

    In this comment – http://clarissethorn.wordpress.....mment-1527 – I reference the instances in the discussion in which Clarisse and I agreed after initially disagreeing because of a different understanding of the concepts we used in our conversation.

    Our conversation may be seen as a hint that there may be a lot more common ground than often believed, but that the common ground is usually hidden underneath superficial disagreements, and since this discourse is often adversarial, the superficiality of the disagreements is not usually exposed.

  266. Sorry I ignored this thread for so long. I didn’t actually mean to. It’s just been a bad week for Internet round here.

    While rechecking this thread I just noticed the bit at the top where it’s “not a thread on how to pick up feminists”. Hugh, would you please write guidelines on how to pick up feminists? That would make my day. Guideline #1 should be “use heteronormative in a sentence … any sentence” (this would probably work on me, I have to admit). It would probably upset Lady Raine though.

    Sam, as is frequently the case, has managed to point out one disconnect in the discourse that’s very useful to recognize … I’ll back him up by noting that I agree that someone can’t function very effectively within the mainstream American dating scene if they insist on verbal consent for everything. So I’m not actually trying to tell other people how they ought to be negotiating their sex lives. If it works for you and you’re not raping people, more power to you, seriously! But I do think that it’s worth working towards a society where clear verbal communication about sex is the norm, rather than deliberately-unclear and frequently-adversarial communication, because I think that deliberately-unclear and frequently-adversarial communication contributes to a climate where (a) boundary transgressions happen more easily and (b) actual rape can “hide in the tall grass”.

    The question is how to work towards that. I think that Hazel/Cedar’s experimentation of getting verbal consent for absolutely everything is an interesting place to start, but of course it’s not for everyone.

    BDSM example! I did a great scene with a new partner while I was in America, and one of the hottest things he managed to do was check in with me in a really dominant/aggressive way (or at least it felt that way). We were using the safeword “red”, which is a BDSM community standard, and which is awesome because it also enables the use of the safeword “yellow” — which means “slow down or refocus, but don’t stop” — and “green” for “keep going”. He was hurting me, and I think he was really having a hard time telling whether I wanted him to stop. So he said, very firmly and with his voice low, “Red, yellow, green,” and I gasped back, “green,” every time. He didn’t act all concerned, he didn’t even frame it as a question — it felt more like a demand — which meant the mood was able to stick. Is this making sense? The point is that, as Hugh noted in passing, you can find ways to get consent / discuss getting consent in the middle of sex, without un-hotting the situation. Sometimes you slip up and it gets unhot, and sometimes you have to safeword, or whatever, but it’s better to have those times occasionally than it is to occasionally actually transgress. I’m not convinced that these tactics are only possible within the BDSM community, etc; I just think that other communities have less motivation to practice them. So how do we create more motivation?

  267. Pat Kibbon says:

    Clarisse Thorn says:
    March 13, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    …The question is how to work towards that.

    A big question – because some of the ways to work towards that would be ones that favor women’s interests at the expense of men; others would do the opposite. Very few (none that I know of) would accommodate men’s and women’s interests equally.

    …So how do we create more motivation?

    Reduce scarcity.

  268. On the “street harassment” note, a very interesting study just came out about the consequences of sexist remarks:
    http://carnalnation.com/conten.....-and-women

    Quotery:

    The researchers asked 114 undergraduate female students to watch a video in which a man either catcalled a woman (“Hey Kelly, your boobs look great in that shirt!”) or simply greeted her (“Hey Kelly, what’s up?”). Participants were then asked to rate their levels of anxiety, depression, hostility, anger and fear toward men. They were also asked to comment on how prejudiced they believed the comment was, how they felt about their gender identity and their desire to move away from men in general.

    The results suggest women were more likely to feel greater anger and motivation to take action against men when they observed sexism. That is, they experienced reactions with respect to how the situation may harm women as a group as opposed to how it might impact them personally as individuals.

    The bottom line is that sexism not only harms victims and bystanders, but can strain gender relations in general.

  269. Clarence says:

    I don’t see catcalling as inherently “sexist”, Clarisse since it can be done to both sexes and comments on sexual features of their bodies, not features of their “sex”.

    Rude? Yes. Sexist? No.

    Types of “catcalling” can cause a woman generalized anger against men? Who would have thought it? Next they will do a study showing that paternity fraud helps turn men against women, and I bet many people will be surprised.

  270. Danny says:

    Clarence:

    Next they will do a study showing that paternity fraud helps turn men against women, and I bet many people will be surprised.

    Yeah problem is the “surprise” will something like, “Why did those men choose to be with such women to start with?” Remember your political correctness, if a man does a woman wrong its the fault of his gender, if a woman does a man wrong its the fault of his gender.

    I know its hard for reasonable people to keep track of this but the key is selective banding/disbanding. When a man does something bad it is attributed to his gender and is even held up as a representative example of his gender. When a woman does something bad first you have to find a man to blame, hold him up as representative of his gender, thus allowing you to shrug off the bad thing the woman did as an isolated incident that would not have happened if were not for men.

    Oh and on an unrelated to is it okay to start singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Gone”?

    (No! — Daran)

  271. Jim says:

    “Oh and on an unrelated to is it okay to start singing, “Ding Dong the Witch is Gone”?”

    Hey, now – the man asked us to drop it and that sounds like a very good idea to me.

  272. Danny says:

    It is a good idea. Old wounds and all that.

    Clarisse:

    The bottom line is that sexism not only harms victims and bystanders, but can strain gender relations in general.

    I’m really not trying to be mean here but it took a study to come to that conclusion? I mean you can see this in situations in which someone was done wrong by a member of a specific group and from that point on that person may have feelings towards all members of that group that range from condescending pity to automatic dismissal to outright hatred.

    This goes beyond gender but since we’re talking gender here would this not explain how when a woman is hurt by a man she may become a man hater (although we are told there are about as many of those types of women as their are surviving copies of Superman #1) or when a man is hurt by a woman he may become a woman hater (which supposedly are more numerous than American pennies).

    Nothing wrong with doing research I’m just not seeing how this is such a big deal.

  273. Doug S. says:

    It’s often important to do studies to confirm the “obvious” because, first of all, what’s obvious to one person is obviously wrong to another, and, second, you get *numbers* out of it. After all, the plural of anecdote is not data!

  274. Jim says:

    “After all, the plural of anecdote is not data!”

    Indeed. Very often data is much less than the plural of anecdotes since so much information about the individual situations making up the anecdotes is lost in the process of standardizing them to make them suitable for mass comparison.

    That’s why anecdotes are so important in so many kinds of discussions. Data and statistics are too crude of tools for some types of inquiry.

  275. Ender says:

    That’s why anecdotes are so important in so many kinds of discussions.

    Just not ones where you want to get a reliable answer.

    Data and statistics are too crude precise of tools for some types of inquiry

    There corrected that for you.

  276. Motley says:

    Amusingly, that’s one of those “does not prove what it claims to prove” study.

    What it actually proves is that these women, when shown rude behavior by a man, and asked (I’m paraphrasing, mildly) “Based on how horrible those horrible men-things are, how much do you hate them?
    1. Lots
    2. Tons.
    3. Metric craploads.”
    …it turns out that the women sampled hate men based on a man saying something rude.
    (Anyone remember those Rasmussen “How much will Obama’s socialist takeover destroy America: 1. Lots. 2. Tons…” polls that “proved” that the public is against healthcare reform?)

  277. Jim says:

    “That’s why anecdotes are so important in so many kinds of discussions.
    Just not ones where you want to get a reliable answer.”

    That’s a parochial view. Statistics are basically useless in most branches of linguistics. I can’t see how they are of much use in botany or zooloogy or paleontology……

    “Data and statistics are too crude precise of tools for some types of inquiry
    There corrected that for you.”

    Here is an example of how that is wrong. Let’s say we want to decide if language X, Y and Z are genetically related – descend from a langeage spoken in the past by a language community – so you compile a basic list of wrods that are unlikely to be borrowed because every language will always and thus have these terms – body parts, fire/cook/burn , basic plabnnts (suited to the specific encvironment) and so on, about 1,000 terms.

    So you start finding what look like correspondences – X has a word ‘cut’ Y has ‘kot’ and Z has ‘hit’ and they all mean something like “cut”. and you find more and more of these simialrities on your list. Inafct you find something like 70% of your list wokrs out this way. Shazaam!

    Uh, no. ‘Cut’ is related to the word ‘cat’ which means ‘”edge”, ‘kot’ is related to ‘kit’ which means “rip, tear” and ‘hit’ turns out to apply only to meat, which is ‘hat’ in Z. So the words cannot descend from a common ancestral etymon. Oh, and ‘cat’ does also refer to seams, which can rip or tear. And your method of counting these similarities can tell you nothing valid about any of this. The action is all in dealing with the individual instances, each word, taking all the information about that word into account. Statistical analysis is either too crude to handle this kind of mess, or else this kind of mess this kind of mess has to happen before the statisitical anlysis can start, by which time it’s no longer necessary.

    What will settle the question is finding patterns where ‘c’ in Z correpsonds to ‘k’ in Y and where it often corresponds to ‘h’ in Z. These patterns are probably not going to emerge form statistical analysis because the criteria for selecting the memebers of the data set may exclude the examples where these correspondences occur. So again statistical anlysis is too clumsy to derive a valid answer.

    The same principle applies in determining the descent and evolution of species. In fact paleontology adopted the comparative method first worked out in historical linguistics. Statistical methods are also pretty useless in law. It’s a matter of using the right tool for the right job.

  278. typhonblue says:

    Motley:

    Based on how horrible those horrible men-things are, how much do you hate them?

    I wonder if we’ll ever see a survey that shows men some behavior of women they find offensive and asks them how much they hate women after watching it.

    With the implication that misogyny is best addressed by women changing their behavior to suit men.

  279. Jim says:

    ” wonder if we’ll ever see a survey that shows men some behavior of women they find offensive and asks them how much they hate women after watching it.”

    If anyone ever does one, you will be sure to see it. MRAs will publish it enough on the net that feminists and male chivlarists will have to do something; they will swarm over it like killer bees. You will be able to locate by the noise of the frenzy around it.zIt would be a threat to so much feminist theory and traditional masculinity that it could not be allowed to live.

  280. Pat Kibbon says:

    Statistically speaking:

    The average human being has one testicle and one breast. How accurate an impression of human beings do you get from that statistic?

  281. Danny says:

    TB:

    I wonder if we’ll ever see a survey that shows men some behavior of women they find offensive and asks them how much they hate women after watching it.

    With the implication that misogyny is best addressed by women changing their behavior to suit men.

    Jim:

    If anyone ever does one, you will be sure to see it. MRAs will publish it enough on the net that feminists and male chivlarists will have to do something; they will swarm over it like killer bees.

    While I think MRAs would publish it I think the only way the feminists and male chivalrists would chime in is if such a study got A LOT of press. Not just the odd mention on CNN I’m talking all over the place online and offline. Only then would they abandon their strategy of “head in the sand” (that they usually employ when some bit of evidence comes along that they don’t agree with).

  282. I think you’re being optimistic. It would be reported as proof that men hate women, and that’s all.

  283. gwallan says:

    Patrick Brown said…

    I think you’re being optimistic. It would be reported as proof that men hate women, and that’s all.

    I’d be more interested in the results of those watching their own gender’s rude behaviour.

  284. Ender says:

    I think we are talking at slightly crossed purposes here. My comment was referring to the entire gist of your post suggesting that “Very often data is much less than the plural of anecdotes”.

    You seem to be replying as if I were suggesting that statistics is the only way to get a reliable answer… at all. That’s not it at all, I was suggesting that out of statistics and anecdata only one will give you a reliable answer.

    Statistics are basically useless in most branches of linguistics. I can’t see how they are of much use in botany or zooloogy or paleontology…

    I can’t speak for linguistics… though I would guess that you are wrong; the first 4 links on Google for ‘linguistic statistics’ are these:

    http://stats.sbs.arizona.edu/
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....ode=anthro
    http://www.hcsnet.edu.au/node/1137
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_linguistics

    Particularly the second link which suggests that you would have been right about 30 years ago.

    As for the others, statistics is actually a vital part of botany, zoology and paleontology, as with most scientific areas of inquiry. I don’t mean to suggest that there are no other ways to learn things in these fields, but anecdotes are not one of those ways.

    Here is an example of how that is wrong….

    I’m not exactly sure how you are showing that statistics are not too precise when you give an example where you find a correlation that is not significant by applying statistical analysis in a very simple manner. What was the null hypothesis? How are you evaluating the correlations? Have you accounted for confounding factors, the random chance correlations and other things? And most importantly, how would anecdotes be better?

    These patterns are probably not going to emerge form statistical analysis because the criteria for selecting the memebers of the data set may exclude the examples where these correspondences occur. So again statistical anlysis is too clumsy to derive a valid answer.

    That’s an example of failed study design, since the criteria should be selected so as not to confound the statistics. If a correlation exists that is statistically significant then it will be detectable with statistics, if it is not statistically significant then we have no way of knowing if it is true.

    I’m getting sidetracked and literal though, and responding to your critique of statistics in general, when really the point is that anecdotes would not be any better in your above example. In fact they’d be a whole lot worse, as they are in nearly every possible situation.

    Sorry… at work, no time to proofread, if I’ve missed anything or been unclear I’ll clarify later.

    p.s. Anecdotes are great for pointing people in the right direction, giving them ideas or inspiration. But if you look to them for evidence you will end up taking homeopathy whilst fighting the Vaccine-conspiracy for those totally oppressed and victimised American Christians.

  285. Jim says:

    “but anecdotes are not one of those ways.”

    I see the problem. I was interpreting “anecdotes” as corresponding to data points in a lexicon or a grammar. You don’t mean the word that way.

    “If a correlation exists that is statistically significant then it will be detectable with statistics, if it is not statistically significant then we have no way of knowing if it is true. ”

    In a really simple way, yes – if a patten recurs enough to be considered regular, then it’s a valid part of the grammar.

    Last thing – the sources you cite are on one side of a major schism in linguistics. my point stands – descriptive, that is to say empirically-based linguistics, rarely uses statistical methods. Google for artiicles on syntactc analysis of actual langugaes – noun classes/classifiers/measure words – and almost noting that comes up will have any mention of statistical analysis. OTOH, I can’t imagine finding anything on the genetics of various populations that didn’t depend on that analysis.

    Back to something that relates to this blog:

    1) Where you are comparing huge masses of experiences. For instance, which kind of work is more dangerous – crab fishing, garbage collecting, mortgage broketing, child rearing? Nothing but statistics is going to give you a valid answer.

    2) Where one incident is indicative of preconditions such as ….oh, female on male DV. Here if an abused man calls the police and they arrest him instead of his abusive spouse, that could hardly occur unless there was a policy throughout that department or a generalized misandrist attitude among the officers. so even if your data set is incomplete – we can hardly know of instances that are not reported, and the one we do know suggests why victims might be distorting the data, we can still come to some logically valid conclusions.

  286. Ender says:

    Last thing – the sources you cite are on one side of a major schism in linguistics. my point stands – descriptive, that is to say empirically-based linguistics, rarely uses statistical methods. Google for artiicles on syntactc analysis of actual langugaes – noun classes/classifiers/measure words – and almost noting that comes up will have any mention of statistical analysis. OTOH, I can’t imagine finding anything on the genetics of various populations that didn’t depend on that analysis.

    Interesting… like I said I don’t know anything about linguistics, I just googled the phrase. I was surprised that there were valid links, but I included them anyway.

    1) Where you are comparing huge masses of experiences. For instance, which kind of work is more dangerous – crab fishing, garbage collecting, mortgage broketing, child rearing? Nothing but statistics is going to give you a valid answer.

    Yep

    1)2) Where one incident is indicative of preconditions such as ….oh, female on male DV. Here if an abused man calls the police and they arrest him instead of his abusive spouse, that could hardly occur unless there was a policy throughout that department or a generalized misandrist attitude among the officers. so even if your data set is incomplete – we can hardly know of instances that are not reported, and the one we do know suggests why victims might be distorting the data, we can still come to some logically valid conclusions.

    I’m sorry I don’t follow your logic here. How could that only* occur if there was a policy or misandrist attitude among the officers? I can think of half a dozen other reasons that could happen off the top of my head – the cop could have just taken a dislike to the man, the cop could be a misogynist of the traditional or feminist variety who simply doesn’t believe that women can beat up men, the guy could have a long criminal history and the cop used that to assume who was the guilty party… etc etc etc.

    There’s about infinity reasons that could happen so I don’t see how you can possibly say “the fact that this happened, even though we have no data as to how often it happens indicates that there is a misandrist attitude/policy among officers”

    *(my interpretation of hardly)

  287. Ender says:

    p.s. she could crying and him not since women find that more socially acceptable than men, and without evidence of who was abusing who it looked like he’d done it, he might have seemed aggressive and angry where she seemed cowed and upset, unless this person was you the guy could have been lying – maybe the incident never happened, maybe it was more complex than that, maybe it was actually him, maybe he was black and the cops racist, maybe he was common/poor and the cops classist, the cop may just never have heard of male on female dv and not even have thought about it (which I distinguish from a misandrist outlook as it is not, it’s an ignorant attitude that harms men, but lets not fall into the feminist trap of describing everything that harms women as ‘misogynistic’ when it does not actually involve intentional misogyny (i.e. misogyny))

    pps I’m going away this weekend and will have only limited internet access so I may not respond immediately.

    p.p.ps Thanks for the welcome on the other thread bloggers, I don’t have anything to add to that thread so I haven’t posted on it yet.

  288. Jim says:

    “There’s about infinity reasons that could happen so I don’t see how you can
    possibly say ”

    Let’s look at some of those, because your objections kind of make my point.

    1. She’s crying – if the fcat that she’s crying makes any impression or any difference, then that is due to cultural bias on the part of the cop – in this case White Knighting, a form of misandry.

