Talk:Seduction community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2005. The result of the discussion was Delete.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for undeletion on 9 March 2006. The result of the discussion was allow recreation (details)
Archive
Archives
1


If you are making a comment on the content of this article, we request that you please be specific about what you consider to be wrong with it. Vague comments such as 'this is becoming spam' are not helpful to anyone. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Prominent Members Of the Seductin Community

"What about Doc Love and Don Steele?" (unsigned comment)

I've not heard of either, but I've not problem adding these people. I think we should, as a minimum criteria (as I explained elsewhere), use people/companies with a significant media pick-up. Why? Because these tend to be the legitimate players in the field. They also pass notability requirements outside of the community, which I think is important, as we seem to get crusading members of Wikipedia trying to get all our pages deleted!

WoodenBuddha 11:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with this. Let's stick with only notable members, and list them on a separate page (which might resolve link spamming and calls for deletion of this page). Maybe the minimum criteria can be that they are mentioned in Neill Strauss' book? DutchSeduction 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don Steele was one of the very early guys (is dead now?!?!), I'd say he is notable.(Don Steele and Ross Jeffries got into a massive fight way back then) Heard of Doc Love, can't remember much at all about him. So I'd guess he must not be notable unless somebody else proves otherwise. Mathmo Talk 07:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The "lance mason" entry is definitely spam; I have not heard of him outside of the context of his company. Also, why no mention of TylerDurden--- possibly one of the best known PUAs?

Why was Hypnotica and Steve P removed? Seduction is divided by outer game and inner game. Most the guru's have called these two the Inner game guru's??? Only Hypnotica,mystery and mehow have gone on video to show them in the field. Doesn't that say something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.164.79 (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinn and Savoy

Clockworkorange101 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)What about Sinn and Savoy? They're both Mystery Method guys but are two of the best I've ever seen. As I understand it, Mystery is a bit of a control freak and resents it when they get attention so they keep a low profile, but that seems to be changing with Sinn teaching "Day Game" and Savoy teaching "Relationship Management". They've taught way more students than Mystery has the past couple of years. Savoy's in Neil's book at the very end, both both of these guys have become famous in the two years after the book was published. -Clockwork Orange

The question is, are they notable outside the community? For now, they can probably be mentioned in the Mystery Method article. --SecondSight 08:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Clockworkorange101 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Not a bad idea. And we could probably take a stab at writing their own pages as well. I think Savoy is as notable outside the community as Zan, who is on the list, actually probably much more so. Savoy spoke at the Wharton School of Business last year to a packed house, and was selected for VH1 show to appear with Erik/Mystery.

Hmm... you might have a point here, though could take a bit of work on your part. What references do you have in the media to them? Might want to write up most of the page in your userspace before moving it into the mainspace. Mathmo Talk 07:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to figure out how to do that. I'm kind of new here. I notice also that both have blogs with reasonable traffic - http://sinnsofattraction.blogspot.com for Sinn and http://therealsavoy.blogspot.com for Savoy. Sorry I didn't mention that before. And Savoy has the the first ever relationship management seminar in the community (www.themysterymethod.com/rm.htm). I can't prove this, but I also think it's Savoy who writes their OAP under the pseudoym Francis.

Yup, I remember it being mentioned somewhere too that the OAP was being written by Savoy. He might have even signed off some of the early ones with "Savoy"? Do remember that simply having a blog is not enough reason for a wikipedia article to exist. You will need to find some references to them in more mainstream media first to have an article which will survive. Plus I strongly advise writing up the article first in your userspace before moving it into the mainspace. Hope this is helping, if you need any more advice/help feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. Mathmo Talk 04:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mathmo! I know Sinn has been in a couple arts on the TMM website. Savoy tends to be the anonymous one in the articles and avoids publicity sometimes but you can see him here: http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-06-01/news/feature2.html. I'll try to figure out userspace and stuff - any interest on working on this together? Clockworkorange101 01:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Clockworkorange101

For sure I'll be glad to work with you on this, though got to excuse any slowness on my part. My typing has become shocking after breaking my arm yesterday! Anyway, just post comments/questions to my talk page where I'm most likely to see them, and I'll help you out with stuff such as the more wikipedia specific questions you have (though got a rough knowledge of Savoy and Sinn, and know a lot more about MM in general). Mathmo Talk 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then Savoy should definitely be on this list. He has been interviewed by CBS, he is in The Game, he was on Playboy TV a while ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 August 2007

