Your comparison isn’t fair—compare mental manipulations vs. physical ones, and notice that “The Rules” were almost as controversial as “The Game”.
All manipulations under discussion pass through the mind, so I don’t understand the distinction mental vs physical. And, “The Rules” certainly hasn’t gotten near the attention as “The Game”, nor does it commit the sin of breaking from advice women already get. (“Hold off on having sex with a man”—gee, I’m sure women aren’t taught that, right?) So there parallel isn’t nearly as strong as you claim.
Conversely, you’re not going to be declared evil if you tell men they should work out to get a certain chest-waist or shoulder-waist ratio that women find attractive.
But that’s not advice of remotely similar effectiveness: a) women rank looks as relatively unimportant beyond a certain point, and b) for a man, simply looking good is not attractive in that it does not, er, attract. You won’t get approached by women just for looking good; women, OTOH, will be approached by men mainly on their looks.
Nobody cares that much about what men and women do to emphasize their physical attractiveness, or change in superficial behaviors to be more attractive. It’s things that involve direct effect on the attractee’s mind, or direct alteration to the attractor’s body (e.g. implants, lifts, hair plugs) that produce the most impression of deception and manipulation, and thus the most excoriation.
(ETA:) I’m not alleging deception or hypocrisy in those standards and judgments. What I criticize is the attempt to suppress and disparage truthful information about what criteria women are actually using. What goes on now would be like if men adamantly denied that breast implants have any effect whatsoever on female attractiveness, and that they’re immoral, and pursued women with implants almost exclusively. (I know you disagree that this accurately characterizes what goes on, and my responses to that are elsewhere in this post. I just want to clarify what specific behavior I’m criticizing.)
Also, phrasing is very important. I could rephrase your controversial advice in a much-less offensive way thus:
[...] I just gave essentially the exact same advice, but in a harder-to-object to form.
Not for “ordering them around”, you didn’t; there was no parallel in the advice you gave for that. More importantly, the good advice you claim women agree with is given side by side with the stuff that’s completely ineffective and countereffective (gifts, admiration, letting her make choices—which by the way does not contradict “knowing what you want”). How are men supposed to know which advice is deception and which isn’t (or perhaps more politely, which advice reveals a lack of self-understanding / luminosity / going along with what one’s expected to say)?
Most women I know would not only agree with the correctness of this advice, but would express their wish that more guys understood these things, and advocate educating men in this fashion—since it emphasizes the benefits of these behaviors for women. (i.e., confidence, relatability, and independence)
Sure, but like above, they say the same thing about men doing the counterproductive stuff. A clock is broken even when it’s right twice a day.
The problem is that men and women do not always use the same (connotational) language for behaviors. … the terms women would use to describe the behavior they find attractive (“a man who knows what he wants, and isn’t afraid to say it”).
It sounds like you’re saying women are truthful as long as you stick to euphemisms and politician-speak(“a man saying what he wants”) and stay away from practical implications (“a man ordering a woman to use a different fashion” [1]). Am I supposed to be thankful for this?
[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you’re really hot).
You won’t get approached by women just for looking good
Oh come now. It’ll get you AIs and IOIs (Approach Invitations and Indicators of Interest), which are the female equivalent. (Of course, “looking good” includes dressing well and being well-groomed.)
Not for “ordering them around”, you didn’t; there was no parallel in the advice you gave for that.
Yes there was—be clear about what you want, and say it. This is merely one of the ways a woman would positively describe what you’re calling “ordering them around”.
Both descriptions carry subjective connotations, without being a truly accurate low-level description of “confident leadership” behaviors—and are equally biased.
A truly neutral description of the behaviors in question would be much longer to write, since it would need to describe behavioral guidelines in much more detail.
How are men supposed to know which advice is deception and which isn’t (or perhaps more politely, which advice reveals a lack of self-understanding / luminosity / going along with what one’s expected to say)?
WTF does that have to do with this discussion? I didn’t say men should try to learn PUA from women; there’s a clear and obvious advantage to learning them from men (for the most part).
(I’m skipping replying to the rest of your comment, because it’s just more down the same sinkhole.)
You seem to have confused me with the “PUA=bad” crowd, but nothing I said can’t be found in PUA materials. I’m also not in favor of banning PUA discussion on LW.
What I disagree with you on is the assertion of asymmetrical bias and social pressures for men and women regarding the “venusian arts”. Most of the asymmetry you assert disappears when you control for physical vs. mental, male vs. female goals, etc.
AFAICT, you are so stuck in anger about women, that you can’t see just how symmetrical the situation actually is for them. Men don’t give women good advice for what we want in long-term relationships, being just as likely to say we want one thing, but actually commit to another. And men are just as likely to be irritated when women point this out, as the reverse.
ISTM that one reason you don’t see this is that you keep talking about “beauty” techniques as the appropriate parallel to PUA, when that would only make sense if women’s evolutionarily-assigned mating goals had to do with short-term sexual interest, vs. long term bonding.
I also don’t get why you seem to keep making arguments about the culture at large, vs. rationalist culture and LessWrong. The two are different enough that you can hardly import the outside world here, and expect some sort of redress for wrongs that might be occurring elsewhere. That would be equivalent to a woman coming here and saying that we all should use “she” in our examples to make up for an excessive use of “he” in the world at large.
You seem to have confused me with the “PUA=bad” crowd, but nothing I said can’t be found in PUA materials. I’m also not in favor of banning PUA discussion on LW.
What? Where are you getting you this? I’ve long known you were not part of the “PUA = bad” crowd, and that you’re not in favor of banning. I would counterpropose that you’re interpreting my disagreement and occasional impatience as hostility, and assuming it carries over to other areas.
I’m going to delete the unhelpful psychoanalysis from the rest of these excerpts; they have nothing to do with the validity of my points and only serve to insult. If I’m wrong, let it be for some reason other than “Silas is a nut”.
you can’t see just how symmetrical the situation actually is for them. Men don’t give women good advice for what we want in long-term relationships,
Don’t speak for me; I’ve never been asked, and, on principle, I would refuse to give advice if I knew it would be skewed.
being just as likely to say we want one thing, but actually commit to another. And men are just as likely to be irritated when women point this out, as the reverse.
Again, speak for yourself—if I feel social pressures that keep me from being truthful, I say so rather than perpetuate what I know to be wrong. I imagine that if I were a woman, I’d adhere to the same standard and expect no less out of others, male or female.
ISTM that one reason you don’t see this is that you keep talking about “beauty” techniques as the appropriate parallel to PUA, when that would only make sense if women’s evolutionarily-assigned mating goals had to do with short-term sexual interest, vs. long term bonding.
Not really. I accept quite well that women usually aren’t going to be drawing men in for short-term sexual interest. Nevertheless, part of the necessary steps in getting “shortlisted” for a long-term relationship is looks, which is why I claim the parallel holds.
I also don’t get why you seem to keep making arguments about the culture at large, vs. rationalist culture and LessWrong.
’Cause it’s a critical example of bias and poor specification of values, maybe?
Now, for the rest:
It’ll get you AIs and IOIs (Approach Invitations and Indicators of Interest), which are the female equivalent.
Female AI/IOIs, by design, have plausible deniability. One can only take them as definitive at one’s own risk—that breaks the equivalence.
Yes there was—be clear about what you want, and say it. This is merely one of the ways a woman would positively describe what you’re calling “ordering them around”.
“I want beer” --> being clear about what I want, but not giving orders ”Bring me beer” --> being clear AND giving orders
I’ll accept that full specification of which is okay and which isn’t, is going to be difficult. Point taken, and I’ll stop bringing it up. But on this issue, at least, you’re going two far in blurring very different concepts.
I’ll accept that full specification of which is okay and which isn’t, is going to be difficult.
Especially since:
“I want beer” (with a strong voice and expectant eye contact) --> Being clear about what I want and communicating that my mere wishes should implicitly be interpreted as orders.
“Bring me beer” (lowered eyes, end of the sentence raised slightly in pitch) --> Making an uncertain claim about what I want, with a supplicating request for action.
What I disagree with you on is the assertion of asymmetrical bias and social pressures for men and women regarding the “venusian arts”.
A potential asymmetry that is of some interest is a difference in (typical) ability to separate ‘far mode’ signalling beliefs and ‘near mode’ actions.
Men don’t give women good advice for what we want in long-term relationships, being just as likely to say we want one thing, but actually commit to another.
Now I’m curious. What do men say we want in long-term relationships and what do we actually commit to? I think I know what I want but when it comes to related areas (what I want from work life) I have atypical preferences so I am not comfortable generalising from a sample of me.
A potential asymmetry that is of some interest is a difference in (typical) ability to separate ‘far mode’ signalling beliefs and ‘near mode’ actions.
Certainly, it’s easier to make anything more palatable if you talk about in “far”—which of course is the whole point of “far” thinking in the first place. ;-)
What do men say we want in long-term relationships and what do we actually commit to?
Maybe you should ask a woman that question—honestly, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with trying to answer it in any detail.
Actually, contemplating just how uncomfortable I am with trying to say what I know, makes me considerably more sympathetic to why women don’t often give guys good advice. No matter how true or useful the information might be to the opposite sex, there is considerable social stigma (from one’s own sex) attached to telling the truth.