    2. “the cop could have just taken a dislike to the man,” – this one is a real stretch. I’m not going to go into it, but it’s a stretch.

    3. “the cop could be a misogynist of the traditional or feminist variety who simply doesn’t believe that women can beat up men,” – it’s fair to call this misogyny, but it is much more obviously misandry, the very thing I wa salleging.

    4. “the guy could have a long criminal history and the cop used that to assume who was the guilty party…” – given the gender disapritioes in the CJS what oyu ar eofering here is an example of the systemic muisandry I am alleging.

    But back to stats – we would most likely find a pattern of disparate impact in this jusrisdiction, and that is obviously a statistical finding.

    I guess what I took exception to was you totalizing statement:
    “That’s why anecdotes are so important in so many kinds of discussions.
    – Just not ones where you want to get a reliable answer.”

    that pretty clearly staes that you think reliable answers come only (‘just) form staitstical analysis.

    But you do qualify that later:
    “You seem to be replying as if I were suggesting that statistics is the only way to get a reliable answer… at all. That’s not it at all, I…”

    S’okay – we’re cool.

  289. Ender says:

    1. No it’s not misandry it’s sympathy, it’s not white knighting to assume the distraught party is worse off, it’s just an unfair thing that in our society women are ‘allowed’ so to speak to get more upset than men.

    2. How is that a stretch? Cops are human beings.

    3. No it’s the very opposite. If I don’t hit you because I think you’re weak it’s the opposite reason to if I don’t hit you because you’re strong. The same outcome, opposite reason. Ditto if you side with the woman because you think men are evil (misandry) it is the opposite reason to if you side with the woman because you think she’s weak + therefore can’t be to blame (misogyny)

    4. at work, no time for this one will get back to you.

    The thing is that the specific examples I’ve given just don’t matter – the fact is that there are possible reasons for a cop to arrest a male victim of dv that aren’t misandry therefore there it is impossible to say that if it happens it must be misandry. Which is what I’m taking you to be saying.

    I guess what I took exception to was you totalizing statement:
    “That’s why anecdotes are so important in so many kinds of discussions.
    – Just not ones where you want to get a reliable answer.

    Yes, I could have phrased that better. When I try to be clear I tend towards wordiness, when I’m brief people don’t click what I’m saying.

    that pretty clearly staes that you think reliable answers come only (’just) form staitstical analysis.

    Just for pedantry’s sake I have to point out that ‘that’ pretty clearly has one possible meaning that I think reliable answers come only from stats, it also has the other possible meaning that I intended which is reliable answers can only come from stats when your choice is stats or anecdote. Taking the context of your post.

    Me: You seem to be replying as if I were suggesting that statistics is the only way to get a reliable answer… at all. That’s not it at all,

    I’ll reiterate that for emphasis bc it’s true. Sorry gtg

  290. Schala says:

    @Ender

    I guess you never conceptualized that something could be both misandrist and misogynist at the same time.

    Women cannot serve in the army as combatants in the US
    Women are not required to register for selective services

    This is a result of those attitudes:
    -Women are weaker than men and thus can’t carry the equipment (true in aggregate, but also true of many men who couldn’t pass the test to be combatant).
    -Women are precious and cannot be wasted in combat.
    -Men are worthless and losing them is all fine and good, as long as the other side loses as many or more, and we can replace them.
    -Citizenship requires sacrifice (registering for selective services is necessary to receive scholarships, but only for men), but women are too precious to sacrifice.

    To me its both misandry (men are worth nothing, we can kill thousands without shedding a tear or mourning a loss) and mysogyny (women are more precious than men, are weaker than men, and cannot take decisions like men do). It’s not one or the other, it’s both.

    Replying to the above points:

    1. It IS whiteknighting to believe someone solely because they are crying, when we don’t know someone and their threshold for crying (ie crying is not a measure of suffering unless you know someone intimately enough to know what their threshold is for crying).

    For example, person A could cry because they were late at work and person B could refrain from crying when they lost their job, home, kids, parents and are alone in the universe. Unless you know person A and B intimately, wether one cries doesn’t tell you how “awful” their experience was (and even then, it gives you an estimate).

    2. It’s a stretch because someone couldn’t PERSONALLY hate you after having met you 5 seconds ago.

    3. It’s misogynist because it assumes women are inherently more moral and inherently weaker than all men (not just some men – if the guy was 5’0″ and her 5’6″, he would still side with her). It’s misandrist because it assumes the men is to blame regardless of action or inaction on his part, regardless of his moral character, regardless of his physique.

    4. It’s unlikely a cop would have a “long history of criminal activity”. Cops need clean records, or felonies that date waayy more and that have been pardoned. If you have a “long list of criminal activity” chances are you’d be 50 before being able to join the service, if at all.

    If you’re talking about the other one having a “long history of criminal activity”, it really depends on what kind of activity. Murder or violent assault or sexual assault FOR WHICH THERE WAS CONVICTION, then yes. Otherwise, some stuff like drug possession or selling is criminal activity but doesn’t mean a thing about the current situation.

  291. Meadester says:

    It’s unlikely a cop would have a “long history of criminal activity”. Cops need clean records, or felonies that date waayy more and that have been pardoned. If you have a “long list of criminal activity” chances are you’d be 50 before being able to join the service, if at all.

    I’m pretty sure that Ender was talking about the man being arrested rather than the cop, and I agree with you Schala that a history of victimless crimes should be irrelevant (some would say that drug dealing is inherently violent given the nature and extent of involvement of real criminals in that particular black market, but I don’t know that this is necessarily so; certainly someone caught drug dealing but never caught in an act of violence should not be assumed violent). I also agree that cops assuming a man is guilty in a domestic violence case is an example of institutionalized misandry, and could also be said to be misogyny -assuming the woman is weak and fragile. In the U.S. arresting the man before getting the facts is standard procedure under VAWA, so it doesn’t even matter what the cop’s personal feelings are.

    As an aside, I did want to say that a cop could have a long criminal history, just not a history of getting caught. I do believe that the overwhelming majority of people who join the police force have not committed any crimes before the joined. After, they join, it may still be a majority who are crime free, but a considerably smaller one. There is a good reason most police departments have internal affairs divisions, and I’m sure those divisions don’t catch everything. It is also highly unlikely that all internal affairs officers are immune to corruption too.

  292. Schala says:

    Not even drug dealing. Drug possession is illegal and can get you a criminal file. Even if its just pot. I know people who smoke ounces of pot per month when they do, none if for reselling, but any amount above 2 grams is considered sellable (an ounce is 28 grams).

  293. Ender says:

    I think we’re talking at cross-purposes again:

    I guess you never conceptualized that something could be both misandrist and misogynist at the same time.

    My point is not that it couldn’t be misandrist, because it is misogynist, but that you can’t logically say that it is definitely misandrist because there are plenty of other possible explanations, among which is misogyny. This is a point of logical fact. (So to speak) If you wanted to make an evidentiary claim, 80% of people are misandrists therefore it’s probably misandry, that’d be fine as long as you had the evidence, but originally it was suggested that you could deduce the motivation from the action, and that’s simply not correct.

    Women cannot serve in the army as combatants in the US
    Women are not required to register for selective services

    This is a result of those attitudes:
    -Women are weaker than men and thus can’t carry the equipment (true in aggregate, but also true of many men who couldn’t pass the test to be combatant).
    -Women are precious and cannot be wasted in combat.
    -Men are worthless and losing them is all fine and good, as long as the other side loses as many or more, and we can replace them.
    -Citizenship requires sacrifice (registering for selective services is necessary to receive scholarships, but only for men), but women are too precious to sacrifice.

    To me its both misandry (men are worth nothing, we can kill thousands without shedding a tear or mourning a loss) and mysogyny (women are more precious than men, are weaker than men, and cannot take decisions like men do). It’s not one or the other, it’s both.

    I’m not 100% sure what you’re saying here, it looks to me like you might have meant “This is a result of these attitudes” – and mean that the two things above are a result of the attitudes you explain below. It is possible you mean it the way you’ve written it – that the latter attitudes are the result of the two ideas above, but that wouldn’t make as much sense so I’ll respond to the first interpretation for now.

    I guess you never conceptualized that something could be misandrist or misogynist or both and vary which it is between people.
    You have a collection of reasons and say “This is a result of [these] attitudes:”, about the rules around women and the army – but you have given the attitudes in aggregate. If you’re claiming that everyone holds these attitudes and they all contribute to those rules, then I’d like to see some evidence, if you’re just claiming that some people hold some of these attitudes… why? What are you proving? Unless it’s the trivially true “some people hold misandrist and misogynist views which together contribute to conclusions about things” then I’m not sure what you’re getting at. – When you say “To me it’s both” do you mean “For me it’s both”, i.e. it’s both misandry and misogyny that makes you hold those opinions about women in the army, or are you saying something about what you think is driving people in general? If the latter (I assume, the first was not a likely interpretation) what makes you think that? Where’s your evidence? Does it make a difference that people in general don’t hold the same views about things and thus are very unlikely to have reasons determining those views that can be accurately summarised in a short paragraph like that?

    1. It IS whiteknighting to believe someone solely because they are crying, when we don’t know someone and their threshold for crying (ie crying is not a measure of suffering unless you know someone intimately enough to know what their threshold is for crying).

    That’s an unusual definition of white knighting you’ve got there. As I understand it white knighting usually involves jumping to someone’s defence, particularly a woman, with the aim of impressing them or rescuing them. Assuming that someone who is crying is more upset than someone who is not is simply natural. We are social creatures and respond to social signals. It may not be fair (or accurate, as you point out), but it’s also natural instinctive and hard to resist without conscious effort. It’s also modified by circumstances though, as we may well assume that an adult quietly weeping in a corner is more distressed than a child bawling on the floor, etc.

    2. I saw someone almost get arrested the other night. The guy was telling a policeman to get a car out of the way of a road, but did so in an intemperant manner, and got himself bawled out in the process. Now there were a lot of witnesses around so the guy left un-harmed, were they alone at the scene of a domestic incident the cop could easily have decided that this guy was being such a prick that he’d either arrest him, or if he thought he could get away with it, beat him up.
    I am confused that you are arguing that cops never arrest people unfairly except for misogynist reasons. If you aren’t arguing that then you’ve misunderstood my point.

    3. No sorry you’re just way off base here. You’ve misunderstood what I was saying. I defined the example, and I made up his reasons for not believing it, and they were misogynist, not misandrist. It’s entirely possible that he believes women are all evil, two-faced back biting bitches, but he doesn’t believe they’re strong enough to beat a man so assumes he committed the dv.
    I’m not saying that in other circumstances he couldn’t be misandrist, or both misandrist and misogynist – if you think I am you’ve misunderstood my point – but I am saying that in these circumstances he could just be misogynist, therefore it’s impossible to say he must be misandrist.

    Take three cops:

    1) Misandrist – arrests him because men are evil
    2) Both – arrests him because men are evil, women are pure and weak.
    3) Misogynist – arrests him because women are weak.

    If only 1 and 2 were logically possible then you could say that a man being arrested for DV when the woman committed it is evidence of misandry – however 3 is logically possible therefore you cannot claim that. This is my only point.

    4) Yes I mean the arrestee. Meadester has it right. As you say there are convictions that should have nothing to do with presumption of blame in DV – however I am not hypothesising perfect cops, many people actually do believe that criminals are scum and any criminal record may prejudice them enough to make an arrest. Remember this is only a potential alternative, not one I’m saying is the case.

    I also agree that cops assuming a man is guilty in a domestic violence case is an example of institutionalized misandry, and could also be said to be misogyny -assuming the woman is weak and fragile. In the U.S. arresting the man before getting the facts is standard procedure under VAWA, so it doesn’t even matter what the cop’s personal feelings are.

    It could well be an example of misandry* as you say – it however is not evidence, nor strong evidence, of anything.
    However if the standard procedure under VAWA to any report of DV is to arrest the man then you could absolutely call that institutionalised misandry, and the evidence of it would be in the text of the act itself where it tells you to arrest the man in preference to the woman.

    * people often talk about ‘institutionalised sexism’ or ‘institutionalised racism’ – but rarely do they distinguish between -ism that is actually condoned (directly or indirectly) by the corporation or government, which I would call ‘institutionalised’ as it is created and maintained by the institution itself, and an -ism that is merely prevalent within the people within that organisation, which I would call ‘systemic’.
    If the law says arrest the person accused, or the obvious victim and regardless of this officers keep arresting men then the misandry is systemic, if the law or police procedures actually specify that a man should be arrested then the misandry is institutionalised. No one has to use my terminology but I think it’s very logical.
    Also, in either case a single story or many hearsay bits and pieces is not evidence of anything – as I’ve said already there are loads of potential confounding factors that you can’t possibly adjust for without statistic analysis.

  294. Doug S. says:

    The average human being has one testicle and one breast.

    Technically, men do have breasts…

  295. Danny says:

    Yes Doug S. I think what has happened is that since girls/women typically have more breast tissue than men (which I guess is why women develop breast cancer than often men, because bear in mind that men can and do develop breast cancer) breasts have become associated with being a girl/woman (ie – “Oh you have boobs? You must be a chick!”)

    This leads to all sorts of problems. Ususally people who call themselves pointing out the problmes can’t think beyond such commentary being a display of hatred towards women (but what can you expect when as far as some of them is concerned the only gendered hatred possible is against women or at least hatred against men is not as important of a subject). But what those people miss is that before that heckler even thinks to make an anti-woman insult towards that guy, that hekcler has already decided that the guy they are insulting is, by virtue of not meeting the “requirement of manhood” (in this case the requirement is not having breasts), deemed okay to insult.

    Essentially what you have here is a terrorist with an arsenal of weapons. Some think that the problem is that said terrorist is using certain weapons so they act as if taking away the AK-47s will solve the problem…even though said terrorist still has a supply of IEDs, grenades, stolen M16s, rocket launchers, vehicles, jets, bombs, etc… The problem isn’t the weapons. The problem is that this terrorist has decided that their violence is justified and is more that willing to wreak all kinds of havoc to force the change he/she wants.

    Okay this is seriously off topic.

  296. Jim says:

    “As I understand it white knighting usually involves jumping to someone’s defence, particularly a woman, with the aim of impressing them or rescuing them. ”

    It goes beyond that. As a feature of chivlary it has as much to do with impressing yourself that you are a true gentleman, or a manly man sensitive to a helping out somone weaker than you. The object of your charity may not appreciate your protection at all.

  297. DanceDreaming says:

    Hmm,

    Not yet read through all the comments. A lot of them. I have, however, done some study on PUA stuff. Particularly read a bunch of Mystery’s stuff. Viewing it from an off-center feminist perspective, I have some comments/thoughts:

    First, I basically agree with everything Hugh wrote in his opening piece. I think the seduction community does have some really great aspects. One of the most central ones being it focuses guys thinking about what women actually want.

    In this way, it’s kinda like Cosmo for men. This might seem like weak praise, but considering that the average women spends a great deal more time thinking about and learning about how to please guys, and attract guys, and about what men want, then guys do women, I think this balances the scales in a really neat way. I think guys spending time learning what women actually like, what turns them on, how to be pleasing to them, is fantastic. Good for all involved.

    I think the 5 points listed are all good, but I want to point out a couple more:

    1: Peacocking. I can’t stress this enough. There is a myth going around that girls aren’t very visual, sexually. It’s BS. Look at the huge cult following of twilight, the women gaga over Legolas a few years ago, and frankly almost all the male actors that women talk about. Women are visual. It’s not the -only- thing they’re into, but it is a big thing. One of the elements that most guys miss, in saying women aren’t, is that women’s visual attraction is complex(so is men’s, IMO). It’s not just about BMI or muscles or height or whatever. A lot of it is about… Style. Peacocking is awesome.

    2: Offering outs. One of the tough things about being hit on is the feeling of being trapped. It’s hard to disengage without being rude. Offering outs makes the situation of being hit on far less threatening. Which is nice for the woman involved, and yes, is likely to be more effective.

    3: Attention to body language. In general, women are way more attentive to subtle cues and body language then men are. I’ve never thought this was a biological thing, and the SC is proving my suspicions correct. Girls are acculturated to pay attention, guys aren’t. I’d say somewhere between 1/5 to 1/3 of the complaints women have about men comes down to complete obliviousness to social cues.

    4: A focus on fun: Fun is good. I like fun. I’m sure you do too. Nuff said.

    I do find some elements problematic. The funny thing is, I can %100 understand why these elements are there. They serve purposes, and the purposes are often good, or at least logical. but…

    First off, negging does not seem to be a fringe element. It appears constantly, from what I can tell, within the SC. It’s mentioned all over the place. Mystery goes so far as to claim that without it you will be way less effective. That said, I can understand why. First off it does do the whole DHV thing, high relative value anyway. Relative to her. It also reduces you looking needy. But it encourages zero sum game thinking, and the general immature school boy dominance game of making yourself look better by making someone else look bad(more about this in a sec)

    It does, however, basically mirror teasing flirtation. I think there are more ethical ways of achieving the same results. In fact, some of the neg methods are basically light teasing, and I think not really problematic. One difficulty is a lot of peripheral members of the SC talk about ‘negging the shit out of her’ and the like. So I think this element, along with a few others, encourages some hurtful behavior in guys who ‘don’t really get it’. Sociologically speaking, echo ramification of a movement really should be considered.

    Similarly, false time constraints seem problematic. They are great in that they provide an out(mentioned above), but they are often, in fact, bald faced lies. This is a purely ethical concern, which might not bother you. And there are other methods of achieving the same results. Lying is easier, but frankly makes you a bit of a manipulative bastard. Just a little though.

    Deeper stuff. One complaint I have with the SC is something I see throughout a lot of men’s movements. And it’s a complaint I have with a lot of feminism too. A lot of it is built on and around a basically purely selfish philosophy. Effectively, pure Randian ideology. Social Darwinism.

