Coffee shop owners face backlash after “pick-up artist” podcast exposed

Anonymous stories included rape-like scenario; creators responded with apologies.

Read the whole story

 

[yolo78]

If they move to France this will all be forgotten...

 

[orborborb]

huh?

 

[shinyliony]

SraCet[/url]":ngycswct]

MattEvansC3[/url]":ngycswct] ...
On a side note the pick up artists are using social engineering to effectively coerce these women. They are no different than any other scam artist that targets a person they believe is vulnerable enough to be duped by it. There is no more irony in showing support and concern for these victims then there is in showing concern and support for the OAP who's had their bank account raided because they thought they were speaking to someone in Microsoft tech support.

A lot of you guys seem to be taking it for granted that this PUA stuff actually works and is being used to trick completely unwilling women into casual sex.

You would do well to read The Game by Neil Strauss, which is a gonzo journalism account of the PUA community.

Most of these PUA guys seem to be hopelessly unsuccessful with women, most of the techniques have been discredited or never proven effective in the first place, and it's unclear if any of the techniques described in the book still work on anybody (as discussed at the end of the book).

So it's unclear to me that what you're so upset about actually exists.

Not sure if it was Neil Strauss, but I remember [citation needed] reading a deconstruction of the PUA experience that put it down as a numbers game.

Try 20 times, 30 times, 40 times a day, and eventually you'll have success [for certain values of 'try', 'eventually' and 'success'.]

 

[StillGridlocked]

'LilRedDog[/url]":1cguon0z]

StillGridlocked[/url]":1cguon0z]

'LilRedDog[/url]":1cguon0z]

SraCet[/url]":1cguon0z]

TomXP411[/url]":1cguon0z]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

I think a more pertinent question is: why do any women fuck d-bags??

Either they know, as you imply, or they don't; either way, it encourages/rewards the d-bag often enough (when the d-bag is just playing the numbers)...

Isn't it time women start adressing that some of them (enough) are teaching men being a d-bag works???

I mean: use all the words you want but the most addictive behavior is the inconsistent reward; getting laid is a fucking (pardon the pun) powerful reward...

I believe there are woman who were treated badly by their Fathers or worse and were always trying to please their Father - they don't know how to react to a man that treats them right. So they seek out men that they see as their Father. Maybe that sounds crazy but based on my life experience I believe it to be true.

I've met a few women like that through my friends brother. He treated women like garbage and had more women chasing him than you could believe.

Men cannot be, completely blamed for this; women need to help each other out of this mess too.. or , accept that their sisters are promoting behavior they themselves do not like..


Some woman like their hair pulled; very few of them are the kind of woman that wants permission asked first... (most of them wear pony-tails, but not all and some that wear pony-tails do not like their hair pulled)

What about the 16 year old kid that meets one of these women, first, before he meets the rest of women???
Is is his fault he was taught. the first time, by that kind of woman???

This is deeper than this thread can deal with...

I'm talking about behavior you can barely believe. My brothers friend took out this one girl from an all girls college a couple of times. She was the type of woman I described. A month or two later the story going around is that one night with another man - she was told to sleep outside in the dog house and she did. I had to hear it from a girl I knew at the school - Salve Regina College in Newport which is now coed.

But yes it's much deeper than this thread - true.

 

[Mitlov]

TomXP411[/url]":31lbthn2]

Mitlov[/url]":31lbthn2]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

First off, I have never once heard a girl/woman say she was "friendzoned," even though I've known plenty whose romantic desires went unanswered by a male friend. That's a red flag about the term.

The basic situation of being bummed out that you are romantically interested in someone who is friends with you but isn't romantically interested isn't sexist. The indignant, self-righteous attitude that nowadays often (but not always) accompanies that situation is the problem. Many of the people who use the term "friendzoned" also suggest that the girl OWES them for being such a good friend and OWES them to take it to the next level, and that's the misogynistic part. If someone is just bummed about about unrequited love but doesn't feel entitled/indignant/etc or feel that they are owed romance or sex for being kind, there's nothing misogynist about it.

