GabrielDuquette comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - Less Wrong

48 Post author: lukeprog 05 November 2011 11:06AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1529)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 November 2011 06:39:37AM 10 points [-]

I have purposefully stayed out of the PUA discussion so far, but as it is still going on and no one seems to have taken a macro view, I am going to just this once give some of my opinion on it:

I think that the vast majority of people on this site want a general egalitarianism between the sexes. I’m not saying that I think men and women are completely equal in all ways, but rather that I think that women making 80 cents to the dollar is bad. Males growing up being taught to be ashamed to talk about feelings (especially in cases like PTSD or suicide) is bad. All the hidden messages society teaches our children about what they can’t do because of their gender is bad.

Rationalize it however you want. Call it utilitarianism or values ethics or whatever. But I for one want to live in a society where the children I care for don’t have their choices limited (directly or indirectly) by their gender. I am willing to bet that the majority of people on this site, both male and female, agree with me. If I am wrong about that, well then I wouldn’t want to be on this site anyway. But how does that apply to PUA?

Parts of PUA may work. Parts may be moral. Parts may be immoral. I will definitely say that I think SOME of it is misogynist. I will also agree that there is stuff out there that is completely OK. But all of that is irrelevant to the point I want to make now, which is that PUA is bad for gender equality in the macro view.

Don’t focus on the ethics of ONE guy seducing ONE girl, who may or may not want to be seduced. Think about the affect of MANY guys thinking of women as “things to be seduced”, and countless young girls stumbling upon PUA on the internet or on the tv, and consequently thinking of THEMSELVES as things to be seduced.

In other words, my problem with PUA is that it precipitates a CULTURE that is not conducive to gender equality. Of course, PUA isn’t the only problem, nor is it even the main problem. For example, I think this is a WAY more important fight than PUA.

That being said, I do not think all PUA stuff is bad. I myself am, for all intents and purposes, a professional PUA, and when I looked it up on the internet (after reading so much about it here), I actually thought it was pretty amazing that they had terms for the stuff I learned through trial and error. So I definitely don’t want to bash everything that PUA can teach on an individual basis.

What then to do about men who lack the confidence and social skills to obtain relationships? Firstly, I would like to say that I think this is another way that gender inequality raises its head. Females are socialized from childhood to have high social skills. Men are not. Therefore they have trouble interacting with the generally much higher social skills of women. (Guys, think of a person you know with the lowest level of social skills. Imagine having a conversation with them. Get the picture?)

I would be totally ok, if certain aspects of PUA were taught instead as general social skills. Not “how to seduce women”, but rather “how to strike up conversations with random people and have them like you”. I would even be ok if there were UNDER THE GENERAL RULES some specific exceptions for how to interact with women, and how to interact with men. However the very one-sided way it is right now (with some small exception to girl game) is NOT helpful to humanity overall, regardless of whether it actually works or not. And regardless of whether it is moral on a case-by-case basis or not.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:06:52AM 5 points [-]

Upvoted for:

I would be totally ok, if certain aspects of PUA were taught instead as general social skills. Not “how to seduce women”, but rather “how to strike up conversations with random people and have them like you”.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:30:18AM *  6 points [-]

I can talk to anyone, you're engaging, he's a creepy PUA?

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:33:57AM 1 point [-]

I don't understand the question, sorry. Will you rephrase?

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:38:45AM 0 points [-]

I'm playing the usual game: I'm <something positive>, you're <something neutral>, he's <something negative>. It's not really a question.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:51:57AM 1 point [-]

I still don't really get it. Are you opposed to repurposing PUA soft technology to help teach social skills?

I don't care if people use PUA otherwise and I certainly don't want to get caught in this thread's quagmire.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 November 2011 01:25:08AM 6 points [-]

I still don't really get it.

It's a lighthearted cultural reference (which does have something of a useful moral embedded within). A common form is "I'm strong willed, you're stubborn and she's pig headed". It is just a comment about the same thing being labelled differently depending on how closely we associate with it. It tends to be approximately neutral to the subject matter.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 01:37:53AM 0 points [-]

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 12:56:02AM 0 points [-]

I don't have an opinion on PUA. I'm just playing a game.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 November 2011 11:10:49PM *  0 points [-]

I'm still chewing this one over. Can you give me an example of persuasion that doesn't follow this format in some way? How would I convince <someone neutral> to stop doing <something negative> without first qualifying my idea as <something positive>? Is it bad if these categories are personified?