(Imagine the social consequences if a woman said she wanted guys to boss her around, or a guy said he wanted a woman who wasn’t always interested in sex when he was. And that assumes that either the man or the woman are able to notice this not-necessarily-conscious preference in themselves, and admit to it, before the social stigma issue can even come up!)
Certainly, it’s easier to make anything more palatable if you talk about in “far”—which of course is the whole point of “far” thinking in the first place. ;-)
(A different tangent to where mine lead but:) No, some things are much more palatable in ‘near’, particularly when talking to those who believe they have correlated interests.
Imagine the social consequences if a woman said she wanted guys to boss her around
I know women who say that, particularly to other women and do so without losing status and while maintaining rapport. They are less inclined to say it around guys but if, to give an example, I said ‘you love it’ they would take girlish pleasure and agree. One of the messages communicated is ‘Oh, great, he doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. We don’t need to lie to him’.
or a guy said he wanted a woman who wasn’t always interested in sex when he was.
Really? Guys actually act like they want to commit to a woman who is not always interested in sex when he is? With the aforementioned caveat that I do not generalise from me I have extremely strong evidence that this doesn’t apply in my case. (And thanks for giving your answer without answering.)
Really? Guys actually act like they want to commit to a woman who is not always interested in sex when he is?
Why do you think women are advised not to have sex on the first date, and not to be a man’s “booty call”, if they want a relationship?
Why do you think men routinely have affairs with women who’ll have sex with them, while remaining married to a woman who’s not?
I’m not saying guys like this—I’m saying that this is an example of controversial mating advice that works for “women’s goals”, in the same way that PUA does for “men’s goals”.
(Both phrases being in quotes because not all men and women have the same goals.)
Why do you think women are advised not to have sex on the first date, and not to be a man’s “booty call”, if they want a relationship?
That is good evidence.
Why do you think men routinely have affairs with women who’ll have sex with them, while remaining married to a woman who’s not?
That I do not find nearly persuasive. Men are less likely to have affairs when their sex life within the marriage is healthy. They are also less likely to end the marriage.
I’m not saying guys like this—I’m saying that this is an example of controversial mating advice that works for “women’s goals”, in the same way that PUA does for “men’s goals”.
That’s what I was allowing for when I said ‘act like’ (economic ‘want’).
Do you believe that ‘be less interested in sex’ would be helpful advice for maintaining a long term relationship that has already formed? I don’t deny the possibility, just assert that (concrete evidence indicates) this is definitely not works with me.
A relevant quote:
Elliot:Oh, my God! You’re actually getting married in a few hours! I mean, everything’s gonna be all different. Carla, you never have to have sex again except for when you actually want to. Carla:I know!!!
The quote is rather tongue in cheek but I would not rule out an element of truth (to the suggestion that without the externally enforced obligation more sex is required for maintenance and to secure marriage). In fact, high quality sources of dating advice often give suggestions on how manage such dynamics for the benefit of both parties.
Do you believe that ‘be less interested in sex’ would be helpful advice for maintaining a long term relationship that has already formed? I don’t deny the possibility, just assert that (concrete evidence indicates) this is definitely not works with me.
I think you’re misinterpreting the scope of what I said. I didn’t say that lack of interest in sex was attractive—it isn’t.
I said, “isn’t always interested”—i.e., variable reinforcement. I think it’s the case that a man will be most satisfied in a relationship when his partner expresses sexual interest and attraction on an ongoing basis, but nonetheless does not say “yes” to all requests to do something about it, or has variability in how far that interaction proceeds. Having sex whenever a guy wants to is potentially as damaging to a relationship as never having sex at all, in the same way that too-difficult and too-easy tasks don’t lead to a “flow” state.
I’ve seen relationship advice for women that actually described a relationship in terms of a video game, advising that there always be new challenges and levels to unlock, so to speak, so that things don’t get too predictable. For that matter, I’ve seen relationship advice for men that was basically the same, although I find it amusing that it was the advice for women that used the videogame analogy. (And written by a female author, at that.)
(OTOH, men are stereotypically interested in videogames, so I guess explaining that you need to be like a videogame to keep a man interested would make more sense than the reverse analogy.)
I said, “isn’t always interested”—i.e., variable reinforcement.
Got you! (Although even so, observation suggest that isn’t what works best on me.)
For that matter, I’ve seen relationship advice for men that was basically the same
I’ve actually seen a lot of good advice for guys of the form “If a girl did that how would you react? No, really. Well, it’s the same for girls.” Once people actually have a strongly developed self awareness that sort of direct empathy actually works rather well.
although I find it amusing that it was the advice for women that used the videogame analogy. (And written by a female author, at that.)
(OTOH, men are stereotypically interested in videogames, so I guess explaining that you need to be like a videogame to keep a man interested would make more sense than the reverse analogy.)
True.
Got you! (Although even so, observation suggest that isn’t what works best on me.)
Be aware that I’m saying in the ideal case, the woman isn’t saying no because she doesn’t want to have sex, or doesn’t find you attractive at that moment. (Or even that she’s necessarily saying “no” at all.)
I’m saying that the “flow” experience comes about from having obstacles that are a good match for your skill at overcoming them. It can easily appear to the man in such a circumstance that he is in fact getting sex as often as he wants, just not as soon as he might want it. A good “courtship” videogame may provide hours or days of enjoyment for both parties, prior to unlocking a new level. ;-)
(In contrast, having “god mode” on for a game might be interesting for a time, but quickly become boring. The reason “crazy chicks” have a reputation for being good in bed may well be as much about the crazy before, as the bed after.)
So, I think we’ve now succeeded in having a conversation about what works to attract men, that might be able to be found as offensive as the reverse. Let’s see what happens. ;-)
So, I think we’ve now succeeded in having a conversation about what works to attract men, that might be able to be found as offensive as the reverse. Let’s see what happens. ;-)
I think you’re right. (And our conversation has also reached an agreement).
So, the sound bite version is “To get a man to commit, be a tease?”
Only in the same way that the pejorative and inaccurate soundbite for PUA is, “To get a woman to have sex, be a jerk.” There’s an awful lot lost in both translations. ;-)
And, “The Rules” certainly hasn’t gotten near the attention as “The Game”, nor does it commit the sin of breaking from advice women already get. (“Hold off on having sex with a man”—gee, I’m sure women aren’t taught that, right?) So there parallel isn’t nearly as strong as you claim.
I believe I was in college when “The Rules” came out, so a bit younger than its target demographic, but I recall that there was quite an uproar about it at the time. There was a lot of criticism about the advice being manipulative of men, but also somewhat anti-feminist and representing a step backward for women.
Heck, I even remember a series of Cathy cartoons dedicated to “The Rules,” with the takeaway being part horror (I seem to recall Cathy’s Aaaak!) , part fascination, part willingness to try it out because it just might work, or something like that. . . . and, ok, Cathy may not display perfect insight into the American woman’s psyche, but it tends to get the big trends right, or at least did so in that era
So, yeah, The Rules aren’t the hip new thing right now, but in its heyday, the book got a lot of attention and a lot of criticism, and it also sold a lot of copies. I think it’s a pretty fair comparison.
Sure, but like above, they say the same thing about men doing the counterproductive stuff. A clock is broken even when it’s right twice a day.
I don’t think anyone here is saying: “listen to the women, they always know what is best”. Rather people are saying: “Hey men who know what women find attractive, you don’t need to phrase your true advice in such objectionable language.”
Not for “ordering them around”, you didn’t; there was no parallel in the advice you gave for that.
Not to bring this back to object level but I’m not sure “ordering them around” actually communicates good advice. There are circumstances where taking charge is attractive but it isn’t nearly as simple as “order them around” and I suspect whatever good advice is here can be phrased in a similarly unobjectionable way.
I don’t think anyone here is saying: “listen to the women, they always know what is best”. Rather people are saying: “Hey men who know what women find attractive, you don’t need to phrase your true advice in such objectionable language.”
I wouldn’t go as far as to support the (absolute part of the) first claim but I certainly support the second.
Not to bring this back to object level but I’m not sure “ordering them around” actually communicates good advice. There are circumstances where taking charge is attractive but it isn’t nearly as simple as “order them around” and I suspect whatever good advice is here can be phrased in a similarly unobjectionable way.
I disagree. Naturally things aren’t simple (simple isn’t a Nash equilibrium in the dating game!) but ‘ordering them around’ is good advice, particularly to those who most need dating advice. That class of guys tends to associate receiving orders with resentment and so tends to have a failure of empathy when it comes to their expectations of how women will react to similar assertions. “Order them around” is what they need to hear while the more abstract “taking charge” crosses too much of an inferential gap.
“Order them around” is what they need to hear while the more abstract “taking charge” crosses too much of an inferential gap.
I’ve seen more than one bit of PUA literature cross this gap by carefully pointing out how behavior X might seem asshole-ish among men, but is in fact perceived as positive quality Y when received by women from men, and further pointing out that it’s an error to assume this means one should act like an asshole in general.