Yeah, those two probably should be top of the list for creating a new article about those involved. They have become far more prominent now they have to promote the mystery method company directly themselves. (I think I remember that ages ago before mystery split up with them either (or both) sinn or savoy said something about wanting to avoid the spotlight. Guess not so true now) Mathmo Talk 20:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DELETION

Wasn't this article deleted? I cannot find the record of the AfD debate, but I was sure this had been successfully extirpated. Based on the remarks below as well as the article itself, it looks like this should be brought to AfD for deletion discussion (again). Is there a compelling reason NOT to AfD this article? Eusebeus 14:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Upd; Ok, I found the deletion debate [[1]]; was this undeleted after review? Eusebeus 14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A previous version was deleted. Someone requested a deletion review, at which it was suggested to me to rewrite the page. So I did, and it was inserted. Nobody has really had a problem with the page so far, or at least not one that can be articulated. Vague accusations of "it's becoming spam" are not really very helpful, and no reasons have been given why the article is spam or specifically which parts of it are. I don't see how anything in the discussion below even remotely mandates deletion; it most seems to be a discussion of issues between two individuals that aren't anything to with wikipedia in the first place. Is there a compelling reason not to AfD this article? Yes. It is a notable subject, and it is verifiable (I explained this in the Deletion Review, and I provided extensive documentation of the notability of the seduction community, which is in the archive of this talk page). Some parts of the page are slightly NPOV, but the solution is to rephrase them, not delete the page. If you or anyone else has a problem with this page, how about stating what it is so that other editors and I have an opportunity to improve it, instead of going straight to AfD. --SecondSight 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your reply. How did this page get recreated? It failed an AfD, and it subsequently failed at deletion review. So that suggests this is material for a speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted article. You note: It is a notable subject, and it is verifiable... but I am unclear as to how this is notable. Eusebeus 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
At the deletion review, I was challenged to create a policy-compatible version of the article, which I attempted to do. At least one person who originally voted to keep it deleted was happy with my rewrite, and it was inserted by an editprotected request. As for the notability of the seduction community, I am unclear as to how it could not be seen as notable, given how widespread and influential it is. I've bent over backwards supplying reasons why it is notable, which are already well summarized on the archived talk page. I can only invite you to explain why you think this article doesn't satisfy wikipedia criteria for notability. --SecondSight 07:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Eusebeus - are you trolling? I don't see how a rational person could find the subject of a New York Times Best-Selling book, and in-production $20m film to be non-notable. That's to say nothing of the fact that it's been covered in pretty much any newspaper with any worth - all the big ones in the UK have had articles, many American ones, as you can see from the MANY MANY citations. As far as speedy-deletion goes - the article is entirely different from the originally deleted one, as opposed to a resurected article - I'll leave the onus on you to review the speedy-delete criteria here, but feel free to see the comments for Real Social Dynamics, where someone attempted to misuse the same argument. WoodenBuddha 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not saying that the sad sickos who do this kind of thing are not notable as a cultural phenom, nor the books that such sadsacks produce, but I am not clear that this is the best place for the material; however, I will accept the arguments made above, particularly in light of the arguments made wrt to keeping (otherwise nn) non-accredited colleges. However, that said, recreating a deleted article - that has failed DR no less - is CLEARLY out of process! Eusebeus 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eusebeus. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIV. There's a whole bunch of resources for new wikipedians in the WP namespace that will help you to guide your contributions more productively in the future! Good luck! WoodenBuddha 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I am unaware what I have stated that is in violation of WP:CIV, although I will apologise wihtout hesitation for any personal attacks I have made against you. (Nice little newbie jab, though - slick!) Can you answer my point, btw, about the AfD/DR content recreation falling O-o-P? Eusebeus 04:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Sad sickos" is never an appropriate epitat when discussing the subject/contributors of an article. Please try to be more civil in your future discussions. Also, the speedy deletion criteria only applies to a recreation of deleted content, it does not contradict re-writing an article on the same subject. As mentioned, the first article was deleted and was subsequently rewritten to conform to Wikipedia policies which is acceptable and not at all out of process. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starting to become spam