 

[Kharma]

I don't believe that there is any anonymity on the Internet. Like a dead body in a swamp, the information eventually comes to the surface.

You can hide for a while, but, if someone really wants to know who you are and are willing to pay for competent help, the could find out who you are.

 

[ChrisSD]

'LilRedDog[/url]":2q6j0dlj]

StillGridlocked[/url]":2q6j0dlj]

'LilRedDog[/url]":2q6j0dlj]

SraCet[/url]":2q6j0dlj]

TomXP411[/url]":2q6j0dlj]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

I think a more pertinent question is: why do any women fuck d-bags??

Either they know, as you imply, or they don't; either way, it encourages/rewards the d-bag often enough (when the d-bag is just playing the numbers)...

Isn't it time women start adressing that some of them (enough) are teaching men being a d-bag works???

I mean: use all the words you want but the most addictive behavior is the inconsistent reward; getting laid is a fucking (pardon the pun) powerful reward...

I believe there are woman who were treated badly by their Fathers or worse and were always trying to please their Father - they don't know how to react to a man that treats them right. So they seek out men that they see as their Father. Maybe that sounds crazy but based on my life experience I believe it to be true.

I've met a few women like that through my friends brother. He treated women like garbage and had more women chasing him than you could believe.

Men cannot be, completely blamed for this; women need to help each other out of this mess too.. or , accept that their sisters are promoting behavior they themselves do not like..


Some woman like their hair pulled; very few of them are the kind of woman that wants permission asked first... (most of them wear pony-tails, but not all and some that wear pony-tails do not like their hair pulled)

What about the 16 year old kid that meets one of these women, first, before he meets the rest of women???
Is is his fault he was taught. the first time, by that kind of woman???

This is deeper than this thread can deal with...

That is just offensively insulting. Most males aren't knuckle dragging ignoramuses with the emotional intelligence of a two year old,

 

[Peevester]

thelee[/url]"p0mzwr8]Well as far as apologies go, those are pretty alright.

Ha, not in the least. He's doing the typical sociopath thing and disassociating himself from them, claiming that a persona "he developed" was misogynistic. And, he as much as said that he thought he could get away with it, but unfortunately he got caught. Fuck this guy!

If the story about assaulting a drugged woman in a hospital is true, he needs to be in prison, not just have his little coffee shop get badly reviewed. If it's not true, he's some kind of nut anyway, because who in hell would make shit like that up if they had a full set of marbles?

 

[vartec]

Static and Noise[/url]":370jtdsj]

beebee[/url]":370jtdsj]While you could deem them douches in the Yelp forum, an alternative is to say their coffee sucks in the review section, even if their coffee is fine. Because? Because they are douche bags.

And self-admitted rapists (one of them). Goes a bit beyond "douchebag".

They have no problem admitting that, because most likely it's not real. Just like most, if not all, of their conquests. It's the same BS as Ashely Maddison, where there were no real women. And like in case of AM, the lie serves as a honey pot to attract some dumb and needy assholes.

 

[Jon Ghast]

'LilRedDog[/url]":nzgymsfl]Some woman like their hair pulled; very few of them are the kind of woman that wants permission asked first... (most of them wear pony-tails, but not all and some that wear pony-tails do not like their hair pulled)

You can tell by the tone of this post that women having individual thoughts or desires was a something of a revelation. Like he's dolling out hard won wisdom. Or describing the behavior of some rare wild animal.

 

[0bliv!on]

I don't really see the issue. The reaction is a little paternalistic in that even though the women they actually slept with didn't have an issue with it, others are speaking up basically being offended and outraged on their behalf.

Also, almost no one has raised that they were effectively doxxed, and yet the person doing the doxxing has received (apparently) no backlash despite that being deemed despicable and vile by everyone on the social justice side of the issue. Remember how Zoe Quinn was outed (and not even doxxed) and people lined up to defend her despite her abusive treatment of her boyfriend? Where is that same love and tolerance now for these two guys who're clearly victims of doxxing?

