PUA/Game…is it instilling a false sense of empowerment?

An article appeared in the Valentine’s Day-adjacent issue of the conservative Weekly Standard and has left the PUA blogosector abuzz. Entitled “The New Dating Game”, the piece presents a masterful and intricate examination of today’s PUA (my acronym: Pick-Up Artistry) phenomena while simultaneously delving into the very pertinent societal offshoots of women’s liberation and evolutionary psychology.

In the internet sense, this is “old news.” The article has been insightfully and thoroughly discussed, in manners much more cleverly than I.

The article is 12 pages long and you need to set aside at least 30-45 minutes if you wish to read it intensively in order to absorb all the knowledge it throws at you. While much of the mansphere appeared to rejoice in the fact that a dissection of the PUA movement has filtered down as far as a stodgy conservative publication like the WS, the halting pessimist that is me isn’t quite so pleased. Unease becomes me…

On page 10, there is reference to Conor Friedersdorf:

Earlier that year Roissy got into an online contretemps with Conor Friedersdorf, a frequent guest-blogger for Andrew Sullivan, over the “neg,” a pickup artist tactic that involves teasing an especially attractive woman about her looks instead of complimenting them, on the theory that she probably gets so many compliments that she brushes them off. It’s an updated version of Lord Chesterfield’s dictum to his son that “a decided and conscious beauty looks upon every tribute paid to her beauty only as her due, but wants to shine and to be considered on the side of her understanding.” Friedersdorf, however, declared that the negger’s intention “is to reduce her self-esteem, or even worse to play on her insecurities with the knowledge that some women react to that technique by having sex or hooking up as a coping mechanism.” Roissy responded by making fun of Friedersdorf’s name.

In response to Friedersdorf, I can only say, “Yeah, so what?”

Of course it’s manipulative.
Dude, Game is manipulation. Just about all human social interaction involves varying degrees of manipulation. And believe me, manipulation is involved in just about every instance where a man persuades a woman to have sex with him for the first time. If you’re Brad Pitt, the manipulation factor is non-existent, but for most guys, the element of coercion is inevitable.

And sometimes coercion is half the fun.
We call it the “chase.”
Friedersdorf’s argument holds no water.

Game is not an obscure formula or spell. It is not a forbidden secret chiseled on stone tablets buried in the depths of an Egyptian pyramid.

Game is old and game it is instinctual.

Friedersdorf doesn’t seem to have harsh words for men who get it without having to buy tapes or videos or attend workshops. Men such as this have existed for ages. These men learned and absorbed the fine art of seducing women and their power was rare, hence, precious. They practiced something that came natural to them. They didn’t call it “Game,” they didn’t ponder routines or negs or cocky/funny…they knew what worked, from trial and error. They learned and refined the social devices which were proven to melt women’s hearts and loins.

Game is merely the studious and methodical conveyance of these time-tested items which rakes have used for centuries.

And Game works. Still. Maybe less so. As I said, the ancient art of seduction was rare and precious. And as the recognition of Game’s power attained recognition in the modern era of mass communication, this preciousness translated to “profitability.”

Is it not so unbelievable to ascertain that those men with the most money to burn and semen to unload are also the most repressed and blue-balled segment of male society?

Think about it. You have massive numbers of young guys with bloated expendable incomes and sexual frustrations to match and it comes as no surprise that PUA mentors such as Mystery and David D’Angelo stand to make fortunes off the wisdom they can impart to lovelorn men (especially if the advice works and earns a reputation as such). Profits ballooned and the PUA movement became nothing but a cheap whore…worse yet, an attention whore which seemed intent on announcing its prowess and self-involvement to the world.

Why these guys take pleasure in the mainstream-ization of PUA puzzles me.

PUA is like the Fight Club.
You don’t talk about it.
To anybody.

For Game’s greatest strength is (was?) its sly and oblique mode of attack.

I know a lot of guys would love to assume it, but many women are not stupid and they are not illiterate. (Edit addition: At least not the women we should be chasing!)
And the typical 19-year-old hottie who suddenly finds herself swimming in a sea of a bunch of stammering PUA’s throwing incongruous negs at her and trying cocky and funny but only coming across as pathetic and self-conscious will most likely have seen and read it. Been there and been done that to.

Every little dude in her demographic is now a PUA!

Now that the democratization of PUA is nearly complete, how will men stand out now?

Reminds me of a point I made last week in my Alpha post:

If there was a grand shift in the social mechanics of the world (perhaps by a strange Twilight Zonian meteor shower) and all men woke up “alphas” tomorrow, I guarantee you that over time a new subdivision of alpha would evolve, a “super-alpha” of sorts who would reign supreme over all the existing alphas.

You see, my point is this.
Humans are one of the most adaptable species walking this planet.
Physically and intellectually. Our adaptability is astounding.
PUA has historically been practiced by the very few.
And the rest…got married. Marriage is man’s contrived cultural tool which allowed him a steady and dependable supply of sex.

So as waves of men gradually assume their new role of PUA, then what?
Women will adapt and they will devise special counter-weaponry designed to fend off the common PUA. And a new legion of “super-PUAs” will step in to monopolize the worthiest of all women.

That is nature man.
A constant battle of forces, of yin and yang.
Nature dictates that for each attack there will be a defense.

So pessimistic little me must ask. How is the commercialization and ubiquitous presence of a rare art (which was so for a reason) deemed a good thing?

The bar has been raised and cocky and funny or negs will have lost most of their illustrious horsepower.

Interestingly, over on The Obsidian Files, a new post Why Women Frequent Game Forums which touches slightly on the phenomena of the petulant and headstrong woman who dives headfirst into the quagmire of the Game community and roars “it won’t work on me!” Only to prove it can work on her. Hmmm, Game must be powerful!

Obsidian extrapolates from a select few women who do have a tendency to hang out in that blogosector and suggests that Game still works in spite of the target’s full awareness of what’s happening and of course, her eventual relinquishment of sexual power to the Gamer.

I have trouble buying this argument. Most of the women who frequent PUA sites are really just their own category of “cybergroupie” and they enjoy the male attention in the same way that some chicks love football. For the surroundings it affords them. I highly doubt the women who crowd PUA forums are indicative of the general female population at large.