Presented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, well-known classifier of hate groups and the like.

The newest "hate group" - pick up artists and "mens rights" advocates (link might be NSFW due to language).

A few excerpts of these allgedly hate-filled sites:

MensActivism
This website tracks news and information about men’s issues from around the world, with a focus on activism — and outrage. Par for the course are lurid headlines like this one: “Pakistani wife kills, cooks husband for lusting over daughter.” The site also runs stories like the one it headlined “Australia: Girl, 13, charged after taxi knife attack” that involve no abuse accusations, but are merely meant to undermine what the site claims is “the myth that women are less violent than men.”

RooshV
Roosh Vörek is a Maryland-raised PUA (“pick up artist”) whose specialty is sex with foreign women; his blog is a sales vehicle for his books like Bang: The Pick Up Bible and Bang Iceland: How to Sleep With Icelandic Women in Iceland, which one Icelandic feminist group described as a “rape guide.” Vörek likes to talk about his many “notches” (seductions) and such things as “American who I want to hate *.” He adds: “I’ll be the first to admit that many of my bangs in the United States were hate . The masculine attitude and lack of care these women put into their style or hair irritated me, so I made it a point to them and never call again.”

A Voice for Men
A Voice for Men is essentially a mouthpiece for its editor, Paul Elam, who proposes to “expose misandry on all levels in our culture.” Elam tosses down the gauntlet in his mission statement: “AVfM regards feminists, [a derisive term for weak men], white knights and other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would clansmen, skinheads, neo Nazis or other purveyors of hate.” Register-Her.com, an affiliated website that vilifies women by name who have made supposedly false rape allegations (among other crimes against masculinity), is one of Elam’s signature “anti-hate” efforts. “Why are these women not in prison?” the site asks.

Now I won't dispute that some of these sites (more at the link, and many of them really are vile) aren't exactly "tame" or include well-reasoned arguments. But the idea that any opposition to feminism, or the idea that false allegations of rape should be punished**, means a group is engaged in hate speech, or is a "woman-hating site" is absurd.

I wonder if SPLC is hurting for money and they're trying to reach out to an untapped market for donations.

* No mention of the Playboy article headlined with this term, oddly enough.
** Seriously, does anyone believe false allegations of rape shouldn't be punished?

This doesn't surprise me really. Over the last decade I've seen a growing trend in some areas that are very anti-women, some going so far as to denying rape should be a crime, often using Ayn Rand to back up the argument, as well as general attitudes toward women. I was going to say that I was surprised there is enough people to get listed, but then most hate groups tend to be very small in number.

Given that feminism is defined as equality between genders (before the inevitable whining, yes, I know that some so-called "feminists" aren't by this definition), opposing feminism would by necessity mean promoting inequality.

With that logic, it's not hard at all to see how these sites are defined as hate sites.

Ahtman wrote:This doesn't surprise me really. Over the last decade I've seen a growing trend in some areas that are very anti-women, some going so far as to denying rape should be a crime, often using Ayn Rand to back up the argument, as well as general attitudes toward women. I was going to say that I was surprised there is enough people to get listed, but then most hate groups tend to be very small in number.

Yes, but really, RooshV (I have no idea who that is, just basing this on the blurb posted)? He's a pick-up artist, a pig, and a sleazebag, but is it necessarily "hateful" to sleep with women and then not call them?

What's next, the various "meme" websites for using the "get back in the kitchen" meme? Or Obama supporters for the "iron my shirt" gag in '08?

biccat wrote: Seriously, does anyone believe false allegations of rape shouldn't be punished?

It depends. Its possible to believe that you were raped without having the actual event fit the legal standard, or for there simply to be insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. Are we going to punish people who claim they were raped if the defendant was found innocent, or couldn't be tried?

Considering that rape is already under-reported, that seems foolish.

Certainly someone who was falsely accused of rape could seek civil restitution under defamation law.

biccat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:This doesn't surprise me really. Over the last decade I've seen a growing trend in some areas that are very anti-women, some going so far as to denying rape should be a crime, often using Ayn Rand to back up the argument, as well as general attitudes toward women. I was going to say that I was surprised there is enough people to get listed, but then most hate groups tend to be very small in number.

Yes, but really, RooshV (I have no idea who that is, just basing this on the blurb posted)? He's a pick-up artist, a pig, and a sleazebag, but is it necessarily "hateful" to sleep with women and then not call them?

What's next, the various "meme" websites for using the "get back in the kitchen" meme? Or Obama supporters for the "iron my shirt" gag in '08?

umm... "pick up artists" practice and preach techniques that rely on manipulation. Psychological, environmental and otherwise. they indoctrinate to their students the idea that women are "statistics" rather than people. They de-humanize their prey

pretty much the same techniques that sexual predators use :p

so im not sure they fit the description of "hate-crimes" but its waaaaaaaaaay beyond sleeping with women and not calling them

Makes sense. The "Pick-up Artist" movement core tenant is basically that women are sex machines, those don't want to have sex with you are broken and you "Fix" them through emotional manipulation.

"Men's Rights" groups basically just white dudes clubs upset that people other than white dudes are starting to take relevant positions in society.

Bakerofish wrote:
umm... "pick up artists" practice and preach techniques that rely on manipulation. Psychological, environmental and otherwise. they indoctrinate to their students the idea that women are "statistics" rather than people. They de-humanize their prey

pretty much the same techniques that sexual predators use :p

.... or salesman.

Granted. I'm not a fan of the movement.

I also refer to the comment section of this article:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/03/daily-chart-6

You'll notice a lot of people who simply say that "women deserve it", or outright dismissing the problem because ther are a (much smaller) number of women who abuse their male spouses.

It is an unfortunate problem in our society, a hold-over from an inglorious past culture that we're still trying to get rid of.

A stain on America's pride.

@easy e

I've never had a salesman try to get me drunk before

I have had a salesman try to get in my skirt before ,but I think HE was drunk.

Bakerofish wrote:@easy e

I've never had a salesman try to get me drunk before

Then he wasn't selling you something expensive enough.

Bakerofish wrote:@easy e

I've never had a salesman try to get me drunk before

Now, there are laws against that. A contract signed by an intoxicated person is not valid.

I'm just saying, a lot of techniques from the sales world easily cross over to PUA territory.

Melissia wrote:I have had a salesman try to get in my skirt before ,but I think HE was drunk.

@easy e

i was about to ask if you guys had a law about that.

but yeah i guess the techniques and mindset are similar but with things like sexual and physical violence, drugs, alcohol and disease are in play, I think its a whole different animal

I will admit that I have studied PUA techniques in depth... theres actually a lot of science and psychology that goes into it, and it makes sense, and its really not that bad for the most part. It certainly helped me figure out what I was doing wrong, etc. and tuned my love life around. For the record, I have not slept with anyone without being in a committed relationship first, so don't preach to me about how what I did was wrong, etc. because it wasn't.

dogma wrote:It depends. Its possible to believe that you were raped without having the actual event fit the legal standard, or for there simply to be insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. Are we going to punish people who claim they were raped if the defendant was found innocent, or couldn't be tried?

The key term is "false," as in provably-false statements. Where the victim alleges rape and then admits that the encounter was consentual.

dogma wrote:Certainly someone who was falsely accused of rape could seek civil restitution under defamation law.