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

edwardangle[/url]":gxjxagoe]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

 

[Static and Noise]

edwardangle[/url]":1xih4dq2]

Static and Noise[/url]":1xih4dq2]

Kristofff[/url]":1xih4dq2]

edwardangle[/url]":1xih4dq2]

TomXP411[/url]":1xih4dq2]

Mitlov[/url]":1xih4dq2]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

I'm calling the SJW hotline right now and reporting you. To even suggest that men would think of sex or gravitate towards women they want to copulate with due to biological urges upsets the universal truth that everything a person is or does is dictated by socialization. Gender and biology are social constructs.

Some of us are self-aware, and not slaves to whatever impulses we have, biological or not. If a man can't be friends with a woman and see her like he sees a man (IE, like a person first of all), then they're lacking in self-awareness, simply.

And ho boy, you anti-Social Justice types really, really misunderstand the actual arguments used by actual Social Justice types.

But you do have those impulses? I guess I don't need to ask, you say as much. I don't care whether you are aware of it or not. I'm aware of it. I brought it up. I must be aware of it.

Didn't you essentially agree with me? You have feelings, but you restrain yourself and "treat them like people". You don't treat them like men. You wouldn't be much of a man if you did. "Yeah, go ahead, you carry the 60lb box".

You can't exactly be friends with someone your body desires, no matter how hard you will away biological imperatives. Not in the way men are friends with one another (unless they're gay).

I don't care whether you restrain those feelings. You have them. You are just repressing them. And that's good. How very conservative and restrained of you. Not an ounce of liberality in that.

*blank stare*

I don't know what kind reality of you live in. And I'm glad.

 

[bthylafh]

strohminator[/url]":ymcpbuhc]SJWs to the rescue! They'll fix all the evil in the world for sure.

Using "SJW" as a pejorative is an automatic plonk.

 

[edwardangle]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":bwfe9vt5]

edwardangle[/url]":bwfe9vt5]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

I've had men say so in all sorts of situations. Including in the company of women. I've had women ask their male friends.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-friends/

Since this is a website supposedly frequented by science buffs I hope this link clears things up.

 

[Kharma]

Personally, I see no problem with outing these kinds of people. It allows people to vote with their money. I certainly wouldn't recommend that my mother, wife or daughter to patronize any more than I would recommend a daycare that employs a rapist or pedophile.

Why? Because we don't know what these two clowns are really like. They might be and act like their online personal or they might be the momma's boys that live in her basement. But I do know that most psychopaths start out small before they become serial rapists or killers. The fact that they could ever think that this was funny or acceptable is disturbing.

Just like someone who spouts the KKK party line, is more capable of injuring someone of another race. It is the classic Hitler playbook. Denigrate and dehumanize your enemy and it makes it even easier to slide down that slippery slope. Even the Jews in pre-war Germany thought the Nazis were just being boys being noise.

TLR: Where there is smoke, there is fire

 

[Joe Buck]

Static and Noise[/url]":1x04nqbe]

One of those podcasts, as mentioned by a report at Jezebel, included Owens telling a story about having sex with someone at a hospital who was drugged—to which Rutledge responded, "Could she give consent?" before the duo began laughing.

So he's admitted to being a rapist. Wonder if the woman could be identified and if she was aware enough of what was happenening so that Owens could be sent to jail. Or if he'll get away with it.

I am sure that they will say that the podcast is fiction, some kind of sick fantasy. And it might even be true (I hope so) that these are two dweebs who fantasized about scoring with their hot customers but had no way of knowing how to go about it. But if it turns out to be true, lengthy jail time.

 

['LilRedDog]

Jon Ghast[/url]":uus8qiu5]

'LilRedDog[/url]":uus8qiu5]Some woman like their hair pulled; very few of them are the kind of woman that wants permission asked first... (most of them wear pony-tails, but not all and some that wear pony-tails do not like their hair pulled)

You can tell by the tone of this post that women having individual thoughts or desires was a something of a revelation. Like he's dolling out hard won wisdom. Or describing the behavior of some rare wild animal.

