Wednesday, October 24, 2012

PUAs and Us Others: Never the Twain Shall Meet

I have made known, a time or three, that I disclaim moral, spiritual or political affiliation with the PUA-Gamer community. And for quite a while, I have wanted to compose a long article that would explore the reasoning behind this. But I have procrastinated -- mainly because I find the subject distasteful and depressing.  But I have done well to put off that project, for it has given me time to hone my thoughts to a point of ideal brevity and clarity.

There is, I submit, an essential conflict between the PUA-Gamer community on the one side, and the MRA-MGTOW-Masculinist grouping on the other. This conflict is irreducible -- meaning that it cannot be resolved or even effectively patched over unless one side or the other discards its worldview and philosophical outlook.

Very well. For convenience, I will call the MRA-MGTOW-Masculinist group the 3M sector, and the PUA-Gamer group the PUA sector. And the core difference between these sectors is easily summarized. Quite simply, the PUA cultural ethos is grounded in the oppositional binary of sexual winners v. sexual losers. In their scheme of things, you are either a player or a "poor desperate chump"; there is no in-between,  no intervening gray-spectrum, and more significantly, no alternative taxonomy of any kind.  These categories are force-fitted as a social definition, and your self-definition counts for diddly.

By contrast, the 3M community believes that the sexual winner-loser binary is immoral,  perverse and unbrotherly, and ought to be put out of operation as a societal paradigm. This conviction is reinforced by the observed behavior of  PUAs, who wish to impose their cultural frame upon the entire pro-male world, and to define their own relationship to the rest of that community accordingly. In short, they wish to dominate the pro-male world and to remake it in the PUA image. And so PUAs have gotten the name of being crass manipulators, power gamers and philistines, and are generally cold-shouldered by vanguard members of the the 3M sector.

All right. The grubby little secret is, that the PUAs are controlled by women. That is the only conclusion you could ever draw about men who make the pursuit of sexual encounter socially mandatory. I say "controlled by" women because, in such cases, women (through no fault of their own) are the controlling factor. And in the PUA universe, you must align to this controlling factor as the price of social validation from your male peer group. Either that or be a "poor desperate chump" -- regardless if you are actually poor, actually desperate, or actually a chump.

It is small wonder, therefore, that high-minded 3M people will shun the PUA world like a sexually-transmitted disease.

Some PUAs might object that they are actually teaching you to control women. But that is only a subtle dodge, to obscure the central fact that whoever joins the PUA community in the first place, does so with the expressed purpose of engaging women in the first place. And engagement, with any object at all, entails a dimension of control BY that object that would be absent in the case of non-engagement.
If you consider that the PUA community started life as a business venture whose purpose was to make money, much will fall into place. To this very day, it bears the stamp of its mercantile origins. The idea is to sell a product, and as modern marketers will do, it encourages a need for this product whether the product is necessary or not. And that is why you will never get the PUA culture to allow, on its collective mind level, that the pursuit of sexual encounter is optional -- i.e., that one is permitted to opt out.  For starters, such a notion is irrelevant in such a setting. But more significantly, it is taxing to entertain such a notion at all in such a setting.  To do so, would undermine, and eventually dissolve, the entire PUA raison d'ĂȘtre.

Individual PUAs will sometimes disown the winner-loser binary on an intellectual level, but nowhere is this principle conspicuously posted as a bylaw, or generally talked about with any sense of its importance, among PUAs as a group. For the PUA community recruits from the mainstream population of  "average Joes" whose values are conventional, whose morality is naturalistic, and who might be troubled with a philosophical thought once every three months. In other words, just the people who would be amenable to such manipulation as we have described, and disinclined to think outside of that particular box.

PUA is backward-looking, reactionary, counter-revolutionary, rooted in the age-old social pecking order, among men, which makes women a controlling factor in men's lives. Accordingly, PUA is of more service to feminism than to men. Think for a moment -- PUA wants men to be controlled by women. Likewise, feminism wants men to be controlled by women. This would suggest that PUA and feminism have much in common.  In fact, it would suggest that the PUAs are half-feminist in their cultural DNA.

It would also suggest that the PUA relationship with feminism is paradoxical. And observation bears this out, given that the feminists hate the PUAs even though the PUAs are a tremendous help to them. This, as I say, is paradoxical. And since it will do us no immediate good to contemplate that paradox, I will proceed to other matters.

The PUA sector sells its product by manipulating the age-old male fear of either not getting laid, or being perceived as not getting laid.  Both fears, in traditional mainstream culture, have operated powerfully on the male psyche. But neither one is necessary. Neither one is inherent to the nature of existence. It is possible in either case to cancel the fear, or the sting of the actual occurrence, by a subjective decision. What really feeds the fear or the sting, is the objective behavior of other people, and their ability to transcend your transcendence. As a certain psychiatrist once remarked: "Things don't get you down. People do!" These are words of liberation which belong on the list of ten best things ever said -- right next to "cogito ergo sum", and "suffering arises from craving".

But yes, the last thing we would ever do is heap additional pains and burdens upon men -- who as you know are being treated like garbage already, and don't need any more problems than they've already got. As for the PUAs, if they would behave symbiotically, and respect 3M sensibilities, and knock off the cynical, shit-stirring, backstabbing, power-grabbing behavior which has so often marked them, then we would have no problem with them. But sadly, we have seen through them, and we see that they are incorrigible just as feminists are incorrigible. We know they won't change because, by the nature of things, they cannot.

We are uninterested in debating the merits of PUA pickup and seduction techniques. Whether these techniques actually work, or whether they are snake-oil as many have suggested, is of no present concern to us. Our present concern, is to make clear why we consider the PUA community unfit for political affiliation, and to stress that we ought to distance ourselves from these people in view of  numerous efforts by feminists, the general public, and the PUAs themselves, to conflate PUA with the 3M community. To counteract such conflation, we ought to generate a consistent anti-PUA rhetoric so that our "signal",  as it were, will override  the "noise".