And likely be unable to recover. Although I'll admit that is more a question of substance over form.

Easy E wrote:Now, there are laws against that. A contract signed by an intoxicated person is not valid.

The legal standard for intoxication is ridiculously high.

@chaos

as with any form of psychology, you can use it to improve a situation or make anything worse. a therapist can as easily heal or drive a person deeper into depression.

with the way the gentleman is described above, can you say that you and him had the same goals?

all im saying is that this is way beyond sleeping with women and not calling them in the morning.

He's basically just using them and throwing them aside.

Essentially, he's trash.

Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

I'm not a fan of the whole "pick up artist" thing, at all, but portraying women as helpless victims to it seems as demeaning as anything else discussed in this thread.

Bakerofish wrote:@chaos

as with any form of psychology, you can use it to improve a situation or make anything worse. a therapist can as easily heal or drive a person deeper into depression.

with the way the gentleman is described above, can you say that you and him had the same goals?

No, we are very different in that regard, I'm just saying that this is beyond typical for PUA type stuff, I'm not saying I'm a fan of that community (I am disgusted by it in fact), but most of those types don't seem that malicious, really the only ones that ever get away with that sort of thing (one night hit and quits) are the pros/experts, the average guy is going to take a week or so to seal the deal so to speak, usually on a second date, and there most likely will be follow ups...

Melissia wrote:He's basically just using them and throwing them aside.

Essentially, he's trash.

That does not constitute a hate group though, just a bad trailer park.

biccat wrote:
The key term is "false," as in provably-false statements. Where the victim alleges rape and then admits that the encounter was consensual.

So, perjury.

I imagine it would be fairly difficult to secure conviction even in the event that the supposed rape victim admitted to lying.

Monster Rain wrote:Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

More often than not, the woman is the one that has to bear the most responsibility for it in the first place.

Monster Rain wrote:Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

I'm not a fan of the whole "pick up artist" thing, at all, but portraying women as helpless victims to it seems as demeaning as anything else discussed in this thread.

and women do bear the responsibility. they surely have a lot more incentive to do so. and i would argue thats why PUA techniques were created in the first place.

we arent even discussing the victims here so to speak. what we are discussing here are the victimizers...and whether or not what theyre doing is a hate crime

i personally still dont have a firm opinion about it

Monster Rain wrote:Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

I'm not a fan of the whole "pick up artist" thing, at all, but portraying women as helpless victims to it seems as demeaning as anything else discussed in this thread.

I think the idea is less about consent, and more about the entire "pick up artist" thing being implicitly sexist and dehumanizing.

For example, if you look at groups like Stormfront, the corps of their belief systems is the inherent superiority, or implicit community, defined by one's whiteness. Its not necessarily about hating other races (and religions), though that often results, its about securing the independence of white people from other races; hate follows from that.

Pick up artists don't necessarily hate women, they simply think they're lesser being, both relatively and objectively, and therefore are willing to do whatever is necessary to make them behave the way they want.

That being said, putting pick up artists on the same plane as Stormfront is off base for clear reasons.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:The key term is "false," as in provably-false statements. Where the victim alleges rape and then admits that the encounter was consensual.

So, perjury.

I imagine it would be fairly difficult to secure conviction even in the event that the supposed rape victim admitted to lying.

No, not perjury. Perjury requires an oath. Simply lying to police.

Do you think that should be punished?

As a father of a 2 year old girl, subjectively this sort of thing naturally gets my back up. These are piece of gak guys.

But. Again subjectively, as a young guy who's spent 4 years with college-aged females, there's also a lot of piece of gak women that hide behind a facade of pro-feminism/liberated woman in order to justify being a piece of gak human being.

Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

I'm not a fan of the whole "pick up artist" thing, at all, but portraying women as helpless victims to it seems as demeaning as anything else discussed in this thread.

I think the idea is less about consent, and more about the entire "pick up artist" thing being implicitly sexist and dehumanizing.

Just so, Blood of my Blood, but playing the victim in this case isn't particularly empowering stance for any women to be taking.

Especially on this forum. You know what we do with victims 'round these parts. This is known.

sourclams wrote:
Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

heres the scary part about PUA... the techniques arent designed for those people that are easy to pick up in the first place. Being a smart, well rounded girl does not make you immune from manipulation. Heck it would even make you a target.

biccat wrote:
No, not perjury. Perjury requires an oath. Simply lying to police.

Do you think that should be punished?

I think the laws regarding obstruction of justice adequately cover what should be punished.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
No, not perjury. Perjury requires an oath. Simply lying to police.

Do you think that should be punished?

I think the laws regarding obstruction of justice adequately cover what should be punished.

Filing a false claim is not obstruction of justice unless there is a related prosecution going on. For example, if X is on trial for a murder that took place, the statement "X was busy raping me that day" would be obstruction of justice.

Do you think lying to the police about whether sex was consentual should be punished?

Filing a false police report is, in fact, a crime.

Bakerofish wrote:

sourclams wrote:
Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

heres the scary part about PUA... the techniques arent designed for those people that are easy to pick up in the first place. Being a smart, well rounded girl does not make you immune from manipulation. Heck it would even make you a target.

Not me. my wife can run you over with her van in 2.8 seconds flat.

@Frazz

she married YOU. I think that should be a red flag to any PUA anywhere.

Bakerofish wrote:@Frazz

she married YOU. I think that should be a red flag to any PUA anywhere.

Oh yea, that too.
"Dad's like a big lovable gorilla that loves chocolate and guns."
-Genghis Connie.

biccat wrote:
Filing a false claim is not obstruction of justice unless there is a related prosecution going on. For example, if X is on trial for a murder that took place, the statement "X was busy raping me that day" would be obstruction of justice.

Do you think lying to the police about whether sex was consentual should be punished?

I'm aware that obstruction of justice requires that you be asked a direct question by someone investigating a crime.

I believe that you should be permitted to file a false claim, because it is extremely difficult to establish whether or not you knowingly did so; especially as regards something as emotionally traumatizing as rape. Further I cannot see any scenario in which making such a thing a crime does anything other than increase the rate at which rape goes unreported, or expands the actual work load on the justice system. As it is, any false claim of rape that makes it to trial will almost certainly see the claimant commit an existing crime in the course of pursuing the case.

Further, if you criminalize making a false claim, anyone who makes such a claim has a clear incentive to continue the lie, extending any prosecution of the alleged crime.

Women are more likely to comit domestic violence than men. They're also more likely to be pyschologically abusive.
But yeah, no excuse for being a dick.

Come on now, chaps - I think we all engage in subterfuge in order to appeal to women sexually.

Hell, if they knew what we were really thinking...




....Sweet lord, it doesn't bear thinking about!

Albatross wrote:Come on now, chaps - I think we all engage in subterfuge in order to appeal to women sexually.

Hell, if they knew what we were really thinking...

....Sweet lord, it doesn't bear thinking about!

yeah but what these guys do and the motivations for them to do so are not, or shouldnt be commonplace:

I quote: "The masculine attitude and lack of care these women put into their style or hair irritated me, so I made it a point to **** them and never call again.”

this is way beyond "ill put on some nice clothes and cologne to get a date" and more in the realm of misogyny

Joey wrote:Women are more likely to comit domestic violence than men. They're also more likely to be pyschologically abusive.
But yeah, no excuse for being a dick.