I'm of the opinion this article is gravitating towards spam. --User:Formhandle

That's great sparky, but how about you be more specific, or refrain from adding mildly troll-like comments? WoodenBuddha 17:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to troll, I just see see this article (and related articles) as an uphill battle for guys like you trying to keep the writing objective since a lot of the edits & revisions have been & will be guys who are trying to promote their sites & themselves. Let's face it, this article isn't like an entry for "Oceanography" or "The Battle of Bunker Hill". I would try to edit what I can when I find time but really do not want to get involved when its likely many would claim I can't be objective due to my involvement (wikipedia policies). My primary meaning in regards to "spam" is that the article (not just your version but past revisions by others & pre-deletion entries) seems to heavily lean towards the business slant of the topic which only leads to those who will then want to edit the page in that context to endorse themselves, even if it causes the context to be distorted *for example a comment included by "DutchSeduction" in one of his edits was an out-and-out absurd falsity yet he used it as a factor to support an edit. You can mail me privately about this if you want.--Formhandle 06:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Formhandle, let's discuss out in the open. I've heard you are mailing and campaigning various people in favor of FastSeduction.com. Everyone recognizes it as one of the most important sites in the seduction community, so let's just tell it like it is with both pros and cons. Can you fill us in on what you specifically think is the reality about your site? It's common knowledge that Learn the Skills Corporation is your company and that it produces a significant income from traffic and advertisements on the site. Can you fill us in? DutchSeduction 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss out in the open, DutchSeduction. Wikipedia clearly states that people involved in the subjects being written about should not be the writers, yet there you are hocking what you can for yourself. You also seem to have the habit of saying "I've heard..." and treat is as fact when you're just spreading something you know is BS. When you say "it's common knowledge", by whom? Anything you or anyone else wants to find out is right there out in the open, anyone who drops by the site will see all the disclaimers and statements. What else do you want to know? You want to see bank accounts? Tax filings? How crude. Go ahead and call it commercial, I don't care, that's not what this is about. You say "I've heard you are mailing and campaigning various people in favor of FastSeduction.com". OK, what does that mean? It's MY site. The URL is in my mail sigs. And weren't YOU the one who recently mailed ME to encourage me to promote a site of yours? Now that I see what your attitude is, why should I? You seem hell bent on trying to get people to favor you and are doing that somethines by being negative against others. When the Lairs in the Netherlands split and both sides came whining to me trying to get me to favor one or the other, I decided that since I didn't know the real story and both sides were claiming the same thing and saying the same negative things about the other, I would favor NEITHER of you and both would need to abide by the same guidelines when posting on mASF. That didn't seem to satisfy you. So somehow between that and your issues with the Lair stuff, you've become hell bent on some sort of "I'll get them all back" campaign. I suppose Wikipedia offers that to you, but don't expect me to see statements made by you which are totally fabricated and not say anything about it. You are the exact kind of person Wikipedia does not want editing articles.--Formhandle 18:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Formhandle, what you're writing doesn't make any sense to me. I don't have any political issues with you at all, and am not commercially involved in any of those organizations. (Please check my WP editing history on various articles. I have been involved in improving this article for a long time, even after it was successfully voted for deletion 9 months ago. At that time even mentioning FS.com at all was enough to have the article removed. Now it is prominently featured in several places.) In any case if there's any section of the article you think is inaccurate or can be improved in any way, I'm all in favor. I also support presenting your FastSeduction.com site accurately and respectfully. (It's a great resource.) If there are statements in any articles you think are incorrect, please highlight them. DutchSeduction 10:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