    This ideology makes a lot of immediate emotional sense. And thanks to enlightened self interest it does have the potential to improve the lives of those immediately around you. But the ‘what’s in it for me’ mentality, with little to no consideration for others, is a central causative factor of most forms of social injustice, and a lot of world suffering.

    I have the same complaint of feminism, which often seeks to redefine social structures with no consideration for men. And I see the same mentality in most men’s movements. Particularly in the construction that women should have -no- input in redefining masculinity. Masculinity directly affects women, women should have a say. And the oft-times utter refusal to put aside their own concerns for a moment and really -try- to understand why feminists feel the way they do about a lot of things. This refusal on both sides is really at the heart of a lot of the clashes I see, and why I often find myself arguing against(and for) both sides.

    This is a basic philosophical point. You might not care too much about the far-reaching repercussions of your actions, or who you hurt in gaining gratification, taking a more solipsistic stance. If so, this critique will have little importance to you. But my personal philosophy leads me to have strong consideration for the effects of my actions on the wider world.

    Next: Reductionist gender stereotyping. One of the really interesting things about reading PUA materials is the realization that most of these techniques would work perfectly well, with only mild alterations, for a het woman. But most of the material is written with strict reification of gender stereotypes.

    The reduction of male attraction to women to a linear scale, based purely on looks, is IMO actually pretty misanderistic. Men are just not that simple. Though I get why the terminology is useful. Techniques for hitting on a lady that gets a lot of attention are going to differ from techniques used on less desired women. And guys can tell which women are hit on more, because they advertise it. With myriad of minor tells, a woman advertises it.

    The thing here is that there is a lot of pre-selection going on. It’s just that a lot of the pre-selection is being influenced by the media. In reading Mystery’s work, he unconsciously points to this. For instance, he talks about girls wearing fake nails, and dressing ‘So fine’. A woman’s effort in style, poise and look are all manners of advertising pre-selection. Along with many other things, things that you are unlikely to notice, it’s all just reduced to ‘she’s hot’(just like she might not notice your game, only it’s results). Because dressing to the nines(and doing it well/not looking awkward) doesn’t just take skill and time, it also takes a lot of confidence. Which is a tell, that she gets hit on a lot, and is comfortable with that. Basically, a tell that she is pre-selected.

    There’s also the kinda sneaking undercurrent of pure objectification going on, partially mitigated by the fact that a lot of effort is put into making this objectification as innocuous as possible, but not completely. The underlying philosophy still has some dehumanizing elements toward women that will likely emerge into bad behavior. For instance, the use of ‘Pawns’. Of course, a lot of this just rises out of the generally objectivist philosophy basis of a lot of the material. It’s less misogynistic then it is subtly and gently misanthropic.

    The reification of the male:dominant/female:submissive that is fairly central to the whole thing is really bothersome. There is this undercurrent of maintaining control, and checking a woman. Putting her in her place, basically. While it’s true that a girl isn’t as likely to respect, or be attracted to, a guy she can walk all over, in the long run many women prefer a fairly egalitarian interaction, and for good reasons. If you never bend, frankly if she never challenges -you-, it’s pretty likely you won’t respect -her-.

    I’d love to see more conversation on this idea. And more encouragement to not sleep with anyone you don’t respect, period. Doing so, you ‘score points’ and build ego, but lose pieces of your empathy, your basic humanity. This can have some really intensely negative long term results on your happiness, both in terms of self-respect, and in general goodwill to others(which feels good, ya know).

    So, I’ve rambled a lot. Overall I feel the good outweighs the bad, from both a (fundamentally)feminist and a social justice standpoint. At it’s best, if entered with conscious consideration and a lot of intentional ethical self-checking, and a genuine compassion for people(including women), it’s an amazingly positive thing. At it’s worst, it simply arises from and reinforces some already hegemonic, negative(in my mind) ideals, and still creates positive value for those involved(male and female). So yeah, go SC!

  298. Jim says:

    “In this way, it’s kinda like Cosmo for men. ”

    Exquisite.

    “2: Offering outs. ”

    Never seen this stated so explicitly; it is crucial to consent in general, and obviously a sense of being trapped is about as off-putting in it gets.

    “A lot of it is built on and around a basically purely selfish philosophy. Effectively, pure Randian ideology. Social Darwinism. ‘

    There’s a whole debate about the extent to which altruism is an evolutionary strategy versus the position that pure reproductive selfishness is what gets your lineage’s genes into the next generation. This plays out in most others areas too – the opposition between amoral familism and the values that make a true civil society possible.

  299. Scipio Africanus says:

    “the average women spends a great deal more time thinking about and learning about how to please guys, and attract guys, and about what men want, then guys do women,”

    I wouldn’t say that. I’d say guys, especially the types who are drawn to the SC, just get it wrong more, or buy into the misleading propaganda more.

  300. DanceDreaming says:

    Hmm,

    On retrospection I have another thought. Although I continue to be disturbed by various misogynistic and generally objectivist elements of the context of SC, I notice a subtle but strong tendency toward egalitarianism in the actual methodology. Turns out, regardless of what explanations guys come up with for it, what works is actually pretty egalitarian.

    I’ll explain. There is a focus on the initiator(generally the man), on maintaining a slight lag in IOI, and in demonstrating a -slightly- higher ‘value’. But the interesting thing here is that by initiating, the man has actually lowered his ‘value’ from the start, and given the first IOI. So the lag is about balancing this out.

    Corrective negging, if done in a truly conscious manner, is also about creating balance. The opener is displaying a notably lower value simply by having approached. And frankly, a fully done up, deeply confident, attractive woman in her element has a certain basic high opinion of herself, due to societal structure.

    I think that negging can be framed into a playful and fun aspect of interaction, and doesn’t by necessity cause one to actually have a lack of respect for the target. I also think it’s something that sexually aggressive women have been doing for -ages-.

    The basic idea I’m trying to present here is that SC could easily be reframed into a deeply ethical and powerfully positive message with virtual no changes to the essential methodologies. In fact, it could be a tool for a deeply egalitarian, truly compassionate understanding between the sexes. My main remaining concerns are actually all directed at the philosophical framework that it springs from. One that is by far the most powerful one in our culture. The competitive, selfish, fear-driven, zero-sum game, scarcity model. And critique of this, I think, is beyond the scope of this blog.

  301. DanceDreaming says:

    Me:
    “the average women spends a great deal more time thinking about and learning about how to please guys, and attract guys, and about what men want, then guys do women,”

    Scorpio
    I wouldn’t say that. I’d say guys, especially the types who are drawn to the
    SC, just get it wrong more, or buy into the misleading propaganda more.

    Perhaps you’re right. From my perspective, given an analysis of media, I would disagree. Men’s magazines tend to focus on ‘typical’ male interests, basically general interests actually, with some having as a sideline some light work on understanding women’s desires. But usually in a fairly perfunctory fashion that reinforces simplistic stereotypes. Women’s magazine overwhelmingly focus on understanding men, and being more attractive. ‘Women targeted movies have a huge focus on relationships. Men targeted movies more on action or non-romantic comedy.

    There just seems to be a large tendency to reinforce the idea that women are incomprehensible mysteries. And a huge focus in the upbringing of girls to focus on relational skills. Boys are far more strongly encouraged to engage with -things-, or other boys. Sports, science, technology, craftsmanship, hobbies and the like. And encouraged to leave thinking about relationships to women.

    I’m not saying that men don’t worry about, and contemplate relationships. I think that men who have trouble with women focus on it a lot. But the tendency is often to view it as an unsolvable puzzle, and I’ve seen almost nothing outside the SC that encourages men to actively study what women want.

    I mean, look at how guys dress. Then look at how rockstars dress. :P

    Edit: Further, the contemplation done by these men not only involves misleading stereotypes, but tends to focus heavily on the man in questions personal desires, not the desires of women. I have actually tried to give advice to such men before, that interestingly mirrors some elements of SC(though far less sophisticated). And I have heard more times then I can count the argument that making significant changes would represent ‘destroying my identity’. That somehow taking significant action to be more attractive to women would alter the guy’s core identity. And that they would always know that the woman hadn’t actually fallen for -them-, but instead for a facade they had created. I have heard this line of thinking literally dozens of times. And continue to find it both self-centered and, ironically, self-defeating.

    SC seems to focus on destroying this toxic myth, and seems to do so in language that many men can really get behind in a fashion I have never been able to. Frankly, the next time a guy complains to me about his failures in dating, I will likely hold forth a bit on my above mentioned concerns and impressions, then direct him towards the SC community.

  302. Danny says:

    DD:

    Women’s magazine overwhelmingly focus on understanding men, and being more attractive.

    Do they really? From what I see of them the focus on understanding men is usually just focusing on old stereotypes like “10 Things You Can Do In Bed That Will Make Him Go WILD Everytime” and pretending to like his interests and let him inflate his ego and stuff like that. Not to say there is no actual attempt at understanding mind you just saying that those books don’t seem to want to acknowledge much less talk about how men are complicated creatures on the individual and espcially group level.

    But the tendency is often to view it as an unsolvable puzzle, and I’ve seen almost nothing outside the SC that encourages men to actively study what women want.

    I think that might be because attempts at doing so are actively looked down upon by both women and men. Both tend to react to men trying to do that by wondering why they are all touchy feely like some kind of “chick”. And it also doesn’t help that critics of the SC accuse the SC of trying to study what women want for the purpose of exploiting them in order to get what they want (as in pretending to like her interests in hopes of getting her into bed).

    Welcome. I’m sure you’re noticed that the bloggers that run this fine place are not always around. But rest assured when they do show up they will welcome you as well.

  303. Motley says:

    My main remaining concerns are actually all directed at the philosophical framework that it springs from. One that is by far the most powerful one in our culture.

    …And DanceDreaming discovers Motley’s Law. ;)

    In that the primary criticism of the SC here is that, well, it is written from (and, more importantly, written to ) the perspective of mainstream America. That perspective contains some pretty ugly assumptions, yes, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with the SC. More precisely, the criticism is that the SC doesn’t put as much effort as it could into changing that dynamic.
    Which would be a relevant criticism, if the SC was a social-reform movement, which it is not.

    On a more serious note: Thanks for writing the above. That’s pretty much the most serious criticism of the community that I’ve seen. I hadn’t really noticed the Randian themes (and I’m still not entirely sure they’re actually there)*, but it’s an interesting observation.

    But here:

    The reification of the male:dominant/female:submissive that is fairly central to the whole thing is really bothersome.

    I’m not sure what you mean. It’s important to be aware (and I get the impression that you are, which is why I’m confused) that the SC didn’t invent this dynamic and isn’t actually supporting it. The impression I’ve gotten so far is that it treats the aforementioned gender dynamic as a problem, and the community exists to provide the tools to navigate it.
    The swimming instructor isn’t discussing whether or not there should be a pool there; he’s just teaching you how to deal with the fact that there is. The criticisms I’ve seen tend to boil down to “I don’t like the fact that there’s a pool there, and I don’t like the shape of it.” That’s a valid criticism of the area (and of whoever built the pool) but it isn’t a valid criticism of the swimming teacher. Especially when the pool was there long before the guy started teaching people how to swim across it.

    *By this I mean I’m not sure if you’re distinguishing between “Randian” and “competitive.”

    On a less serious note:

    This is a basic philosophical point. You might not care too much about the far-reaching repercussions of your actions, or who you hurt in gaining gratification, taking a more solipsistic stance. If so, this critique will have little importance to you.

    Incorrect. :)

    But my personal philosophy leads me to have strong consideration for the effects of my actions on the wider world.

    Is this the good old “anyone who disagrees with me must be disagreeing because they’re evil, and surely could not be disagreeing for any other reasons” reasoning?

  304. Scipio Africanus says:

    DD, I actually agree with almost all of what you just said. I wasn’t comparing men’s magazine’s to women’s, so I guess that’s why it seemed like we disagreed there.

    Someone on this site, maybe 3 weeks ago, also noted that men focus on things more while women focus on people, and this has been cited as part of an explanation as to why geeks, nerds, dweebs, and other assorted social rejects tend to be overwhelmingly male.

    As for me, I’ve been guilty at times of what you mentioned, i.e., not wanting to alter my core personality for the sake of making dating achievements. This goes with why I never adopted any SC practices or “joined” the community – I’m way too lazy to invest all that time and mental energy into learning a whole new system. It’s always struck me as being like starting a second job and learning all the ropes. Plus, I always believed – I think I still believe – that I can find The Answers somewhere inside myself and the sum of my dating experiences. I’ve always refused to believe it requires me to do all that the SC prescribes.

    But that’s just me. If it works for other guys, that’s great. I think a certain amount of self-centeredness is healthy. It’s how we maintain our bearings and not get lost in what others may or may not try to get us to do.

  305. Pat Kibbon says:

    Doug S. says:
    March 31, 2010 at 7:05 am

    The average human being has one testicle and one breast.

    Technically, men do have breasts…

    Then I shall rephrase:

    The average human being has one testicle and one breast, plus, another external organ that is perceptually distinguishable from a breast by most people, with the exception of a few technicians who can’t tell the difference.

  306. DanceDreaming says:

    Danny:

    It’s true that most women-focused media is full of horrible stereotypes. Hmm, check that, it’s true that most media is, full stop. But the fact that women’s media focuses on the topic is an indicator. Like Scipio mentions, women tend to focus more on people, men more on stuff. I’ve always been of the impression that this is a largely cultural construct, and I think SC is proving me correct in the impression. Or lending credence to the idea anyway.

    And yes, the current socially reinforced gender roles, which are policed -far- more fiercely for men then women, do make it hard for men to do anything that could possibly be seen as ‘feminine’. There’s a certain irony that this sort of thing would be seen as ‘gay’ even if it is something that would be more attractive to women and done for the express purpose of sleeping with them. SC seems to have managed to sneak around that, which I think is neat.

    Scipio, I’d just like to say that what you are refusing to do is something that a woman has to battle through psychological hell to be able to not do. And likely by refusing, she’s relegated herself to the category of Low Value, at least dating-wise. Feeling a constant pressure tailor yourself to meet the needs of everyone around you is one of the hidden but central aspects of being female in our culture, much like feeling your sexuality is monstrous is for men. Neither is talked about much(at least openly), so if you don’t experience them, they’re hard to see.

    I think it’s really nice that SC encourages guys to take up some of the slack in that regard. Plus it just seems to make guys more attractive. And frankly more attractive guys around is a big boon for het women. As a bisexual, guys are interesting, but the ones I actually see in person tend to not have a lot of… spark. And the ones that do tend to be assholes. So the SC thing seems like actually, mostly a huge boon for women.

  307. HughRistik says:

    Welcome, DanceDreaming. Our views on the seduction community seem to match pretty closely. Your assessment is exactly the kind that I would expect an open-minded person learning about the community to come to, as long as they haven’t already developed a set view of the seduction community due to initially encountering primarily-negative aspects of it. It seems to me that feminists first exploring the community often do so because of discovering some negative aspect, and then that first impression drives their perception of everything else they encounter. I wrote this post to try to provide more balance.

    I hope you stick around!

  308. DanceDreaming says:

    Sorry for the really long comment :P

    Motley:

    You is a Shmart cookie.

    Is this the good old “anyone who disagrees with me must be disagreeing because they’re evil, and surely could not be disagreeing for any other reasons” reasoning?

    Actually, on reread it appears that is exactly what I said. It’s not what I meant to say, but it is a fairly accurate restatement of what I actually said.

    Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal. Ok, so I meant something more like: my personal philosophy leads me to try to consider the wider impact of my actions -over- personal gratification. Generally. When I remember to. And notice it. And not having a bad hair day. And not mad at anyone. XD

    And that I am aware that there are many people who feel that doing so is kinda dumb, naive, or ethically wrong. That each should take care of their own, and each should be responsible for their own lives and let others take care of theirs. Which strikes me as leaning toward the solipsistic. This is a basic philosophical schism(with a wide spectrum of points along the line, with many variations), and though I(obviously) believe I am more right and the other position is less, I can definitely see the logic to the other position.

    And that a full debate on that is not something I really feel is within the scope of this blog(and has been debated for centuries, if not millennia).

    Moving on. So, yes, it seems that the primary critique of SC is that though it does some good things, it doesn’t fix certain problems. And from my perspective this creates a feeling of ‘oh! this is kinda cool…but wait! it could be so much better if….’

    As to the SC considering the dynamic a problem… Hmm. I guess it does. Or at least it considers the ramifications a problem, if by problem one means ‘a particular feature/rule of the game to be understood and accounted for’, as opposed to problem as in ‘something that is wrong and needs to be fixed’. A lot of SC not only seems to not see a need to fix this, but rather seems to celebrate it. As in ‘You are a man, women want you to be in control, and you can use this to get what you want’.

    My impression of objectivism, or something akin to it, or social darwinism, mostly comes from reading Mystery’s stuff. He’s got a very ‘biology is destiny’, people are obstacles to be overcome, winning the social game is everything kind of mindset. Or at least he comes off that way to me in his writing. Social interaction is a game. Try stuff out. If it works, great! If it doesn’t, no big deal so long as it doesn’t hurt -me-. Other people’s feeling only matter insomuch as they affect me personally. As I mentioned, the use of ‘Pawns’ really speaks to this.

    Pawns are basically easy targets that you pick up early and then bring with you for the express purpose of using them to elevate you value in the eyes of more ‘valuable’ targets. The complete disregard of other people’s emotions evident here is awful.

    Other questionable things: he comes out against pushing for nonconsensual sex, but the reason he gives is that you’ll eventually end up with a rape charge. He says that the quick finish or ‘fool’s mate’ is not a sound plan, basically only going to work on the occasional lucky hit and on really drunk chicks. The first essentially good(advising guys not to rape), but the reasoning feels kind…disturbing. The second, well he does point it out as a loser’s tactic, which s good, but he kinda tacitly condones sleeping with women to drunk to meaningfully consent.