Men use violence to abuse more and inflict abuse more often, women more likely to be arrested for it:

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=6628

One out of every three homeless women is homeless as a result of leaving an abusive relationship; in fact, there's a surprisingly likely chance that they'll be evicted because of a zero tolerance policy towards crime (even though they're the victim, not the perpetrator).

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/housing%20paper.4.pdf

Girls are more likely to be recipients of child abuse:

http://www.medicinenet.com/child_abuse/page2.htm

So how are mutually abusive relationships dealt with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:Women are more likely to comit domestic violence than men. They're also more likely to be pyschologically abusive.
But yeah, no excuse for being a dick.

Men use violence to abuse more and inflict abuse more often, women more likely to use a weapon, which might be why more are arrested for it:

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=6628

Just saying.

... use a weapon for self defense.

Apparently defending yourself from domestic abuse is domestic abuse.

Melissia wrote:... use a weapon for self defense.

Apparently defending yourself from domestic abuse is domestic abuse.

It's definitely more likely to lead to an arrest on-the-spot.

Look at it this way. Man hits Woman, Woman stabs man in retaliation/self-defence, Police arrive. Which of the two is going to be viewed with more alarm from the officers?

*shrug* Either way, the article itself said that female victims of abuse most often use weapons to protect themselves from a violent partner.

Unfortunately in many cases, wielding a knife is not going to be viewed kindly by any officers on the scene.

EDIT: I'm not condemning women using weapons to defend themselves, just saying this is a possible explanation for the arrests.

Pick-up "artists" are just a bunch of shallow douches, calling them a hate group is given them too much credit than they're worth.

And Mens Rights groups...that depends on if they're fighting for equality (Fathers 4 Justice) for fighting against any and all forms of feminism.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Just saying.

You're not going to win this.

Men are more abusive than women, everyone knows it. Any statistics that suggest the opposite are invalid.

dogma wrote:I'm aware that obstruction of justice requires that you be asked a direct question by someone investigating a crime.

Given this knowledge - that a false allegation of rape would almost never meet the standard for obstruction of justice - you still think that obstruction of justice provides a sufficient punishment for the false allegation?

Do you think that the real victim - the accused who had their life virtually destroyed by the false accusation - deserves some sort of state-administered justice, if only as a deterrent?

@biccat

umm... more abusive how? by sheer number or the severity of the act?

because if youre going by sheer numbers here, you have to consider that fact that being an abused male carries a pretty heavy social and cultural stigma...especially outside the US so chances are, reports of abuse on men by women are under reported

It's also considered shameful for the woman who gets abused too in many areas.

yes abuse is shameful, whether the receiver or the giver

whats your point?

That it is underreported regardless of gender.

so how do we know who abuseswho more?

Bakerofish wrote:so how do we know who abuseswho more?

Because we don't just look at crime rates?

humor me please. How do we know who abuses who more?

We agreed that instances of abuse are under reported by both genders so I'm curious as to how one can definitively say that any gender abuses another more.

The studies shown so far seem to be "western" centric as well.

I'm with bakerofish.

I'd like to see this data.

biccat wrote:Filing a false claim is not obstruction of justice unless there is a related prosecution going on. For example, if X is on trial for a murder that took place, the statement "X was busy raping me that day" would be obstruction of justice.

Do you think lying to the police about whether sex was consentual should be punished?

While I'm all for the idea of making our laws as clear and unambiguous as possible, there are simply some issues that will really require prosecutorial discretion. The intent is the real thing here, and it's in situations like a date rape, intent is very hard to discern. Is it unreasonable to accept that it's possible for two people to have two very internally valid but differing recollections of events that occurred, especially if one or both were intoxicated? If so, is there a remedy better than prosecutorial discretion?

Are false rape allegations so prevalent and unchecked that we legitimately need new legislation to address this, when there are already ample civil and criminal statutes to cover these issues? Perhaps it would be better to exercise some of these already on the books laws, instead. I have no idea how Crystal Mangum escaped prosecution, for example, but I'm pretty sure that not only should she have, that there were already sufficient mechanisms in place to make that happen if the political will existed for it.

Bakerofish wrote:humor me please

Information from social workers, psychologists, and so on also matters, as does information gathered from surveys, as well as from information garnered from civil courts (such as restraining orders and such).

For example, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicated that younger women (especially those with little prior contact with the criminal justice system) are less likely to call police after, for example. That same report indicated that "behavior that is likely to violate most state and federal criminal and civil (protective order) statutes is typically perpetrated by males."

Monster Rain wrote:I'd like to see this data.

Ok.

As the fates would have it, I'm watching the "Datalore" episode at this very moment.

Unless you knew that somehow. In which case, come on in and have a beer.

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'd like to see this data.

Ok.

That made me smile and clap my hands.

Exalted.

biccat wrote:
Given this knowledge - that a false allegation of rape would almost never meet the standard for obstruction of justice - you still think that obstruction of justice provides a sufficient punishment for the false allegation?

I'll just quote the part of my previous post that you don't seem to have read:

dogma wrote:
I believe that you should be permitted to file a false claim, because it is extremely difficult to establish whether or not you knowingly did so; especially as regards something as emotionally traumatizing as rape. Further I cannot see any scenario in which making such a thing a crime does anything other than increase the rate at which rape goes unreported, or expands the actual work load on the justice system. As it is, any false claim of rape that makes it to trial will almost certainly see the claimant commit an existing crime in the course of pursuing the case.

biccat wrote:
Do you think that the real victim - the accused who had their life virtually destroyed by the false accusation - deserves some sort of state-administered justice, if only as a deterrent?

I don't think anyone deserves anything, you get what you're given, or what you can take; that's all.

I also don't think, as outlined above, that punishment for filing a false claim necessarily has any deterrent effect.

As for justice, what kind? Retributive? I'm not big on retributive justice. Insofar as the law is concerned I'm only interested in the net effect on society, and thus consider the establishment of what is legally wrong to be contingent on that consideration.

You're also assuming the worst case scenario, in which a person's life is severely impacted by a false allegation.

biccat wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Just saying.

You're not going to win this.

Men are more abusive than women, everyone knows it. Any statistics that suggest the opposite are invalid.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately in many cases, wielding a knife is not going to be viewed kindly by any officers on the scene.

EDIT: I'm not condemning women using weapons to defend themselves, just saying this is a possible explanation for the arrests.

You might have jumped the gun a bit there, I wasn't arguing anything of the sort.

dogma wrote:You're also assuming the worst case scenario, in which a person's life is severely impacted by a false allegation.

Respectfully, I think that's the most likely scenario of being falsely accused of rape, not the worst case.

I suspect being accused of murder holds less social stigma.

Melissia wrote:... use a weapon for self defense.

Apparently defending yourself from domestic abuse is domestic abuse.

Men don't need a weapon to defend themselves from domestic abuse. Most violent relationships are more two-way than a lot of women would like to believe.

dogma wrote:I'll just quote the part of my previous post that you don't seem to have read

I did read it. You're only addressing one side of the argument.

Does the risk of over-reporting (if false claims aren't punished) outweigh the risk of under-reporting (if false claims are punished)?

dogma wrote:As for justice, what kind? Retributive? I'm not big on retributive justice. Insofar as the law is concerned I'm only interested in the net effect on society, and thus consider the establishment of what is legally wrong to be contingent on that consideration.