DutchSeduction, what you should do is click on the "history" tab and read your comment from April 8 (comment associated with the edit). The comment iself is not part of the article but you made a statement in there which was completely fabricated and used the statement as a basis for your claim to edit. I mean, if it was a little off I wouldn't bother but it's so far off base from reality that I'm wondering if you were on planet Earth when you wrote it.--Formhandle 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the comment associated with the edit offended you. That was never my intention. What the advertisers pay to place an ad on Fastseduction.com is beyond the scope of the article anyway. DutchSeduction 10:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What definition of notable or non-notable do we want to use? The following gurus are reported by Neil Strauss as being excellent: IN10SE aka "Twotimer", Swinggcat aka "Grimble", PlayboyLA This might be interesting to WP readers. DutchSeduction 13:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The criteria I used was "Could I create individual pages for these characters?". This leads to: "Do any of them have a presence outside of fs.com and their own web pages? Are there media articles about them we can link to?" The answer to which was no :-) I don't feel strongly about this issue, but that was the criteria I used - we have enough "funny names" in our commercial section - as a result, I don't feel a list of names is really helpful here. As I said tho, don't really care WoodenBuddha 23:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either, although I'm in favor of mentioning characters in Style's book. The fact that they aren't as aggressive with media and PR isn't an important criteria. I think their contributions to the community are what would make them notable. DutchSeduction 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered the "seduction community" page. I say you guys keep In10se, Swinggcat, and Playboy LA in. I have been around the seduction community for quite awhile. I've had the chance to meet all three of them. I'd say each of them has made significant contributions to the seduction community which, I think, Strauss acknowledges. As for these guys having a web presence, each one has his own website. I just did a google search on Swinggcat and he's got articles all over the internet for whatever that's worth. .--Garlic200 14:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What about starting an index of most notable members on a separate page? DutchSeduction 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would worry this would become list-cruft. What's the value of a list of names to someone who wants to find out about the community? WoodenBuddha 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC I don't care much about it either way. However, perhaps its better if spammers and seduction community marketeers had a separate place to direct their attention. As for the reader, it might be interesting for them to see how the various individuals are related to one another and the community if at all. DutchSeduction 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is becoming a major target for link spam from obscure blogs, etc. DutchSeduction 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References need cleaning

Some one needs to fix all the footers and references; at present they all look like a string of web-addresses.--Sadi Carnot 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience Category

I removed the article from the Pseudoscience category. Although seduction borrows many ideas and methods from various sciences, it would be a massive generalization to say that the seduction community views itself as a science, so it cannot be called pseudoscience if it doesn't claim to be science. Yes, there are some people in the community who do make that claim, but they are usually trying to sell a product. It would be more accurate to call seduction as practiced in the community an advanced form of folk psychology, or maybe a protoscience. --SecondSight 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Removed the criticism section because the media coverage section already mentions that the community is described as misogynistic. Also, there were no references provided for those criticisms, which will not do ("many people" is not a reliable source). If someone wants to rewrite a criticism section, I would recommend that you start by looking through the published articles cited in the article, or listed in the talk page archive; they should provide plenty of negative things that are said about the community. --SecondSight 06:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy section is very weak. The weakest critiques have been cherry picked and put in the article, and they're dismissed with unsourced anecdotal quips. Flagging article for neutrality. 74.63.84.69 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with this article

Whilst I accept this should perhaps remain as a topic, the arguments made below to my initial objection haveing been noted, the current article is very flawed. It appears to have been written by people with a stake in the concept of The Game, whereas clearly this is about a psychopathic phenomenon. The current content does little to nothing to address this and, as such, fails any encyclopedic standard. This could be put up for peer review to garner more objective attention. Eusebeus 00:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not clear at all that the seduction community is a "psychopathic" phenomenon. That is merely your point of view. (I do believe there are valid ethical objections to certain practices and ideas in the community, but that is a far cry from being related to psychopathy, which is a mental disorder.) Some criticisms of the community are indeed addressed in the article: "The seduction community has been branded as misogynistic, and a review of The Game characterizes the community as "a puerile cult of sexual conquest," and calls its tactics "sinister" and "pathetic."" Of course, this article merely scratches the surface of the community so far. If you have seen criticisms of the community from reliable secondary sources, you are welcome to add them into the article. If you want to see changes to the article, please provide specific criticisms of the article's actual content, rather than simply complaining of how the authors' biases don't match up with your own. --SecondSight 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
My own bias, having been reasonably described above, would preclude me from making edits that would likely be acceptable to the more committed editors of this article. I *do* think that this is psychopathic behaviour, but that does not of course mean that I am in any way correct. A peer review would garner this subject outside consideration from other parties and provide valuable feedback about this strange social phenomenon. Hence my suggestion. I assume no editor would have an issue about putting this up for PR....? Eusebeus 22:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I would be fine with a peer review. --SecondSight 06:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seperation of 'practices' into seperate article

since this article focuses on the community, not so much the techniques, it seems that further expansion of the "Practices" section should be made into a seperate article.

