I replied to you in the other thread and I’d be interested to know what you think about my comment (I’m not really making the sort of claim you dismiss in this post so I’m curious as to whether you agree with what I’m saying or whether my comments are problematic for other reasons). Comments quoted below for ease of access:
If the sole determining factor of whether an interaction with a women is desirable is whether they end up attracted to you then, yes, even the most extreme sort of pick up artistry would be unproblematic.
However, if you think that there are other factors that determine whether such an interaction is desirable (such as whether the woman is treated with respect, is not made to feel unpleasant etc) then certain sorts of pick up artistry are extremely distasteful.
For example, let’s hypothetically imagine that women are more attracted to people who make them feel insecure (I take no position on the accuracy of this claim). Sure, it would just be “understanding how women work and adjusting your behaviour to be more attractive to them” if you deliberately made them feel insecure. And sure, this would be no problem if being attractive was the sole determining factor of whether the interaction was desirable. However, if you think women deserve to be treated with respect and not made to feel horrible (presuming not because they are women but just because all humans deserve this) then this interaction is extremely undesirable.
Some discussions of pick up artistry don’t just blur this line but fail to even realise there is a line. To those who think women should be treated with respect, this is extremely concerning.
And also:
We can think of it another way: what do we think constitutes the welfare of a woman? Presumably we don’t think that it is just that she is attracted to the person she is currently conversing with.
However, if this is the case and if we care about how our interaction with people effect their welfare then the fact that a person’s interaction with a woman makes the woman attracted to them doesn’t entail that the interaction was desirable (because we care about their welfare which is more than just their extent of current attraction).
Note that this need not be a condescending attempt to institute an objective conception of welfare on an unwilling recipient. For example, we might think that a person’s welfare is determined by their own subjective, personally decided upon preferences. Now perhaps a woman has preferences to be attracted to the person they’re talking to (or perhaps not) but presumably they also have preferences to feel good about themselves and a number of other things. Again, then, even taking their self-identified welfare, we can’t presume that an interaction is benefiting a woman’s welfare just because they are attracted to their current conversation partner.
To put it another other way: just because a woman finds herself attracted to a person following an interaction, it doesn’t mean she doesn’t wish that the interaction had been different. So the conversation may fulfill the man’s interests in being attractive but it doesn’t follow from the fact that the woman is attracted to him that it fulfulls the woman’s interests.
Of course, if you think a woman’s welfare is her own problem and an interested man’s only responsibility is to be attractive to the woman then you won’t find this compelling but that attitude is precisely what the problem is (many people think that one should be concerned about the effects of one’s interactions on others’ welfare).
ETA: So to clarify: the claim was not that some women’s tastes are distasteful but rather that a woman’s tastes don’t entirely determine her welfare so we can’t move from a claim that something is in accordance with her tastes to a claim that something is in accordance with her welfare (or, for that matter, her desires, because her tastes in men don’t fully define her desires either)
So I don’t say that the problem is manipulation: I say the problem is a lack of concern about the welfare of women. Wearing a nice shirt doesn’t show that lack of concern, deliberately demeaning them does. The dividing line isn’t trying to influence women vs not doing so but the way this manipulation is carried out. Similarly, my claim is not about the accuracy or pleasantness of a view of women, it’s about the desirability of a way of treating women even if that view is correct. So your comments above don’t seem to respond to these issues. What do you think about these issues then?
This is one example of countless other objections that are leveled against PU that fall into the same pattern: an elaborate argument is presented that illustrates a problem with PU and yet at the same time it is overlooked that the same argument could be applied(yet rarely or never is) against women or against dating/mating in general. Specifically:
Of course, if you think a woman’s welfare is her own problem and an interested man’s only responsibility is to be attractive to the woman then you won’t find this compelling but that attitude is precisely what the problem is (many people think that one should be concerned about the effects of one’s interactions on others’ welfare).
and:
I say the problem is a lack of concern about the welfare of women.
The name of the game is mating, not altruism! In mating we are generally not concerned primarily about the welfare of the object of our desire. It doesn’t matter if you are human, non-human, male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, PUA or not PUA. Is a woman who expects the man to pay for her drinks, or the boyfriend to help her pay the rent really concerned about the welfare of the other?
Doesn’t sound nice, does it? But I didn’t write the rules of the game. Actually it should be a big surprise if the mating game that came about through evolution conformed to our expectations of fairness or niceness. PUAs didn’t invent the game, they analyzed it and figured out what the winning moves are. Don’t blame them. This is actually what all the PUA hate is about: rationalized or cleverly packaged envy. Those guys who figured out how to hack the system imposed onto them and gain an “unfair” advantage, we can’t let them get away with it, can we?
Yes you did. You choose your desires. Evolution built you while optimizing inclusive genetic fitness, but it didn’t build you in such a way that that’s what you optimize. You are quite capable of caring for others.
Of course, if you’re just concerned about the welfare of women in general, it’s probably best to focus on donating to good charities, since as long as it’s consensual sex isn’t going to make a noticeable effect on the net good you do.
Hi Roland,
I replied to you in the other thread and I’d be interested to know what you think about my comment (I’m not really making the sort of claim you dismiss in this post so I’m curious as to whether you agree with what I’m saying or whether my comments are problematic for other reasons). Comments quoted below for ease of access:
And also:
So I don’t say that the problem is manipulation: I say the problem is a lack of concern about the welfare of women. Wearing a nice shirt doesn’t show that lack of concern, deliberately demeaning them does. The dividing line isn’t trying to influence women vs not doing so but the way this manipulation is carried out. Similarly, my claim is not about the accuracy or pleasantness of a view of women, it’s about the desirability of a way of treating women even if that view is correct. So your comments above don’t seem to respond to these issues. What do you think about these issues then?
This is one example of countless other objections that are leveled against PU that fall into the same pattern: an elaborate argument is presented that illustrates a problem with PU and yet at the same time it is overlooked that the same argument could be applied(yet rarely or never is) against women or against dating/mating in general. Specifically:
and:
The name of the game is mating, not altruism! In mating we are generally not concerned primarily about the welfare of the object of our desire. It doesn’t matter if you are human, non-human, male, female, homosexual, heterosexual, PUA or not PUA. Is a woman who expects the man to pay for her drinks, or the boyfriend to help her pay the rent really concerned about the welfare of the other?
Doesn’t sound nice, does it? But I didn’t write the rules of the game. Actually it should be a big surprise if the mating game that came about through evolution conformed to our expectations of fairness or niceness. PUAs didn’t invent the game, they analyzed it and figured out what the winning moves are. Don’t blame them. This is actually what all the PUA hate is about: rationalized or cleverly packaged envy. Those guys who figured out how to hack the system imposed onto them and gain an “unfair” advantage, we can’t let them get away with it, can we?
Yes you did. You choose your desires. Evolution built you while optimizing inclusive genetic fitness, but it didn’t build you in such a way that that’s what you optimize. You are quite capable of caring for others.
Of course, if you’re just concerned about the welfare of women in general, it’s probably best to focus on donating to good charities, since as long as it’s consensual sex isn’t going to make a noticeable effect on the net good you do.