And now, my concluding words. If you throw away what is bad about PUA, and keep only what is good, you will end up with a good, honest life coach who offers good, honest dating advice and would never use fear and social shaming to manipulate you.  Likewise, if you throw away what is bad about feminism, and keep only what is good, you will end up with a good, honest liberal humanist who wants only the best for everybody and would never use fear and social shaming to manipulate you. You see, in either case you would be throwing away what is essential to the thing in question. For both PUA and feminism, their essence is their badness -- and whatever is good about them is only a cover story to camouflage what is bad about them.

And that is the last thing I've got to say about all this. Take care.


Blogger ScareCrow said...

Excellent essay Fidelgoen - no sarcasm here this time.

I have not read many PUA sites. I find them to be - well - silly.

My fear isn't "Not Getting Laid".

My fear is with "A woman going psycho ballistic on me".

I guess I could offer dating advice to people, but I believe that everybody is different - what works for one will not work for all.

The best advice I would give is - never let anybody control you - and watch for signs of bipolarism, schizophrenia and other severe mental disorders that may endanger your freedom or even your life.

Funny, the one time I posted the list of head-meds that are "anti-psychotic", I was rebuttled not by any feminist or white knight blah blah blah - but by an mra.

Speaking of rebuttals - any PUA sites tried to rebuttal this well-written and well-thought post of yours?

2:05 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

No..they haven't tried rebuttals yet because this post hasn't been up even 2 hours yet.

But I don't care about their rebuttals. This statement is directed at fellow workers.

2:19 PM  
Blogger ScareCrow said...

I gathered that, but I cannot wait to make some smart-ass remarks...

2:24 PM  
Blogger Simpsons Didit said...

Have you ever spotted Pua in disguise?

A lot of Pua pretends to not even be Pua.

Many Pua sites even make fun of asspects of pick up artist shit while attempting to sell Pua.

I could do tons of videos about Pua and directly attack the misandrist dating advice distraction.

Thanks for the pep talk.

3:02 PM  
Anonymous Jacob Ian Stalk said...

Reading beautifully constructed arguments like this is akin in my experience to approaching a glass of full-bodied red wine. A second and even third draught is necessary to appreciate it fully. The refined logic of the ideas in this piece and its faithful expression transcends mere consumption. The draught should be swished around and savoured, drop by delectable drop. Only then can one capture the full essence of the truth it contains.

3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hear hear! muffled hockey clap.

8:10 PM  
OpenID Eric said...

Excellent analysis! It's high time these wolves in sheeps' clothing were called out and exposed for what they are: feminocentric men.

These guys openly admit to accepting feminism as a 'reality' and then try pose as 'empowered males'.

I even read recently of one prominent PUA blogger who got a vasectomy so that he could 'pump and dump' without fear of unwanted pregnancy. We may laugh at such stupidity, but it's really Game carried to its logical conclusion: emasculation to please the female. There's no difference between that and feminism.

10:49 PM  
Blogger L. McQuaid said...

First of all: great post. Secondly I'm no PUA but I have read the stuff and find it very interesting.

I have always seen PU as a simple skill or art akin to self-promotion. Thus I don't see anything wrong with it.

Thought of as such a practitioner is not neither 'feminocentric' nor some kind of wizard of attraction. I seen the PUA schools as providing a service to those with low social skills and nothing more. How is this bad? You mention that PUA is glorified life-coaching. I agree. Yet where is the necessary evil?

I take slight issue with the claim that PU is based on an ideology of social shaming. However, re-listening to some videos of Mystery's it is clear that he DOES use the dichotomy of sexual winners and loosers. On the other hand Style does not.

I could also make the argument that each guru or seduction school has its own ethos but that would be akin to arguing that all feminist schools, too, have their own ethos. It seems the anti-feminists are also having the same kind of signal noise or identity crisis. What can be done about this?

1:58 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Whatever you say about the PUAs, pro or con, I conclude they make lousy political bedfellows. So I warn them off. Picking up the PUAs (as the pronounced acronym might suggest) is like picking up a stink bug. And the smell lingers for a long time.

As for the signal/noise identity crisis. . . well, my most recent video ("Becoming Ambient") deals with that. And I aim to explore it further....

2:29 PM  
Anonymous jso said...

ironically I came to understand the concepts of MRA/MGTOW from PUA blogs (specifically in mala fide). I would have no issue with the idea of PUA itself as a lifestyle if they didn't make it clear that they hate non-PUA males as much as any feminist. indeed, the core issue is that PUAs are slaves to their urges, or more importantly they are slaves to the perceptions that feminist society lays on all men as needing to be popular with women or be outcast as "hateful" "creepy" loners. until a PUA can see past that lie, they cannot be counted on as men's rights advocates, but to see past the lie is to cease being a PUA in the first place.

2:35 AM  
Anonymous Martian Bachelor said...

No doubt about it, one of the many ways "Game" is just like feminism is they both behave as if they belong to N.O.N. - the Nat'l Organization of Nags.

There used to be a t-shirt: Conform, Go Crazy, or Become an Artist.

PUA/Gamers, in their self-delusion, simply have the first and last options conflated.

The entire notion of the "socially inept male" (who needs to improve himself by going to some DIY charm school) is a feminist gambit and invention to begin with. So that's the game being played. Any token anti-feminism merely creates cognitive dissonance to obscure this.

12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Feminists actually like their pussy being valuable as a commodity and a lever. Of course they also affect great indignation that anybody actually recognize this aspect of them.

9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home