Behold, what may be the most hilarious Pickup Artist video ever. In it, someone calling himself Skills shows the fellas how to “open” ladies wordlessly, using only the seductive power of their sexy, sexy dancing. And not just one kind of dancing: Skills demonstrates smooth moves for all sorts of dances, from Disco to Latin to Booty to Rock ‘n’ Roll. (Today I Learned that “Take on Me” by A-ha is the untimate hard-rocking Rock ‘n” Roll number.) Apparently most styles of dancing require men to stare relentlessly at their partners’ breasts and general breast area.
Oddly, the woman Skills has seduced hired to appear in his video does not appear all that impressed with Skills’ skills. MISANDRY!
Oh, and WAIT! Before watching this, make sure that “annotations” are turned on. Otherwise you will not be able to fully appreciate the subtleties of Skills’ teachings.
The Only Pua you want near your door. Seriously, “Pua” is the name of the anteater. Google it if you don’t believe me.
So there’s an old school type of Pickup Artistry called Speed Seduction in which, instead of simply trying to manipulate the ladies into bed, our would-be seducers try to literally hypnotize their prey by repeating prefabricated “patterns” that supposedly work on people’s subconscious minds without them realizing it. The whole thing is based on something called Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), which most scientists seem to think is quackery. Most of the pickup techniques inspired by NLP are beyond ridiculous.
One NLP-inspired PUA “pattern,” for example, involves using the phrase “below me” when talking to the Hot Babes. Since “below me” sounds vaguely like “blow me,” you see, the Hot Babe you’re talking to will be subconsciously primed to want to give you a blow job. And no, I’m not making this up.
PUAHAte.com is an … interesting place. A site for debunking the ridiculous claims and shitty behavior of Pickup Artists? Sounds great – at least until you realize that the denizens are mostly dudes who hate PUAs for all the wrong reasons. That is, they hate PUAs not so much for being manipulative scumbags but for being ineffective manipulative scumbags — whose alleged magic formulas for bedding the hot babes don’t really work.
The other day I was introduced to a fledgling Twitter account, @puahate_txt, which reposts hilariously awful comments from PUAhate.com. This inspired me to take another look at the site and do a little poking around for awful quotes on my own. They weren’t hard to find. (It’s harder, really, to find comments that aren’t awful.)
Here’s one charming fellow, who calls himself ToadLookingMaggot, and who holds a grudge against the entire female gender because of a $3 loan gone awry.
After reading ” The manipulated man ” i saw women really for what they where, little selfish Moneysucking vampire Whores.
This rinsing stuff starts in high school if not earlier they try to leech money, food, free rides and basically anything that benefits them in some kind of form. I borrowed a female 3 dollars for meal a meal one time, for months she said that she was going to let me have it and in the end i never got them back.
It doesn’t matter if it’s 2 dollars or 2.000 dollars there freaks never pay you back. Only idiots buy drinks for women.
Men are ruining women because they let them get away with anything. Never in my life will i ever spend money on women unless we pay 5050 on a date.
Uh, obvious question here, but if you hate women, and think that they’re all “Moneysucking vampire Whores,” WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DATE THEM? I’m pretty sure that you’re not going to find many interested in you either, at least not after they get a whiff of your personality.
And that’s your PERSONALITY, not your looks. PUAhaters seem obsessed with the notion that women only date male models, and spend a lot of time bemoaning their own looks – I just quoted a guy who describes himself as a ToadLookingMaggot, after all. Yet whenever they post pictures of themselves they seem to be completely normal, average, not-actually-bad-looking-at-all guys. Guys, your problem isn’t your lack of beauty on the outside. What’s ugly is your attitudes.
Speaking of which, here’s RomanCitizen, a self-described Incel, lamenting that life is sad to all but the “top 10%” of men? Why? Because ladies walk around looking all pretty, yet for some reason they do not allow RomanCitizen to fuck them.
The life of man is a sad one
Excluding the top 10%.
Born into a world of plenty, of abundance, of denial.
See, smell, imagine.
Do not taste, touch, feel.
Like a caged animal in a harem, fed only occasionally fish heads (scraps in the game).
And when the caged animal gets the fish head (scrap), he is happy and rationalizes his pitiful existence, like many men …
But, the cage is still a cage. A fish head – still a fish head.