It was a revelation that some women like their hairs pulled.... It was a paradigm shift of a revelation...

Not that they have individual thoughts but that some, really, like it rough... IOW: thoughts like that.

I was in my 30's...

ChrisSD[/url]":uus8qiu5]

'LilRedDog[/url]":uus8qiu5]

StillGridlocked[/url]":uus8qiu5]

'LilRedDog[/url]":uus8qiu5]

SraCet[/url]":uus8qiu5]

TomXP411[/url]":uus8qiu5]What the heck is with these "pick up artists" anyway? It seems to me that the only way you can justify this kind of sociopathic behavior is if you really do believe that women are just objects or toys.

Do you guys think this is just a case of people being dumb because it's the Internet and they can get away with it, or do you really think this is how these men view women - as nothing more than toys to be played with and discarded when they're no longer interesting?
...

Your apparent concern for women is noble but ironic.

Do you think women are so helpless and stupid that they don't know when they're being hit on by d-bags?

I think a more pertinent question is: why do any women fuck d-bags??

Either they know, as you imply, or they don't; either way, it encourages/rewards the d-bag often enough (when the d-bag is just playing the numbers)...

Isn't it time women start adressing that some of them (enough) are teaching men being a d-bag works???

I mean: use all the words you want but the most addictive behavior is the inconsistent reward; getting laid is a fucking (pardon the pun) powerful reward...

I believe there are woman who were treated badly by their Fathers or worse and were always trying to please their Father - they don't know how to react to a man that treats them right. So they seek out men that they see as their Father. Maybe that sounds crazy but based on my life experience I believe it to be true.

I've met a few women like that through my friends brother. He treated women like garbage and had more women chasing him than you could believe.

Men cannot be, completely blamed for this; women need to help each other out of this mess too.. or , accept that their sisters are promoting behavior they themselves do not like..


Some woman like their hair pulled; very few of them are the kind of woman that wants permission asked first... (most of them wear pony-tails, but not all and some that wear pony-tails do not like their hair pulled)

What about the 16 year old kid that meets one of these women, first, before he meets the rest of women???
Is is his fault he was taught. the first time, by that kind of woman???

This is deeper than this thread can deal with...

That is just offensively insulting. Most males aren't knuckle dragging ignoramuses with the emotional intelligence of a two year old,

No!!!!

I think, like he said (from his perspective) "There are no special girls (boys). There are cool ones and lame ones. There are ones who've earned investment and ones that haven't. That's it..."

I'm pretty sure that is how both sexes choose their mates...

Now: we are just arguing about how we find the ones that "earn investment"...

...and for the last time: I'm saying women you think are disgusting are worthwhile to someone... Even if they are looking for some guy that treats them like shit... It's their call; unless you think women are, inherently, stupid..

Help your sisters out if you think she is wrong... Fathers can, but men can't.

-edit- had to fix the quotes/html and the quote

 

[lunix]

foxyshadis[/url]":kiuxdwfo]

beebee[/url]":kiuxdwfo]While you could deem them douches in the Yelp forum, an alternative is to say their coffee sucks in the review section, even if their coffee is fine. Because? Because they are douche bags.

Opening yourself up to a defamation lawsuit is the best way to satisfy internet rage! Yes! That can't possibly backfire.

If you want to go in and try some and then say it sucks, though, that's perfectly legal. (That's just, like, your opinion, man.)

That's right! After all, this is not 'Nam. There are rules.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

edwardangle[/url]":z9ozuems]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":z9ozuems]

edwardangle[/url]":z9ozuems]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

I've had men say so in all sorts of situations. Including in the company of women. I've had women ask their male friends.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-friends/

Since this is a website supposedly frequented by science buffs I hope this link clears things up.