    Basically, he seems to encourage not giving a damn about anyone but yourself. Specifically, not caring about women, or their feelings, except as those feelings pertain to getting laid. And I see echos of this in other writings by the SC I have read.

    It’s quite possible this arises directly from format. The ‘life-coach guru’ phenomena tends toward this kind of stuff, as it is presenting itself as a fix for a specific problem for it’s customers.

    So, finally, I know that the SC is not a social-reform movement. But the OP put up aspects of the SC as positive, and basically asked for feminist opinions. And quite frankly I agree with him on his points, and as I said on several more. But I am an armchair sociologist and a specifically pro-male feminist(this is not an oxymoron from my perspective). I make a hobby of studying social phenomena and analyzing potential ramifications, specifically from a gender relations viewpoint.

    And I find that although SC has some great elements, the framework it is in, the whole tone of the community, deeply reinforces a basically problematic viewpoint. Will it make matters worse? I don’t know. Will it make matters better? I don’t know. But I really like the notion that Hugh puts forth of trying to take the positive elements from SC and -building- a social-reform movement out of it. One that could finally be a functional male counter-part to feminism.

    Because frankly, feminism has pretty well fizzled, and well short of the goal. And I think a really big part of this comes from the fact that feminism is rooted in the idea of fighting against men, and tends to deny male pain. And I don’t think we can move forward until male pain is adequately addressed. And MRAs aren’t doing it, and neither are anti-feminist currents. All these seem to want to do is blame all the problems men face on feminism, to my eyes simply because feminists are ignoring those problems. And I want to say: most of the problems men face today are a part of a dynamic that way predates feminism.

    The root of the problem is socially reinforced gender roles and stereotypes. Or at least this is a big part of it. And although feminists rarely challenge(and often reify) male stereotypes, they didn’t make them happen and women aren’t central to reinforcing them. SC -proves- this. The reason SC is so women friendly is because men basically did get female input every step of the way. Or at least input on ‘does this make you want to have sex’, from the women that the SC are after. And what is coming out is a model that looks a lot less like culturally reinforced masculinity and more like…well… the movie characters that women tend to swoon over. Characters whose actor’s heterosexuality is often questioned, who go to great lengths to subsequently ‘butch up’ to escape the association with ‘effeminate’ characters, despite the fact that women en masse give positive feedback for those archetypes.

    So really, it seems to me that to a huge degree men are policing masculinity. Men are holding men back. And SC is putting a huge gaping hole in this by saying ‘Suckers! We’re getting laid and you’re not. Who’s gay now?’. And doing so by: paying attention to subtle social cues, playing flamboyant characters, engaging in empathic communication, strategically displaying vulnerability, and giving a damn about what women want.

    If hegemonic masculinity is going to be challenged, it has to be challenged by men. I think the SC gives an amazing opening to do that. And in the process reclaim a healthy male sexuality, a deeper connection to emotional context, an acceptance of sensuality. And if men are brave, and can move past the game, perhaps a space in which to be vulnerable and accept emotions. And a willingness and ability to meet women as mutually respectful equals. Working together to build a better sexual discourse. For everyone involved.

    And you know, many things that men might feel a need or desire for that I am unaware of. Men need to design the goals. But I strongly feel that such movement will be more powerful if men reach out to women and really try to hear what they are talking about. While still demanding to be heard. I don’t think there is even a need to meet half-way, because I think so many of the problems are interwoven, that there are solutions that will handle both.

    Now, this is all kinda utopian. But these sort of utopian ideals are what feminism started out with. It didn’t get all the way to where it was trying to go, in part because it ignored the needs of men. It may be that such a movement will not reach such lofty goals. But it feels like motion in that direction would be all to the good. Dontcha think?

  309. DanceDreaming says:

    Hello Hugh.

    Great site you have here. Though I do find a fair degree of stuff here…difficult. A lot of the comment thread stuff really. I was going to post a diatribe about this comment thread, but it’s just way too much stuff. Epic thread is epic.

    Interestingly enough, my first encounter with SC was very negative. It was in a conversation with a guy that was talking about how cool it seemed and that he was thinking of trying it. And all of it sounded kinda sickeningly misogynistic and brutally manipulative. It re-entered my awareness actually when it started being discussed on feminist blogs.

    So, though a proud and vocal feminist, I have had a growing dissatisfaction with some aspects of the feminist community. I see mechanisms in place to specifically deny and belittle the legitimate concerns of some actually very nice guys I know personally. Not specifically of course, but I heard their pain, and then saw discussions of what appeared to be what that pain looked like through the eyes of fellow feminists. And it was ugly.

    So I have reached a point where, when I see Nice Guys(tm), or TPHMT as a way of trivializing male pain, my bullshit filters kick in. So I started looking into SC with a fairly open mind, though with some serious skepticism. Fairly early into that, I found this post. The rest is history.

    I’m actually feeling like this site, despite some elements that are challenging for me, is actually having exactly the discussion I’ve been looking for. A space with men disenfranchised by the current model of masculinity and distressed by their voices being shut out of the movement that should be supporting them, and feminist who are coming to the realization that the movement isn’t really going to go any farther without active male participation. And hopefully a discussion that will encourage both to put down the knives and talk.

    This is what I am seeking, anyway.

  310. DanceDreaming says:

    Oh and, some stuff here being challenging for me is probably a good thing.

  311. Danny says:

    DanceDreaming:

    And MRAs aren’t doing it, and neither are anti-feminist currents. All these seem to want to do is blame all the problems men face on feminism, to my eyes simply because feminists are ignoring those problems. And I want to say: most of the problems men face today are a part of a dynamic that way predates feminism.

    While the things that plague men predate feminism I really don’t have much of a problem with MRAs or even anti-feminists taking feminism/feminists to task on some issues because despite not knowing or doing as much as they pat themselves on the back for feminists seem to have no problem claiming that they are the ones that are helping men (and sure as hell have no problem speaking on the lives of men in a manner they would not tolerate in reverse) and men should join feminism. I’m having an exchange with a feminist over at my blog right now and while I believe she speaks in good faith she trotted out that exact thing, saying the things men’s activists are basically feminism done by men.

    If feminists (and by extension feminism) would quit trying to brand itself as the official entity of equality for all while at the same time doing stuff like this: “And I think a really big part of this comes from the fact that feminism is rooted in the idea of fighting against men, and tends to deny male pain.” they would not come under fire so much. You can’t selectively acknowlede pain based on the injured party then wonder why the masses (namely the injured parties you ignore) aren’t flocking to you as if you and your activism are the messiah.

    In fact I would go as far as to say if feminism was as squeaky clean and perfectly all inclusive as its many of its members think it is a lot of the folks that support and are a part of the men’s movement would have already embraced feminism.

    (Side question. I find it odd that when it comes to groups who start their own movements because feminism isn’t doing it for them the only ones feminists seem to take a presumed disliking to are men. Maybe its because I’m not a womanist but I rarely see them catching the same venomous hatred from feminists as I seem them spewing on men. Anyone else notice that of is it me?)

    (I know this would be best suited for another thread but I wasn’t sure where. Maybe the April open thread will be up soon.)

  312. Jim says:

    “Basically, he seems to encourage not giving a damn about anyone but yourself. Specifically, not caring about women, or their feelings, except as those feelings pertain to getting laid. And I see echos of this in other writings by the SC I have read.”

    The name for this is narcissism. It is very advantageous in a market society, so even people who are not biloogically narcissist imitate these traits to get ahead. You see a lot of it all over.

    “So really, it seems to me that to a huge degree men are policing masculinity. Men are holding men back. ”

    Yes. And this takes many forms – white knighting, gender role enforcement and others. And it is only MRAs who are really ciricizing that effectively. Feminist criticisms of “hegemonic masculinity” were ineffective because they were hostile to men and all masculinity, often for personal psychological reasons, andthey alienated the people they purported to help transform.

    “And MRAs aren’t doing it, and neither are anti-feminist currents. All these seem to want to do is blame all the problems men face on feminism,”

    You need to acquaint yourself more fully with MRAs – actual MRA sites, not feminist mischaracterizations of MRAs. Try looking at Glenn Sacks, False Rape Society, the Spearhead, Mens’ News Daily and others. Toy Soldiers is doing this as well in a very specialized area, and he has a good blog roll.

  313. DanceDreaming says:

    Danny:

    I basically agree with you here. Which is why neutral ground discussions seem important to me. As a side note: It’s useful to remember that online feminist community is very likely to specifically attract a lot of women who have had particularly bad experiences with men, for whom male privilege and abusive male power is very personal. Which is likely to skew the median, opinion wise. Likely the same is true with MRAs, in reverse.

    As to your side question, the answer seems fairly obvious to me. Feminists are more up at arms about male activism then other groups because male groups are specifically challenging the assumptions and positions of feminism in many cases. But more centrally, the above mentioned dynamic means there are going to be some very vocal misogynists in men’s groups, and an undercurrent of misogyny apparent in discussions. And there are vocal misanderists in feminism, and an undercurrent of misandery. And these dynamics can’t help but clash.

    Jim:

    Narcissism is a good way to put it. And yeah, the more I think about it the more I think that these forms of expression simply arise out of the medium of marketing.

    I think feminism -is- doing some work to challenge hegemonic masculinity, and has been the whole time. The forum itself though makes it a difficult space for such discussion. But I feel like feminism is where this conversation actually started, or at least where it got a real serious foothold. John Stoltenburg is fairly famous for taking it to task, in a very pro-feminist form.

    But yeah, the discussion is going to have trouble going forward within the feminist framework, and going by feminist ‘rules’.

    As to the idea that MRAs are doing the work, it’s possible. I haven’t looked too closely into MRA lit. I have trouble doing so, because it’s hard to get past all the stuff that makes me see red. Frankly, the name False Rape Society puts me on edge.

    Talk about false rape is dangerous and triggering territory. I know that it’s an important discussion, and of specific interest to a lot of men. Because it is an existent an real fear for a lot of men. I just think that it, much like the fear of violent stranger rape, is a fear that is out of proportion to the actual likelihood of it’s occurrence. That is not to say that the fear itself is not something real and damaging, in either case.

    First, I’d like to trot out some things that feminists would really like heard on these grounds. Between 1 in 4, and 1 in 6 women, with a median age of 30(meaning that the lifetime total will actually be higher), in anonymous surveys, report having been raped. Overwhelmingly by acquaintances, overwhelmingly in improvable circumstances. This makes this arguably more common then just about any other crime, barring narcotics sales, and maybe some white-collar stuff. The vast majority of these go unreported, and most of them even go unmentioned. You can argue about flaws in the study methods(I have seen some very meaningful arguments), argue that women rape men too(true), argue that the majority of men do not rape(very true), but most times these arguments seem to be trivializing the fact that the fear of rape represents a real and present fear for all women, that informs and affects life on a very basic level, and has an invisible but very real hand in nearly all gendered interaction.

    Even if every single reported case was false, which is obviously nonsense, the number of false rapes would be outweighed by real ones somewhere in the realm of 15/1. Since that is nonsense, the ratio is going to be wider. Now, that doesn’t take into account public and semi-public accusations. But I think the ratios are still high. But we seem to forget all this when a woman actually does accuse a man. Suddenly she is under extreme scrutiny. And it’s as likely to damage her reputation as it is his. And incredibly unlikely to lead to him actually going to jail. So most women who are raped simply don’t make an accusation.

    I know false rapes do happen. But I think they are rare. And centralizing this in a discussion about reinventing masculinity(the context you mentioned the blog), is horrifying, especially to women who have been raped, and have either been afraid to bring it forward, or have done so and been subject to victim-blaming and shaming. But also just to women who live with the fear of rape(almost all women).

    One of the really horrible side effects of all this is the schrodinger’s rapist effect. Where women view men as potential rapists, and men feel accused a priori. Not to mention potential harassers, and gropists(which virtually all women experience).

    False rape accusations are horribly destructive to the lives of the men who experience them. But centralizing this, making this such a big part of men’s discussion of rape, continues the circumstance that women are unlikely to come forward when they are raped. Which means men who raped are unlikely to be punished. Which means men can more easily get away with it, and go on to rape again. Which means more women are going to be raped. Which makes women more afraid of men. Which fuels the schrodingers rapist effect. This very discourse tends to fuel the cultural notion of male sexuality being toxic, or dirty. And leads to a lot of male shame around their sexuality.

    It would be nice to see more men trying to work out manners of finding ways to stop rape. Because rape is why false rape charges occur. Because rape is why women fear and distort male sexuality. Possibly MRAs do confront this topic, I don’t know. My forays into that realm have mostly been perfunctory due to them often eliciting a strong urge to scream in me.

  314. typhonblue says:

    DD,

    I’m going to put out a statistic that you may not have noticed while browsing this website.

    It’s a survey that hasn’t gotten as much press as it seriously should. It’s called Predictors of Sexual Coercion Against Women and Men and it can be found here:

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

    It finds that 2.1% of the college age men surveyed experienced forced vaginal sex in their intimate relationships in the past year, compared to 1.6% of women who experienced the same.

    I find this survey both unique and amazing; unique in that it also asks men about their sexual victimization and amazing for what it found.

    There is an epidemic of rape, but it’s victims are both sexes and it’s perpetrators are likewise both sexes.

    And leads to a lot of male shame around their sexuality.

    Imagine being the gender that’s equally victimized by sexual assault and more often victimized by false accusations. Want to bet it’s the same group of women doing both? aka. the pathological narcissists? And if male narcissists felt they could get away with it, they’d be doing it too?

    Yikes. (And I say that as a woman on the outside looking in.)

  315. Danny says:

    Dance:

    It would be nice to see more men trying to work out manners of finding ways to stop rape.

    And I would be willing to work towards that…if the people that were demanding that I help weren’t trying to hold me just as responsible for rape as the actual rapists just because I share gender with them. How or why should a man that is not a rapist be anymore responsible for stopping rape than women simply because of shared gender.

    Because rape is why false rape charges occur. Because rape is why women fear and distort male sexuality.
    False rape occurs because the ones that make those accusations know that, despite what feminists might say to the contrary, there is incentive and profit to be had in doing so. Maybe to cover their own ass, maybe for revenge, who knows. So why women that make rape accusations might be stigmatized and face problems herself those stigmas do not magically erase the damage false accusations do to men.

    And speaking of damage bear in mind that in many, probably most rape charges, the alleged victim often has rape shield laws to hide behind while her accuser’s identity and life are drug through the mud, media, and public. Even after the false accuser recants her ID is still sometimes protected. Meanwhile the falsely accused gets to have the “privilege” of having people give him funny “I wonder if he did it?” looks for the rest of his life. And on top of that said false accuser often gets away without facing any criminal charges whatsoever. Why? Because of the belief that actually punishing a false accuser will harm “actual victims”. Actual victims you ask? Well apparently there is this idea that when false accusers are charged/punished it scares women who have been raped out of coming forward. So what you have is a clear cut case of men being told they can’t get justice because it might hurt other women. I’m not saying actual victims won’t be scared into not coming forward but can you really say its fair that a man can’t get the justice he deserves because it might hurt other women?

    Even if rapes were to drop to zero tomorrow there would still be incentive to make the accusation because rape is such a horrible crime.

    Possibly MRAs do confront this topic, I don’t know. My forays into that realm have mostly been perfunctory due to them often eliciting a strong urge to scream in me.

    Yes they do. Contrary to what others say MRAs are not about supporting rape or any craziness like that. They would just like for men to get an actual fair chance at defending themselves in rape cases, not be stigmatized, not be assumed to be molesters/rapists because of their gender, and for those who falsely accuse men to actually be punished. But for some reason those things are apparently too much to ask.

  316. DanceDreaming:

    First, I’d like to trot out some things that feminists would really like heard on these grounds. Between 1 in 4, and 1 in 6 women, with a median age of 30(meaning that the lifetime total will actually be higher), in anonymous surveys, report having been raped.

    You ask why we blame feminism? The fact that it creates statistical myths and won’t drop them even after they’ve been debunked again and again. Couple that with those prominent feminists like Dworkin and MacKinnon who claim that all heterosexual sex is rape because women are too oppressed to truly consent, and those feminists who refuse to acknowledge false rape claims or who insist that false accusers not face any consequences because it will have a “chilling effect” on genuine victims coming forward, and it is clear that much feminist activism on rape is not aimed at stopping rape but at inflating it to demonise men.

    We will never entirely prevent rape – there will always be bad people. We can reduce an awful lot of what feminists call rape by men and women understanding and respecting each other’s sexuality – currently, we don’t understand women’s sexuality or respect men’s – and we can only do that by communicating honestly. The SC, getting back on topic for a moment, seems to be an attempt by a subculture of men to communicate more or less honestly among themselves, but not with women, about male and female sexuality. Feminism, by promulgating dodgy statistics about rape, attributing malevolent motives like power and objectification to male sexuality, and broadcasting that into mainstream culture, makes honest communication all but impossible.

  317. Sonja says:

    “It would be nice to see more men trying to work out manners of finding ways to stop rape.”

    And men HAVE done so – by not raping in the first place.

    Rapists are not as common as feminists would have us believe. I’ve seen some insanely broad definitions of rape by feminists, including if the woman regretted having consensual sex for any reason the morning after, and what Danny said – that women are incapable of consenting due to some imagined oppression.

    So when exactly are women going to start taking responsibility for their own safety? When are we going to see them start taking responsibility for ANY of their own actions, and the consequences (like regret) that go with them?

    I never see a lot of logic in feminist arguments on stopping rape. They put ALL the emphasis on men and if someone suggests that women start accepting responsibility for their own actions, then they’re called a “victim blamer” and all their logical arguments ignored.