Certainly, I don’t think teaching material should do any less. It’s likely that a properly framed discussion here relating the venusian arts to, say the Dark Arts, advertising, consent, consistent decision theories, etc. would also need to discuss both sides of that perceptual gap, at least in passing. (Albeit without so much detailed how-to info in between.)
I’ve seen more than one bit of PUA literature cross this gap by carefully pointing out how behavior X might seem asshole-ish among men, but is in fact perceived as positive quality Y when received by women from men, and further pointing out that it’s an error to assume this means one should act like an asshole in general.
That is a good way to teach it, even though it is somewhat of a lie (similar to teaching Newtonian physics). It usually isn’t healthy to teach about things that are actually perceived as a negative quality by women can also give desired results to men. That darker truth is best left until after people have developed their social skills and let go of their tendency to bury their frustration behind a façade of righteous indignation.
[What you were talking about] is a good way to teach it, even though it is somewhat of a lie (similar to teaching Newtonian physics). It usually isn’t healthy to teach about [the other part of the asshole equation that is glossed over by that approach,] that things that are actually perceived as a negative quality by women can also give desired results to men.
There are two messages to convey:
Some things you (naive guys) think will be a bad experience for women are actually a good experience, healthy for them and perceived as desirable.
Some things that are absolutely bad, unhealthy and perceived as undesirable by women can also be used to attract them.
The first of these (and the one that you mention) is a better subject of education. The second is a recipe for excuses, passive aggression and bitterness for people who don’t already have an appreciation for the first point.
I wouldn’t go as far as to support the (absolute part of the) first claim but I certainly support the second.
Yeah, the absolute part made it too strong.
I disagree. Naturally things aren’t simple (simple isn’t a Nash equilibrium in the dating game!) but ‘ordering them around’ is good advice, particularly to those who most need dating advice. That class of guys tends to associate receiving orders with resentment and so tends to have a failure of empathy when it comes to their expectations of how women will react to similar assertions. “Order them around” is what they need to hear while the more abstract “taking charge” crosses too much of an inferential gap.
We’re probably being too vague to evaluate this question. I read “order them around” and I picture men doing a lot of things that women probably won’t find very attractive. I suspect it might lead to the audience just trying to be mean to women thinking that will make them attractive. If I knew less about the subject that advice would lead me to do counterproductive things, I think. Language often needs to be tweaked for audiences that don’t understand right away. I might be in the minority when it comes to my interpretation of “ordering them around” but it really isn’t clear to me exactly what behaviors it recommends.
We’re probably being too vague to evaluate this question. I read “order them around” and I picture men doing a lot of things that women probably won’t find very attractive.
“Order them around” seems to be evocative of “Bitch, make me a sandwich!”
I actually have success (ie we both have fun and build attraction) when using such orders. But I do it playfully and there is a distinct element of counter-signalling involved (we both know I am not a controlling asshole) so how that data point relates to the topic is non-trivial.
Same here. But this is so context based I sort of doubt a bitter near-misogynist who just started reading attraction advice would be able to implement it correctly. In any case if this is the behavior that “order them around” recommends why not say “Women find it attractive when men can confidently joke and be ironic about traditional gender roles without worrying about being offensive.” And then give examples of this behavior and explain the counter-signaling going on.
When orders are given sincerely, they are usually more subtle:
Call me.
Come hang out with us on Friday.
Hold my umbrella for a sec? (the words are an order by the tonality is a question)
Would you hold my drink for a sec. (The words are a question but the tonality is an order)
The purpose of such orders is not to control the other person, it is to signal status.
Another use of orders (and other forms of dominance) is a reactive one, specifically reacting to “bad” or “naughty” female behavior. I put those words in quotes because perception of what is “bad” or “naughty” is somewhat subjective. Anyone experienced with young women (at least in Western culture) knows that some female personality types sometimes engage in behavior with men that could be considered “bratty” or “naughty,” by the standard of general cultural norms. PUAs hypothesize that these women do so consciously or unconsciously as a “test.”
What many people reading about PUA techniques (either critics or newbies) don’t realize is that a lot of the more controversial techniques such as dominance and status tactics are used in a highly contextual way. So these behaviors that wouldn’t be justifiable if dropped out of the blue would be justifiable if done in context, such as the context of responding to a “test.”
I am not completely wedded to the PUA view of when a woman is “testing” or not, and I recognize that false positives in that area could lead to a woman’s perspective being disregarded incorrectly. Yet I do think there are many examples of female “bad”, “bratty”, or “naughty” behavior that are correctly described by the PUA model of testing, and which do require a response. And one type of response can be behavior that would be unacceptable (or “assholish”) in other contexts, such as giving orders or strong negs.
For instance, if a woman has spent the last 10 minutes poking him and the joke has worn off, then a PUA might give her an order like “Hey, stop being such a brat.”
The ethics of dominance behaviors is context-dependent, and one factor in context is whether the other person is engaging in behavior that would be culturally considered to justify that response. Here is an example with neg-like behavior, where Monday night I ended up negging a woman kind of hard, because I perceived it as justified (even though I don’t believe in negging out of the blue):
Her: I’m trying to find N… I am going to tell him something that will make him happy...
Me: You’re the bearer of good news, huh?
Her: Yeah, I’m going to hang out for him with a whole day this weekend! He’s been wanting me to for ages.
[Now, by cultural norms, her behavior is a bit of arrogant. She was signalling that she has higher status that N. Social circles have status hierarchies, but it’s still a bit arrogant to practically come out and say that you are higher status than someone. What she communicated was “I am so much higher status and attractive that another guy in our social circle is lucky to hang out with me… and what’s more, I am so high status and attractive that I can get away with this self-enhancement with you!” So she was indirectly asserting status over me, also. I couldn’t let this assertion of higher status from her go unchallenged.]
Me: Ok, so that’s the bad news you’re bearing… but what’s the good news?
Her: (it took her a sec to get that the joke was on her, then she replied slightly haughtily and petulantly) Hey, I bet you’d be stoked if I spent a day hanging out at your house! [We both know this is true, from our previous interaction, but it’s a status ploy for her to explicitly point this out. My perception that I was seeing a “test” was confirmed. I think her behavior would be intersubjectively considered a bit immature, even by feminists how would normally be skeptical of many male claims of female “bad behavior.”]
Me: That depends… are you tidy?
Her: Yeah, I’m tidy...
Me: Great! Then I would in fact be stoked about you coming over to my house… you could help me tidy up my laundry
Her: You’re a jerk, you know...
Me: Yeah, I know!
Her: (reaches over and rubs my arm. This was a signal of attraction that let me know that I was calibrated correctly, and that she had enjoyed my response to her test. If I had detected that I had actually hurt her feelings by calling her “bad news,” then I would have instead taken steps to make her feel better or even apologized if I was miscalibrated.)
I signalled: “I don’t agree with your assertion of status over our mutual friend N. In fact, I think you are violating the norm of ostensible equality between friends by so nakedly attempting to assert your status. I assert that my status is high enough that I am justified in calling you on this behavior and making fun of you for it by joking that you are “bad news” and lowering your status. I am so high status that I find your attempts at elevating your status above N amusing, implying that I actually view myself as at least as high status as you, not merely trying to act as high status as you. I am not threatened by your status imposition, which is why I feel no need to explicitly call you on it. I am not afraid of your potential negative reaction to my enforcement of this norm; I expect you to take this tease and accept it as a justified response from me. Since you tried to violate the norm and claim status you don’t actually have, you actually lowered your own status, which is why I am justified in raising my status above yours at this time and delivering the status-deflation you deserve. I can tell that you are testing me by seeing if I will let you get away with your status assertion, and the answer is that I won’t. If you attempt such a norm-violating level of self-enhancement in the future, I will quickly and immediately burst your bubble.”
...or something like those things. I consider this a defensive use of status games; I wouldn’t neg a woman this hard if she wasn’t violating a norm and attempting to inflate her status. If I had let her get away with that behavior, then she would think that I thought that she deserved that level of status. She would engage in similar behavior in the future, and keep attempting to raise her status until she eventually considered her status higher than mine. If that happened, then not only would it destroy her attraction to me, but it would also destroy any chance of us having a quality friendship. Soon she would be referring to me as yet another of the guys who would be lucky to hang out with her.
Counter-intuitively, the way to maintain equality in my interaction with her was to engage in a status game, and deflate her status in a way that would not be justified in another context, such as out of the blue. In context, my lowering of her status was a deflation of the excess status that she was trying to claim, which is morally different from attempting to lower someone’s status unprovoked. Notice also that my goal wasn’t to “lower her self-esteem” it was to lower her level of narcissism and illegitimate status assertion.
It is by understanding power that I can achieve equality. Remember, as I mentioned before, a typical mode of social interaction is to try to increase your status incrementally until people stop you (like i stopped her). Unless you confine yourself to a nerd ghetto where people don’t play this sort of status games (and status is decided more by competence than by what you can get away with), you will need to engage in social power dynamics, if only as a defensive measure.
Status behavior (which may include giving orders) in a defensive context is in a different moral category from status behavior in other contexts. I hope this lengthy analysis is useful to someone, and opens their eyes to the fun world of subcommunication. Questions or disagreement is invited.