Doesn't actually support:

she is an object of desire first and foremost.

Nor:

I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

This is especially true if you follow the link and go to Table 1 on page 575. When you put the SD bars on it, there is a lot of overlap between the genders.

So, you repulsive and projecting it is.

 

[0010110SYN]

So, how many girls are they picking up now?

 

[edwardangle]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":35fs4cxs]

edwardangle[/url]":35fs4cxs]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":35fs4cxs]

edwardangle[/url]":35fs4cxs]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

I've had men say so in all sorts of situations. Including in the company of women. I've had women ask their male friends.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-friends/

Since this is a website supposedly frequented by science buffs I hope this link clears things up.

Doesn't actually support:

she is an object of desire first and foremost.

Nor:

I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

This is especially true if you follow the link and go to Table 1 on page 575. When you put the SD bars on it, there is a log of gender overlap.

So, you repulsive and projecting it is.

To start with the second statement doesn't need support. It's something I'm saying about my own experience. It's purely anecdotal.

Can you link me to page 575 table 1?. I'm having trouble finding it.

 

[ganjadude43]

Kharma[/url]":88pz4q90]Personally, I see no problem with outing these kinds of people. It allows people to vote with their money. I certainly wouldn't recommend that my mother, wife or daughter to patronize any more than I would recommend a daycare that employs a rapist or pedophile.

Why? Because we don't know what these two clowns are really like. They might be and act like their online personal or they might be the momma's boys that live in her basement. But I do know that most psychopaths start out small before they become serial rapists or killers. The fact that they could ever think that this was funny or acceptable is disturbing.

Just like someone who spouts the KKK party line, is more capable of injuring someone of another race. It is the classic Hitler playbook. Denigrate and dehumanize your enemy and it makes it even easier to slide down that slippery slope. Even the Jews in pre-war Germany thought the Nazis were just being boys being noise.

TLR: Where there is smoke, there is fire

to play devils advocate......

he claims it was a persona that was created. how is that any different than any other art?

do we hold johnny depp responsible for the actions of his character in blow? Of course not*

now realistically you are totally right and these guys are just a couple of low lives.

but with everyone having the option of getting into performing arts with a webcam and internet connection, it is a little harder to say what is "real" and what is not



* - ignoring the fact that blow was a biopic and we did in fact hold the actual george jung responsible of course

 

[Static and Noise]

edwardangle[/url]":3cefgzzz]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":3cefgzzz]

edwardangle[/url]":3cefgzzz]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":3cefgzzz]

edwardangle[/url]":3cefgzzz]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

I've had men say so in all sorts of situations. Including in the company of women. I've had women ask their male friends.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-friends/

Since this is a website supposedly frequented by science buffs I hope this link clears things up.

Doesn't actually support:

she is an object of desire first and foremost.

Nor:

I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

This is especially true if you follow the link and go to Table 1 on page 575. When you put the SD bars on it, there is a log of gender overlap.

So, you repulsive and projecting it is.

To start with the second statement doesn't need support. It's something I'm saying about my own experience. It's purely anecdotal.

Can you link me to page 575 table 1?. I'm having trouble finding it.

It's in the actual study, linked to in the article you posted, which is a pop-write up of it (IE, exaggerated a lot).

http://bleske-rechek.com/April%20Websit ... Burden.pdf

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

edwardangle[/url]":3rs61hpo]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":3rs61hpo]

edwardangle[/url]":3rs61hpo]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":3rs61hpo]

edwardangle[/url]":3rs61hpo]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

I've had men say so in all sorts of situations. Including in the company of women. I've had women ask their male friends.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-friends/

Since this is a website supposedly frequented by science buffs I hope this link clears things up.

Doesn't actually support:

she is an object of desire first and foremost.

Nor:

I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

This is especially true if you follow the link and go to Table 1 on page 575. When you put the SD bars on it, there is a log of gender overlap.

So, you repulsive and projecting it is.

To start with the second statement doesn't need support. It's something I'm saying about my own experience. It's purely anecdotal.