Does the same reasoning apply to actual rapists?

dogma wrote:You're also assuming the worst case scenario, in which a person's life is severely impacted by a false allegation.

I think the damage to a person who is falsely accused of rape is quite significant. More significant than a person who is actually raped and accused of making a false accusation.

Ouze wrote:I suspect being accused of murder holds less social stigma.

As I've said before, I'd rather be falsely accused of murder than falsely accused of rape.

Your (?) point on prosecutor discretion is well taken, but doesn't really answer the question. Prosecutor discretion is important, but they should use that discretion wisely.

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:... use a weapon for self defense.

Apparently defending yourself from domestic abuse is domestic abuse.

Men don't need a weapon to defend themselves from domestic abuse. Most violent relationships are more two-way than a lot of women would like to believe.

Not according to the statistics I read. There are a lot of mutually abusive relationships, but they weren't the majority.

biccat wrote:
I did read it. You're only addressing one side of the argument.

Does the risk of over-reporting (if false claims aren't punished) outweigh the risk of under-reporting (if false claims are punished)?

I addressed the question that you asked, and then asked again. This balance of risks is a new question.

To answer, possibly. I suspect that the balance favors over-reporting, but without statistical evidence I can't definitively comment.

biccat wrote:
Does the same reasoning apply to actual rapists?

Yes. I only care about individual rape victims if I know them personally.

biccat wrote:
I think the damage to a person who is falsely accused of rape is quite significant. More significant than a person who is actually raped and accused of making a false accusation.

But likely less significant than the damage to a person who actually was raped, but refuses to come forward for fear of being convicted of false accusation.

Ouze wrote:I suspect being accused of murder holds less social stigma.

biccat wrote:
As I've said before, I'd rather be falsely accused of murder than falsely accused of rape.

Possibly, but that's a social issue. If people cannot see the distinction between being accused of a thing, and being convicted of a thing, then the issue is with their stigma, and not the law.

Moreover, if the key people in your life are willing to believe that you raped someone, then either you likely had issues with them that extended beyond the rape accusation. I mean, unless the case is particularly high profile, or made it to trial, I have a hard time believing it would have any material impact on your life.

Just call them Prick Up Artists.

you could sculpt apiece of poo into any form and claim any deity guided your hands and at least 1000 idiots will believe you

Melissia wrote:

Joey wrote:

Melissia wrote:... use a weapon for self defense.

Apparently defending yourself from domestic abuse is domestic abuse.

Men don't need a weapon to defend themselves from domestic abuse. Most violent relationships are more two-way than a lot of women would like to believe.

Not according to the statistics I read. There are a lot of mutually abusive relationships, but they weren't the majority.

It would depend on the definition of mutually abusive. If you mean situations where both paties gave as good as they got, or simply where both parties at one point or another acted violently the results would vary wildly.

dogma wrote:Moreover, if the key people in your life are willing to believe that you raped someone, then either you likely had issues with them that extended beyond the rape accusation. I mean, unless the case is particularly high profile, or made it to trial, I have a hard time believing it would have any material impact on your life.

A mere accusation (usually with an accompanying arrest and potentially an indictment) will be sufficient to convince most people of your guilt. People place way too much emphasis on this and simply assume you got off "on a technicality."

The harm to an individual extends far beyond "key people in your life." It also impacts future relationships, job prospects, and how you are accepted in the community. Rape cases are, not surprisingly, widely reported.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:Moreover, if the key people in your life are willing to believe that you raped someone, then either you likely had issues with them that extended beyond the rape accusation. I mean, unless the case is particularly high profile, or made it to trial, I have a hard time believing it would have any material impact on your life.

A mere accusation (usually with an accompanying arrest and potentially an indictment) will be sufficient to convince most people of your guilt.

I live in Texas where we hate criminal scumbags and want to put them on thor's fething throne, but even here that's definitely not true. Quite a few people have healthy skepticism of accusations even here.

Mind you, maybe in backwards places like the deep south it'll be like you say.

biccat wrote:
A mere accusation (usually with an accompanying arrest and potentially an indictment) will be sufficient to convince most people of your guilt. People place way too much emphasis on this and simply assume you got off "on a technicality."

Yeah, sure, if you get arrested or indicted you're likely to suffer personal consequences...but the person that provided the testimony which led to your indictment or arrest has also probably given a sworn statement, or been asked a series of relevant direct question by law enforcement.

biccat wrote:
The harm to an individual extends far beyond "key people in your life." It also impacts future relationships, job prospects, and how you are accepted in the community. Rape cases are, not surprisingly, widely reported.

The recorded number of rapes in the US in 2008 was a little over 90k. I don't recall 90k stories about individual rapes on the evening news, in newspapers, or on the internet, in that year.

High profile rape cases, like all high profile cases, are widely reported.

If what you're really worried about is damage to someone's reputation, then simply ban the release of names prior to trial.

dogma wrote:If what you're really worried about is damage to someone's reputation, then simply ban the release of names prior to trial.

That would never happen.

Accused rapists (who, I suspect, have a disproportionately high conviction rate, given the type of crime, victim, and evidence) have a surprisingly poor lobbying arm. No politician is going to get elected by promising to vote for "rapist-shield laws."

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Either way, the article itself said that female victims of abuse most often use weapons to protect themselves from a violent partner.

Thats what bayous are for... "I don't know what happened officer. He just disappeared."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'd like to see this data.

Ok.

Ahtman wins the thread.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:*shrug* Either way, the article itself said that female victims of abuse most often use weapons to protect themselves from a violent partner.

Thats what bayous are for... "I don't know what happened officer. He just disappeared."

Dixie Chicks wrote:Good byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyye, Earl!

Though I must say I prefer the Me First and the Gimme Gimmes version better.

biccat wrote:
That would never happen.

Accused rapists (who, I suspect, have a disproportionately high conviction rate, given the type of crime, victim, and evidence) have a surprisingly poor lobbying arm. No politician is going to get elected by promising to vote for "rapist-shield laws."

Broaden it beyond rape.

Don't permit the release of the names of the accused, prior to trial, under any circumstance. Call it the "Reputation Protection Act".

That would be very easy to get support for.

As to the conviction rate: it is noticeably higher than murder, but the arrest rate is much lower.

Monster Rain wrote:Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

I don't think anyone needs to bare any responsibility for consensual sex, that's between those two and no-one else.

The issue is with the PUA community having a culture that dehumanises women, and likely makes the use of date rape drugs and the like more common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Now I won't dispute that some of these sites (more at the link, and many of them really are vile) aren't exactly "tame" or include well-reasoned arguments. But the idea that any opposition to feminism, or the idea that false allegations of rape should be punished**, means a group is engaged in hate speech, or is a "woman-hating site" is absurd.

I don't think any organisation opposed to feminism is being branded a hate group, for the simple fact that not every men's rights group is being branded such by SPLC.

I do think the organisation is stretching things a bit with calling even the worst of these groups hate groups, but at the same time there is a very, very ugly misogynist streak through most of those sites, coupled with an across the board assumption of 'oh poor men under siege, who will take pity on us, our higher incomes and assumed position of dominance in society' and very, very little actual evidence of men as a group being treated more poorly than women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:No, not perjury. Perjury requires an oath. Simply lying to police.