Agreed. We can do this when it gets longer. --SecondSight 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It should really be done now. Every mention of a specific technique makes the article itself POV. Statements like "Most member of the community think X or do Y" is biased. We now have links to prominent community members. Just move each discussion of specific techniques or concepts to the prominent community member who practices that technique. DutchSeduction 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New additions and POV phrasing

Casaniva, thanks for helping out with this page. Some of your edits have been great, like mentioning routines, patterning, and the social robot phenomenon. Some of your other edits I have reverted, because they are not written from a neutral point of view, which wikipedia requires, or because they don't cite sources (see the policies on WP:NPOV, and WP:V). I will go through most of these edits specifically:

From the part on negs, I removed this text:

They are often used to 'Kock a woman off her pedestal' and swallow up her self confidence. eg 'Did you leave your personality at home today?' This technique is widely disliked by women. It is not pleasent to be 'Negged'.

I also removed a description of negs as "insults." See the Mystery Method page which claims that they are not supposed to come off as insults. Negs are also not supposed to "swallow up her self confidence." If "Did you leave your personality at home today" is a neg from a specific pickup artist, we can mention it, but we should cite who it is from. Also, who says negs are "widely disliked by women?" I mean this literally, because you need to cite a source to make claims like that on wikipedia. If you want to put this claim back in the article, then you will need to cite a reference from a reputable secondary source per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Also, claims like "it is not pleasant to be negged," are merely your subjective opinion, and consequently not encyclopedic.

As myself and most of my pretty female friends have experienced negging, I can provide anecdotal evidence that, in fact, it is more puzzling than anything else. (I always reject neggers - there are plenty of men who really like me, so why spend time around someone who doesn't? It's a turn off. ) I was relieved to discover what negging was, because it explains something that has been puzzling us. We were calling it "first date suicide" and wondering why men do it! 218.101.64.158 06:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

From the part on C&F, I removed this:

The Pick-Up Community holds that arrogance is not a bad thing. Frequently saying 'Thank You' when accused of it.

Actually, many pickup artists say that arrogance is not the goal (see David DeAngelo's explanation of C&F on his page). Yes, saying "thank you" when accused of arrogance is a response that many pickup artists would use, but we should attribute it to whoever is advocating it before including it on the page (in the future, we might have a section on "shit tests" which could mention stuff like that).

From the routines part:

Many critics say that it is easier just to be oneself.

True, but we need to cite actual critics, instead of using weasel references to "many critics." (Tangentially, although "just be yourself" is often given as advice, it isn't particularly useful. Specifically, it is so ambiguous as to be almost meaningless. Furthermore, the men who would join the seduction community are often lacking in social skills, and many have been social isolated for much of their lives, so they have learned maladaptive social behaviors and mindsets. Consequently, "just be yourself" is terrible advice for them insofar as it encourages them to keeping doing what they are already doing. What they are already doing hasn't been working, which is why they are joining the community in the first place.)

From the patterns part:

designed to manipulate a woman's subconcious mind into supplication

First, I've taken out all uses of the word "manipulate" because it is generally not a neutral term. Also, I don't think it's true that the purpose of patterning is necessarily to induce supplication (though certainly some may have that goal).

From the field reports section:

Critics point out that this striving for conquest is not necessarily a good thing and that a woman finding herself mentioned on a field report would likely be extremely angry with the pickup artist. In some private forums ('Lounges') on the internet pick-up artists post up pictures of their conquests like trophies.

There are so many problems here: First, "critics": which critics? Second, you refer to the posting of field reports as "striving for conquest." That is merely your value-judgment on that practice (wikipedia is not about pronouncing whether anything is a "good thing" or not, though wikipedia does describe value-judgments from reputable secondary sources). It happens to correctly describe some pickup artists, but not others. I'm sure it's true that many women would be angry to find field reports about themselves, but we need a reference to include that in the article. Also, saying that pickup artists post up pictures "like trophies" is also biased phrasing. Certainly some may hold that motivation, but others may not.

In short, some of your edits have been very helpful, and please review the editing policies WP:NPOV and WP:V for the future. If you are looking for sources to cite claims from, then check out that sources already cited in the article, and those here. --SecondSight 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Like I've said above, discussions about C&F belong on the DeAngelo page, talk about Negs belongs on Style's or Mystery's page, etc. No specific technique is representative of "the community" as a whole. DutchSeduction 14:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i'd guess you are absolutely right about no one technique is representative of the community as a whole, we are far too diverse for that. however there are a few that are the most well known of them all, hence should be mentioned on the main seduction community page. from which the can be directed to other pages for more details, history, and context etc.. Mathmo Talk 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Fight club pointed to in notable members?