Thus my concern about your observations described being self-selected data, as you are coming off as both repulsive and projecting.

Can you link me to page 575 table 1?. I'm having trouble finding it.

You didn't glance at the study muchless read it? LOL No, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The link is near the top of the page you linked to, page numbers are on the top right.

 

[di0genic]

renny[/url]":1c0bkd98]

thelee[/url]":1c0bkd98]Well as far as apologies go, those are pretty alright.

Of course they are.

These guys are self-identifying sociopaths .... erm, I mean, "pick-up artists". They have perfected the art of saying what people want to hear.

Well put. They probably have a PR consultant or PR savvy lawyer retained until this blows over as well. I don't see another explanation for their sudden and empathetic about face.

 

[drachasor]

edwardangle[/url]":10hgtyv6]

TomXP411[/url]":10hgtyv6]

Mitlov[/url]":10hgtyv6]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Then you are asking the wrong men. What you said is insane.

 

[ganjadude43]

Joe Buck[/url]":dpvbuz33]

Static and Noise[/url]":dpvbuz33]

One of those podcasts, as mentioned by a report at Jezebel, included Owens telling a story about having sex with someone at a hospital who was drugged—to which Rutledge responded, "Could she give consent?" before the duo began laughing.

So he's admitted to being a rapist. Wonder if the woman could be identified and if she was aware enough of what was happenening so that Owens could be sent to jail. Or if he'll get away with it.

I am sure that they will say that the podcast is fiction, some kind of sick fantasy. And it might even be true (I hope so) that these are two dweebs who fantasized about scoring with their hot customers but had no way of knowing how to go about it. But if it turns out to be true, lengthy jail time.

didnt bernie sanders write a book saying essentially the same thing?

 

[sttm]

Someone call PC Principal, those guys need their privilege checked ASAP!

 

[Rathadin]

shinyliony[/url]":1cr3uj41]

SraCet[/url]":1cr3uj41]

MattEvansC3[/url]":1cr3uj41] ...
On a side note the pick up artists are using social engineering to effectively coerce these women. They are no different than any other scam artist that targets a person they believe is vulnerable enough to be duped by it. There is no more irony in showing support and concern for these victims then there is in showing concern and support for the OAP who's had their bank account raided because they thought they were speaking to someone in Microsoft tech support.

A lot of you guys seem to be taking it for granted that this PUA stuff actually works and is being used to trick completely unwilling women into casual sex.

You would do well to read The Game by Neil Strauss, which is a gonzo journalism account of the PUA community.

Most of these PUA guys seem to be hopelessly unsuccessful with women, most of the techniques have been discredited or never proven effective in the first place, and it's unclear if any of the techniques described in the book still work on anybody (as discussed at the end of the book).

So it's unclear to me that what you're so upset about actually exists.

Not sure if it was Neil Strauss, but I remember [citation needed] reading a deconstruction of the PUA experience that put it down as a numbers game.

Try 20 times, 30 times, 40 times a day, and eventually you'll have success [for certain values of 'try', 'eventually' and 'success'.]

How would you master programming?

I know of two ways... you pick up a book or use an online resource for cheap, and spend thousands of hours doing it... or you go to college?

How would you master successfully interacting and fucking women?

The same exact way. To be good at anything, you must practice it. Looks, money, social status, they all help, but there are traits that would help you be a better programmer innately too - logic courses, advanced mathematics, and basic computer classes.

There's really no difference, only that PUAs are interested in mastering how to get women and programmers are interested in how to manipulate computers.

EDIT: Programmers don't fuck computers with no electricity and thus unable to consent to programming though, so there's that, I guess.