Do you think that should be punished?

Yeah, it should be. And in most places making a false statement is punishable. The issue is that it is really, really hard to know if a girl is lying or not, which is why it's so hard to get a conviction in a rape case. And when it is so hard to get women to report and take part in a prosecution, then sending a women to jail because she lied is only going to make that harder. So it's just a plain old horrible situation all around in the end, and one that really isn't helped by making a fairly contrived men's rights argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:A mere accusation (usually with an accompanying arrest and potentially an indictment) will be sufficient to convince most people of your guilt. People place way too much emphasis on this and simply assume you got off "on a technicality."

That said, a man with no record accused of rape is almost certainly not going to trial unless there is an immense amount of evidence. It needs a pattern of accusations before most prosecutors will go to trial. It's said that every man gets one free rape.

This isn't because society is full of women hating monsters, but because rape is a really hard thing to enforce.

It's just that, with that reality in mind, focussing purely on the issue of false accusation seems to be pushing an agenda.

dogma wrote:Broaden it beyond rape.

Don't permit the release of the names of the accused, prior to trial, under any circumstance. Call it the "Reputation Protection Act".

That would be very easy to get support for.

There are definitely elements to that idea that I like. While it's true that you can't recall 90,000 rapes in a given year, I'm sure that when an HR hiring manager, or prospective girlfriend, or hell just random co-workers google your name, it's going to come up with some sort of public record of it, and possibly not the vindication. Especially if the vindication is spun crappily, such as "jury fails to convict alleged rapist". This would protect against that sort of thing.

On the other hand, it would immediately beg the question on why other criminal suspects have less legal protection than rapsists, now. Shoplifting and DUI are also sort of embarrassing socially, shouldn't they also be protected?

Perhaps a middle road would be the return of the "innocent" verdict, as used in the Duke false allegation incident. I understand that declaring a suspect innocent is really rare; perhaps it should not be?

dogma wrote:Broaden it beyond rape.

Don't permit the release of the names of the accused, prior to trial, under any circumstance. Call it the "Reputation Protection Act".

That would be very easy to get support for.

Such legislation exists for a variety of crimes and situations around the world.

Maybe as a fun protest we can all hold our breath until they put some of the more radical feminist groups on the list. I've read some exceedingly hate filled rants around the web in my time.

On a more serious note, let the SPLC do what they want. Who cares? I don't live in the south, I am above the poverty line, I hate the law and am staunchly for Living on the Edge.... so they couldn't matter to me less.

Bromsy wrote:Maybe as a fun protest we can all hold our breath until they put some of the more radical feminist groups on the list. I've read some exceedingly hate filled rants around the web in my time.

There's some pretty out there feminist stuff, but it'd be a serious stretch to assume any of it has any chance of leading to actual violence against men. It is nowhere near as much of a stretch to think that a sufficiently misogynist group having a reasonable chance of someone acting on that.

On a more serious note, let the SPLC do what they want. Who cares? I don't live in the south, I am above the poverty line, I hate the law and am staunchly for Living on the Edge.... so they couldn't matter to me less.

Staunchly for Living on the Edge? The Aerosmith song?

In other news, the SPLC's name reflects its origins, not its present day mission.

Bakerofish wrote:

sourclams wrote:
Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

heres the scary part about PUA... the techniques arent designed for those people that are easy to pick up in the first place. Being a smart, well rounded girl does not make you immune from manipulation. Heck it would even make you a target.

One of the big rules I learned as a Salesperson, the people who think they "can't be sold" were the easiest to sell.

Easy E wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

sourclams wrote:
Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

heres the scary part about PUA... the techniques arent designed for those people that are easy to pick up in the first place. Being a smart, well rounded girl does not make you immune from manipulation. Heck it would even make you a target.

One of the big rules I learned as a Salesperson, the people who think they "can't be sold" were the easiest to sell.

Really? Strong-minded stubborn men are as easy to sell to as ditsy women? I find that hard to believe.

sebster wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Maybe as a fun protest we can all hold our breath until they put some of the more radical feminist groups on the list. I've read some exceedingly hate filled rants around the web in my time.

There's some pretty out there feminist stuff, but it'd be a serious stretch to assume any of it has any chance of leading to actual violence against men. It is nowhere near as much of a stretch to think that a sufficiently misogynist group having a reasonable chance of someone acting on that.

On a more serious note, let the SPLC do what they want. Who cares? I don't live in the south, I am above the poverty line, I hate the law and am staunchly for Living on the Edge.... so they couldn't matter to me less.

Staunchly for Living on the Edge? The Aerosmith song?

In other news, the SPLC's name reflects its origins, not its present day mission.

Well, I thought the requirement for being a 'hate group' is that one of the defining characteristics of your group is well... hating something, not your ability to act on that hate.

Easy E wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

sourclams wrote:
Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

heres the scary part about PUA... the techniques arent designed for those people that are easy to pick up in the first place. Being a smart, well rounded girl does not make you immune from manipulation. Heck it would even make you a target.

One of the big rules I learned as a Salesperson, the people who think they "can't be sold" were the easiest to sell.

I dunno, It depends on the individual. I mean, I'm willing to agree that there are many people that think of themselves as being hard sells actually being easy sells.. But if for example, your a proper tight bastard like me due to needing to budget strictly in order to maintain a $1000 a month booze habit, I bet you wouldn't be able to sell me something I had no real use for.

Well, except for booze obviously.

Easy E wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

sourclams wrote:
Objectively, I simply can't be made to care about what piece of gak people do at the margin, likely to other piece of gak people.

heres the scary part about PUA... the techniques arent designed for those people that are easy to pick up in the first place. Being a smart, well rounded girl does not make you immune from manipulation. Heck it would even make you a target.

One of the big rules I learned as a Salesperson, the people who think they "can't be sold" were the easiest to sell.

Really? I would think the ones that "can't be sold" weren't there in the first place.

The trick to sales is that it is not about $$$ for many people it is about values and needs.

Find what the target values, and you will be able to sell them. The trick is getting them engaged to reveal their values to you.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Really? I would think the ones that "can't be sold" weren't there in the first place.

Except most slaespeople go to the "client" and don't wait for the client to come to them.

I think from a policy standpoint, it's easier for men to avoid false charges of rape than it is for women to avoid being raped.

Maybe I'm missing the stories of ruined lives, but the most notorious false accusation case I can remember, the Duke Lacrosse case, involved not just a false accuser, but a crooked prosecutor.

Early on in college I got some advice from an older fraternity brother: "Dont' sleep with a drunk girl you're not already sleeping with." Dont' do that, and most of the ways you can get realistically charged with rape go way down.

At some point, filing an intentionally false report of rape is just something a crazy person does. We can criminilize it all we want, but it's like making pooping on a salad bar illegal: it's not going to deter anybody that would even consider it.

Easy E wrote:The trick to sales is that it is not about $$$ for many people it is about values and needs.

Find what the target values, and you will be able to sell them. The trick is getting them engaged to reveal their values to you.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Really? I would think the ones that "can't be sold" weren't there in the first place.

Except most slaespeople go to the "client" and don't wait for the client to come to them.