I really enjoy your writing on this subject, it’s informative and ethically enlightened in a way that most discussion of such topics usually isn’t.
When orders are given sincerely, they are usually more subtle
Call me.
Come hang out with us on Friday.
Hold my umbrella for a sec? (the words are an order by the tonality is a question)
Would you hold my drink for a sec. (The words are a question but the tonality is an order)
Returning to subject of my parent comment is there any reason this same advice couldn’t be communicated with “use imperative sentences” instead of “order them around”? The former seems both less offensive and less likely to lead to students being controlling (in a way that is poorly calibrated, unattractive and ethically ambiguous). I feel like it’s also worth noting that none of those examples are particularly unusual things to say. Among groups of platonic male heterosexuals of approximately equal status saying these things is totally routine and doesn’t even imply gaming or hidden agendas. The only reason it is meaningful advice for men trying to be more attractive to women is that the default behavior of so many men around women is to put them on a pedestal and start supplicating and self-flagellating. So some feminists are upset that PUAs are telling men to “order women around” when really a lot of the advice actually consists just telling them to treat women like the equals they are (I’ve said it before, treating someone as an equal doesn’t mean being super nice to them and deferring to them when possible). Part of this is probably feminists not looking at the actual advice closely enough, but I don’t think I could blame someone for thinking “order them around” implies something more offensive than “Call Me” (Do PUAs actually use the word “orders”? I don’t recall seeing it anywhere before this thread. The advice is familiar just not the wording.)
In fact, playing a status game with someone isn’t really the power play our language makes it out to be. A lot of time status games are just sort of skirmish played out between equals. The winner doesn’t really come out with significantly higher status, all they really get is something like a tip of the hat from those around them. This why, again returning to platonic male heterosexual relationships, guys can make fun of each other without permanent damage. It’s sort of like practicing, or like the way baby animals rough house. In fact, not only is there no permanent damage, this kind of behavior (at least in my experience, and at least this seems to be the conventional message) makes male heterosexual friendships stronger.
So when a man engages in a status game with a woman in addition to object level status claims like:
I assert that my status is high enough that I am justified in calling you on this behavior and making fun of you for it by joking that you are “bad news” and lowering your status. I am so high status that I find your attempts at elevating your status above N amusing, implying that I actually view myself as at least as high status as you, not merely trying to act as high status as you.
there is also sort of a meta-signaling of: “I think you are worthy competition and therefore about equal in status to me.” And like with male heterosexual friendships this kind of thing improves rapport. I actually think such status skirmishes might be quite central to healthy egalitarian relationships.
there is also sort of a meta-signaling of: “I think you are worthy competition and therefore about equal in status to me.” And like with male heterosexual friendships this kind of thing improves rapport. I actually think such status skirmishes might be quite central to healthy egalitarian relationships.
I agree. I think this element is what made the interaction mutually fun and attractive.
It would be helpful to have been there, to hear the tone throughout the exchange and observe your body language together, but I believe the interaction you describe seems familiar to me.
I agree she was testing you, and the outcome of the test was positive as she indicated by the affectionate body language of touching your arm. However, my interpretation of the test is more straightforward—I’d guess she was just seeking affirmation that you like spending time with her. I’ve often noticed that social norms (like modesty) are relaxed among women with men, especially if the context is flirtation. Also if she was testing you, she might have felt justified in relaxing the norm in order to get a more dependable test result.
I wonder to what extent generally, in male hacking of female social interaction with them, they’re coming up with the correct behaviors with the wrong theories behind them.
I think I would find the “bad news” poke you gave—which, funnily enough, is an aggression I would have incorrectly interpreted as provoked by jealousy rather than a disapproval of her status grab—more coy (and possibly more attractive) than a straight signal that you would be jealous and want her to hang with you. Instead, the counter-punch you gave signaled the desire to be with her without creating a request to contend with. It also seems attractive along the lines of a male acting more stereotypically male in an endearing way (jealous, and not admitting it).
I think you could have also passed the test by a straight signal that you liked hanging with her: “No, don’t hang out with him this weekend. Hang out with me.” In this case, you would also be signaling sincerity and a desire for a relationship, which may or may not have been appropriate for either of you. If you guys are “just friends”, then you could have the same response, but then I would expect you to overdo it a little until there is a laugh / affectionate punch on the arm.
I have more to say in response, but I will clarify one thing: the “bad news” jibe wasn’t implying that it was bad news for me that she was hanging out with him, it was implying that it was bad news for the other guy that she was hanging out with. I think that implication came across, because of her response which was to claim that I would want to hang out with her (which as interpreted as “any guy would want to hang out with me, including you, which is why it’s justified for me to so blatant assert that a guy is lucky to do so”).
I’m not sure if that’s why you interpreted my jibe as displaying jealousy; but if given my intended interpretation, I do agree that it could have subcommunicated jealousy, like a case of “sour grapes” on my part (which is slightly true, though not the primary reason for the jibe).
I will clarify one thing: the “bad news” jibe wasn’t implying that it was bad news for me that she was hanging out with him, it was implying that it was bad news for the other guy that she was hanging out with.
Yes, this is what I understood.
I’m not sure if that’s why you interpreted my jibe as displaying jealousy;
Only because a jealous response seemed to be expected and solicited. So I predicted she would have interpreted the jibe as a form of sour grapes, as I would have if I was eavesdropping on the conversation. (“You’re going to spend the whole day with him? … Poor him!” is an appropriately funny and defensive jealousy response.) However, from your description of the interaction, I understood that you weren’t actually displaying jealousy and she and I would have been somewhat mistaken about the initial effectiveness of her test. But then it lead to a conversation in which you did signal the desire to be with her, anyway.
But this is so context based I sort of doubt a bitter near-misogynist who just started reading attraction advice would be able to implement it correctly.
I wouldn’t give this advice to a bitter near-misogynist (and don’t have a special interest in advising bitter near-misogynists, that doesn’t usually work all that well anyway). I would give it to ‘good boys’ who are still under the impression that the polite supplication that sometimes works for keeping mommy happy is attractive to female peers. It opens up a whole new world to them.
why not say “Women find it attractive when men can confidently joke and be ironic about traditional gender roles without worrying about being offensive.” And then give examples of this behavior and explain the counter-signaling going on.
Because I consider this tangent distinctly different from the original ‘order them around’ discussion. In particular, I don’t think ‘order them around’ implies ‘refer to them as bitches’.
(I didn’t reject ChronoS’ claimed evocation because the tangent is interesting and had no inclination to invalidate his contribution. For the purpose of your attempt to build upon that evocation as a shared premise I do reject it.)
Rather people are saying: “Hey men who know what women find attractive, you don’t need to phrase your true advice in such objectionable language.”
Really? Are we looking at the same forum? Because of all criticisms of PUA discussion, I never saw anything of that form—most importantly, I don’t remember acknowledgement that it is true (just as society in general won’t admit it). Those who found it objectionable, like this characteristic poster, demanded much more serious straitjackets:
I would like help reducing the incidence of: … Fawning admiration of pickup artists who attain their fame by the systematic manipulation of women. If it is necessary to refer admiringly to a pickup artist or pickup strategy (I’m not sure why it would be, but if), care should be taken to choose one whose methods are explicitly non-depersonalizing, and disclaim that specifically in the comment.
That’s way beyond, “hey, use less objectionable language when making these true claims about what women find attractive”. Don’t you think so?
Sorry, “here” is ambiguous. I meant in the discussion presently occurring, perhaps I should have just said pjeby is only saying that but I felt like my statement applied to everyone who replied to your comments recently.
I never saw anything of that form—most importantly, I don’t remember acknowledgement that it is true (just as society in general won’t admit it). Those who found it objectionable, like this characteristic poster, demanded much more serious straitjackets:
My position is here. But yes, past discussions involved broader disagreement. I mostly meant that I didn’t think your interpretation of pjeby’s comment was accurate.
(ETA: I’m sympathetic to a lot of what she says but I’m not sure I’d agree alicorn was “characteristic” in that particular discussion.)
I’m wondering about this “taking charge” thing. Does it just apply when the woman isn’t very sure about what she wants? Or also when the male overrides a clear desire of hers? What if the man takes charge and turns out to be wrong about the outcome?
I’m wondering about this “taking charge” thing. Does it just apply when the woman isn’t very sure about what she wants? Or also when the male overrides a clear desire of hers?
The main context it’s discussed in is situations where no-one has expressed a strong preference. In the case of conflicting preferences, men are advised to be clear and non-deferential regarding their preferences, without necessarily “overriding” anything. The point is to show initiative and non-wishiwashiness, not to push people around.
What if the man takes charge and turns out to be wrong about the outcome?
Then how he handles that is the next test. ;-)
I saw an interesting discussion of the movie “300” that sort of relates to this. Someone said that in almost every action movie, there is a woman who wants the man to stay with her and not go do the dangerous thing that’s his mission in life. But, if he were the sort of man who would stay—who’d, before going off to war against the Persians, would say, “you’re right honey, I should just stay here with you and the kids”—then she wouldn’t have been attracted to him in the first place.