  318. DanceDreaming, another couple of points:

    I know false rapes do happen. But I think they are rare. And centralizing this in a discussion about reinventing masculinity(the context you mentioned the blog), is horrifying

    Their rarity or otherwise is not really the point. The point is that they do happen, and they do real harm to the person accused, whose trauma and need for justuce is usually ignored in favour of the hypothetical harm done to hypothetical women. False rape accusations represent the compassion gap and the accountability gap at their starkest.

    Also, MRA sites are not about “reinventing masculinity” – that would imply that there’s something wrong with being a man, that we need to be “fixed” according to feminist prescriptions, and MRAs rightly find that extremely offensive. MRAs are there to put forward male points of view on gender issues, not to recreate men according to women’s desires and interests.

  319. Danny says:

    Sonja:

    I never see a lot of logic in feminist arguments on stopping rape. They put ALL the emphasis on men and if someone suggests that women start accepting responsibility for their own actions, then they’re called a “victim blamer” and all their logical arguments ignored.

    Which is odd that apparently women are not responsible for any wrong doings. If a man does a woman wrong he shouldn’t have done it and its his responsibility (and of course by proxy that man did every woman right) but flip it and all of a sudden he should be mindful of his taste in women (and of course its an isolated incident and is not indicative of anything.

    Patrick:

    Also, MRA sites are not about “reinventing masculinity” – that would imply that there’s something wrong with being a man, that we need to be “fixed” according to feminist prescriptions, and MRAs rightly find that extremely offensive. MRAs are there to put forward male points of view on gender issues, not to recreate men according to women’s desires and interests.

    Yes. From what I can tell feminists are only interested in addressing masculinity for sake of making sure they have the controlling say so on how it is “fixed”. As said here the male view (or specifically the views of all the males that don’t fit the privileged upper class white stereotype that is usually propped up as the representative example of being male, despite the numerical inaccuracy of doing so) is sorely lacking on many issues and MRAs are trying to bring them to the table. But afraid that they will lose their monopoly on defining what “equality for everyone” is feminists can’t handle it so they resort to even lying and trickery to make sure they control the gender discourse. (I mean hell they want to control the discourse so badly they had to redefine sexism so that it can only be male against female and then want to scoff at the idea of misandry.)

    DD:

    I know false rapes do happen. But I think they are rare. And centralizing this in a discussion about reinventing masculinity(the context you mentioned the blog), is horrifying

    Even when part of reason false reports happen is because of society’s view on masculinity? Society thinks that an integral part of being a man is to be a wild sexual beast that can’t control himself and false rape reports feed off of that. That is why there people who will assume guilt when a man is accused of rape and in turn that assumption is part of the reason that false accusers know they can hurt a man by falsely accusing him. But of course none of that is important when talking about this topic no the important part to remember is that they don’t happen very often…(sorry for the snarky attitude but I’ve heard this way too many times from feminists. sounds like they don’t care.)

    Feminism, by promulgating dodgy statistics about rape, attributing malevolent motives like power and objectification to male sexuality,…

    While at the same saying they don’t do that sort of stuff. Shell game I tell you. Shell game.

  320. Jim says:

    “I just think that it, much like the fear of violent stranger rape, is a fear that is out of proportion to the actual likelihood of it’s occurrence.”

    In that way it is the equivalent of nuclear war or a subduction zone earthquake on the individual level – it’s very rare, but even one instance is devastating to the individual and chilling effect on hundreds more. When used by a being with free will, in others words when intentionsl, it is a form of terrorism.

    “But I think they are rare. And centralizing this in a discussion about reinventing masculinity(the context you mentioned the blog), is horrifying, especially to women who have been raped, ‘

    Women who have been raped are not the whole world, and they have no right to have the whole world revolve around them. Men who have been falsely accused matter just as much. The 15/1 statisitic is bogus, by the way, and absolute sham. It has been discredited, and long ago. Whoever you got it from lied to you.

    “It would be nice to see more men trying to work out manners of finding ways to stop rape.”

    DD, did you have to read To Kill a Mockingbird in high school? Are you aware of the campaign of lynchings in the US in the first half of the last centuries, lynchings that women made picnic lunches to go watch? Are you aware of the criminal penalties for rape, and the various restrcitins on due process involved in prosecuting those cases?

    I am a 56 year old man, and I would far rather be raped than go to jail for five years for rape.

  321. DanceDreaming says:

    Wow. That is a deluge. Forgive me if I feel, or come across somewhat defensive in my responses, but I do feel a little outnumbered and under attack. I will try to keep these feelings out of my responses, but I may fail at it.

    That said, I will respond to each in turn, though save my response to Typhonblue for last, as my response to her differs somewhat.

    Ok.
    Danny, I don’t believe that anyone is trying to hold you as responsible for rape as they are actual rapists. Only trying to enlist your aid in the same work that women are doing to try to figure out ways of reducing it’s occurrence. Holding you as responsible to help stop it as those women who are not rapists, and less responsible then those women who are. Appealing to rapists that they please stop it doesn’t appear to be an effective strategy.

    The fact that accusers, alleged victims, get to hide behind basic victim protection laws(not rape shield laws), in -most- criminal proceedings seems a good idea to me. Shrug. This doesn’t always work. The fact that the accused, alleged criminals, are not as well protected in -all- criminal proceedings seems to be a fairly essential problem with the criminal justice system. Period.

    When an alleged victim recants, or fails to prove that the crime was committed, this is -not- automatic proof that the charge was false. It then becomes the burden of the alleged rapist to prove that the charge was false. And this does occur, and women do occasionally go to jail for it, or face civil charges(easier to win civil cases). But with the burden of proof, it is even harder to prove that the accusation is false then proving rape tends to be(which is already fantastically difficult), as they must prove they did -not- rape.

    I am aware there are radical feminists who would prefer such reverse charges never occur, to protect ‘hypothetical women’ as someone put it, but I am unaware of any laws or statutes that prevent it. And have seen situations where it has occurred.

    I never claimed, personally, that MRAs support rape. I just think that the conversation I have seen have tended toward a, from my perspective, decidedly misogynistic slant, and a tendency to blame feminism for everything that is wrong with the world. Not to mention a complete disinterest at even attempting to understand issues from a female perspective. This is not saying such attitudes are all that occur in such areas. I did mention that I believed it was possible MRAs are doing good work. I have just found my own experiences trying to look into them to be specifically painful. My position here is, as I admitted, from a very limited, highly subjective view.

  322. DanceDreaming says:

    Patrick Brown:

    Neither of the pieces you link to debunk those statistics. They debunk the myth that 1 in 4 women will be raped by the time they reach college, and the equally ridiculous myth that 1 in 4 will be while attending college.

    The piece that Typhonblue links to mentions numerous studies that show that between 25 and 33% of women will be subject to verbally coercive sex by that age. Which, in my opinion is not the same as rape. The numbers I have seen in many studies seem to show between 1 in 4, and 1 in 6, over the course of a much longer time period then your pieces are talking about, if alcohol, violence and extreme coercive power structures are included(police, adults with children, and similar), but -not- including verbal coercion in dating/relationship context, if such is included, female on male incidence tends that high or higher as well, and in fact tends to be fairly nearly close in numbers.

    If only violence is included, the numbers drop to around 10%. If only violence is included, female on male tends between 1-3%. I will try to look up the specific studies.

    Neither Dworkin nor Mackinnon every said what you are accusing them of. Ever. I have never seen a single piece written by either, nor heard of any speech, in which either said these things. In fact, both -vehemently- deny having ever said this, or having thought this. Yet they are both constantly accused of this.

    The origin of these ideas seems to potentially have been attack pieces in Playboy, and a book written -about- Dworkin, by someone misinterpreting her and putting words in her mouth she simply never said, and using this as an attempt to debunk her work.

    The ideas that they both generally did tend to espouse was that the cultural context was important in looking at female desire to be submissive, and male desire to dominate, and that the conqueror/conquered dichotomy, and some very real at the time, and still existent outdated notions of male pseudo-ownership(often in language) of their female partners created a psychologically coercive landscape, that tended to reinforce these ideas in successive generations. Each also talked a great deal more about pornography and prostitution, areas where their ideas were far more controversial and ideas that came under specific attack. Dworkin -did- say that ‘All prostitution is rape’. She believed that the capitalistic framework, the structure of poverty, sexist and racist oppression, and the difficulties of single motherhood in context of nearly guaranteeing poverty in many cases, combined with the huge difficulties that specifically limited the survivable options of some women, created a highly coercive circumstance. Combined with notions of women culturally being valued more for their sexuality then for other concerns, they questioned whether any woman could ever meaningfully consent to prostitution or pornography. They also both tried to point out the horrifically abusive life circumstances of the majority of sex workers.

    These ideas were, and still are, highly controversial in feminism and are generally not held without reservation or caveats by the majority of feminists. I’d tell you to read either one of them to get a better idea of what they were actually saying, but they do have some ideas that are a bi tough to swallow, and Dworkin in particular, though a great activist, isn’t that great a sociologist or writer. I have never heard any feminist who was not also obviously psychologically unstable on other levels, claim that all het sex was rape.

    This old chestnut, constantly troted out in anti-feminist critique, is a lie repeated so many times that most who speak it simply are not aware that it is, in fact, a lie. I’ve even heard many feminists, generally younger sex-pos ones, repeat it.

    Honest communication -is- difficult. But I think a lot of it has to do with miscommunications. You say that feminists attribute malevolent motivations to male sexuality, and that is -not- what is being said from my point of view, generally(though yes, occasionally). Objectification refers to the notion of cultural and media tendencies to reduce female attractiveness to purely physical characteristics, and to reduce the importance of female desire in the equation of sexual discourse. It also refers to cultural and media hyper-sexualization of the female form. It does tend to over-dramatize these things, and ignore the very real fact that those people who are not subject to any of this ‘objectification’ might actually prefer if some of it -did- happen to them. Specifically, women outside of the cultural ‘ideal’ of feminine beauty, and most men.

    Talk about power refers to thousands of years of conqueror/conquered ideas around sexuality, the notion of ‘scoring’, the idea that to fuck is to ‘win’ or gain power over, whereas ‘to be fucked’ is the reverse. And the whole male:dominant concept of het sexuality that is still very prevalent. And it specifically questions -women- who perpetuate the ideas that these things are ‘normal’ or to be preferred, and that anything else is ‘unnatural’. Feminists are specifically asking women to challenge these notions in their own behavior, and most feminist writing is written with a female audience in mind. The whole ‘split the check’ thing is a specifically feminist idea, and feminists do strongly encourage women to take on classically male roles in dating and relationships.

    Most feminists -are- distressed by an apparent higher regard for the sexual attractiveness of a woman then any other characteristics, in media and the speech of many men. Looking at the ways female athletes, vs male ones, are spoken about in media tends to show this glaringly. One thing missing in this discourse is that male attractiveness is consistently -devalued- in turn. But the critique is not entirely invalid, regardless of it’s glaring flaws.

  323. Tom Nolan says:

    DanceDreaming

    Just for the record, are you saying that this (from Cathy Young)

    In her 1987 book, Intercourse, Dworkin argued that penetration itself is a form of “occupation” and “violation of female boundaries,” however enthusiastically enjoyed by “the occupied person.” She wrote that “intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior” and is “the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women.” “All sex is rape” is fairly accurate shorthand for these ravings.

    is incorrect, and that if I actually read ‘Intercourse’ I won’t find the mentioned quotes within its covers?

  324. DanceDreaming says:

    Sonja:

    Deciding not to steal is not the same as working to reduce thefts. Deciding not to sell drugs does not equate to fighting against drugs. And to take this to an extreme, the current pope deciding not to molest children(assuming the benefit of the doubt) did not equate to fighting against molestation. Deciding not to rape does not equate to working to reduce rape.

    As to talk of responsibility, and victim blaming. Victim blaming is talking about the fact that when a women engages in socially encouraged behavior; like drinking alcohol, dressing provocatively and flirting; and other behavior that is encouraged in men but not women; such as hitting on men or being promiscuous; that if/when that women is raped, that she shames some of the blame for having been raped.

    “What was she thinking, dressing like that?”, “Well, she shouldn’t have been in that neighborhood.”, “She probably led him on.”, “Well, why the hell did she drink that much?”. In court cases, a woman’s reputation is generally put on trial. In making social accusations, her reputation is -always- put on trial. Women are constantly bombarded with telling them all the things they -cannot- do, if they want to avoid being raped. Don’t walk alone late at night, don’t be alone with a man unless you are %100 sure you can trust him, unless you are sure you want to have sex with him.

    If a man takes money out of an ATM machine in broad daylight, is he to blame if someone sees this and then mugs him? How about if he is mugged walking home from work at night? Is he to blame if his wallet makes a fat bulge in his back pocket? Is he to blame if he is robbed if he brags about his new watch, even if he rubs it in an acquaintance’s face how much richer he is? If a man gets drunk and is robbed and beaten, is this his fault? Was he ‘asking for it’?

    Why is it that rape, specifically male on female rape, has this huge list of things one must do or not do, and if this insane checklist of restrictions is not met, a woman must take responsibility for having been assaulted? This creates an insane level of paranoia in many women. This is victim blaming.

    The ridiculous aspect of the checklist is that only one of these things shows up in anything but a tiny fraction of rapes. Alcohol. All of the other restrictions on female autonomy that our culture demands(or when it happens, it’s her fault) are less likely to actually result in rape then getting into a car is likely to result in significant injury. Rapes are overwhelmingly perpetrated by acquaintances. The niche of ‘date rape’ is actually a majority. Stranger rape is rare, and the majority of stranger rape involves alcohol. Yet women are still told over and over to ‘be afraid, be careful, don’t take risks, don’t step out of role, don’t dress certain ways’, etc. And if you do, well, don’t say we didn’t warn you. And even when these things -are- related, it’s like blaming a gay man, for having been beaten for being gay, because he shouldn’t have been holding his boyfriend’s hand. Or a christian, who’s murdered by a psycho extremist because he was openly wearing a cross, being blamed because he wore the symbol.

    The one area that remains a sticky one is alcohol. In surveys of both men who have been convicted of rape, and anonymous surveys of men specifically asking if they had had non-consensual sex, the majority spoke of alcohol as a major element, and specifically targeted women who were drinking, often encouraging overdrinking. We do live in a culture in which drinking while female could be seen as specifically risky behavior. Actually, over-drinking for both men and women is risky behavior, and I think this being mentioned is a good thing.

    What is problematic are posters that say ‘drinking can lead to rape’. Drinking does not cause rape. Rapists cause rape. A better message might be ‘drinking can leave you vulnerable to rapists’. Yes this might seem to be nitpicking, but taking the focus of the responsibility off women to not cause themselves to be raped, and instead discouraging behavior that leave a woman vulnerable to predators, seems important to some.

    Finally, feminists are -not- trying to tell people that rapists are common. In fact, the overwhelming message is that the vast majority of men are not, and will not be rapists. Feminists are constantly trying to debunk the notion that rape is generally some ‘whoopsie’, a momentary loss of control by an otherwise decent guy. I’ve never heard anyone I would consider a serious feminist saying that regretting sex in the morning amounts to rape. Feminists are, most times I have seen, trying to debunk the ‘miscommunication’ myth around rape. And trying to point out that a majority of rapists are recidivists. They will rape again and again. And that the majority of rapes are at least partly premeditated. And that the majority express extreme negative ideas about the sex whom they rape. These things remain true for female rapists as well.

    When a victim comes forth, their reputation -is- put on trial. Although laws protect the victim’s identity in the papers, word tends to leak out, usually in a flood, within her social environment. Both accuser and accusee are socially picked apart, and generally whoever’s reputation is shiniest is more likely to be believed. Women who speak up socially are often ridiculed, and almost universally experience sexual harassment. Along with being told that she is certainly at least partly to blame. I say she here because male victims almost never socially come forth, and the level of social attack on those who do is…well, similar to what it was for women in the not-so-distant past(1950s or so), before feminism managed to push some change in ideas, and still is in many small towns. Total reputation annihilation.

    These attacks on the victim, for being a victim and having the audacity to seek justice, are why those who rape get away with it over and over again.

  325. DanceDreaming says:

    Tom Nolan:

    Actually, all those quotes -except- ‘all sex is rape’ are direct quotes. Torn way out of context.

    In regards to ‘occupation’ and ‘violation of boundaries’, taken in context she is saying that the cultural narrative paints sex this way. She is not saying it is inherently true, or always true, rather that our shared cultural mythos tends to overwhelmingly portray sexuality this way. I think she actually might have engaged in the hyperbole that it is -always- portrayed that way. The ‘intercourse is a means, or the means of making women inferior’ refers to the fact that sex -is- used in this fashion. Not that all sex is. “the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women.” refers -specifically- to pornography and prostitution, about which Dworkin had some really strong ideas.

    About the only quote I’ve ever found that points to strong misandery is this:

    “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman”.

    Dworkin had the belief that the structure of patriarchy, our cultural myths, and customary social dynamics, led to a situation where men were trained, from birth, to be exploitative of women in a thousand ways, big and small. She believed that simply choosing to look at porn, outside of a critical perspective, was contributing to the exploitation of the women in the porn. She believed that marriage, tho somewhat reformed, was a hold-out, a modern reworking, of the classic cultural format not long gone, that a woman was her father’s property until married, then belonged to her husband.

    She did repeatedly say that this exploitation was by and large -unintentional-, and part of the social system. And that though men tended to act in these ways, that they could choose not to. The fact that she lived with John Stoltenburg, and actually eventually married him(very privately, so it could be on their own terms, not society’s)

    These beliefs, and specifically the sweeping nature of them, are what most modern feminists do seriously reject. Most feminists read her with a grain of salt, recognizing her as having pointed out some very powerful themes in social interaction, while recognizing that particularly in much of her early work, she was a troubled woman with a history of bad experiences with men, and a tendency to paint with a over-wide brush.

    I think many of her ideas have merit, if used to(as she generally did) point out recurring themes in media, cultural myth, and structured social interaction. They start to fall apart when one starts to talk in terms of ‘all’ or even ‘most’ men. As do most feminists.