That only works if you have something that want. If I am a banker I have ZERO need for drill pipe. You can try to sell it to me, but you'd never make it in the door (literally, our lobby is locked).

Frazzled wrote: That only works if you have something that want. If I am a banker I have ZERO need for drill pipe. You can try to sell it to me, but you'd never make it in the door (literally, our lobby is locked).

Any salesman worth their salt isn't going to be hitting up people that he doesn't believe have any need for what he is selling. It is a waste of time. You wouldn't try to sell a banker a drill pipe, but you might try to sell him ledgers and other office supplies.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote: That only works if you have something that want. If I am a banker I have ZERO need for drill pipe. You can try to sell it to me, but you'd never make it in the door (literally, our lobby is locked).

Any salesman worth their salt isn't going to be hitting up people that he doesn't believe have any need for what he is selling. It is a waste of time. You wouldn't try to sell a banker a drill pipe, but you might try to sell him ledgers and other office supplies.

So the whole argument that easiest sales are to those "who can't be sold" is complete and utter bs. We are agreed.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote: That only works if you have something that want. If I am a banker I have ZERO need for drill pipe. You can try to sell it to me, but you'd never make it in the door (literally, our lobby is locked).

Any salesman worth their salt isn't going to be hitting up people that he doesn't believe have any need for what he is selling. It is a waste of time. You wouldn't try to sell a banker a drill pipe, but you might try to sell him ledgers and other office supplies.

So the whole argument that easiest sales are to those "who can't be sold" is complete and utter bs. We are agreed.

The problem is that you are refuting the argument by arguing against a different argument that wasn't made. No one made the claim that salesmen can sale anything to anyone or that a good salesman will have a 100% success rate, which is what you are presenting.

"Can't be sold" doesn't literally mean that the person can't be sold anything. Think of it it terms of the Death Star fro the original Star Wars. They were so confident that the Death Star could not be destroyed that they never considered all possible routes of attack that the rebels could take. A guy goes to buy a new car and is so confident in his negotiating skills that he fends off all the extras the salesmen throws at him but he ends up paying $500 more than the actual average the vehicle goes for.

In other words it is just another way of saying people that are overconfident in their abilities are just as easily manipulated as those who undervalue their capabilities. I don't even think it was argued that they make up the majority of sales either.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote: That only works if you have something that want. If I am a banker I have ZERO need for drill pipe. You can try to sell it to me, but you'd never make it in the door (literally, our lobby is locked).

Any salesman worth their salt isn't going to be hitting up people that he doesn't believe have any need for what he is selling. It is a waste of time. You wouldn't try to sell a banker a drill pipe, but you might try to sell him ledgers and other office supplies.

So the whole argument that easiest sales are to those "who can't be sold" is complete and utter bs. We are agreed.

No, its people who think they can't be sold. They CAN and WILL be sold something they do not need in there life; despite thinking that they can never be sold. In fact, they will be sold a lot of stuff they don't need. Buying decisions are rarely based on need, but are frequnetly based on want.

How do you get a Banker to buy a drill that he doesn't need and will never use? Depends on the banker, but here are some ways.
1. Convince him that alot of respected people all ready has one- Need: Status
2. Convince him that it is a way to save money in the future- Need: Save Money
3. Create the impression that it is better to have one available, when he will need it- Need: Convenience

Those are just some ways. No one is immune to being sold. Sure, some sales are a lot harder than others, and you won't always succeed. However, given time, a good salesperson can always find your buying motivator.

And selling is just like anything else: it's about playing percentages.

A good salesman, depending on industry, might only make a sale on a tiny fraction of his pitches. But he's selling 5-10x what a mediocre salesman sells.

Yup. That's all PUA is.

Here's the percentages.

20% always say Yes if you ask for the sale.
20% always say No no matter what you are offering.
60% you can persuade if you apply your skills.

A good salesman will have a close rate between 28% and 35%. So, all of those great skills still only nets you 8-15% point bump.

However, the number 1 reason a salesman fails is because he never actually asks for the sale. Therefore, losing the for sure 20 percenters.

Think about that next time you are looking for a date.

Bromsy wrote:Well, I thought the requirement for being a 'hate group' is that one of the defining characteristics of your group is well... hating something, not your ability to act on that hate.

You thought wrong. The likelihood of that group to act on its vitriol is the major factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:No, its people who think they can't be sold. They CAN and WILL be sold something they do not need in there life; despite thinking that they can never be sold. In fact, they will be sold a lot of stuff they don't need. Buying decisions are rarely based on need, but are frequnetly based on want.

How do you get a Banker to buy a drill that he doesn't need and will never use? Depends on the banker, but here are some ways.
1. Convince him that alot of respected people all ready has one- Need: Status
2. Convince him that it is a way to save money in the future- Need: Save Money
3. Create the impression that it is better to have one available, when he will need it- Need: Convenience

4. Because the product can be made to fill a psychological need in the consumer, even if they don't actually need the product for any practical purpose.

In the 1960s advertising agencies discovered men were feeling increasingly distant from the idea of manhood given to them by their father's, because the new generation didn't work with their hands like men 'ought' to, but in offices. So they started to focus on selling handyman tools and the like to men for use on the weekend. You can see it in the ads to this day, there's always a hardy bloke, good looking but not handsome, the kind of rugged man who gets stuff done, and he's in his shed on the weekend, cutting up wood and all kinds of gak that people hardly ever bother to actually do in real life.

The result is millions of men filling up tool sheds with thousands of dollars of Black and Decker or whoever, hardly any of which gets used more than once. But they've got a toolshed, because men need tool sheds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:And selling is just like anything else: it's about playing percentages.

A good salesman, depending on industry, might only make a sale on a tiny fraction of his pitches. But he's selling 5-10x what a mediocre salesman sells.

The trick about the PUA community is that as long as you're relatively fit, and not completely disfunctional socially, then there will be girls in clubs who'll say 'feth it, why not?' to a proposal for a hookup. From there it is like you said above, just a numbers game, ask enough girls and one will say yes. Go to clubs and play that game two or more nights a week and you can end up with a long list of 'conquests' in a pretty short space of time.

The problem is that rejection sucks, and sexual rejection sucks even harder, so most people just won't go hitting on girl after girl, because the rejection sucks so bad we're likely to stop before there's any pay-off. That's where the nonsense of the PUA community pays off, because it allows the future manslut to start thinking about rejection in terms of his technique, instead of being something to take personally. Putting on a persona and attempting these ridiculous pyscholigical manipulation tricks allows him to take himself out of the equation, so it's likely he wouldn't even notice that he hit on twenty girls before one said yes.

Polonius wrote:
Early on in college I got some advice from an older fraternity brother: "Dont' sleep with a drunk girl you're not already sleeping with." Dont' do that, and most of the ways you can get realistically charged with rape go way down.

One of the older football players told me basically the same thing my freshman year.

Really, I think it should just be emblazoned above the entrances to all dormitories.

Easy E wrote:
However, the number 1 reason a salesman fails is because he never actually asks for the sale. Therefore, losing the for sure 20 percenters.

Think about that next time you are looking for a date.

Rule one of canvassing (similar to sales) and dating: grow a thick skin.

Polonius wrote:And selling is just like anything else: it's about playing percentages.

A good salesman, depending on industry, might only make a sale on a tiny fraction of his pitches. But he's selling 5-10x what a mediocre salesman sells.