And, if he did change his mind and stay, the attraction and romance in the relationship would pretty much die right away.
So the advice to “take charge” is really just to be the sort of man who doesn’t let a woman talk him into things for the sake of immediate pleasure (or lack of immediate conflict), at the expense of long-term interests. Such a man may be too easily convinced to leave or to cheat by a different woman, and be a lousy protector who won’t do difficult or painful things in his family’s interest.
So, the function of taking charge is that the man must demonstrate that he can tell the difference between what a woman says she wants and what’s actually best in a given situation, as well as his nature as a man of constancy, certainty, and initiative. It’s not really about making decisions, per se.
(For example, some “chivalrous” gestures like opening a door, pulling out a chair, or giving your arm to someone can be forms of “taking charge” in the sense that they show purpose and initiative, even though no decision is really being made, nor are any orders being given.)
I saw an interesting discussion of the movie “300” that sort of relates to this. Someone said that in almost every action movie, there is a woman who wants the man to stay with her and not go do the dangerous thing that’s his mission in life. But, if he were the sort of man who would stay—who’d, before going off to war against the Persians, would say, “you’re right honey, I should just stay here with you and the kids”—then she wouldn’t have been attracted to him in the first place.
And, if he did change his mind and stay, the attraction and romance in the relationship would pretty much die right away.
That’s fictional evidence—that is, not evidence at all. All I’m sure of is it’s harder to make a movie about the guy who stayed home, though you could do it if trouble came looking for him.
That’s fictional evidence—that is, not evidence at all.
The person who wrote that was pointing to the fiction to give a point of common reference for his observation of the dynamics between men and women, not using the movie as his evidence.
The author’s observation (and mine) was that women tend to lose respect (and thus attraction) for a man who they can talk into delaying or abandoning things the man says are important to him. The movie version is just that idea writ large.
The main context it’s discussed in is situations where no-one has expressed a strong preference. In the case of conflicting preferences, men are advised to be clear and non-deferential regarding their preferences, without necessarily “overriding” anything. The point is to show initiative and non-wishiwashiness, not to push people around.
The initiative and non-wishiwashiness is the most important factor but sometimes the actual override/push people around part is a useful signal in its own right too, if done skillfully.
That’s the part that’s really hard to communicate in a soundbite, or really to communicate verbally at all.
Especially since ‘do exactly the same thing but be two inches taller’ can completely change the outcome.
Sometimes it is best to just suggest ‘err to the other side to what you are used to’. That makes the difference between what works and what doesn’t much easier to spot so the countless subtle differences in context can be learned more readily.
Or also when the male overrides a clear desire of hers?
With trivial desires it probably applies. With significant desires not so much. The line between the two is probably fuzzy but has obvious extremes. How strongly the woman holds the desire matters too, I suppose. I don’t know if I can say more without context: I don’ t teach people how to be attractive so I’m not good at spelling all the intricacies out. I just know enough to make it work for me.
What if the man takes charge and turns out to be wrong about the outcome?
You’d have to be more specific but I suspect the outcome usually doesn’t matter.
More importantly, the good advice you claim women agree with is given side by side with the stuff that’s completely ineffective and countereffective (gifts, admiration, letting her make choices—which by the way does not contradict “knowing what you want”).
Or maybe the really effective thing to do is to know which type of behavior to exhibit when (so much of social skill is about context-sensitivity); all-out dominant behavior is more effective in some cases than all-out the other direction (‘submissive’ seems like the wrong term) or ham-fisted attempts at variation, so advice to adopt all-out dominant behavior, combined with the idea that the other sort of behavior is completely ineffective, persists among men who are less skilled and interested in those cases; and women introspecting on what they want get that they want both but don’t get the context-dependence, or don’t realize it needs to be said.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but note that this failure of introspection on the part of (influential) women on this matter is exactly what my thesis has been all along. And I wouldn’t tolerate that from myself, or from men either, especially if such advice had the impact that the widely-taught (and wrong) male-to-female engagement rules has.
No, but you are definitely not supposed to be bitter about it. ~1,000 times on OvercomingBias:
If you publicly oppose such rules, e.g., by proposing independent corruption police, you signal that you are not as well-connected, clever, articulate, etc., as others, and you risk retaliation from those who now benefit.
(“a man ordering a woman to use a different fashion” [1]).
[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you’re really hot).
Only in specific environments. And then, yes, the offence is mostly ‘making sexual advances without being hot enough to get away with it’. Outside of a place where sexual harassment claims are an option it would instead just get demeaning looks.
All manipulations under discussion pass through the mind, so I don’t understand the distinction mental vs physical. And, “The Rules” certainly hasn’t gotten near the attention as “The Game”, nor does it commit the sin of breaking from advice women already get. (“Hold off on having sex with a man”—gee, I’m sure women aren’t taught that, right?) So there parallel isn’t nearly as strong as you claim.
But that’s not advice of remotely similar effectiveness: a) women rank looks as relatively unimportant beyond a certain point, and b) for a man, simply looking good is not attractive in that it does not, er, attract. You won’t get approached by women just for looking good; women, OTOH, will be approached by men mainly on their looks.
(ETA:) I’m not alleging deception or hypocrisy in those standards and judgments. What I criticize is the attempt to suppress and disparage truthful information about what criteria women are actually using. What goes on now would be like if men adamantly denied that breast implants have any effect whatsoever on female attractiveness, and that they’re immoral, and pursued women with implants almost exclusively. (I know you disagree that this accurately characterizes what goes on, and my responses to that are elsewhere in this post. I just want to clarify what specific behavior I’m criticizing.)
Not for “ordering them around”, you didn’t; there was no parallel in the advice you gave for that. More importantly, the good advice you claim women agree with is given side by side with the stuff that’s completely ineffective and countereffective (gifts, admiration, letting her make choices—which by the way does not contradict “knowing what you want”). How are men supposed to know which advice is deception and which isn’t (or perhaps more politely, which advice reveals a lack of self-understanding / luminosity / going along with what one’s expected to say)?
Sure, but like above, they say the same thing about men doing the counterproductive stuff. A clock is broken even when it’s right twice a day.
It sounds like you’re saying women are truthful as long as you stick to euphemisms and politician-speak(“a man saying what he wants”) and stay away from practical implications (“a man ordering a woman to use a different fashion” [1]). Am I supposed to be thankful for this?
[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you’re really hot).
Oh come now. It’ll get you AIs and IOIs (Approach Invitations and Indicators of Interest), which are the female equivalent. (Of course, “looking good” includes dressing well and being well-groomed.)
Yes there was—be clear about what you want, and say it. This is merely one of the ways a woman would positively describe what you’re calling “ordering them around”.
Both descriptions carry subjective connotations, without being a truly accurate low-level description of “confident leadership” behaviors—and are equally biased.
A truly neutral description of the behaviors in question would be much longer to write, since it would need to describe behavioral guidelines in much more detail.
WTF does that have to do with this discussion? I didn’t say men should try to learn PUA from women; there’s a clear and obvious advantage to learning them from men (for the most part).
(I’m skipping replying to the rest of your comment, because it’s just more down the same sinkhole.)
You seem to have confused me with the “PUA=bad” crowd, but nothing I said can’t be found in PUA materials. I’m also not in favor of banning PUA discussion on LW.
What I disagree with you on is the assertion of asymmetrical bias and social pressures for men and women regarding the “venusian arts”. Most of the asymmetry you assert disappears when you control for physical vs. mental, male vs. female goals, etc.
AFAICT, you are so stuck in anger about women, that you can’t see just how symmetrical the situation actually is for them. Men don’t give women good advice for what we want in long-term relationships, being just as likely to say we want one thing, but actually commit to another. And men are just as likely to be irritated when women point this out, as the reverse.
ISTM that one reason you don’t see this is that you keep talking about “beauty” techniques as the appropriate parallel to PUA, when that would only make sense if women’s evolutionarily-assigned mating goals had to do with short-term sexual interest, vs. long term bonding.
I also don’t get why you seem to keep making arguments about the culture at large, vs. rationalist culture and LessWrong. The two are different enough that you can hardly import the outside world here, and expect some sort of redress for wrongs that might be occurring elsewhere. That would be equivalent to a woman coming here and saying that we all should use “she” in our examples to make up for an excessive use of “he” in the world at large.
I will start from your more personal remarks:
What? Where are you getting you this? I’ve long known you were not part of the “PUA = bad” crowd, and that you’re not in favor of banning. I would counterpropose that you’re interpreting my disagreement and occasional impatience as hostility, and assuming it carries over to other areas.
I’m going to delete the unhelpful psychoanalysis from the rest of these excerpts; they have nothing to do with the validity of my points and only serve to insult. If I’m wrong, let it be for some reason other than “Silas is a nut”.
Don’t speak for me; I’ve never been asked, and, on principle, I would refuse to give advice if I knew it would be skewed.
Again, speak for yourself—if I feel social pressures that keep me from being truthful, I say so rather than perpetuate what I know to be wrong. I imagine that if I were a woman, I’d adhere to the same standard and expect no less out of others, male or female.