 

[Tyler X. Durden]

Static and Noise[/url]":24l16rm6]

edwardangle[/url]":24l16rm6]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":24l16rm6]

edwardangle[/url]":24l16rm6]

Tyler X. Durden[/url]":24l16rm6]

edwardangle[/url]":24l16rm6]
None of this is helped by the fact that men and women can't be friends in the first place. Men don't see women the way they see other men. If she is a woman of breeding age, she is an object of desire first and foremost. It's just the nature of men. I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps there is self-selection going on, that your data is limited to those men that aren't so repulsed by you that they don't actually want to talk to you and/or your attitude and belligerence so transparent that nobody has wanted to endure popping your delusion bubble about what you want to be true and isn't actively resisting your projection?

I've had men say so in all sorts of situations. Including in the company of women. I've had women ask their male friends.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... t-friends/

Since this is a website supposedly frequented by science buffs I hope this link clears things up.

Doesn't actually support:

she is an object of desire first and foremost.

Nor:

I've never had a man, in private, tell me otherwise.

This is especially true if you follow the link and go to Table 1 on page 575. When you put the SD bars on it, there is a log of gender overlap.

So, you repulsive and projecting it is.

To start with the second statement doesn't need support. It's something I'm saying about my own experience. It's purely anecdotal.

Can you link me to page 575 table 1?. I'm having trouble finding it.

It's in the actual study, linked to in the article you posted, which is a pop-write up of it (IE, exaggerated a lot).

http://bleske-rechek.com/April%20Websit ... Burden.pdf

Yeah, it is lacking in it's summation and representation of the article. Word-count filler. And then edwardangle leapt off from even there. *sigh*

 

[shinyliony]

Rathadin[/url]":vclwq2y2]

shinyliony[/url]":vclwq2y2]

SraCet[/url]":vclwq2y2]

MattEvansC3[/url]":vclwq2y2] ...
On a side note the pick up artists are using social engineering to effectively coerce these women. They are no different than any other scam artist that targets a person they believe is vulnerable enough to be duped by it. There is no more irony in showing support and concern for these victims then there is in showing concern and support for the OAP who's had their bank account raided because they thought they were speaking to someone in Microsoft tech support.

A lot of you guys seem to be taking it for granted that this PUA stuff actually works and is being used to trick completely unwilling women into casual sex.

You would do well to read The Game by Neil Strauss, which is a gonzo journalism account of the PUA community.

Most of these PUA guys seem to be hopelessly unsuccessful with women, most of the techniques have been discredited or never proven effective in the first place, and it's unclear if any of the techniques described in the book still work on anybody (as discussed at the end of the book).

So it's unclear to me that what you're so upset about actually exists.

Not sure if it was Neil Strauss, but I remember [citation needed] reading a deconstruction of the PUA experience that put it down as a numbers game.

Try 20 times, 30 times, 40 times a day, and eventually you'll have success [for certain values of 'try', 'eventually' and 'success'.]

How would you master programming?

I know of two ways... you pick up a book or use an online resource for cheap, and spend thousands of hours doing it... or you go to college?

How would you master successfully interacting and fucking women?

The same exact way. To be good at anything, you must practice it. Looks, money, social status, they all help, but there are traits that would help you be a better programmer innately too - logic courses, advanced mathematics, and basic computer classes.

There's really no difference, only that PUAs are interested in mastering how to get women and programmers are interested in how to manipulate computers.

EDIT: Programmers don't fuck computers with no electricity and thus unable to consent to programming though, so there's that, I guess.

If you indiscriminately tackle 20, 30, 40 different programming problems per day, and try to apply a bubble sort algorithm to solve them. Eventually you'll find a problem for which a bubble sort works.

It doesn't mean you're a master programmer.

In the same way, a PUA who indiscriminately says "You're ugly, wanna go to bed?" to 20, 30, 40 women a day, every day, will get slapped a lot, but will eventually [citation needed] find someone who says yes.

[Edit - I analogy bad before lunch]

 

[drachasor]

Rathadin[/url]":3fhciqtf]

shinyliony[/url]":3fhciqtf]

SraCet[/url]":3fhciqtf]

MattEvansC3[/url]":3fhciqtf] ...
On a side note the pick up artists are using social engineering to effectively coerce these women. They are no different than any other scam artist that targets a person they believe is vulnerable enough to be duped by it. There is no more irony in showing support and concern for these victims then there is in showing concern and support for the OAP who's had their bank account raided because they thought they were speaking to someone in Microsoft tech support.

