As always being a pick up artist is creepy :-)

http://jezebel.com/5820520/an-academic-a...up-artists

In general, I think that women who don't like the community object to the entire notion that there can be a "method" to seduction, and that a man can use "magic lines" to trick a woman into sleeping with them. The ironic thing is is that they don't give women themselves enough credit: a line delivered from a place of neediness is going to come off as creepy, while a line delivered from a place of intrigue can work. The Mystery Method really works as more of a paradigm for men to go out and a) meet and interact and talk to women and b) do things they didn't do before, like ask interesting questions, or make a move.

It's a little sad that criticism of the pick-up industry extends to criticism of men who seek help within the pick-up industry. It promotes a the stigma that it is wrong and weird for a man to seek help in their love life, including doing thing that women/feminists can support, like: being more social, dressing well, and building a complementary lifestyle. Instead, feminist critique of pick-up often focuses on a gross misinterpretation of what a "neg" actually is. It is ironic (but not surprising) that they resort to learning as little as needed to hate on something when people often do the same with feminist thought.

wow was that fun reading the comment section. So hard to not respond/explain, but there are so many hang-ups over there that it's a waste of time. thanks for that link.

Eh, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of things that are taught in MM. Mystery definitely does not portray "negs" in a way that is flattering - although he has changed what he has said about it, neither one is particularly above-board. In earlier stuff, he usually says the purpose is to lower a woman's social value relative to yours - which basically means go after her self esteem. In later materials he says the purpose is to falsely disqualify - note, not show a willingness to walk away, but to actually trick a woman that you are not interested in her when you, in fact, are.

He also has definitely encouraged people to tell dhv stories about things that have not actually happened to them - stripper ex girlfriend etc. So, he's definitely advocating lying to women in order to sleep with them.

Teaching techniques to break through lmr is also questionable.

Also, calling women who will sleep with you in a short amount of time "fools mate" is all kinds of obnoxious.

I think a lot of what he teaches is actually quite good, and can be used effectively, but there are definitely ethically questionable things in there, and I don't really expect that women reading the MM book are gonna have a warm fuzzy reaction.

Also, I wouldn't say that mystery teaches guys to dress well. He teaches guys to dress like flaming idiots.

Yeah, about the dressing well - I was talking about the pick-up industry in general. Peacocking is stupid.

I've seen ravers who peacock well and get mad pussies.

There's these two fucking dudes who dress in bunny costume and all the hottest girls at the rave went to them. They're the most popular dudes around...even more popular than 6 packs dudes.

Peacock fail for pua because they're doing it the wrong way. First, their calibration are off, and second they're doing it to impress the girls.

Its a rave. That's not peacocking, that's dressing like a raver. By the same token, black nails work great in a goth club. Actually, Brad P phrases it pretty well - if you conform to a stereotype of a sexy guy that a girl has, she'll be attracted to you. But you have to be congruent with it, which might be what you meant by calibration being off.

So the feminist author had a look at Mystery Method from a biological, cultural, rhetorical and scientific viewpoint.

She should have had a look at it from the viewpoint of practice, because that's the only one that counts.

Does Mystery have success with attractive women? Yes. Does his Method contribute to that? Probably.

I don't really see why feminists worry at all about PUAs. Most feminists will not get approached by PUAs anyway. They shouldn't care. And we shouldn't care what they say.

Rohypnol works pretty well in practice too, is that all that counts?

I think feminists have legitimate concerns over pick up tactics. There's a lot of borderline unethical stuff that's taught. Do I think feminists give PUA a fair shake and look at it from a broader perspective of men improving themselves? Absolutely not. But they're totally right to look into the ethics of some of the techniques and criticize them.

(07-14-2011 10:37 PM)Mark Wrote:  Rohypnol works pretty well in practice too, is that all that counts?

I think feminists have legitimate concerns over pick up tactics. There's a lot of borderline unethical stuff that's taught. Do I think feminists give PUA a fair shake and look at it from a broader perspective of men improving themselves? Absolutely not. But they're totally right to look into the ethics of some of the techniques and criticize them.

I can totally understand why feminists don't like the PUA community. I don't like a lot of it either, especially since you and Rob Judge talked some sense into me with your blogs.

But I completely disagree with almost everything on that blog and the comments too. They aren't rationally looking at those quotes by Mystery to decide if they make sense or not, they just bash Mystery mercilessly and assume everything that comes out of his mouth is bullshit. I mean, kino is really normal and socially competent people use it naturally. To criticize that and to even link it to rape or whatever they do is just irrational and dishonest. Same with a lot of the other criticism.