A Bad Man in a Bad Place

Hi there. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Lex declines membership in the Rejection Club

The Bad Man wrote a post on seeking rejection as a means to finding success with women, and though I trust his judgement enough to leave him with the new girl I’m not 100% sure about while Les and I step out for a smoke — which is to say, quite a bit — I have to decline membership in his rejection club.

Because there really is no such thing as rejection. The concept of sex as a competition to be won or lost was foisted upon us, in biblical times, by the evil corporation that owns Just For Men, aided and abetted by the beer, nightclub and automobile industries, and, in more recent times, by irritatingly nasal guys posing as pickup artists.

I’m inclined to agree and disagree, obviously. Lex is in, if not a unique position, a less than common one. He’s married to a wonderful woman whom he loves, who equally loves him, and together they hunt, or not, and do what they like. To think the rest of us live that life is laughable - at the end of the night Lex has the option of going home to his wife, or to whomever else is there. For those of us unmarried folks out there, this question of rejection isn’t so much about numbers, or “scoring” or competition, it’s not knowing our own boundaries are and being willing to risk going past them and having life not turn out the same way in reality as it did in our head right before we walked across the room to talk to talk to you. Of course, he’s right that seduction is not a game and certainly not a zero sum one. That meeting someone is fun, and should be treated as such. But as I’ve said to him before, for most of the single guys I know, it would be easier to jump out of an airplane, tied to a shark into a tank full of motorcycles than to walk up and say “Hi, my name is Bad Man, I brought beer and potato salad.” Seeking rejection gives you an excuse to do that. He’s also right about the fact that if you seek rejection, you’re liable to find it. So I admit that I stated my point less than perfectly.

I’m not here to defend the current crop of pickup artists, although I will say that it’s not always as bad as they’ve been described. A lot of the pickup community is about empowering Men in a world that’s turned against Men’s sexuality. Witness the number of male sexbloggers - is it because men don’t talk about sex, or because it’s seen as churlish if we do? [Does that make you churlish? --Ed Probably] But I’m not defending all pickup artists, I’d be a hypocritical liar if I tried. For instance, when last I saw Lex, he told me that our old haunt was overrun by guys. I’m partly convinced that it’s because I introduced the bar to a friend of mine in the pickup community as a hidden gem. I watched the transition from local haunt full of attractive women and solid bartenders to something that I wasn’t thrilled to be a part of, still with solid bartenders. It was almost an infestation - guys heard there were attractive women there and suddenly they filled the place. The last several times I’ve been there it’s been a cockfarm. Nobody likes a cockfarm. At least, not in the East Village, we reserve that for the West. Which isn’t to say that that place is always that way, just that that’s what I’ve observed.

On twitter, Kimberleecline wondered aloud why “So many of the smart, savvy, beautiful women that i know date douche bags. Is it a selection thing or an availability thing?” I responded “Smart, Sexy women attract men who believe they DESERVE that. The women need to seek out the other sort.” Nowadays, they’re often guys in the pickup community. It’s a strange dynamic. Years of feminism and post-feminism have emasculated men to the point where apparently, although I am quite skeptical about this report, men are allegedly trading in their condoms for hugs. I’m not sure this is new or accurate, after all, it’s Jezebel. Even in 2003/2004, when I was literally rotating women through my life, I needed some emotional connection to be interested beyond a first evening. Maybe not to the Narcissist levels that Jezebel describes, but I also couldn’t just randomly fuck women over and over if I didn’t like them. I’m not the sociopathic or anti-empathetic levels of many a pickup artist. This is not echoed in much of the community, either. Men lack solid role models. Don’t believe me? Point a few out to me who show men how to express their sexuality and masculinity. Do it in the comments. See how many you can list. Then counterbalance that with the number of “god, he’d be hopeless without his smarter, more attractive, doting, patient, long suffering wife” you see on TV, in the movies, in ads, and in magazines, and tell me what the differential looks like.

Calico expresses reservations about the pickup community. I will say that it’s changed over the years since I first learned about it. Originally, it was a self-oriented journey helping men do self evaluation and change the parts of them that weren’t working. Now it strikes me as full of people who grew up playing video games and want an up-down-up-down-left-right-left-right-a-b-a-b-start solution to meeting women. The former has some value to it as it’s self reflective, focused on so-called “inner game.” The latter, while more successful in the short run, is mainly a numbers game which is why I look at it like a videogame. I have wondered for awhile if this is the way that folks with Aspergers learn to meet women. I was going to post the Demitri voicemails as a “what not to do” but Jezebel already did. There were two camps in Pickup - Ross Jeffries “Know Yourself” camp and Mystery’s “Step one two three and now you’re in her pants.” The latter got a VH1 show. The former actually helped men to become Men.