A lot of you guys seem to be taking it for granted that this PUA stuff actually works and is being used to trick completely unwilling women into casual sex.

You would do well to read The Game by Neil Strauss, which is a gonzo journalism account of the PUA community.

Most of these PUA guys seem to be hopelessly unsuccessful with women, most of the techniques have been discredited or never proven effective in the first place, and it's unclear if any of the techniques described in the book still work on anybody (as discussed at the end of the book).

So it's unclear to me that what you're so upset about actually exists.

Not sure if it was Neil Strauss, but I remember [citation needed] reading a deconstruction of the PUA experience that put it down as a numbers game.

Try 20 times, 30 times, 40 times a day, and eventually you'll have success [for certain values of 'try', 'eventually' and 'success'.]

How would you master programming?

I know of two ways... you pick up a book or use an online resource for cheap, and spend thousands of hours doing it... or you go to college?

How would you master successfully interacting and fucking women?

The same exact way. To be good at anything, you must practice it. Looks, money, social status, they all help, but there are traits that would help you be a better programmer innately too - logic courses, advanced mathematics, and basic computer classes.

There's really no difference, only that PUAs are interested in mastering how to get women and programmers are interested in how to manipulate computers.

EDIT: Programmers don't fuck computers with no electricity and thus unable to consent to programming though, so there's that, I guess.

You are a bad programmer if there's no difference. Programming is not a numbers game (also it isn't unethical).

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Mitlov[/url]":1xagjgui]

TomXP411[/url]":1xagjgui]

Mitlov[/url]":1xagjgui]It's somewhat connected with another phenomenon, the "nice guy" or "friendzone" phenomenon. There, the guy feels that women are vending machines where you put in kindness and should thus automatically get out sex.

I'm always a little offended by the way people belittle the term "friend zone," and automatically label it as sexist. It's a concise term to describe of a fairly common state where romantic and platonic feelings are not balanced in a relationship, and I find it condescending when someone hears the term and automatically equates it with "that person just wants sex."

Because relationships are about a lot more than sex, and plenty of people who would like to escalate a friendship to a romantic relationship, but can't, aren't looking to just get laid.

Quite frankly, the dismissal of the concept as sexist is just as offensive to me as the what the people who dismiss it are implying. It completely dismisses a person's feelings as sexist or wrong, when nothing is more normal or commonplace than to be attracted to someone that doesn't see you as a romantic partner but still enjoys your company platonically.

First off, I have never once heard a girl/woman say she was "friendzoned," even though I've known plenty whose romantic desires went unanswered by a male friend. That's a red flag about the term.

The basic situation of being bummed out that you are romantically interested in someone who is friends with you but isn't romantically interested isn't sexist. The indignant, self-righteous attitude that nowadays often (but not always) accompanies that situation is the problem. Many of the people who use the term "friendzoned" also suggest that the girl OWES them for being such a good friend and OWES them to take it to the next level, and that's the misogynistic part. If someone is just bummed about about unrequited love but doesn't feel entitled/indignant/etc or feel that they are owed romance or sex for being kind, there's nothing misogynist about it.

To me it really boils down to socialized gender roles. Guys complain about being "friendzoned" because they're the ones who put time/energy into getting to know a girl only to have it fall short. I don't think guys would have much to complain about if things were more balanced as to who does the pursuing.

We blame guys a lot because they're the ones playing offense. It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback.

With that being said I will do some of my own arm chair quarterbacking. Guys need to wake up and realize how important having female friends is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being "friendzoned" if a girl is genuinely honest about wanting you to be their friend. Secondly guys need to stop dating women they don't share any interests with. Of course being "friendzoned" sucks when you have nothing in common with a girl, and can't do anything with her that's fun.