Door to door canvassing produces a successful donation rate of around 5-8%. The really, really good canvassers might get 12-15% success. Street canvassing is the same, but with greater variance according to individual. Basically, the people that can compel someone to talk to them for reasons beyond the cause (basically, be attractive and charismatic) universally see better results.

After that, its all about talking up the donation. You don't necessarily need many sales, just big ones.

Ahtman wrote:
In other words it is just another way of saying people that are overconfident in their abilities are just as easily manipulated as those who undervalue their capabilities.

Generally more so.

Another analogy can be drawn to politics. People with strongly held beliefs, essentially a stand in for confidence, are the easiest to control.

sebster wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Well, I thought the requirement for being a 'hate group' is that one of the defining characteristics of your group is well... hating something, not your ability to act on that hate.

You thought wrong. The likelihood of that group to act on its vitriol is the major factor.

So basically you would be arguing that the KKK is significantly less of a hate group than it was in say the 20s? Because I might agree that it is a smaller hate group, but not less of one.

Bromsy wrote:So basically you would be arguing that the KKK is significantly less of a hate group than it was in say the 20s? Because I might agree that it is a smaller hate group, but not less of one.

I think your example answers your own point. The KKK are less of a social concern now than they were in the 20s.

sebster wrote:

Bromsy wrote:So basically you would be arguing that the KKK is significantly less of a hate group than it was in say the 20s? Because I might agree that it is a smaller hate group, but not less of one.

I think your example answers your own point. The KKK are less of a social concern now than they were in the 20s.

However, they are just as full of hate, simply less able to express it. They are still listed as a hate group are they not?

Bromsy wrote:However, they are just as full of hate, simply less able to express it. They are still listed as a hate group are they not?

They are, because while they are less likely to express their hate with violent acts, they're still large enough for their language to be reasonably likely of impacting other people.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to get this. No-one cares if you're really, really hateful, and say really mean things all the time (how would you even measure that?) People care when there's a significant chance that your hateful diatribes might lead a member or some other person into acting out against other people.

Yes, the rate of arrest for rape is something like twenty five percent, compared to seventy five for murder and fifty for assault, or thereabouts anyway.

Dunno, pick-up artists creep me out... mind you I'm not interested in a relationship at all so that might have something to do with it, but these are the douchebags who just want to get someone drunk and sleep with them. Whether they're drunk with alcohol or other drugs isn't necessarily their concern...

sebster wrote:

Bromsy wrote:However, they are just as full of hate, simply less able to express it. They are still listed as a hate group are they not?

They are, because while they are less likely to express their hate with violent acts, they're still large enough for their language to be reasonably likely of impacting other people.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to get this. No-one cares if you're really, really hateful, and say really mean things all the time (how would you even measure that?) People care when there's a significant chance that your hateful diatribes might lead a member or some other person into acting out against other people.

I'm not struggling to 'get this'. I think you are wrong. There is a difference there, boss. I posit that there are a damned lot of people out there who do care if you are hateful, as a group, even if the chances of you getting together for an old fashioned pickup dragging are negligible. Unless you are including speech in your definition of acting on your hatred, which it seems you aren't.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Surely the women involved bear some responsibility for consensual sex?

I don't think anyone needs to bare any responsibility for consensual sex, that's between those two and no-one else.

The issue is with the PUA community having a culture that dehumanises women, and likely makes the use of date rape drugs and the like more common.

While all that is true, unless date rape drugs or some sort of forceful means are applied to initiate the sex I don't see why women should be portrayed as being "used" or victims of some sort.

What about the ones who were lied to then?

You nkow, the stereotypical example of the woman wanting a relationship and the man lying to her to get sex and then running out on her (previously something "solved" through shotgun weddings, which was how it got the term "shotgun" wedding-- the father using coercion to force the man to marry. Fairly barbaric really...).

Melissia wrote:What about the ones who were lied to then?

You nkow, the stereotypical example of the woman wanting a relationship and the man lying to her to get sex and then running out on her (previously something "solved" through shotgun weddings, which was how it got the term "shotgun" wedding-- the father using coercion to force the man to marry. Fairly barbaric really...).

Blah blah blah and frankly sexist blah blah. Thats remarkably 19th century thinking.

Melissia wrote:What about the ones who were lied to then?

You nkow, the stereotypical example of the woman wanting a relationship and the man lying to her to get sex and then running out on her (previously something "solved" through shotgun weddings, which was how it got the term "shotgun" wedding-- the father using coercion to force the man to marry. Fairly barbaric really...).

Believe it or not, lying has yet to be made illegal.

Ketara wrote:Believe it or not, lying has yet to be made illegal.

Believe it or not, if you read my post you'd have noticed that I never claimed it was.

Although lying IS illegal in specific situations, but let's not get too deeply in to pedantry.

I was more asking about the immorality of it than anything else.

Melissia wrote:What about the ones who were lied to then?

You nkow, the stereotypical example of the woman wanting a relationship and the man lying to her to get sex and then running out on her (previously something "solved" through shotgun weddings, which was how it got the term "shotgun" wedding-- the father using coercion to force the man to marry. Fairly barbaric really...).

A decision, or choice, was still made.

I'd like to clarify that the pick up artists' scene is repellent, but that barring some sort of physical or chemical coercion the women who engage in sex with these people aren't helpless victims.

Melissia wrote:I was more asking about the immorality of it than anything else.

If we're getting into the traditional morality aspect of the whole thing, shouldn't she be waiting until marriage in the first place?

Ketara wrote:

Melissia wrote:What about the ones who were lied to then?

You nkow, the stereotypical example of the woman wanting a relationship and the man lying to her to get sex and then running out on her (previously something "solved" through shotgun weddings, which was how it got the term "shotgun" wedding-- the father using coercion to force the man to marry. Fairly barbaric really...).

Believe it or not, lying has yet to be made illegal.

Er...except for fraud, libel, slander, and a few other things.

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:Believe it or not, lying has yet to be made illegal.

Believe it or not, if you read my post you'd have noticed that I never claimed it was.

Although lying IS illegal in specific situations, but let's not get too deeply in to pedantry.

I was more asking about the immorality of it than anything else.

I don't think it can be practically legislated.

Life is replete with examples of people trying to get advantages from other people by "social engineering", con skills, fast talk and so on.

People build various defences such as streetwise and Detect Lie skills. Everyone doesn't get to the same level. Age helps, as does a touch of paranoia.

Kilkrazy wrote:People build various defences such as streetwise and Detect Lie skills. Everyone doesn't get to the same level. Age helps, as does a touch of paranoia.

I have a +5 age bonus on Sense Motive checks.

Monster Rain wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:People build various defences such as streetwise and Detect Lie skills. Everyone doesn't get to the same level. Age helps, as does a touch of paranoia.

I have a +5 age bonus on Sense Motive checks.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Bromsy wrote:I'm not struggling to 'get this'. I think you are wrong. There is a difference there, boss. I posit that there are a damned lot of people out there who do care if you are hateful, as a group, even if the chances of you getting together for an old fashioned pickup dragging are negligible. Unless you are including speech in your definition of acting on your hatred, which it seems you aren't.

But it really, really doesn't matter if someone has enough hatred in them to black the sun. People are allowed to be hatefilled, nasty people.

