Science Daily has an interesting press release from new research about pick-up artistry. Turns out that pick-up techniques do work… on sexist women.
Hall and Canterberry set out to understand the characteristics of men who use aggressive court-ship strategies, based on speed seduction techniques described in the US bestseller “The Game” by Neil Strauss and the popular cable TV program “The Pickup Artist.” They also studied the characteristics of women who find such strategies appealing…
The results showed that men who were keen on ‘one-night stands’ were more likely to use aggressive strategies [i.e. pickup artist strategies] when flirting with women, and women who were also open to casual sex were more likely to respond to this type of aggressive courtship. In addition, men with negative, sexist attitudes towards women, justifying male privilege, were more likely to use assertive strategies, which may serve to ‘put women in their place’ in a submissive or yielding role during courtship. Women with sexist attitudes towards members of their own gender were more likely to be responsive to men’s assertive strategies. This suggests that they find men who treat them in a dominant way during courtship more desirable, because it is consistent with their sexist ideology.
Of course, a study of about a thousand Americans is hardly The Scientific Consensus For Now And Forever. However, this is, to my knowledge, the first time PUA techniques themselves were studied in a scientific context. I’m really happy with these results, of course, because they confirm my pet theory about how pickup works. (If only science were always so cooperative…)
Essentially, this piece provides some evidence for the theory of assortative mating– that is, that people tend want to date people who are like them, or who display certain behavior that signals that that person is like you (such as a geeky man with a thing for women in glasses, or a sexist woman who wants a dominant man). Pickup artistry is successful because it mimics the aggregate dating desires of a particular set of women– sexist women– well enough that the practitioner can become more sexually successful among this group. On the other hand, if the average pick-up artist were dropped in the middle of a munch, negs and fuzzy hat and all, the women would probably decide he was an asshole and go fuck Noah Brand.
For some interesting masculist analysis of the results, LabRat at Atomic Nerds has a post.
About ozyfrantz
@Orange
Oddly enough, this is exactly the problem that Feminism is having among young girls and women today. Women are decreasingly likely to self-identify as Feminist for a number of reasons – and an unofficial list would probably look something like this:
1. Women are equal to men now
2. I don’t want to feel guilty for enjoying sex with men
3. I don’t hate men/men have it rougher than women do
4. Other minorities have more pressing problems than women do
Actually, just this weekend I went to our local Library to look at the Feminism section and see what *modern* feminists were writing about – and you know what? I saw quite a few books that were dedicated to making the case that American/UK women “still need Feminism.”
I don’t think they’d be working so hard to make that case if so many people didn’t feel that Feminism’s work is “done.”
(I am a Post-Feminist, FYI – take my evaluation for what it’s worth.)
Yessssssss. As a biologist, and one with a special interest in evolutionary origins of behavior (in non-humans), laymen reporting of scientific studies and how things are skewed is probably my biggest pet peeve. Give me the original journal article any day.
See, as a biologist, I’m wondering what the hell this is supposed to mean in the context of humans. r/K selection theory is used in the context of species. Species like whales, birds of prey and humans are absolutely primarily K selection evolution. Mayflies are absolutely r-selected. It’s true r-selected species have lots of offspring and little parental investment and K is vice-versa, but I don’t think r/K selection means what you think it means. It’s a species-thing, not an individual one. It’s about the evolutionary pressures a species faces.
It’s fair to say that PUA takes some inspiration from other species mating behaviors – read about lekking while thinking of the bar scene and you’ll see what I mean. PUA makes lots of assumptions about things like lekking, polygyny, harems, mate choice, good genes hypothesis, sexy sons hypothesis, etc… That’s cool and all, and it can work for girls that follow those sorts of mating strategies, but humans are complex and imitating the dance of the blue-footed booby isn’t guaranteed to win you ladies.
(In fact, the lack of extreme sexual dimorphism and the fact that females are the “less drab” gender implies that PUA-style sexual selection is NOT a huge factor in human reproduction on the whole. We aren’t peacocks or deer or stalk-eyed flies or even gorillas.)
“the fact that females are the “less drab” gender”
By what measure? -.-
By the measure that they’re the ones encouraged towards fashion and makeup? That they’re the ones with “butts and boobs” and are judged on physical appearance. When you look at most animals with polygyny and strong sexual selection, you see bright technicolor males and camouflaged females. You see bucks with impressive racks and inconspicuous does. Reversal of this sexual dimorphism correlates to monogamy or even polyandry (a la Jacanas).
If humans were truly polygynous, there wouldn’t be such emphasis on female appearance, or a female needing to be of a certain level of physical appearance in order to have sex. Of course, I’m viewing this all through the lens of how sexual behavior works in non-human animals. With our self-awareness, things can be entirely different.
I’m not saying that males CAN’T be attractive, not by a long shot. Society what encourages female flamboyance in dress and males to be more conservative, and I think that’s icky femmephobia.
@ Skidd
Yes but that’s pretty obviously cultural. If you look throughout history there have been times where men were considered the ‘showy’ gender.
I don’t think that supports the idea that we’re polygynous of course, just that both men and women can be seen to be ‘showy’ depending on the cultural context.
To wit, tights have been invented to show off men’s calves during horse-riding.
This confirms my pet theories as well. In particular, the one girl I know who loves to date/hook up with sexually aggressive men also thinks that her body is too ugly to be seen (even by the people she has sex with) and her that her “lady parts” are too icky to be licked (even though it might feel good).
It’s really sad, but I know a lot of girls who fall for PUA’s, and part of their strategy is to demean you. And these women never learn how to spot these jerks.
@Skidd:
Like this specimen?
Does polygyny really only exist when there is no force of male choice? Why can’t we have a species where both male and female choice are important (so the display by both is important), but one is simply more selective than the other? For instance, we could have a polygynous species where female focus on a smaller percentage of males, yet males are not completely indiscriminate.
Yes, society encourages more female flamboyance if by “society,” you mean “white middle-class Western society.” There are plenty of cultures and subcultures where men are just as flashy, or flashier, than women.
“If all the people in power were women who despised women, got into power by backstabbing other women and treated the women below them as disposable, would we say the resultant system is a ‘matriarchy?’”
Uh…yes?
I mean, why wouldn’t we? All the people in power are women. That’s what matriarchy means.