Not really. I accept quite well that women usually aren’t going to be drawing men in for short-term sexual interest. Nevertheless, part of the necessary steps in getting “shortlisted” for a long-term relationship is looks, which is why I claim the parallel holds.
’Cause it’s a critical example of bias and poor specification of values, maybe?
Now, for the rest:
Female AI/IOIs, by design, have plausible deniability. One can only take them as definitive at one’s own risk—that breaks the equivalence.
“I want beer” --> being clear about what I want, but not giving orders
”Bring me beer” --> being clear AND giving orders
I’ll accept that full specification of which is okay and which isn’t, is going to be difficult. Point taken, and I’ll stop bringing it up. But on this issue, at least, you’re going two far in blurring very different concepts.
Especially since:
“I want beer” (with a strong voice and expectant eye contact) --> Being clear about what I want and communicating that my mere wishes should implicitly be interpreted as orders. “Bring me beer” (lowered eyes, end of the sentence raised slightly in pitch) --> Making an uncertain claim about what I want, with a supplicating request for action.
A potential asymmetry that is of some interest is a difference in (typical) ability to separate ‘far mode’ signalling beliefs and ‘near mode’ actions.
Now I’m curious. What do men say we want in long-term relationships and what do we actually commit to? I think I know what I want but when it comes to related areas (what I want from work life) I have atypical preferences so I am not comfortable generalising from a sample of me.
Certainly, it’s easier to make anything more palatable if you talk about in “far”—which of course is the whole point of “far” thinking in the first place. ;-)
Maybe you should ask a woman that question—honestly, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with trying to answer it in any detail.
Actually, contemplating just how uncomfortable I am with trying to say what I know, makes me considerably more sympathetic to why women don’t often give guys good advice. No matter how true or useful the information might be to the opposite sex, there is considerable social stigma (from one’s own sex) attached to telling the truth.
(Imagine the social consequences if a woman said she wanted guys to boss her around, or a guy said he wanted a woman who wasn’t always interested in sex when he was. And that assumes that either the man or the woman are able to notice this not-necessarily-conscious preference in themselves, and admit to it, before the social stigma issue can even come up!)
(A different tangent to where mine lead but:) No, some things are much more palatable in ‘near’, particularly when talking to those who believe they have correlated interests.
I know women who say that, particularly to other women and do so without losing status and while maintaining rapport. They are less inclined to say it around guys but if, to give an example, I said ‘you love it’ they would take girlish pleasure and agree. One of the messages communicated is ‘Oh, great, he doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. We don’t need to lie to him’.
Really? Guys actually act like they want to commit to a woman who is not always interested in sex when he is? With the aforementioned caveat that I do not generalise from me I have extremely strong evidence that this doesn’t apply in my case. (And thanks for giving your answer without answering.)
Why do you think women are advised not to have sex on the first date, and not to be a man’s “booty call”, if they want a relationship?
Why do you think men routinely have affairs with women who’ll have sex with them, while remaining married to a woman who’s not?
I’m not saying guys like this—I’m saying that this is an example of controversial mating advice that works for “women’s goals”, in the same way that PUA does for “men’s goals”.
(Both phrases being in quotes because not all men and women have the same goals.)
That is good evidence.
That I do not find nearly persuasive. Men are less likely to have affairs when their sex life within the marriage is healthy. They are also less likely to end the marriage.
That’s what I was allowing for when I said ‘act like’ (economic ‘want’).
Do you believe that ‘be less interested in sex’ would be helpful advice for maintaining a long term relationship that has already formed? I don’t deny the possibility, just assert that (concrete evidence indicates) this is definitely not works with me.
A relevant quote:
The quote is rather tongue in cheek but I would not rule out an element of truth (to the suggestion that without the externally enforced obligation more sex is required for maintenance and to secure marriage). In fact, high quality sources of dating advice often give suggestions on how manage such dynamics for the benefit of both parties.
I think you’re misinterpreting the scope of what I said. I didn’t say that lack of interest in sex was attractive—it isn’t.
I said, “isn’t always interested”—i.e., variable reinforcement. I think it’s the case that a man will be most satisfied in a relationship when his partner expresses sexual interest and attraction on an ongoing basis, but nonetheless does not say “yes” to all requests to do something about it, or has variability in how far that interaction proceeds. Having sex whenever a guy wants to is potentially as damaging to a relationship as never having sex at all, in the same way that too-difficult and too-easy tasks don’t lead to a “flow” state.
I’ve seen relationship advice for women that actually described a relationship in terms of a video game, advising that there always be new challenges and levels to unlock, so to speak, so that things don’t get too predictable. For that matter, I’ve seen relationship advice for men that was basically the same, although I find it amusing that it was the advice for women that used the videogame analogy. (And written by a female author, at that.)
(OTOH, men are stereotypically interested in videogames, so I guess explaining that you need to be like a videogame to keep a man interested would make more sense than the reverse analogy.)
Got you! (Although even so, observation suggest that isn’t what works best on me.)
I’ve actually seen a lot of good advice for guys of the form “If a girl did that how would you react? No, really. Well, it’s the same for girls.” Once people actually have a strongly developed self awareness that sort of direct empathy actually works rather well.
(OTOH, men are stereotypically interested in videogames, so I guess explaining that you need to be like a videogame to keep a man interested would make more sense than the reverse analogy.) True.
Be aware that I’m saying in the ideal case, the woman isn’t saying no because she doesn’t want to have sex, or doesn’t find you attractive at that moment. (Or even that she’s necessarily saying “no” at all.)
I’m saying that the “flow” experience comes about from having obstacles that are a good match for your skill at overcoming them. It can easily appear to the man in such a circumstance that he is in fact getting sex as often as he wants, just not as soon as he might want it. A good “courtship” videogame may provide hours or days of enjoyment for both parties, prior to unlocking a new level. ;-)
(In contrast, having “god mode” on for a game might be interesting for a time, but quickly become boring. The reason “crazy chicks” have a reputation for being good in bed may well be as much about the crazy before, as the bed after.)
So, I think we’ve now succeeded in having a conversation about what works to attract men, that might be able to be found as offensive as the reverse. Let’s see what happens. ;-)
I think you’re right. (And our conversation has also reached an agreement).
So, the sound bite version is “To get a man to commit, be a tease?”
Only in the same way that the pejorative and inaccurate soundbite for PUA is, “To get a woman to have sex, be a jerk.” There’s an awful lot lost in both translations. ;-)
Perhaps, I would say that better paraphrases the earlier comments in he conversation than the later ones.
I believe I was in college when “The Rules” came out, so a bit younger than its target demographic, but I recall that there was quite an uproar about it at the time. There was a lot of criticism about the advice being manipulative of men, but also somewhat anti-feminist and representing a step backward for women.
Heck, I even remember a series of Cathy cartoons dedicated to “The Rules,” with the takeaway being part horror (I seem to recall Cathy’s Aaaak!) , part fascination, part willingness to try it out because it just might work, or something like that. . . . and, ok, Cathy may not display perfect insight into the American woman’s psyche, but it tends to get the big trends right, or at least did so in that era
So, yeah, The Rules aren’t the hip new thing right now, but in its heyday, the book got a lot of attention and a lot of criticism, and it also sold a lot of copies. I think it’s a pretty fair comparison.
Sorry if I’m piling on.
I don’t think anyone here is saying: “listen to the women, they always know what is best”. Rather people are saying: “Hey men who know what women find attractive, you don’t need to phrase your true advice in such objectionable language.”
Not to bring this back to object level but I’m not sure “ordering them around” actually communicates good advice. There are circumstances where taking charge is attractive but it isn’t nearly as simple as “order them around” and I suspect whatever good advice is here can be phrased in a similarly unobjectionable way.
I wouldn’t go as far as to support the (absolute part of the) first claim but I certainly support the second.
I disagree. Naturally things aren’t simple (simple isn’t a Nash equilibrium in the dating game!) but ‘ordering them around’ is good advice, particularly to those who most need dating advice. That class of guys tends to associate receiving orders with resentment and so tends to have a failure of empathy when it comes to their expectations of how women will react to similar assertions. “Order them around” is what they need to hear while the more abstract “taking charge” crosses too much of an inferential gap.
I’ve seen more than one bit of PUA literature cross this gap by carefully pointing out how behavior X might seem asshole-ish among men, but is in fact perceived as positive quality Y when received by women from men, and further pointing out that it’s an error to assume this means one should act like an asshole in general.
Certainly, I don’t think teaching material should do any less. It’s likely that a properly framed discussion here relating the venusian arts to, say the Dark Arts, advertising, consent, consistent decision theories, etc. would also need to discuss both sides of that perceptual gap, at least in passing. (Albeit without so much detailed how-to info in between.)
That is a good way to teach it, even though it is somewhat of a lie (similar to teaching Newtonian physics). It usually isn’t healthy to teach about things that are actually perceived as a negative quality by women can also give desired results to men. That darker truth is best left until after people have developed their social skills and let go of their tendency to bury their frustration behind a façade of righteous indignation.
Huh? I don’t see the connection between this and what I was talking about.
More explicit:
There are two messages to convey:
Some things you (naive guys) think will be a bad experience for women are actually a good experience, healthy for them and perceived as desirable.