So, rejection. The point of rejection in my conception, at least, is to encourage me, or anyone else, to try new things. To see rejection as a boundary and to find out where those are. Lex’s point is half right:

Rejection is for loan applications. In seduction you can only lead the way. It does not reflect poorly upon you as a man or a human being if a woman cannot or will not walk the path with you. Seduction is a mutually pleasurable and often unpredictable set of escalations. The question isn’t where is this going next but am I having fun right now?

It doesn’t reflect on you at all if you get rejected, but anyone who says that pursuing someone and receiving a No doesn’t sting is lying to you, or is in Lex’s situation where you have limited buy-in on the person that you’re flirting with because you’ve already got someone wonderful waiting for you. That was my inartfully made point. The idea that you can go get rejected by someone and then pick yourself up and go after something else should be freeing. The value of someone else’s reaction to you is near nil, so what’s the harm?

In her own post, Calico writes in the comments:

And while loneliness and masturbation can both suck, you can’t project your desire for sex and intimacy onto a crush. Therein lies madness. What you want is sex and intimacy from a reciprocating partner, and unless you’ve established that she is, there’s no use mourning not getting it. It was never there.

I find pickup artists disturbing because they venture out with a goal and try to figure out who, anyone really, they can trick into sleeping with them. The hotter the better. I find that absolutely reprehensible. Not only is the sort of manipulation they do morally wobbly, in terms of consent, but they’re not establishing that mutual relationship. All they care about is their goal, what the woman wants or doesn’t want or thinks about them be damned.

That’s a not entirely accurate portrayal of “pickup artists” of whom I have been a peripheral member for many years. Judge me as you wish. It’s not about tricking. Women aren’t stupid.

The short version is that there have been these two camps for many years, one difficult and positive, the other easy and as she says, kind of creepy. The easy/creepy one is ascendant right now.

The first is the group that says “you need to know yourself, know what you like, know what your limits are, and not be afraid of yourself or others.” This was typified by the earliest work in the community. The most memorable slogan was “leave everyone better than you found them” which I think you’ll agree is unobjectionable. This is the group which I learned from, thanks to a long talk in 2002, at around the same time I started this blog, with Dr. Vital. It was more self-help-y than Hitch-y, more Cosmo for Men than a how-to book. It was about confidence and self knowledge and enjoyment of yourself and others.

The second was celebrated on VH1’s “Pickup Artist” and Neil Strauss’s book “The Game.” It was the video-game version of meeting women - if you follow our steps, wear outlandish clothes, and move through a nine step process, you’ll get laid. It got so bad that they were giving disclaimers that they only taught you how to get the first few dates, they didn’t teach you how to have a relationship. Which is like saying “we teach you how to use a knife in the kitchen, but not how to cook.” Dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced and may lead to bloodshed. It takes the genuineness out of an interaction, and it sounds like Demitri. This group alleges that they’re teaching the equivalent of a martial art so that when that one person that’s perfect for you comes along, you don’t miss your opportunity. Fine in theory, I’ve never once seen it work in practice.

The disappointment I had with that community is that the latter group is running things because it’s easier, flashier, and requires less work.

How hard is it to get laid? I mean, really. Women like sex. Probably more than men. Get over it. How do you find someone worth spending time with who is compatible with you? Ah, there’s the rub, and that’s what the first school tried to teach, but that’s HARD, and the second school taught a simple “do this and your happy button will be pushed and your friends will be impressed and screw the rest.” Which would most Americans choose? Hard work that might eventually pay off, or go get the girl tonight. Not hard to see why the second group won. For the moment.

Which, of course, is why I say that it’s sensible to risk rejection. Because if you don’t, I don’t care what Lex or Calico say, you’re going to stay in your comfortable life never go exploring beyond the boundaries you’ve arbitrarily set for yourself. And that’s not a good thing.

I actually asked one of the leaders of the “community” in New York if he could think of any marriages that came out of the community, any relationships of value, anything other than “I think I’m going to level up soon” with women. His answer was no. That turned my stomach. The only person I know who was involved with pickup who got married was Dr. Vital himself. And he’s in the first school, and we collaboratively laugh and shake our heads in disdain for the second one.

The rejection that I was talking about was intended as a propulsion toward experimentation, to allow someone wrapped up in their head to take rejection as a lesson, just like burning your hand on a stove. It’s not the rejection itself that you cherish, as Calico points out, you’ve likely dodged a bullet. It’s acknowledging the fear and doing it anyway. If you’re rejected, there could be millions of reasons why - could be you, could be them, could be neither. An examination of the situation afterwards is in order, and if it’s you, self adjustment may be necessary. But if you’re afraid to try and sometimes be rejected, that’s where the trouble begins.

UPDATE: As a bonus, this is what I imagine people think of when they think of pickup.  It’s just not like this. Well, it depends who you’re talking about, but the ones in the first group aren’t like this, at least.

Popularity: 8% [?]