I will start from your more personal remarks:

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.