Some things that are absolutely bad, unhealthy and perceived as undesirable by women can also be used to attract them.
The first of these (and the one that you mention) is a better subject of education. The second is a recipe for excuses, passive aggression and bitterness for people who don’t already have an appreciation for the first point.
Yeah, the absolute part made it too strong.
We’re probably being too vague to evaluate this question. I read “order them around” and I picture men doing a lot of things that women probably won’t find very attractive. I suspect it might lead to the audience just trying to be mean to women thinking that will make them attractive. If I knew less about the subject that advice would lead me to do counterproductive things, I think. Language often needs to be tweaked for audiences that don’t understand right away. I might be in the minority when it comes to my interpretation of “ordering them around” but it really isn’t clear to me exactly what behaviors it recommends.
“Order them around” seems to be evocative of “Bitch, make me a sandwich!”
I actually have success (ie we both have fun and build attraction) when using such orders. But I do it playfully and there is a distinct element of counter-signalling involved (we both know I am not a controlling asshole) so how that data point relates to the topic is non-trivial.
Same here. But this is so context based I sort of doubt a bitter near-misogynist who just started reading attraction advice would be able to implement it correctly. In any case if this is the behavior that “order them around” recommends why not say “Women find it attractive when men can confidently joke and be ironic about traditional gender roles without worrying about being offensive.” And then give examples of this behavior and explain the counter-signaling going on.
Yes, counter-signaling is fun.
When orders are given sincerely, they are usually more subtle:
Call me.
Come hang out with us on Friday.
Hold my umbrella for a sec? (the words are an order by the tonality is a question)
Would you hold my drink for a sec. (The words are a question but the tonality is an order)
The purpose of such orders is not to control the other person, it is to signal status.
Another use of orders (and other forms of dominance) is a reactive one, specifically reacting to “bad” or “naughty” female behavior. I put those words in quotes because perception of what is “bad” or “naughty” is somewhat subjective. Anyone experienced with young women (at least in Western culture) knows that some female personality types sometimes engage in behavior with men that could be considered “bratty” or “naughty,” by the standard of general cultural norms. PUAs hypothesize that these women do so consciously or unconsciously as a “test.”
What many people reading about PUA techniques (either critics or newbies) don’t realize is that a lot of the more controversial techniques such as dominance and status tactics are used in a highly contextual way. So these behaviors that wouldn’t be justifiable if dropped out of the blue would be justifiable if done in context, such as the context of responding to a “test.”
I am not completely wedded to the PUA view of when a woman is “testing” or not, and I recognize that false positives in that area could lead to a woman’s perspective being disregarded incorrectly. Yet I do think there are many examples of female “bad”, “bratty”, or “naughty” behavior that are correctly described by the PUA model of testing, and which do require a response. And one type of response can be behavior that would be unacceptable (or “assholish”) in other contexts, such as giving orders or strong negs.
For instance, if a woman has spent the last 10 minutes poking him and the joke has worn off, then a PUA might give her an order like “Hey, stop being such a brat.”
The ethics of dominance behaviors is context-dependent, and one factor in context is whether the other person is engaging in behavior that would be culturally considered to justify that response. Here is an example with neg-like behavior, where Monday night I ended up negging a woman kind of hard, because I perceived it as justified (even though I don’t believe in negging out of the blue):
Her: I’m trying to find N… I am going to tell him something that will make him happy...
Me: You’re the bearer of good news, huh?
Her: Yeah, I’m going to hang out for him with a whole day this weekend! He’s been wanting me to for ages.
[Now, by cultural norms, her behavior is a bit of arrogant. She was signalling that she has higher status that N. Social circles have status hierarchies, but it’s still a bit arrogant to practically come out and say that you are higher status than someone. What she communicated was “I am so much higher status and attractive that another guy in our social circle is lucky to hang out with me… and what’s more, I am so high status and attractive that I can get away with this self-enhancement with you!” So she was indirectly asserting status over me, also. I couldn’t let this assertion of higher status from her go unchallenged.]
Me: Ok, so that’s the bad news you’re bearing… but what’s the good news?
Her: (it took her a sec to get that the joke was on her, then she replied slightly haughtily and petulantly) Hey, I bet you’d be stoked if I spent a day hanging out at your house! [We both know this is true, from our previous interaction, but it’s a status ploy for her to explicitly point this out. My perception that I was seeing a “test” was confirmed. I think her behavior would be intersubjectively considered a bit immature, even by feminists how would normally be skeptical of many male claims of female “bad behavior.”]
Me: That depends… are you tidy?
Her: Yeah, I’m tidy...
Me: Great! Then I would in fact be stoked about you coming over to my house… you could help me tidy up my laundry
Her: You’re a jerk, you know...
Me: Yeah, I know!
Her: (reaches over and rubs my arm. This was a signal of attraction that let me know that I was calibrated correctly, and that she had enjoyed my response to her test. If I had detected that I had actually hurt her feelings by calling her “bad news,” then I would have instead taken steps to make her feel better or even apologized if I was miscalibrated.)
I signalled: “I don’t agree with your assertion of status over our mutual friend N. In fact, I think you are violating the norm of ostensible equality between friends by so nakedly attempting to assert your status. I assert that my status is high enough that I am justified in calling you on this behavior and making fun of you for it by joking that you are “bad news” and lowering your status. I am so high status that I find your attempts at elevating your status above N amusing, implying that I actually view myself as at least as high status as you, not merely trying to act as high status as you. I am not threatened by your status imposition, which is why I feel no need to explicitly call you on it. I am not afraid of your potential negative reaction to my enforcement of this norm; I expect you to take this tease and accept it as a justified response from me. Since you tried to violate the norm and claim status you don’t actually have, you actually lowered your own status, which is why I am justified in raising my status above yours at this time and delivering the status-deflation you deserve. I can tell that you are testing me by seeing if I will let you get away with your status assertion, and the answer is that I won’t. If you attempt such a norm-violating level of self-enhancement in the future, I will quickly and immediately burst your bubble.”
...or something like those things. I consider this a defensive use of status games; I wouldn’t neg a woman this hard if she wasn’t violating a norm and attempting to inflate her status. If I had let her get away with that behavior, then she would think that I thought that she deserved that level of status. She would engage in similar behavior in the future, and keep attempting to raise her status until she eventually considered her status higher than mine. If that happened, then not only would it destroy her attraction to me, but it would also destroy any chance of us having a quality friendship. Soon she would be referring to me as yet another of the guys who would be lucky to hang out with her.
Counter-intuitively, the way to maintain equality in my interaction with her was to engage in a status game, and deflate her status in a way that would not be justified in another context, such as out of the blue. In context, my lowering of her status was a deflation of the excess status that she was trying to claim, which is morally different from attempting to lower someone’s status unprovoked. Notice also that my goal wasn’t to “lower her self-esteem” it was to lower her level of narcissism and illegitimate status assertion.
It is by understanding power that I can achieve equality. Remember, as I mentioned before, a typical mode of social interaction is to try to increase your status incrementally until people stop you (like i stopped her). Unless you confine yourself to a nerd ghetto where people don’t play this sort of status games (and status is decided more by competence than by what you can get away with), you will need to engage in social power dynamics, if only as a defensive measure.
Status behavior (which may include giving orders) in a defensive context is in a different moral category from status behavior in other contexts. I hope this lengthy analysis is useful to someone, and opens their eyes to the fun world of subcommunication. Questions or disagreement is invited.
I really enjoy your writing on this subject, it’s informative and ethically enlightened in a way that most discussion of such topics usually isn’t.
Returning to subject of my parent comment is there any reason this same advice couldn’t be communicated with “use imperative sentences” instead of “order them around”? The former seems both less offensive and less likely to lead to students being controlling (in a way that is poorly calibrated, unattractive and ethically ambiguous). I feel like it’s also worth noting that none of those examples are particularly unusual things to say. Among groups of platonic male heterosexuals of approximately equal status saying these things is totally routine and doesn’t even imply gaming or hidden agendas. The only reason it is meaningful advice for men trying to be more attractive to women is that the default behavior of so many men around women is to put them on a pedestal and start supplicating and self-flagellating. So some feminists are upset that PUAs are telling men to “order women around” when really a lot of the advice actually consists just telling them to treat women like the equals they are (I’ve said it before, treating someone as an equal doesn’t mean being super nice to them and deferring to them when possible). Part of this is probably feminists not looking at the actual advice closely enough, but I don’t think I could blame someone for thinking “order them around” implies something more offensive than “Call Me” (Do PUAs actually use the word “orders”? I don’t recall seeing it anywhere before this thread. The advice is familiar just not the wording.)
In fact, playing a status game with someone isn’t really the power play our language makes it out to be. A lot of time status games are just sort of skirmish played out between equals. The winner doesn’t really come out with significantly higher status, all they really get is something like a tip of the hat from those around them. This why, again returning to platonic male heterosexual relationships, guys can make fun of each other without permanent damage. It’s sort of like practicing, or like the way baby animals rough house. In fact, not only is there no permanent damage, this kind of behavior (at least in my experience, and at least this seems to be the conventional message) makes male heterosexual friendships stronger.