    But some points do make some sense. Porn -is- often made in manners that are highly exploitative(these days to the male actors as well). How many men watch porn? How many specifically go through the work of being sure that it was made in non-exploitative manners?

    Of course, I am currently looking down at my Pay-less bought cheap shoes. Likely made by children in a sweatshop in asia. So, mote/beam.

    Also, Dworkin, along with practically all feminists, have failed to in some cases even notice, and in near all cases focus on, the fact that in individual cases of actual men, there is low awareness of the advantages of being male, and strong evidence of extreme disadvantages that most women will never notice at least in part because one of these disadvantages is that the act of even complaining about them is culturally forbidden.

    I think in the end, Dworkin was far less misanderistic then she was myopic, and this is something that seems to afflict almost everyone where gender is concerned.

  326. DanceDreaming says:

    More for Danny:

    Which is odd that apparently women are not responsible for any wrong doings. If a man does a woman wrong he shouldn’t have done it and its his responsibility (and of course by proxy that man did every woman right) but flip it and all of a sudden he should be mindful of his taste in women (and of course its an isolated incident and is not indicative of anything.

    Um. Huh? I think if anyone came out and said that a man who had been raped should be more wary of his taste in women in a serious feminist space would be torn apart, or simply modded out. Feminist spaces -do- talk about female on male rape but maintain that it -not- be central in the discussion because they feel that feminist space should be talking about the issues that women face. I do not personally agree with this, and have taken feminists to task on it -repeatedly-. Because the subject -is- women.

    Socially, a man who states that he has been raped -will- here this. Mostly from other men. By the way, it is also worth mentioning that women are generally more likely to engage in victim blaming when the victim is a woman then men are, and this is a point of discussion in many feminist circles.

    Wait, more from patrick:

    Also, MRA sites are not about “reinventing masculinity” – that would imply that there’s something wrong with being a man, that we need to be “fixed” according to feminist prescriptions, and MRAs rightly find that extremely offensive. MRAs are there to put forward male points of view on gender issues, not to recreate men according to women’s desires and interests.

    This is a point of miscommunication. the concept of ‘reinventing masculinity’ has never been about there being anything wrong with being a man, nor recreating men according to women’s desires. It’s a large part about changing the cultural idea of what being a man means. By and large, removing the notion that the very worst thing a man can do is act in ways that are culturally seen as ‘feminine’.

    It’s about making vulnerability, in certain circumstances, acceptable for everyone. Making caring about your partner’s desires, and being gentle with the feelings of those around you, and paying attention to the signals people give you, -universal- positive human traits, as opposed to ‘feminine’ ones. Reinventing masculinity is about creating cultural archetypes of men who embrace the forbidden pieces of themselves, torn from them by the idea that men and women have specific and very different places in society.

    And -this- is what feminist would like help with.

    Danny:

    Feminists would like a say, at least to a degree, in what masculinity will look like. Because it affects women. I do agree they tend to demand a much larger degree then is even remotely rational, considering the input they are willing to receive. If men are going to define an aspect of masculinity as being about mistreating women(not saying they are, just an example that some feminists fear), feminist are going to fight that. And I think feminists see in the SC, and in MRAs a potential to do just that. I am not saying they are correct.

    Even when part of reason false reports happen is because of society’s view on masculinity? Society thinks that an integral part of being a man is to be a wild sexual beast that can’t control himself and false rape reports feed off of that. That is why there people who will assume guilt when a man is accused of rape and in turn that assumption is part of the reason that false accusers know they can hurt a man by falsely accusing him.

    This… This is a very good point. Something for me to seriously think about, thank you.

    I do feel that the ‘miscommunication model’ as opposed to the ‘intentional predator’ model tends to actually reinforce the view you speak of.

    What can we do to work on these views? And what, if you had the power to get an idea through the wall of ‘I-can’t-hear-you LA-La-La-La’ actively present in feminist circles, would you ask them to work on?

  327. DanceDreaming, you are correct that neither Dworkin nor Mackinnon can be directly quoted as saying “all heterosexual sex is rape”. However, as Tom Nolan points out, Dworkin frequently described penetrative sex as something hostile, oppressive and violating that men do to women, which is not far off it. Mackinnon is cleverer and frames her contentions as questions and “if” statements, to which she offers no alternative, leaving her meaning clear but deniable, for instance:

    “Other than in some feminist work, the question whether the conditions of meaningful consent to sex exist for women has not been seriously asked.” (Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws, in which she compares women’s ability to consent to sex with men to animals’ ability to consent to sex with humans)

    I am aware that opinions such as these are extreme and don’t represent most people who consider themselves feminists. However, influence trumps numbers.

    “Objectification” is nothing less than claiming that a man, in finding a woman sexually attractive (on whatever criteria), treats her as not human, as inanimate: that male sexual desire is dehumanising to women. This is simply gender libel and needs to be opposed. On the matter of power, there are of course power dynamics in relationships between men and women, but the idea that these only go one way is ridiculous.

    Most feminists -are- distressed by an apparent higher regard for the sexual attractiveness of a woman then any other characteristics

    It’s true that men pay more attention to women they find attractive than to women they don’t. It’s equally true that women pay more attention to men they find attractive than men they don’t, and their criteria include social status as well as physical characteristics and personality. Women often go further, and declare those men who don’t meet their attractiveness criteria “not men”. Feminists have skewed their evaluation of the relative status of the sexes by not including those men they consider “not men” when they consider the average status of men as a group. Hence feminists campaign for equal representation in boardrooms but not in coal mines.

    Regarding the matter of women’s responsibility to take precautions for their safety being taken as responsibility for rape, I agree this comes up depressingly often and is extremely unhelpful. A criminal who commits a crime that their victim has left themselves vulnerable to is no less a criminal, and the victim no less a victim. As I’m sure you’re aware, the same thing happens to a man who has been abused by a women – he is blamed for his choice of woman, and for allowing her to treat him like that, more than she is for actually doing it – so for men’s advocates to engage in it when a woman has been abused is incomprehensible as well as plain wrong.

    It angers me, though, when I see feminists try to twist an accused’s defence of “sex was consensual, therefore it wasn’t rape” into “she wanted it, therefore she’s a slut and deserved to be raped”. This happens on The Guardian’s Comment is Free site quite regularly, and reinforces some very nasty assumptions about women who enjoy sex as well as about male sexual desire.

  328. DanceDreaming says:

    Finally, Typhonblue:

    From that piece:

    In regards to previous studies:

    Although women tend to report more victimization than
    men [...] studies consistently show that men can be sexually victimized
    by women as well.[...]physically
    forced sexual intercourse by women against men is estimated
    to be between 1 and 3%

    …adherence to traditional sex roles is
    related to the perpetration of sexual abuse by men (e.g.,Koss,
    Leonard, Beezley, & Oros, 1985; Muehlenhard & Linton,
    1987). People with more masculine identities are more likely
    to coerce sex, whereas those with more feminine identities
    are more likely to be the victims of sexual coercion in romantic
    relationships (Poppen & Segal, 1988). Furthermore,
    Sanday (1981) found in her study of tribal societies that in
    tribes where women were not allowed to participate in positions
    of power and their contributions to society were deemed
    as insignificant, the incidence of rape was high. However, in
    societies in which women were viewed as equal and there
    was essentially an equal balance of power and an appreciation
    of the contributions of women, rape was non-existent.

    This is the only study I have seen that reported incidences as being close. And yes, comparative studies have been done repeatedly, this is -not- the only one by any means that asks men about their experiences. I also find it interesting that despite mentioning that other studies repeatedly find that men anonymously self-report lower incidences, the reversal in this study is not remarked upon, anywhere that I could find. Incidence within male and within female groups were analyzed in relationship to a myriad of factors but not analyzed comparative to one another, and no mention of the comparative rates is actually discussed. This is remarkable and very bizarre.

    So, since this is an outlier, we have to wonder why. Logical possibilities include: something about this study created unusual results, or the other studies all shared some specific flaw in assumption or methodology which skewed the results. This is actually -not- as far fetched as one might think, as this sort of flaw does creep into methodology. Perhaps it makes sense to assume a combination?

    I am not sure how one could do a comparative analysis looking for an endemic flaw in the other studies referenced by this one. It’s outside of my technical abilities to do so in a thorough manner and would take ages besides. I can point out a few potential flaws in this one:

    The study was specifically stated to have been taken of students in female dominated fields. There is a possibility that men who enter such fields tend to the more ‘feminine’ traditional sex roles, and are therefor more likely to be victims of choice for predatory female rapists. Not certain.

    The study -specifically- removes all people not currently in relationships, asks specifically about rape within the context of relationships, and only asks about incidences within the past year. There exists the possibility that, given the current cultural ideas about male sexuality, men who are raped within a relationship are less likely to leave it then women are. Possibly due to a higher tendency toward self-blame. There also exists the possibility that, due to lower self-blame, the women who are raped will be more likely to feel specifically victimized, and take a break from men. This would mean a higher portion of the female victims would edit themselves out of the study, by not being in a relationship.

    These are purely conjecture, but it is true that this study is an extreme reversal of existent studies.

    However, men -are- raped by women. This much is certainly true.

    Imagine being the gender that’s equally victimized by sexual assault and more often victimized by false accusations. Want to bet it’s the same group of women doing both? aka. the pathological narcissists? And if male narcissists felt they could get away with it, they’d be doing it too?

    Yikes.

    I find it interesting that you assume the male experience requires imagination on my part. Despite being very particular in my language to not identify with either male or female, aside from identifying as a ‘pro-male feminist’, or an (essential)feminist. I feel like people here are assuming I am female. Which is highly entertaining since, using the same language on feminist blogs and speaking the same basic opinions and ideas I have presented here and on this thread:

    http://www.feministcritics.org.....-community

    on feminist sites I am automatically assumed to male.

    Interesting.

  329. DanceDreaming:

    This is a point of miscommunication. the concept of ‘reinventing masculinity’ has never been about there being anything wrong with being a man, nor recreating men according to women’s desires. It’s a large part about changing the cultural idea of what being a man means. By and large, removing the notion that the very worst thing a man can do is act in ways that are culturally seen as ‘feminine’.

    It’s about making vulnerability, in certain circumstances, acceptable for everyone. Making caring about your partner’s desires, and being gentle with the feelings of those around you, and paying attention to the signals people give you, -universal- positive human traits, as opposed to ‘feminine’ ones. Reinventing masculinity is about creating cultural archetypes of men who embrace the forbidden pieces of themselves, torn from them by the idea that men and women have specific and very different places in society.

    And -this- is what feminist would like help with.

    You say miscommunication, but your idea of “reinventing masculinity” as expressed in the passage I’ve quoted is entirely female-driven and female-centric. How else especially can that last line be understood?

  330. Danny says:

    Patrick:

    Feminists have skewed their evaluation of the relative status of the sexes by not including those men they consider “not men” when they consider the average status of men as a group. Hence feminists campaign for equal representation in boardrooms but not in coal mines.

    A thousand times yes.

    This is how you end up with feminists that condescendingly declare, “When women make up 50% of the politicians on Capital Hill then we’ll talk equality.”

    This is how you end up with feminists that hold up the few Elite Joes as examples of how men as a class have power over women. Somehow the likes of Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, and Gates represent all of us despite the vast majority of us being men who will NEVER get to the status where we can be identified by just our last names. But somehow we leave in a society that favors men over women aka teh patriarchy (that word is nowhere near as correct as the feminists that sling it around think is but good luck telling them that).

    Isn’t it almost ironic that feminists bill themselves as the ones trying to fight against the notion that men shouldn’t have to conform to any script to be counted as men but then turn around and gauge equality by how many women are in the same potion as only the men who do conform to the very script they are supposedly trying to fight against?

  331. Daran says:

    Danny:

    Welcome. I’m sure you’re noticed that the bloggers that run this fine place are not always around. But rest assured when they do show up they will welcome you as well.

    I see Hugh already has, but let me add my belated welcome to DanceDreaming:

    That is a deluge. Forgive me if I feel, or come across somewhat defensive in my responses, but I do feel a little outnumbered and under attack.

    I’ve read the thread since your entry into it, and seen robust critiques of your views, but no attacks on your person. I am not a perfectly attentive reader, though, so please feel free to draw my attention to anything I might have missed.

    In respect of the volume of responses, we do have rules to restrict the rate of posting in NoH threads, which almost all of our guests forget about when the mods aren’t around to remind them.

    Everyone, please abide by them from now on.

    Danny:

    Maybe the April open thread will be up soon.

    I’ll put one up shortly.

  332. DanceDreaming says:

    In response to the dearly departed Patrick:

    Dworkin frequently described penetrative sex as something hostile, oppressive and violating that men do to women, which is not far off it.

    I believe I mentioned that these tend to be taken out of context. Penetrative sex -is- sometimes hostile, oppressive and violating to women. It can also be so to men, though this is something Dworkin was unable to even contemplate.

    Mackinnon is cleverer and frames her contentions as questions and “if” statements, to which she offers no alternative, leaving her meaning clear but deniable

    This is not how I read her work. Have you read her work, or only uncharitable critiques of it?

    It’s true that men pay more attention to women they find attractive than to women they don’t.

    This is not at all what I was referring to. Of course they do, and of course women do. The point I was making is that men are most highly valued, given most prestige and influence, for their accomplishments. This puts undo pressure on men to succeed and devalues their sexuality. Women are most highly valued for their sexuality(and fertility), putting undo pressure on them sexually and devaluing their contributions to society. This hurts both genders.

    Women often go further, and declare those men who don’t meet their attractiveness criteria “not men”.

    er…huh? This did not parse.

    Feminists have skewed their evaluation of the relative status of the sexes by not including those men they consider “not men” when they consider the average status of men as a group. Hence feminists campaign for equal representation in boardrooms but not in coal mines.

    Actually, no. Feminists do argue for equal representation in male dominated fields in general. And tend to point out that those fields that are classically male remain very female-unfriendly both in environment and in structural availability(leave, part-time availability), and are paid higher at each level of educational requirement. I don’t see women(or much of anyone really) clamoring to get into coal mining, but I do see women fighting to make construction, tree work, police work, and the like(3 of the most dangerous career fields there) more female-friendly. There is drudge work at the bottom, and at current some seems to be more ‘attractive’ to men(coal mining, fishing) and others more to women(changing bed pans, scrubbing toilets).

    We seem to have a circumstance where dangerous is seen as less of a downside to a job for many men, and demeaning less of a downside for women. Dangerous pays better. Probably it should.

    Though this doesn’t even mention the large numbers of women in the sex trades, which tend to be both.

    And in areas where danger is -not- an issue, at every education level, still, ‘female’ careers and interests are lower paid then ‘male’ ones.

    It angers me, though, when I see feminists try to twist an accused’s defence of “sex was consensual, therefore it wasn’t rape” into “she wanted it, therefore she’s a slut and deserved to be raped”. This happens on The Guardian’s Comment is Free site quite regularly, and reinforces some very nasty assumptions about women who enjoy sex as well as about male sexual desire.

    I don’t know that one should be taking comments on the Guardian as being representative of feminist positions. The one you mention is actually -deeply- anti-feminist, in fact really misogynist, as it denies the woman in question any agency in sexuality.

    You say miscommunication, but your idea of “reinventing masculinity” as expressed in the passage I’ve quoted is entirely female-driven and female-centric. How else especially can that last line be understood?

    Interesting, considering it’s specifically based on desires I hear from men, as much or more then the desires I hear from women. I honestly wish more women were interested in this, and interested in actually hearing the pain that the current masculinity ‘script’ causes men. Instead I see posts by women on the blog ‘The Sexist’(part of washington post), saying that over-sensitive men need to ‘grow a spine’. And yes, I took her to task. And had a chorus of men respond that I had basically vindicated them.

    There tends to actually be quite a bit of female resistance to accepting and cherishing men as men in weakness, as well as resistance by those males that benefit from the status quo(ye ole alpha). I take women to task on this regularly, and am usually quoting a male when I do so, or have one in mind.

    Games. Can’t see anything constructive coming out of this conversation. I’m out.

    OK…. um…bye. If you are still here though, this does confuse me. Not playing games, simply making an observation.

    This is how you end up with feminists that condescendingly declare, “When women make up 50% of the politicians on Capital Hill then we’ll talk equality.”

    This is how you end up with feminists that hold up the few Elite Joes as examples of how men as a class have power over women. Somehow the likes of Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, and Gates represent all of us despite the vast majority of us being men who will NEVER get to the status where we can be identified by just our last names. But somehow we leave in a society that favors men over women aka teh patriarchy (that word is nowhere near as correct as the feminists that sling it around think is but good luck telling them that).

    Isn’t it almost ironic that feminists bill themselves as the ones trying to fight against the notion that men shouldn’t have to conform to any script to be counted as men but then turn around and gauge equality by how many women are in the same potion as only the men who do conform to the very script they are supposedly trying to fight against?

    So, feminism does talk about still wanting to break the ole glass ceiling as it’s a place one can obviously point to and say “look, we’re not done yet”. But I’m uncertain that this is central to the idea that the average joe, at any particular education level is likely making more then his female counterpart. Or that his voice weighs more in conversations, and he’s less likely to be interrupted. Or that average Joe still isn’t doing his share of the housework.

    I don’t think feminists wanting women in places of power where they can have a say in influencing the structural rules of society is the same as wanting them to conform to the patriarchal script. Some feminists are and some aren’t against bureaucracy, capitalism, and structured power. Some don’t mind there being structured power so long as women get an equal say. Some(mostly the radicals) want to revolutionize the entire structure ad some of these realize that this is a very long term goal and having women in power is a mid-goal.

    Redefining gender roles, for women, isn’t about getting rid of all aspects of masculinity, in fact it is often specifically claiming those elements of masculinity that women desire to be allowed to express as being within the definition of femininity. So being a leader is now, to feminists, often seen as quite effeminate.