It only becomes an issue when that hatred takes on a form that is likely to threaten the rights of other people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:While all that is true, unless date rape drugs or some sort of forceful means are applied to initiate the sex I don't see why women should be portrayed as being "used" or victims of some sort.

I agree. They chose to go to bed with the guy. While he might is a complete douche for using PUA tricks, she still made the choice.

My issue is with the baggage that goes with the PUA community. All the misgyny that surrounds their reasons means that things much worse than silly hats and emotional manipulation become inevitable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:Believe it or not, lying has yet to be made illegal.

Palestinian dude lied to an Israeli chick, claimed he was an Israeli to sleep with her. It worked.

She found out, got rightly pissed... and the guy was subsequently convicted of rape. Seriously.

sebster wrote:My issue is with the baggage that goes with the PUA community. All the misgyny that surrounds their reasons means that things much worse than silly hats and emotional manipulation become inevitable.

They're repugnant human beings, so there's no argument here.

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:My issue is with the baggage that goes with the PUA community. All the misgyny that surrounds their reasons means that things much worse than silly hats and emotional manipulation become inevitable.

They're repugnant human beings, so there's no argument here.

Silly hats are much worse than silly suits.

No one who reads comic books would trust a man in a suit covered in question marks.

Well if it was green, you could trust him-- so long as you were smart enough to handle the riddles.

If you need to use the internet to "pick up" girls, you probably don't have the confidence to chat them up anyway. I'm what you'd call a "chauvenist" but I have the confidence to pull it off, without some website telling me how.

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:My issue is with the baggage that goes with the PUA community. All the misgyny that surrounds their reasons means that things much worse than silly hats and emotional manipulation become inevitable.

They're repugnant human beings, so there's no argument here.

Im going to play devils advocate here like, I mean, I met a bloke on the piss in Hollywood once and he told me that he was a PUA for a living, it was the first time I ever heard the term, cos you Yanks are always a few years in front of us.

Anyway, I had a good 4 or 5 pints with him, he told me about that Tucker Max bloke and some other ones, and after a few internet reads I learned something about the "trade".

Basically, I think the blokes are boring fethers, and I was more popular with the chicks in the place we were drinking, he just told loads of lame stories about how good he was at picking up chicks, no funny ones, and its all about the craic when Im on the piss. If your not making me laugh im not that bothered about talking to you.

But in their defense, I mean, I am happily with my missus and I dont feth other women, but I can understand the appeal of the lifestyle. When I was a young thruster in the RM i used to go on leave for ten weeks, buy a round the world ticket, and then spend the next ten weeks drinking and shagging. I wasn't serial with it, cos I like an easy life more than I like ass.. So I used to always pull a bird I liked and then give up after that! A couple weeks in Australia with a South Korean lass called Jen, a few weeks in New Zealand with a bird called Claire I met on the plane.. gak like that.

I certainly wouldn't say that a single man who enjoys putting it about a big as a scumbag, and even fethers like that guy I met or that Tucker Max bloke cant be described as "disgusting human beings" surely?

I mean, I would call them boring bastards... but not repugnant. If you want to spend all of your free time chasing women, your a bit of a sad one dimensional bastard, but I don't think they deserve the gak they have gotten in this thread.

Being a PUA doesn't mean the person is successful or interesting, just that they have a terrible attitude toward women. There is also difference between between someone who cavorts with a lot of different people and a PUA. They aren't just fun guys who like to meet women. It has to do with their attitude toward woman that makes them problematic.

It's not like finding women that actually enjoy sex is horribly difficult. I guess if you want to focus on the hunting aspect that's different, but you don't really need to know secrets to get laid.

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, I had a good 4 or 5 pints with him, he told me about that Tucker Max bloke and some other ones, and after a few internet reads I learned something about the "trade".

I'm pretty confident that Tucker Max is more bark than bite. I, ostensibly, have lived a fairly similar life in terms of being connected, and generally well off (same city as well). And while there are parallels in terms of stupid girls at upscale bars trying to find wealthy husbands, its nowhere near as extreme as he portrays.

Of course, it may simply be that he long ago beat me in the bastard contest, but I can't accept that.

mattyrm wrote:
So I used to always pull a bird I liked and then give up after that! A couple weeks in Australia with a South Korean lass called Jen, a few weeks in New Zealand with a bird called Claire I met on the plane.. gak like that.

Now you've gone and reminded me of Australian surfer girls.

You monster.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, I had a good 4 or 5 pints with him, he told me about that Tucker Max bloke and some other ones, and after a few internet reads I learned something about the "trade".

I'm pretty confident that Tucker Max is more bark than bite. I, ostensibly, have lived a fairly similar life in terms of being connected, and generally well off (same city as well). And while there are parallels in terms of stupid girls at upscale bars trying to find wealthy husbands, its nowhere near as extreme as he portrays.

Of course, it may simply be that he long ago beat me in the bastard contest, but I can't accept that.

Of course yeah, I don't believe half of the gak on anyone's blog, or in anyone's book. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story..

My point was simply that a bloke who is unmarried has every right to spend all his time shagging if he wants to, he is boring and one dimensional, but as as long as he isn't raping people thats his business surely?! I think that if a woman is dumb enough to let a bloke she has only known for 3 hours feth her, then despite the fact he told her he was a philanthropic playboy with a Bentley, she should have been less of a trusting idiot.

Men tell lies to get laid, this is no great revelation surely?! Women love shoes and don't like men who smell like socks. If I'm smart enough to know those facts, then women should learn something about the smelly cavemen that are always trying to get into their knickers as well!

mattyrm wrote:I think that if a woman is dumb enough to let a bloke she has only known for 3 hours feth her, then despite the fact he told her he was a philanthropic playboy with a Bentley, she should have been less of a trusting idiot.

My experience is that the decent women who get "taken in" by that stuff were really just trying to get laid in the first place, the rest are just social climbers who aren't much better than pick up artists.

A lot of people believe what they want to believe.

mattyrm wrote: I mean, I would call them boring bastards... but not repugnant. If you want to spend all of your free time chasing women, your a bit of a sad one dimensional bastard, but I don't think they deserve the gak they have gotten in this thread.

Hey, if some guy wants to try and sleep with as many women as possible good luck to him. Thing is, though, if a guy is halfway decent looking and willing to put himself out there and meet people he'll have plenty of success in picking up girls.

But that's not what the PUA community does. Instead they invent stupid games, almost all justified by the assumption that a woman is a puzzle that you have to trick into having sex with you.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I mean, I would call them boring bastards... but not repugnant. If you want to spend all of your free time chasing women, your a bit of a sad one dimensional bastard, but I don't think they deserve the gak they have gotten in this thread.

Hey, if some guy wants to try and sleep with as many women as possible good luck to him. Thing is, though, if a guy is halfway decent looking and willing to put himself out there and meet people he'll have plenty of success in picking up girls.

But that's not what the PUA community does. Instead they invent stupid games, almost all justified by the assumption that a woman is a puzzle that you have to trick into having sex with you.

Wait women aren't puzzles?

Of course not. They're an enigma wrapped within a quiz but hidden within a secret language.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Of course not. They're an enigma wrapped within a quiz but hidden within a secret language.

Whats really awesome - by the time you figure them out the hormones change again and its back to square one.