So when a man engages in a status game with a woman in addition to object level status claims like:
there is also sort of a meta-signaling of: “I think you are worthy competition and therefore about equal in status to me.” And like with male heterosexual friendships this kind of thing improves rapport. I actually think such status skirmishes might be quite central to healthy egalitarian relationships.
I agree. I think this element is what made the interaction mutually fun and attractive.
It would be helpful to have been there, to hear the tone throughout the exchange and observe your body language together, but I believe the interaction you describe seems familiar to me.
I agree she was testing you, and the outcome of the test was positive as she indicated by the affectionate body language of touching your arm. However, my interpretation of the test is more straightforward—I’d guess she was just seeking affirmation that you like spending time with her. I’ve often noticed that social norms (like modesty) are relaxed among women with men, especially if the context is flirtation. Also if she was testing you, she might have felt justified in relaxing the norm in order to get a more dependable test result.
I wonder to what extent generally, in male hacking of female social interaction with them, they’re coming up with the correct behaviors with the wrong theories behind them.
I think I would find the “bad news” poke you gave—which, funnily enough, is an aggression I would have incorrectly interpreted as provoked by jealousy rather than a disapproval of her status grab—more coy (and possibly more attractive) than a straight signal that you would be jealous and want her to hang with you. Instead, the counter-punch you gave signaled the desire to be with her without creating a request to contend with. It also seems attractive along the lines of a male acting more stereotypically male in an endearing way (jealous, and not admitting it).
I think you could have also passed the test by a straight signal that you liked hanging with her: “No, don’t hang out with him this weekend. Hang out with me.” In this case, you would also be signaling sincerity and a desire for a relationship, which may or may not have been appropriate for either of you. If you guys are “just friends”, then you could have the same response, but then I would expect you to overdo it a little until there is a laugh / affectionate punch on the arm.
I have more to say in response, but I will clarify one thing: the “bad news” jibe wasn’t implying that it was bad news for me that she was hanging out with him, it was implying that it was bad news for the other guy that she was hanging out with. I think that implication came across, because of her response which was to claim that I would want to hang out with her (which as interpreted as “any guy would want to hang out with me, including you, which is why it’s justified for me to so blatant assert that a guy is lucky to do so”).
I’m not sure if that’s why you interpreted my jibe as displaying jealousy; but if given my intended interpretation, I do agree that it could have subcommunicated jealousy, like a case of “sour grapes” on my part (which is slightly true, though not the primary reason for the jibe).
Yes, this is what I understood.
Only because a jealous response seemed to be expected and solicited. So I predicted she would have interpreted the jibe as a form of sour grapes, as I would have if I was eavesdropping on the conversation. (“You’re going to spend the whole day with him? … Poor him!” is an appropriately funny and defensive jealousy response.) However, from your description of the interaction, I understood that you weren’t actually displaying jealousy and she and I would have been somewhat mistaken about the initial effectiveness of her test. But then it lead to a conversation in which you did signal the desire to be with her, anyway.
I wouldn’t give this advice to a bitter near-misogynist (and don’t have a special interest in advising bitter near-misogynists, that doesn’t usually work all that well anyway). I would give it to ‘good boys’ who are still under the impression that the polite supplication that sometimes works for keeping mommy happy is attractive to female peers. It opens up a whole new world to them.
Because I consider this tangent distinctly different from the original ‘order them around’ discussion. In particular, I don’t think ‘order them around’ implies ‘refer to them as bitches’.
(I didn’t reject ChronoS’ claimed evocation because the tangent is interesting and had no inclination to invalidate his contribution. For the purpose of your attempt to build upon that evocation as a shared premise I do reject it.)
(insert joke about finding someone’s root password here)
All the instantiations I can think of make me laugh out loud. Too true. :)
Thats fine, I was just trying to clarify my initial position.
Edit:… since the disagreement we had seemed too ambiguous to continue discussing.
Also trivial and completely unimportant!
Cool, I didn’t care about it either.
Really? Are we looking at the same forum? Because of all criticisms of PUA discussion, I never saw anything of that form—most importantly, I don’t remember acknowledgement that it is true (just as society in general won’t admit it). Those who found it objectionable, like this characteristic poster, demanded much more serious straitjackets:
That’s way beyond, “hey, use less objectionable language when making these true claims about what women find attractive”. Don’t you think so?
Agree With What You Are Saying But Good Pickup Advice Would Recommend Ignoring That Frame Rather Than Validating It. (AWWYASBGPAWRITFRTVI?)
Sorry, “here” is ambiguous. I meant in the discussion presently occurring, perhaps I should have just said pjeby is only saying that but I felt like my statement applied to everyone who replied to your comments recently.
My position is here. But yes, past discussions involved broader disagreement. I mostly meant that I didn’t think your interpretation of pjeby’s comment was accurate.
(ETA: I’m sympathetic to a lot of what she says but I’m not sure I’d agree alicorn was “characteristic” in that particular discussion.)
I’m wondering about this “taking charge” thing. Does it just apply when the woman isn’t very sure about what she wants? Or also when the male overrides a clear desire of hers? What if the man takes charge and turns out to be wrong about the outcome?
The main context it’s discussed in is situations where no-one has expressed a strong preference. In the case of conflicting preferences, men are advised to be clear and non-deferential regarding their preferences, without necessarily “overriding” anything. The point is to show initiative and non-wishiwashiness, not to push people around.
Then how he handles that is the next test. ;-)
I saw an interesting discussion of the movie “300” that sort of relates to this. Someone said that in almost every action movie, there is a woman who wants the man to stay with her and not go do the dangerous thing that’s his mission in life. But, if he were the sort of man who would stay—who’d, before going off to war against the Persians, would say, “you’re right honey, I should just stay here with you and the kids”—then she wouldn’t have been attracted to him in the first place.
And, if he did change his mind and stay, the attraction and romance in the relationship would pretty much die right away.
So the advice to “take charge” is really just to be the sort of man who doesn’t let a woman talk him into things for the sake of immediate pleasure (or lack of immediate conflict), at the expense of long-term interests. Such a man may be too easily convinced to leave or to cheat by a different woman, and be a lousy protector who won’t do difficult or painful things in his family’s interest.
So, the function of taking charge is that the man must demonstrate that he can tell the difference between what a woman says she wants and what’s actually best in a given situation, as well as his nature as a man of constancy, certainty, and initiative. It’s not really about making decisions, per se.
(For example, some “chivalrous” gestures like opening a door, pulling out a chair, or giving your arm to someone can be forms of “taking charge” in the sense that they show purpose and initiative, even though no decision is really being made, nor are any orders being given.)
That’s fictional evidence—that is, not evidence at all. All I’m sure of is it’s harder to make a movie about the guy who stayed home, though you could do it if trouble came looking for him.
It’s not evidence but it is a good illustration that helps point people to intuitive understanding that they already have.
The person who wrote that was pointing to the fiction to give a point of common reference for his observation of the dynamics between men and women, not using the movie as his evidence.
The author’s observation (and mine) was that women tend to lose respect (and thus attraction) for a man who they can talk into delaying or abandoning things the man says are important to him. The movie version is just that idea writ large.
The initiative and non-wishiwashiness is the most important factor but sometimes the actual override/push people around part is a useful signal in its own right too, if done skillfully.
That’s the part that’s really hard to communicate in a soundbite, or really to communicate verbally at all.
Especially since ‘do exactly the same thing but be two inches taller’ can completely change the outcome.
Sometimes it is best to just suggest ‘err to the other side to what you are used to’. That makes the difference between what works and what doesn’t much easier to spot so the countless subtle differences in context can be learned more readily.
With trivial desires it probably applies. With significant desires not so much. The line between the two is probably fuzzy but has obvious extremes. How strongly the woman holds the desire matters too, I suppose. I don’t know if I can say more without context: I don’ t teach people how to be attractive so I’m not good at spelling all the intricacies out. I just know enough to make it work for me.
You’d have to be more specific but I suspect the outcome usually doesn’t matter.
Or maybe the really effective thing to do is to know which type of behavior to exhibit when (so much of social skill is about context-sensitivity); all-out dominant behavior is more effective in some cases than all-out the other direction (‘submissive’ seems like the wrong term) or ham-fisted attempts at variation, so advice to adopt all-out dominant behavior, combined with the idea that the other sort of behavior is completely ineffective, persists among men who are less skilled and interested in those cases; and women introspecting on what they want get that they want both but don’t get the context-dependence, or don’t realize it needs to be said.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but note that this failure of introspection on the part of (influential) women on this matter is exactly what my thesis has been all along. And I wouldn’t tolerate that from myself, or from men either, especially if such advice had the impact that the widely-taught (and wrong) male-to-female engagement rules has.
No, but you are definitely not supposed to be bitter about it. ~1,000 times on OvercomingBias:
Speak for yourself! :-)
[1] Which counts as sexual harassment, btw (unless you’re really hot).
Only in specific environments. And then, yes, the offence is mostly ‘making sexual advances without being hot enough to get away with it’. Outside of a place where sexual harassment claims are an option it would instead just get demeaning looks.