    As I’ve said, one of my personal critiques of feminism is a lack of recognition of some of the specific downsides of being classically masculine, especially if one is stuck in it. A lack of recognition of female privilege. At each class/educational level, men do tend to have more say about matters pertaining to -stuff- and to rules and goals, things that feel ‘powerful’. But women tend to have most of the advantages when it comes to emotional expression, intimacy(most men suffer from an intimacy deficit), and connection, things that feel ‘comfortable’. And sexually… both sides are thoroughly messed up, and on those grounds it’s too tangled a minefield to even contemplate who is more hurt.

    Classically, female power was all about connection. About family, about the smooth running of social functions, often about marriage, as in those societies where marriages where arrangements these were often decided by women. Male power was about labor, money, possessions, and societal rules(laws). Sexuality was constrained, generally messed up, and favored women in some ways, men in others. Women have made inroads on male power, though this is far from equal. Men have made very little inroads on female power, and in fact there is fierce resistance. But the resistance takes strange forms. Women resist by belittling and demonizing men, and many men resist on the grounds such such things are ‘beneath’ men. Male emotionality is reframed as weakness, male intimacy is reframed as predatory(or gay), male interest in social connectivity is limited. Men paying attention to and trying to influence social connectivity is reframed as “Both tend to react to men trying to do that by wondering why they are all touchy feely like some kind of ‘chick’.” And of course there is the cultural notion still that fatherhood is less important, somehow less valuable then motherhood, in a child’s life, and the resulting inequality in child custody.

  333. typhonblue says:

    DD:

    The study -specifically- removes all people not currently in relationships, asks specifically about rape within the context of relationships, and only asks about incidences within the past year. There exists the possibility that, given the current cultural ideas about male sexuality, men who are raped within a relationship are less likely to leave it then women are. Possibly due to a higher tendency toward self-blame. There also exists the possibility that, due to lower self-blame, the women who are raped will be more likely to feel specifically victimized, and take a break from men. This would mean a higher portion of the female victims would edit themselves out of the study, by not being in a relationship.

    These are purely conjecture, but it is true that this study is an extreme reversal of existent studies.

    The mean relationship length for men was less then for women so that hypothesis is out.

    As for the men being more feminine… I’ve noticed many male students in intro Psych courses tend to be there because they have to fullfill a credit towards their science degrees. These men likely aren’t more feminine then average. Although your point is taken.

    I wouldn’t say that this particular study is a complete reversal; a lot of the studies I’ve seen that use the CST2 to analyze IPV find that men are sexually victimized at similar rates as women. There is a precedent for this.

    As for surveys that *don’t* find equality or near equality I’ll talk about one. The National Violence Against Women Survey. What I found is that it omitted considerable portions of potential female-on-male sexual violence; including forced oral and vaginal sex. As you can see from the survey linked, if you omit situations in which women force oral or vaginal sex on their relationship partners, you are failing to capture the majority of sexual victimization of men.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the methodological flaws in the NVAW survey were shared with many of the others that didn’t find parity.

    This did not parse.

    He’s talking about the ‘real man’ discourse. There is an example on this site where a woman equated being a real man with engaging in behavior she found attractive.

    I think people have the right to find someone attractive/unattractive, but not to question their gender identity based on their views of attractiveness. For example, a man saying a woman is a she-male because he doesn’t feel like she conforms to his idea of what’s attractive in women. Or a woman saying a man isn’t a ‘real man’ because he doesn’t conform to what she believes is attractive in a man.

    Deciding not to rape does not equate to working to reduce rape.

    I think this is where some people see a disconnect in feminist theory.

    If you don’t address the situations in which men are victimized then you’re really doing very little to change any dynamic.

    What do you think men who have been sexually assualted by women feel when they’re told that they ‘can end rape?’ How can we end sexual exploitation if we’re only looking at half the dynamic?

    Another example. Wage Gap. If you don’t acknowledge the forces that keep men in the lowest status and difficult/dangerous jobs then you’re distorting the workplace picture and are unlikely to fullfill the goal of getting equal participation from women across the board.

  334. Sonja says:

    DD: I’m never terribly good at expressing myself on this subject. I’m not trying to say that it’s always all the woman’s fault. Just that it seems to me that women need to take more responsibility for themselves than they appear to. On Feministing, I’m always coming across these posts stating that men have to just stop raping women, and women should be allowed to go where they want, when they want with utter impunity and not have to worry about their own safety.

    It’s an idealistic view (and not a bad one), but utterly unrealistic.

    To reputations: Whenever a man (particularly a high-profile one) is accused of rape, the papers report it like the woman was a victim IN FACT, even before anything has been proven. Even when Matthew Johns (an Aussie footy star, now retired and in TV) was accused of rape and the allegations were dropped due to a combined NZ/AUS Police force finding no corroborating evidence, and then brought up 7 years later, it was made out that the woman was SUCH a victim. Johns lost his job over the re-emergence of that vile piece of excrement, all because of an ALLEGATION which couldn’t be proven. I’ve yet to see the same happen to a woman who was an alleged victim of rape. Instead, I see them given money (the UK system gives money to alleged victims, proven or not), support and so on. I recommend taking a wander over to The False Rape Society and reading what false allegations do to a person, it’s quite eye-opening for almost anyone.

    “What is problematic are posters that say ‘drinking can lead to rape’. Drinking does not cause rape. Rapists cause rape. A better message might be ‘drinking can leave you vulnerable to rapists’. Yes this might seem to be nitpicking, but taking the focus of the responsibility off women to not cause themselves to be raped, and instead discouraging behavior that leave a woman vulnerable to predators, seems important to some.”

    I totally agree with this, and I don’t think it is nitpicking. It’s a more accurate message. It’s like the silly anti-speeding signs we have up: “Speed kills”. No it doesn’t, what kills you is the sharp stop. But you are more likely to have a fatal crash if you are going faster.

    “Finally, feminists are -not- trying to tell people that rapists are common.”

    I get that feeling from their posts, when they rant on about how frequently women apparently get raped. The stats they tend to use are (from memory) all based on questionnaire-type surveys of women, and that leaves a lot up to interpretation, like the woman’s individual view of what rape is, or what the definition on the survey is. Without seeing the survey paper, how can we know their figures aren’t skewed in some fashion? (Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics…?)

    On alcohol: I get infuriated when a man is convicted of raping a woman when they were both drunk. Both drunk means both have diminished capacity to consent. So why is it ALWAYS blamed on the man when he could as easily have been the victim? If neither party really remembers what happened, how can one person accuse the other of rape?

  335. Tom Nolan says:

    DanceDreaming

    Many thanks for your contributions so far, which have been remarkably fluent, informative and civil. You’re the kind of sparring-partner this blog needs, in my opinion, and I only hope you don’t get discouraged by all the argumentative come-back you’ve been getting.

    Back to ‘Intercourse’.

    In regards to ‘occupation’ and ‘violation of boundaries’, taken in context she is saying that the cultural narrative paints sex this way. She is not saying it is inherently true, or always true, rather that our shared cultural mythos tends to overwhelmingly portray sexuality this way

    Really? Dworkin said that society prescribes that the act of heterosexual intercourse should be an ‘occupation’ by men of women’s bodies, and should be a violation of women’s boundaries? That it prescribes that sexual intercourse should render women inferior and should express men’s contempt for women? – so that every time a man and woman make love they have a social duty to think, he: ‘I am invading and despising this woman’, she: ‘I am being invaded and despised.’

    And you further think that Dworkin’s message was: ‘none of society’s strictures are true. In spite of what it says, you can enjoy penetrative heterosexual acts without being either an oppressor or a victim of oppression – it is sufficient to challenge the way these acts are currently seen.’

    Could you quote me or just point me towards a passage in ‘Intercourse’ compatible with such an interpretation?

    No matter. If she said or implied any of that she was, of course, wrong. Society (by which I mean: recognized organs of culture, t.v., film, newspapers, literature, not to mention the norms which prevail in most interpersonal transactions) overwhelmingly prescribes that heterosexual intercourse should be mutually consensual and mutually beneficial, and one would have to be very, very selective with the evidence to argue otherwise.

    I suspect, however, that this is not at all what Dworkin was saying, and that your interpretation of ‘Intercourse’ is unsustainably lenient. I think that she knew perfectly well that society sees a clear distinction between sex as a boundary-violating act of contempt on the one hand and sex as a mutually consensual and beneficial act on the other, and that it disapproves of the former and approves of the latter. Her point, surely, was that this was an invalid distinction: women should not be fooled into thinking that sexual penetration by a man could be anything other than invasive and contemptuous, and they should snap out of their delusions. They ought, that is, to realize that they were victims. You write:

    I think she actually might have engaged in the hyperbole that it is -always- portrayed that way

    but it would be nearer the mark, in my opinion, to say that her view was that heterosex always is that way, no matter how deceitfully society portrays it.

  336. Danny says:

    Dance:

    I believe I mentioned that these tend to be taken out of context. Penetrative sex -is- sometimes hostile, oppressive and violating to women. It can also be so to men, though this is something Dworkin was unable to even contemplate.

    The difference is that your sometimes shows that you are able to recognize that penetrative sex is not oppressive, hostile, and violating to women by default. Penetrative sex between men and women is just like many other things under the sun. It might be good. It might be bad. But it is not bad by default.

    Actually, no. Feminists do argue for equal representation in male dominated fields in general. And tend to point out that those fields that are classically male remain very female-unfriendly both in environment and in structural availability(leave, part-time availability), and are paid higher at each level of educational requirement. I don’t see women(or much of anyone really) clamoring to get into coal mining, but I do see women fighting to make construction, tree work, police work, and the like(3 of the most dangerous career fields there) more female-friendly. There is drudge work at the bottom, and at current some seems to be more ‘attractive’ to men(coal mining, fishing) and others more to women(changing bed pans, scrubbing toilets).

    While there maybe some that do bring up those jobs for the most part feminists will only trot out gender disparities in high end fields like the corporate world and the world of politics. The only frequent exception to this I’ve seen on a regular basis is the military where they will more frequently talk about women being kept out of combat then complaining about few high ranking women personnel.

    I honestly wish more women were interested in this, and interested in actually hearing the pain that the current masculinity ’script’ causes men. Instead I see posts by women on the blog ‘The Sexist’(part of washington post), saying that over-sensitive men need to ‘grow a spine’. And yes, I took her to task. And had a chorus of men respond that I had basically vindicated them.

    Yes this is also one of the flaws of the current state of feminism. They say they want men to be able to feel like they can express pain without being afraid but then turn around and silence the very people they claim to want to help. A good person to check out about this phenomenon would be Toy Soldier. Its been more than once that he has brought how, as a male victim of child sex abuse at the hands of a woman, he has been silenced by feminists.

    But I’m uncertain that this is central to the idea that the average joe, at any particular education level is likely making more then his female counterpart. Or that his voice weighs more in conversations, and he’s less likely to be interrupted. Or that average Joe still isn’t doing his share of the housework.

    If its not central then why does it come up so often? And about the pay gap from what I’ve seen it seems that that gap isn’t as all encompassing as some say it is. And I’ve even come across some data that actually suggests that women are out earning men in some areas. No that doesn’t make everything okay but it does show that its not as drastic as some paint it up to be. Given that I actually see the reverse happen very often on the talking thing I guess I can’t speak on that. And on the housework thing those studies often don’t take into account the fact that Average Joe is still working many more hours outside the home than Average Jane and yet Joe’s housework contribution is rising.

    Redefining gender roles, for women, isn’t about getting rid of all aspects of masculinity…

    No I don’t think they want to get rid of it. I think they want full control over rewriting it.

    But women tend to have most of the advantages when it comes to emotional expression, intimacy(most men suffer from an intimacy deficit), and connection, things that feel ‘comfortable’.

    And they know how to use those advantages. That is part of how anti-male practices in law has been able to go on so long. The law may say that the cops should go for the “primary aggressor” but usually that depends on only a physical assessment which, due to men usually being larger and stronger, often ends up with men being arrested more often despite damage, history, and how the people are acting when the cops get on the scene. As you say this is part of the female privileges that feminists try to explain away.

  337. DanceDreaming says:

    Really? Dworkin said that society prescribes that the act of heterosexual intercourse should be an ‘occupation’ by men of women’s bodies, and should be a violation of women’s boundaries? That it prescribes that sexual intercourse should render women inferior and should express men’s contempt for women? – so that every time a man and woman make love they have a social duty to think, he: ‘I am invading and despising this woman’, she: ‘I am being invaded and despised.’

    Remember that Dworkin grew up in the 50s. Even today, though a huge amount less than then, girls are told in hundred tiny ways that ‘boys just want one thing’, with subtle and not so subtle reinforcements that she must protect it. Protect her sexuality from males. This creates a discourse in which dating, particularly for younger people, particularly before 2nd wave feminism(of which Dworkin played a major role), has a strong subcontext of ‘invasion’. Chasing and eluding, capturing and surrendering.

    It wasn’t that society overtly proscribed it, it’s just that the societal discourse had elements of invasion and ‘conquest’ in nearly every construction, in nearly all discourse, nearly all of the time. One thing we actually can give Dworkin credit for is that she was -very- clear that this was deeply harmful to men too, because it categorized male sexuality as something dirty, invasive, offensive and frightening. Along with stripping a woman of the ability to easily even have any capacity to think about her own active agency in the sexual dance. If you are told, throughout childhood, that you must defend yourself against something, what happens when you suddenly find yourself desiring that very thing?

    MacKinnon spoke of similar. She really wanted to redefine meaningful consent. To annihilate the idea of conquest and surrender. She saw the idea that a woman would surrender her sexuality, generally in exchange for some other consideration, to -not- count as meaningful consent. She was quite clear that it also wasn’t rape. But a woman who gave up sex in exchange for a relationship, monetary support, or protection was experiencing a coercive sexual environment.

    MacKinnon was trying to build a discourse around sex in which it was possible for a woman to own her desire for sex qua sex. She was speaking specifically to women, specifically about owning their sexuality and breaking out of the existent structures of sexual discourse. Wish she categorized as ‘Men’s Rules’. She was frustrated that trying to play on men’s terms involved limited agency, and trying to circumvent them caused women to be seen as damaged goods. A woman who owns her desire is a slut. She worked on convincing women particularly to stop slut-shaming, and the fact that women these days kinda can get away with being openly sexually forward is partly her doing.

    Both got attacked, and their work actively misquoted and misinterpreted primarily due to particularly MacKinnon’s work to attack pornography. Not because they were prudes and thought het sex was evil, but because they saw the pornography industry as a deeply coercive and often physically abusive environment. Though they failed to outlaw pornography, they managed to get women who had been abused and coerced to come forward and seek damages. Due in part to this the industry has cleaned up their act some, though it remains deeply problematic. Their work against the porn industry made them some powerful enemies.

    It is useful to note that the what feminism got right page lists a bunch of things that MacKinnon, Dworkin and fellow 2nd wave radicals were the first people to start talking about. Name 1-2 and 6-10 on the list.

    So when either spoke of het sex being ‘violating by default’ it was always, in context, talking about how sex was talked about. They were actually saying the -exact- same thing I’ve seen men here saying, and were some of the first to say it. That the existent ideas about sex painted male sexuality as something vile to be defended against as if all het sex was, effectively, rape. And that this was the message that society was/is giving to young women, and men too.

    Finally I’d like to say, in response to the ideas of numbers of ‘fringe’ versus their influence, how many militant anti-male feminists exist and have their views respected in modern media? How many vocally misanderistic pundits are there? Does feminism today have it’s Glenn Beck? It’s Limbaugh? Because those 2 and others are vocally misogynist.

    The closest that comes to mind is Oprah, and I don’t think that’s even in the same ballpark. From what I can see most feminists are less actively misanderistic then most of pop culture. Don’t get me wrong, they are still often quite misanderist. But I think a lot of that is a continuance of Motley’s Law. Feminist theory arises out of, and sadly often mirrors, existing cultural paradigms.

    And I think a lot of current cultural paradigms are deeply flawed in the way they present both men and women. There are attempts to contextualize and break free of a lot of these, but too many people involved have a hard time seeing past their own nose. Past their own concerns. And understanding that what is desirable to one, if taken in different context and enforced or intensified, can be felt as oppressive to another.

  338. DanceDreaming says:

    Oh, 2 more things, sorry for over-posting.

    I should have said ‘some of the first’ to start talking about those ideas on the ‘WFGR’ page.

    And I can’t quote chapter and verse from ‘Intercourse’. I read it a long while back, and have little interest in putting myself through reading it again. The experience was pretty grueling, with a continuous back and forth between wonderful flashes of insight where I really felt she was articulating something important, and bouts of throwing the book across the room in frustration over her complete inability to grasp the obvious, or the irrational and sometimes paranoid leaps of logic.

    MacKinnon tends to be a much better read.

  339. DanceDreaming says:

    Hmm,

    Sleep good, more sane now. So, retractions, repositionings and clarifications.

    Quick note, M and D also held and espoused a number of beliefs that I would say are hugely open to critique. Just because they didn’t believe that ‘all sex is rape’ doesn’t mean they didn’t talk about some pretty questionable ideas. Like the idea that all men benefit substantially from the adversarial sexual dynamic. Or that all men exhibit an ‘entitlement’ to access to women’s bodies. Generally any and all women’s bodies that aren’t currently contested by another man. Um…no.

    Ok, on the concepts of rape, and how discourse about it affects lives. In the comment that started this bit of conversation I said:

    You can argue about flaws in the study methods(I have seen some very meaningful arguments), argue that women rape men too(true), argue that the majority of men do not rape(very true), but most times these arguments seem to be trivializing the fact that the fear of rape represents a real and present fear for all women, that informs and affects life on a very basic level, and has an invisible but very real hand in nearly all gendered interaction.

