Talk:Seduction community

Misc.

Undid some vandalism, a more neutral euphism and less use of weasel words has been taken away.

Debate on Mystery's article

Editors of this article might be interested in the debate going on over at Talk:Mystery (pickup artist)#Requested move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've restored it as it is much more accurate, as PUA does not only include those who already have the skill but also those who aspire to it. Mathmo ^Talk 04:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agreed — 88.77.141.215 (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because usually those who aspire to be PUAs are called AFCs or rAFCs in the main english speaking communities. I think "PUA" is reserved for those with some degree of success.

I also disagree here. I've met dozens of men in the seduction community and none of them dared to call themselves a PUA, not even those that were sleeping with several attractive women every week. A PUA is, as the name says, an artist, and you have to be really good at something before you can be called an artist. Elendaíl (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding headers

Trying to add these headers, but the wikibot has problems with me doing this. {{talkheader}} {{reqphoto}}{{WikiProject Sociology}} 88.105.115.46 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We need more/better references

Please refrain from delete rage. The things in the article are true. I know them from direct experience an watching much of those courses. But it is a bit hard to find all the proper references. What we need are:

• A link to that legendary seduction community forum that Mistery, Ross Jeffries and they all went to in the early days (and probably still do).
• References to the history of pickup artistry. I have the DVDs from Real Social Dynamics, and Mistery’s book here, but how do I reference a mentioning in a video? I won’t watch 24 hours of video, just to find that single mentioning that I know from having it watched, is in there.
• A reference where Ross Jeffries explains his first generation philosophy (and perhaps the very early days).
• A reference where Mistery explains his second generation philosophy (and how it differs).
• A reference where Tyler describes the third generation approach and philosophy (and how that differs).
• A list of prominent PUAs. The group around Mistery. The group around Tyler. The old line around Jeffries. Other important ones (like David DeAngelo.)
• A list of the most important communities, other than just RSD and Mistery / the seduction forum.

(Feel free to add/request more.) — 88.77.141.215 (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel I must revert. You would need reliable sources (well, even reliable within the seduction community) that those generations are distinct. Even if the individual style differences were sourced through reliable sources, you'd need a source for the "generations"' characteristics and members. It should also be pointed out that this article includes controversial statements about living persons, and hence must be very carefully sourced, per WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Playettes

What about female PUAs? They are out there, and are commonly referred to as "playettes". There should be a section to address this (at least to point that they exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.135.156 (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Women don't really need to TRY and pick up men. Atleast when it coems to sexual encounters. A simple "Hey, let's have sex" will suffice. No skill sets needed, no routines or psychological elements come into play. With men (picking up women) it's a lot more complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.110.27 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

what about ugly women who want to pick up hot guys? 94.72.218.222 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahistorical rubbish: dreadful article

This article requires a complete rewrite to de-emphasize the recent commercialisation of trashy pick-up courses peddled by shallow, self-described authorities on seduction when, of course, seduction is as old as humanity and these commercial johnny-come-latelies intend nothing more than to con anxious suckers out of their money with spurious and unproven "systems".

The article as it stands is nothing more than a squalid advertisment for a debased version of the art of human seduction and it fails to hint at its exquisite joys and delectable refinements, its rich humanity which leaves the empty and mechanical cynicisms of the hucksters standing in all their evident ignorance.

I'd recommend deleting the article. Samcol1492 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded for deletion Bfrank72 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Be more neutral, use of less euphemism and weasel words in the article if you would kindly

174.122.12.138 Remember that on Wikipedia the core policies ss that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, you didnt provide an argument on why your edit was much clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklaskarlson11 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "Spontaneity", although a word, does not make sense in context, so your edit makes things quite murky, unless it's intended to be a "brand", which would require a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Added "criticism as Pseudoscience" section.

"PUA" makes all sorts of empirically-testable psychological claims. Yet these claims come from people who lack any training in social science/psychological methodologies, and the come in the form of books (often self-published) rather than mainstream academic journals. This indicates that PUA is a pseudoscience and this fact has been criticized by the few psychiatrists/psychologists who have commented on it. I am open to changing the language if "Supporters" of PUA think it's not NPOV, but it's ridiculous to let such unscientific guff present itself in an unchallenged fashion. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Heterosexual male

in the following sentence:

"The term pickup artist is also associated with the seduction community, a heterosexual male subculture which strives to improve sexual and romantic abilities with women."

I believe that heterosexual should be removed because there are gay PUAs out there, and there's also some women involved as well in the community.

I mean there shouldn't be any reference to sexual orientation. it is pretty obvious it's mostly straight guys trying to seduce women, but there are some gay guys that use this to try to seduce men. There are also women in the community who use it to try to seduce men as well.

PUA acronym

The acronym PUA should be listed somewhere. It is incorrect to think that people will simply search PUA and find this page, or that "pickup artist" is the only obvious meaning of this acronym. ----137.132.22.191 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm using WP:DABACRONYM as a guideline. ----137.132.22.191 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Pickup artist" is an attribute?

I made an edit saying that "pickup artist" is a nickname given to a person that works to seduce women, fairly similar to a "player", and it was reverted saying that "PUA is not a moniker (i.e. is not a name, it is an attribute)". This sounds strange to me. Are you implying that "pickup artist" is an adjective, qualifying a person? Is this the generally accepted usage?

Given that "artist" is exactly a noun, for me it sounds natural that "pickup artist" is also a noun, name or nickname, pretty much like "Casanova", "Don Juan", and the likes. This, of course, in addition to the attributive usage that happens very commonly in English.

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, I just wanted to point it out. ----137.132.22.191 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

these days it's more of a job- at least those who are categorized as pickup artists make their living off it. But otherwise it's a description I suppose of a type of person with certain skills (or who believes at least he has such skills)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. If the notable characteristic of a pickup artist is that he makes his living off it (presumably by selling books and teaching courses), then this should be clearly explained in the article; otherwise how is it any different from a womaniser or a "player"? ----137.132.22.191 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

that's really for the category Category:Pickup artists - but here the definition should encompass both - as a descriptor, and as a sort of profession (I guess dating coach is another way they describe themselves) - but there are many so-called PUAs who don't make $$ of it. In short I think there are many ways this term is used - as a pejorative about a sleazy guy, as a self description by someone who has practiced pickup skills, and as a description of a master of the craft who now makes a living showing others how to do it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless added content is a BLP violation or vandalism, could we please discuss something first instead of reflexively reverting it? I think we WP editors sometimes are a little too quick on the "undo" button. If I were an IP editor considering getting involved in WP and so I added something and it was immediately reverted, I think I would find that fairly off-putting. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Seduction community

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objection to merger on either page after 30 days. WP:SILENCE and bullet points on MERGE. Result is to merge. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

There seems to be a big overlap in the scope of this article with seduction community and I imagine that to expand this article sources similar to that article will need to be used, so hence I propose we merge this article into seduction community. Any thoughts? --81.4.180.206 (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.