Good catch. Fixed now. Tyler Durden is the nickname of Owen Cook, leader of Real_Social_Dynamics. DutchSeduction 14:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch seduction wars and the "official" lairlist

Obviously there is a fight in progress between www.nllounge.nl members and the www.DutchSeduction.com lair. This is why http://lairlist.com keeps being promoted by the wikipedia user DutchSeduction - which must be the PUA called "Stripped".

Here is something I found on a mailinglist (RunningaPUAgroup) I deem trustworthy today:

Lairlist.com is a hoax lairlist ran by stripped, bigbear, xtatic, and his ten other aliases. Stripped was kicked out of the dutch lair nllounge (first there was only one) and started his own lair at www.dutchseduction.com. Since then he has been terrorising the community claiming everywhere that our lair at www.nllounge.nl had no rights to exist and should be removed from the lairlist. When stripped didn't get things his way, he started up www.lairlist.com, a list that is selective and does not include lairs that stripped is enemies with. (stripped is enemies with a lot of people). Check for yourself at: lairlist.com is a selective list. Check under 'the netherlands": our lair www.nllounge.nl is on not on it.

The original lairlist originated in the yahoo group called "RunningaPUAgroup" they use the database RSS feature to synchronize lair links. Various sites, including fastseduction.com or bristollair.com get their lair lists from here. www.lairlist.com is a censored rippoff from the original list and since the site got hacked a while ago it's not even possible to register your own lair there anymore.

To me it seems obvious, that lairlist.com is FUD and Spam and needs to go. --Eddy yosso 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up tag?

I don't see any explanation on this talk page for the clean-up tag, so I will remove it in a few days unless someone gives some reasons why it should stay. --SecondSight 00:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Have removed tag, started cleaning up article. Will do more. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 00:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photos

http://puapics.white.prohosting.com/

has photos of the PUAs linked to on the template. since most of those pages lack photos, perhaps some of you with more wiki skills than me could add a few ?

saw that site myself a few days ago, had been having those exact thoughts about adding them to the pages. I can do it just fine, however first I really need to sort out permissions from the photographer of each photo. I'll get around to it one day, unless anybody as some personal photos they have taken of any of the big figures in the community? Mathmo Talk 08:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
one of those sub pages on the article would also be handy to cite about how they (the community) believe looks are not so important. Mathmo Talk 08:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article/title consistency

there seems to be a lack of consistency of choosing the person (ie "Badboy") and the product (ie "Badboy Lifestyle") to name the title. this inconsistency is also on the template ("Badboy" onthe template, "Badboy Lifestyle" on the article). just FYI to whoever orginally created and is creating the new articles

[edit] Biased

is it me or this article totaly biased ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcer (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 November 2006