    So really, my arguing whether men are victimized less often is bad faith argument on my part. More importantly, my mentioning that false rape is rare possibly is too. Because I guess the idea I was trying to bring forward is that many(most) women tend to live with a certain fear, not just of assault but that if/when it happens it will be seen as -their fault-. As a side note, I would say that the fear of rape is generally not present in most men(I think? and not including existent victims), and that if even the more conservative rates I’ve seen are true, this is odd. And says something about our current discourse about sexuality.

    In a similar way it is possible that many men live in a fear that if they do the wrong thing, they will face a rape charge. That if they accidentally cross some line, it will be seen as a rape attempt. Or if they anger the wrong woman, and she might use the charge as a weapon. And regardless of the rates of incidence this fear exists as a real fear for many men.

    So I can see how discourse on it can be of value and why someone would make a blog about it. I will also say it seems to me that feminist response to men saying ‘false rapes claims happen’ often translate into the claim that ‘most rapes claims are false’. Much like feminists saying ‘rape[of women] is distressingly common’ translates into ‘most men are rapists’ in the minds of some men. None of this is helpful. Or, actually, on topic. I just wanted to come around to a point of some potential agreement, on some things at least, before bringing the thread back toward topic, or possibly moving on to other threads.

  340. Sonja says:

    “Much like feminists saying ‘rape[of women] is distressingly common’ translates into ‘most men are rapists’ in the minds of some men.”

    The trouble with this, is that feminists add “MEN have to stop rape!”, and “Men: Stop raping women!”, which (as I’ve said before) is as helpful as saying “People, stop stealing!”.

  341. Jim says:

    Sonja, I think what is happening wiht that is sloganeering, because slogans are the traditional means of mass communications when you are trying to reform society. Slogans are a blunt, blunt instrument and only very crude minds rely on them as parameters of their own thought. Unfortunately that describes a big percentage of people discussng rape most of the time.

    When people who profess all this oncern about the problem of rape fail or refuse to address the problem of false rape, thye pretty much invalidate all their other arguments and discredit themselves. You can’t very well advocate for the rights of a certain set of people by trampling on the rightgs of others.

  342. Sonja says:

    I don’t know that it is just sloganeering, though. Have a look at this list from RAINN:

    “Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!
    1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.

    2. When you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone!

    3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them!

    4. NEVER open an unlocked door or window uninvited.

    5. If you are in an elevator and someone else gets in, DON’T ASSAULT THEM!

    6. Remember, people go to laundry to do their laundry, do not attempt to molest someone who is alone in a laundry room.

    7. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If you are not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you are in public.

    8. Always be honest with people! Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you want to assault. Consider telling them you plan to assault them. If you don’t communicate your intentions, the other person may take that as a sign that you do not plan to rape them.

    9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

    10. Carry a whistle! If you are worried you might assault someone “on accident” you can hand it to the person you are with, so they can blow it if you do.”

    It puts all the responsibility on the potential abuser(s), none on the potential victim(s). If rape is going to be reduced (let’s face it: It’ll never be gone for good), then both sides need to take half the responsibility for stopping it.

  343. typhonblue says:

    Sonja. That list is a joke isn’t it?

  344. Daran says:

    Sonja. That list is a joke isn’t it?

    No.

    See also ballgame’s and my critiques in the comments.

  345. DanceDreaming says:

    Ok, my take on that piece: I think you are misunderstanding it. Of course, it’s a piece written to talk about a very particular sort of frustration you likely don’t feel, and is written in a manner that is easy to misunderstand and take as an attack if you are not among the target audience. This really is a case of ‘if it’s not about you, it’s not about you’.

    This piece is a response to the 758,642 point long checklist of ‘Things every girl must do/not do, otherwise they will be raped’ that girls are fed throughout childhood and young adulthood. It is a satirical commentary on the -extremely- offensive and horrifically unhelpful ‘how to prevent rape’ tips that show up on college campuses. The point is that telling women to be afraid, always afraid, always super extra careful, is -terrorizing-. And yeah, it does hurt men, a lot, because it fuels androphobia. Also, it is specifically useless in the prevention of the vast majority of rape cases.

    And those lists are a key element of what feminists are talking about when they talk about ‘victim-blaming’. Because, if the list is to be believed, and you somehow get raped, well, I guess you weren’t being careful enough, right?

    Yes, reading it, as a man, has the potential to be very insulting. And if this tiplist actually was to circulate campus, as a -real- list as opposed to a culture-jamming, it would be offensive.

    But it’s only quite so horrifying if you already believe that most feminist think that every man is a rapist, or likely to rape, or one little slip away from being a rapist. And they don’t. Or at least, no sane ones do. In fact, the list is -so- over the top, so focused on what is very obviously right to anyone not deranged, that it is pointing to the fact that the only people who actually do ever rape are people who are specifically damaged individuals. Not just nice guys who make a mistake, but people who make the conscious choice to do what most anyone would know is wrong.

    Of course such a list would be useless. They aren’t saying such a list would actually help, any more then saying “don’t murder, it’s not nice” will stop murder, just saying that if everyone followed it there wouldn’t be rape, and the same is -not- true of the horrible tiplists that do get put out there.

  346. DanceDreaming says:

    The kind of lists this list is attacking, and all the attendant messages that girls receive, are a big part of the ‘Schrodinger’s Rapist’ effect as well.. Socialization that encourages active fear of men, in women.

  347. Apers says:

    And those lists are a key element of what feminists are talking about when they talk about ‘victim-blaming’. Because, if the list is to be believed, and you somehow get raped, well, I guess you weren’t being careful enough, right?

    This is certainly a dynamic that passes through some people’s minds (more than I would hope I suspect) but there it is also possible to talk about ways of avoiding rape without any intention of victim blaming. I find that some people assume that if you think certain behaviours are unwise, risky or downright foolish then you are suggesting that they deserve any bad outcomes, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    For example – the other day rather unusually for my current situation I drank far too much very nice Tequila, and made my way home from East London in the early hours. I don’t remember leaving the party, I don’t remember where I went until at some point possibly much later when I found myself wandering down the wrong road looking for a bus. I didn’t get into trouble though I lost my bag and mp3 player – but had I, it would be entirely reasonable to say “You shouldn’t drink that much and walk alone through the East End if you don’t want to get mugged” that doesn’t* imply that I deserved to get mugged, just that I did something that left me very vulnerable to getting mugged.

    * Or at least doesn’t have to. Some people would mean to imply that. Pricks.

    I also recognised the list for what it was, a sharp and satirical reversal of the usual admonishments reserved for women around rape-prevention. I found it funny too, though I disagree with any implication that a list like that could be directly useful in any way*, given that rapists are unlikely to listen to such a list, and that non-rapists are already doing all those things.

    *except as biting satire

    tbh like with my other comment posted about now I’m not sure I had a point really but I’ve said some stuff anyway.

  348. Apers says:

    DanceDreaming

    It is a satirical commentary on the -extremely- offensive and horrifically unhelpful ‘how to prevent rape’ tips that show up on college campuses.

    Are they really that offensive and unhelpful? The only ones I’ve ever seen (and I’ve recently left university) were simply filled with common-sense advice about not getting yourself as drunk as I just did, sticking with groups, friends, and being generally sensible. Is that the kind of thing you consider offensive and unhelpful or are there other worse leaflets/programs?

  349. Clarence says:

    DD:

    A post to consolidate things and clear up some misconceptions/areas of disagreement.

    First, where you and I it seems will disagree: Balance of power. I would argue that due to the combination of chivalry and empowerment feminism common in our society today the average woman has more life choices than the average man. I also disagree with your idea that men and women have equally balanced (in modern western society) advantages and disadvantages. This would be nice, and acting as if one believes it helps to avoid “oppression olympic” posts, but the world currently isn’t in some state of perfect hemostasis between the privileges, duties, and outcomes of being a male vs being a female in this society, and I find making the argument that it is rather limiting if you hope to to gain the good will of men, particularily men who are already skeptical either of feminism itself, or at least of any idea that current feminism is about solving problems for both sexes. (As an aside, I am ignoring transsexuals and intersexuals here, but that’s not to mean I don’t think at least some of their concerns are relevent too nor that a society should be built that totally ignores their input, but by far the society consist of het bio men and women and gay bio women and men.)

    Reproductive law , for instance, is illuminating: a perfect combination of chivalry and other ancient ideas mixed with total individualistic feminist ideology. Here’s a nice link and I do hope you get to read it. It’s from a woman who helped write some of the current laws, and it (inadvertently!) puts paid to the idea that men have any real rights in reproduction.

    http://www.childsupportguideli.....99903.html

    It is very very hard to find any laws in this society that actively discriminate against women in such a blatant manner, the only one I can think of being that prohibition on women in combat arms specialities. And perhaps one to ten percent of the women in the country care about this, the other 90 plus percent I am sure, either actively support the rule (mostly conservative women or any woman who knows that she wants nothing to do with the danger of combat) or don’t care because becoming a soldier is not something they want to do with their lives.

    Now on to other things:

    General observation: “But I’m uncertain that this is central to the idea that the average joe, at any particular education level is likely making more then his female counterpart. Or that his voice weighs more in conversations, and he’s less likely to be interrupted. Or that average Joe still isn’t doing his share of the housework. ”

    None of these assertions of your is as unproblematic as you seem to think. There have been threads on this site devoted to housework, for example.

    Another observation:
    Do you really imagine that men, who are far more likely to die violently than women even if you discount the criminal class and war, don’t get told alot of the same messages given to females? It’s true we don’t worry much about female/male rape (except for statuatory it’s relatively rare though I’m sure not as rare as YOU probably think) and we don’t worry about males raping us unless we are in prison -where, I might add there’s perhaps the highest incidence of rape and sexual assault anywhere and definately the highest incidence of repeat assualts- but we do worry about the violence a strange male or group of strange males might inflict on us at a bar, on the street, in a bad neighborhood. It always amazes me that some feminists seem to think that men don’t lock our car doors, don’t stay near lighted areas at night, don’t sometimes travel in groups for protection, and don’t take any notice of our surroundings.

    I myself was attacked once, walking down Pratt street after dark. I was 25 or thereabouts, and some kid who might have been 15 sucker punched me as I walked by , then ran over to a group of buddies some of whom were older, some of whom were his age.

    The same thing happened about ten years later, this time it was a minority teen and much closer to where I currently live.

    Needless to say I try to watch my back when I go out, and I’ve never felt that any “male privilege” protected me from assaults from women or men – and yes, before you ask, I’ve been assaulted by females before but not as randomly. My point isn’t that this is a daily occurance but that it has happened more than 4 times in my life where I’ve been the victim of unprovoked violence as an adult male, and yes, it means I have to mind my surroundings. I don’t get why telling women they have to do the same is such a big hunking heap of oppression.

  350. Jim says:

    “I don’t get why telling women they have to do the same is such a big hunking heap of oppression.”

    I hardly think it’s “victim-blaming” to teach anyone to distrust strangers. In fact I think that characterizing that teaching as victim-blaming reveals an attitude of complete entitlement, in which thet person feels entitled to go anywhere and do anything without there being the slightest risk.

  351. Sonja says:

    “I hardly think it’s “victim-blaming” to teach anyone to distrust strangers.”

    If teaching people to distrust strangers is “victim-blaming”, then we victim-blame our children all the time.

    Hands up here who else was taught as a child not to trust strangers?

  352. Motley says:

    @ Jim -

    You can’t very well advocate for the rights of a certain set of people by trampling on the rights of others.

    Well, you can, I think. But you can’t then claim to be advocating for equality of that certain set of people. Well, not legitimately.

    @ Daran: (in reply to TB’s “that list is a joke, right?”

    No.

    See also ballgame’s and my critiques in the comments.

    I’d almost disagree. I mean, I certainly smirked while reading it.

    @ Sonja et al

    If teaching people to distrust strangers is “victim-blaming”, then we victim-blame our children all the time.

    Is it victim-blaming to tell people to lock their doors when they’re out of the house? I mean, we’re not blaming burglars for burglary any less by telling people that they shouldn’t leave their house unlocked.
    But really: If you leave your house unlocked, and somebody comes in and steals your stuff, you are partially to blame. This doesn’t change based on a particular crime; nobody has a “right” (or an ability) to engage in risky behavior without risk. Telling people the opposite is probably not the best thing for them.

    @ Clarence and DD

    I also disagree with your idea that men and women have equally balanced (in modern western society) advantages and disadvantages.

    For what it’s worth, my personal stance on this: Nobody has any idea who has more disadvantages. I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims to know. People often (hell, I do this fairly regularly) say that it’s “about even” balance-wise as a way of saying “I’m not going to get into an argument about who has it worst.”
    Simply because you can’t tell what all the various disadvantages of the other side actually are, and they can’t see yours, either. I’m not even convinced that anyone can even know what all of their own disadvantages are (since you’d have had to be someone else to compare, and even then you’d still have to be completely aware of your own situation, and nobody is).

  353. John Markley says:

    EDIT: Beaten to the punch. That’s what I get for not bothering to refresh.

  354. Jim says:

    “For what it’s worth, my personal stance on this: Nobody has any idea who has more disadvantages. I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims to know. ”

    Yes. Nobody has either the data or the methods to determine this. And further, none of it matters. What matters is what is happening to this or that individual in a given situation.

  355. Schala says:

    9. Don’t forget: you can’t have sex with someone unless they are awake!

    Meh, sleep-sex. Consensual, but consented in advance. As in, my boyfriend tells me he would like it. I tell him he could do it if/when I go to sleep earlier because I’m drunk or tired. I can’t consent at that very moment, but I knew it could or even would happen, because I green-lighted it.

    A pretty grey area and probably only works in long term relationships.

  356. Shari says:

    I haven’t posted on here in ages.

    Sam wrote re: internet PUA advice not owning good advice: “no, certainly not. But what it has done is give more men than previously the feeling that *change is possible*. The SC has demonstrated that social skills aren’t completely innate, that it *is* possible that a shy guy can learn how to be a sexually attractive man. That’s an immensely liberating realization, and – again – one that I would, on some meta level, even call feminist: it’s about learning how to *perfom masculinity*. It’s too bad if some people aren’t able to tell valuable advice from less valuable advice, but that’s usually a skill reserved to people with a broader range of knowledge who do know there *is* something to compare with.”

    I really do sympathize with the need for better social skills and I see the positivity of hopeful change. But this makes me realize that if I ever have a son, we will really, really need to talk about respecting women to counteract all the bizarre messages and images he’ll encounter on such sites as fastseduction.com, as you mentioned. Warping views of either gender is not healthy. Social skills are separate from seeing women AS people to be seduced…and it really gets down to individual character. I’m sure there are some misguided but okay guys who benefit some from this, but overall it’s not respectful or kind to women…and remember, we’re morally obligated to treat both genders well, but not everyone lives that way, as we can see.

    And a common reply to such statements here is, “Yeah, but men are mistreated more…” or something similar, and the topic is not addressed anymore.

    Hugh, to say that I haven’t done enough research…I could never agree with that.

  357. Shari:

    if I ever have a son, we will really, really need to talk about respecting women

    Just so long as you teach him that desiring a woman sexually isn’t inherently disrespectful – because the “respect women” teaching many boys get from their mothers growing up is, I think, the major reason the seduction community exists.

    While you’re at it, if you have a daughter, can you teach her to respect men, and not just the ones she finds attractive?

  358. ballgame says:

    While you’re at it, if you have a daughter, can you teach her to respect men, and not just the ones she finds attractive?

    That’s an important point that doesn’t get nearly the attention it deserves.

  359. Hugh Ristik says:

    I’ve moved the excellent discussion with Scootah to a new thread.

  360. Voxnewman says:

    I think many people have a problem with the community because it presumes that ‘matters of the heart’ need a rulebook, it’s similar to the resistance of science defining love. Another issue is that it seems to presuppose polygamy as a life-goal and society in general prefers to appear monogamous. And then of course there’s the assumptions of misogyny and manipulation in addition to those inside the community that seem to be ‘winning’ in comparison to those outside. I for one would prefer to see a feminist approach as an umbrella to this topic.

  361. Clarence says:

    Voxnewman:

    I urge you to read the post itself very carefully. This discussion of feminist pickup (possible? Impossible?) has been happening a few years now at many blogs such as Clarisse Thornes, this blog, Alas, The Spearhead, Roissy in DC (aka The Chateau) and Hugh Ristic’s personal blog.

    After you’ve looked into it a bit perhaps you could clarify your questions or concerns and we could have a discussion.

    In any case, welcome here.

  362. Voxnewman says:

    Oh, I didn’t have any questions or concerns in regards to this blog entry. Those were all statements. I’d still probably enjoy a discussion someday. Thanks! :D

  363. Jay says:

    I think the main objection in the idea of using rules of thumb or repeatable techniques is in the objection to the way men learn and understand in the first place. The technique can not explain anything about the real world and if one thinks it does life is going to be really hard for them. Feminists who oppose the techniques, oppose them on this basis, as they too can see how the technique can only point to false endings should you take the idea in them too literally. What is not seen is how men, after having applied technique successfully, sometimes with some chance involved, extend their range of personality and ability to project and make sense of expressed emotion. They can then discard the technique for the real thing but still make use of it as a bookmark to remind themselves where they came from.

  364. Wow, a pretty old post but still relevant nevertheless.

    I think feminists would suit better in working on non-verbal tactics and techniques. Perhaps negs also :)

  365. I also get the impression that this blog or blogger isn’t anti pickup as I was led to believe.

  366. Wow, this post is still active and kicking after all this time. This is for sure a great blog and post which speaks to seduction techniques although it’s with a feminist twist on this article.

  367. […] Some of the sexual behaviours I describe below can, of course, be attractive. But they require timing. They have no place in an interaction before you establish familiarity, trust, comfort, tension. In an attempt to solve the conundrum, the seduction community, home of pickup artists, has come up with an entire system to get the seduction process right. […]

Leave a Reply