PROTIP: If you think of the women you don’t find sufficiently desirable as “fish heads,” and walk around in a perpetual boner-rage, you’re probably not going to seem especially charming to the women you do find desirable. Or to anyone else except perhaps the denizens of PUAHate.com. And not all of them, either.
All PUAs are equally douchey, but some PUAs are more equally douchey than others. Wait, wrong Orwell book.
Over on PUA dirtbag Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog, a guest poster calling himself Emmanuel Goldstein (oh, how clever) offers a rather revealing take on the psychology of “players” and pickup artists like himself.
After justifiably mocking “nice guys” for assuming that “girls choose men like people buy houses” – that is, by carefully weighing pros and cons and looking for the best deal – he suggests that
[p]layers … are more like that sweet old lady with saggy arms wearing a hairnet at your local supermarket, handing out free, tasty samples.
Stay with him; it will all make sense, sort of, in a moment.
Better than spending an evening with Firepower, I suspect.
I’ve heard tell that some Pickup Artists aren’t actually misogynistic pieces of shit. Unfortunately, I keep running across guys like Firepower here, whose blog I discovered only yesterday, and purely by accident (though evidently I’ve quoted him off the Spearhead a couple of times before)
Here he is doing some wonderful PR work for his fellow PUAs, defending them (and himself) against accusations that they treat women like “disposable blow-up dolls.” Not so, says Firepower:
I think we men can all agree that the REAL problem is those damn women’s libbers
So when I was poking around on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog the other day I ran across a guest post from someone calling himself Samseau accusing feminists of using racism to exploit men – that is, of expertly manipulating men of different races to fight one another instead of standing firm against the evil feminists and their evil agenda.
The post, while purporting to be somehow “above” the issue of race, is a muddled mess full of “white men have it worst” nonsense like this:
There’s no good way to illustrate this post so here’s sleepy Maru in a box.
Lady feminists! I have some terrible, terrible news for you from pickup artiste Heartiste, the would-be God Emperor of Poon. Apparently he and his pals have been having sex with you all.
Yesterday we looked at far-right manospheran clod/philosopher Vox Day’s melodramatic response to a Canadian sexbot ban that’s completely imaginary (but that Vox, natch, believed was real). Today, let’s look at an almost 3000-word post by one “Ian Ironwood” of the Red Pill Room, spelling out the dire implications of this imaginary legislation.
ProTip: Before writing 3000-word screeds denouncing something, spend 5 minutes with Teh Google to see if what you’re denouncing is in fact real.
So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that
provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?
The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?
Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.
Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the
This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …
One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.
Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.
NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.
I ran across this remarkable painting, titled “The Irritating Gentleman,” on Sheltered and Safe From Sorrow, a blog devoted to Victorian mourning rituals and other creepiness from that period. The gentleman in question seems to be a Victorian era Pickup Artist in action. He’s even peacocking, Mystery style, with that bow tie and stupid hat and even a non-ironic handlebar moustache. Probably the only thing keeping him from wearing aviator goggles is the fact that airplanes haven’t yet been invented.
What makes it all the worse is that the PUA’s target is clearly in mourning. As the blogger behind rawr I’m a tumblr notes:
She’s wearing all black in 1874. Black gloves, hat, cloak, and dress. In public. The whole nine yards. That’s not a fashion choice or a gothic thing. Back then when people wore all black like that, they were in mourning for someone who died. No one did mourning like the Victorians, that shit was an art form to them.
Someone in her family has died—she could even be a young widow. No one’s accompanying her either. With the carpet bag? She’s traveling alone while still in deep mourning. Look at the closeup. She’s got tears in her eyes. She is upset, devastated in a way that one is only when someone has died. And the guy’s still bothering her, like her problems are flippant bullshit and she needs to just smile or pay attention to him because ladies are supposed to be pleasing for men no matter what shit they’re going through. That’s not a look of “what an ass.” That’s a look of devastation that even in her pain, she’s expected to give people like him focus. She’s not mad. She’s hurt. And to add insult to injury? Everyone would be able to tell. It was a clear sign and still is in ways that someone is mourning, to dress in black crepe like that. He would know why she’s wearing all black, and he’s still demanding her attention.
