On line there had been a lot of chatter about PUA people. This acronym stands for pick up artist. This is all about the idea that a man can learn a technique get a whole load of women into bed.
While many a young male might benefit from a bit of advice on interacting with women from an older more experienced guy, the sort of advice on offer from PUA people really is stunningly, awfully, bizarrely bad.
Feminists have therefore targeted these people on line, and in real life, with lots of trolling, picketing and the like.
It is all pretty unsavoury. And, being anonymous here, I thought I might make a few observations.
Firstly, there is a whole pseudo scientific philosophical basis to this PUA thing, and it is about grounded in science as new earth creationism. There is a base assumption that there are 'alpha' and 'beta' males. I am not really aware of any research into this in human interaction, but even if it could be shown to be true, any given male would only ever be 'alpha' for a limited period of his life. He would be dependent on his father and later his son (in law) for protection much of the time. Any man who is honest will acknowledge that real men exhibit both alpha and beta behaviour (such that it exists) many times in a single day. Besides, the behaviour promoted by the PUA people, that is, a whole string of casual sexual liaisons, is not alpha behaviour at all, but beta. Alphas stick around to raise their offspring, giving their genetic offspring the best start, and best opportunity of becoming alpha themselves. The behaviour promoted by PUA is more like the lone wolf, any old blues guy could tell you that is beta.
Anyone who has been out with a bunch of guys know there is always one or two who turn women's heads. Whatever the PUA guys tell you, this is not to do with the way they behave (although confidence is always attractive, and arrogance a big turn off), how they look or whatever. but pheremones do have a role to play. If you want to be attractive, search 'Boar mate'. Seriously, this has been tested, it is better than any aftershave, or PUA course. Won't get you laid, but it might get you to a first date. Thirdly the view of women is mind boggling.
By now most of us can imagine there are people who think men are hunters and women 'prey'. But the scientific evidence is kind of different. Human males have much bigger balls and penises than their gorilla or chimpanzee counterparts. There is a scientific reason. Bigger balls make more sperm, this is needed because unlike gorilla's and chimpanzees, there is a certain amount of natural female promiscuity in humans. That is not to say all women are 'sluts', but the idea of the little innocent angel sitting at home is just as ridiculous as the whole slut thing. Alpha guys need bigger balls to produce lots of sperm to flood out the sperm of the beta guys, you know, those PUA people.
But why the bigger cocks? Well, there is only one real reason. Display. So women can see them. That has a very interesting implication. It is women that control the mating game. It is women that make the choice of mate. The idea that men 'compete' for females, and take them as prey, or a harem, is just societal bullshit. Guess what, women can get laid pretty easily. It really is pretty easy to find a guy that wants a fuck, check any dating website. Women get to choose.
For interesting insights into natural human sexual behaviour search the 'secret life of sperm'.
Which brings me to the feminist response to all this turd. Which is nearly as baffling. Feminists seem to be a collection of people specialising in group think. They talk amongst themselves and construct a model of reality against which they argue, and the real world continues unperturbed by what goes on in this bubble. I only ever heard about PUAs from feminists, yet some think this is average male behaviour and thought. For feminists, feminism is a good thing, but masculism (a word I have only heard from feminists) is the opposite. A bad thing. Where has the fight for equality gone?
The argument against the PUA people is based on the idea that it is part of 'rape culture', that it encourages abuse of women. This may be true. It probably is. But it is a secondary abuse. In the same way that women's magazines have denigrated women by promoting a dystopian unachievable image of the female form, creating a crisis of body image, so the PUA abuse young men by creating a false, unattainable, dystopian image of what it means to be a man. If young men react by lashing out, they do bear responsibility for whoever gets hit, but the first abuse by the PUA people is of young men.
I also see a parallel between the notion offered by feminists that women could 'have it all' to that offered by the PUA to young men. Folks, you never do get to have your cake and eat it. Women marching into the workplace means they must, necessarily, cede ground at home. It is not possible to be the ever present, attentive mother and a career woman. Not without a time machine. This talk of juggling work and home, that is what men have always done. The PUA also offer a great contradiction. The whole idea of 'playing the field' is to find an ideal partner. To still be 'playing the field' at 40, whatever a feminist or PUA guy might tell you, is just incredibly sad.
There are women who argue sensibly against the PUA abuse of young males, and who can see the contradiction in 'feminism good, masculism bad', but they are not the core voice of feminism. Nor are they likely to be in the near future. Did I mention I only heard about the whole PUA thing from feminists? Check out the 'Narcissism of small differences'.
To be clear, I believe in the equal worth of all people. I'm not sure all feminists do, and the PUA people also seem to have a very low opinion of men.