  • Biased in what way? --SecondSight 10:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the original questioner, but in reading: The "yet" that starts the second paragraph of the media coverage section is inherently biased POV; it turns the paragraph into an argument that the community isn't what it's been called, instead of just reviewing the response to the criticisms. Criticisms are not mentioned anywhere else on the page. Much of the techniques section is written in such a way as to assume that the techniques are effective and there is no analysis of potential problems in using them. In fact, parts of this article read like an instruction manual, not like neutral discussion of the topic. On negs: "They serve numerous purposes, including slightly lowering a girl’s self-esteem so she’s more vulnerable to pick-up, displaying higher value, lowering a girl’s bitch shield, etc." The language is too informal, it uses an undefined term ("bitch shield"), and again, no mention of any question of success at those purposes. Then the first "see also" link is described as follows: "It is an independent wikipedia for Pickup Artists with many Acronyms that can help you to get along." The implication is that the "you" is a man interested in learning how to do this. Generally, the whole thing reads as though it was written almost entirely by people who are a part of this community without taking into account outside perspectives, especially from women, but also from men who do not practice this sort of behavior. An encyclopedia article about a group shouldn't read like it was written by that group for that group's use. I don't think it was *written* for that purpose, that's just how it reads right now. 65.25.107.20 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points, I actually hadn't looked at the article for a while so I didn't realize how bad it had gotten. You see, what happens is that people come in and change one sentence at a time, and I don't have time or energy to be constantly reverting it every time. I think there are many people from the seduction community who are new to wikipedia, and don't understand WP:NPOV and WP:V. I have gone and made a bunch of changes, which I hope address at least some of your concerns. I would like to include more criticism, and I think there would be a lot more available in reliable secondary sources if the community was more well-known. There are already several criticisms mentioned in the article. Unfortunately, lots of the criticism of the community tends to be very vague (e.g. "that's manipulative!!!" or "that's misogynistic!!!", without much supporting reasoning or arguments), and echo the criticisms already summarized. Also, I have seen criticism of the community on feminist blogs, but I unfortunately can't cite them because they don't pass WP:V. When I get around to it, I will do another round of research and see if any new sources exist on the subject. --SecondSight 07:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While blogs might not pass as verifiable, does that really apply in this context, when the blog isn't the source of a fact but the fact itself? I.e., if you write, "The seduction community has been criticized on a number of blogs, including <BlogName> and <BlogName2>," with some details about the specific claims made, that is verifiable, provided the blogs don't later take down the criticism. The statement isn't assessing the validity of the argument, just that it exists, and that can be verified. I recognize that there's not going to be a lot of widespread media coverage here and opinions of noted experts to go from, but a feminist blogger is probably no les reliable than someone who calls themselves a seduction expert. (Though no more reliable, either.) Anyway, it is looking much improved! 65.25.107.20 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Butcer 13:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)This artical is awfoul to say at the very least, its comptely biased and looks like a adversiment. And the articale presents the statements about seduction tips as factsButcer

I made a few changes. I agree with you that the description of seduction techniques section often sounded like tips, so I tried to do a quick fix. See below for my suggestions on how to provide useful critique for this page... --SecondSight

[edit] Please provide SPECIFIC criticms

To people who want to critique this page: Saying things like the article is "biased" or "looks like an advertisment" isn't useful unless you also provide specific criticisms or quote passages that you consider problematic. I don't have time to read the article every day, and it takes me a while to read through the entire thing and try to figure out what you consider wrong with it (your idea of "biased" might be different from mine). If you are specific, then I can just snap to the passage, see if I agree with you, and then try to improve it if I do. --SecondSight 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's basically an underhanded way of saying, We don't want this article here; please delete it. 129.174.73.132 (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edits to make the page more NPOV

I made these for a reason. So Mathmo, if you don't like them, please discuss it on the talk page before reverting them. I thought it would clear why I made those edits, but perhaps I should explain them: In general, it's imperative to avoid using seduction community jargon in the article without explaining what it means. Also, jargon has to be used from a neutral point of view, meaning that it must be put in quotations (at least the first time mentioned). If we use jargon on the page without those precautions, then it looks like the page endorses all the assumptions implicit in those terms. I removed the stuff about IN10SE's value elicitation because it was written with jargon that would be incomprehensible to most people, because it assumed the effectiveness of the techniques, and because it lacked a source (and I dislike red links; if it is possible to write a properly sourced article on IN10SE, it might be best to do so before the page discusses his theories). Also, while writing the page, we have to pretend that it's unclear whether seduction techniques work or not; the page must be neutral about whether they work. That is why I changed "negs serve various purposes" (which would imply that negs are successful towards those purposes) to "negs are intended for various purposes". I know these rules are a pain, but this is how the game is played on wikipedia. --SecondSight 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Bit curious as to why you mentioned me specifically by name? Not as if I've had any trouble with your edits now or in the past, or you with mine? If so, sorry and I haven't noticed them before? Although there was the removal you just made of Steele, that kind of surprised me. Anyway, I've mentioned here I've put him back him and I expect when you take a second look you will realise he should be mentioned. Not too bothered about you removing that IN10SE stuff, though something about that general stuff could be included as it was then I did think it could perhaps be written better anyway. Also remember even though you personally don't like red links, they are not fundamentally bad (rather I'd say they are the opposite, and red links are essential to the growth of wikipedia). Mathmo Talk 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned you because I thought it was you undid my attempts to make the list of techniques more NPOV. As for Steele, I had to take him out because there were no sources provided, and that is why he will have to be taken out again (I could instead use a citation needed tag, but I don't like having those on the page). I am not sure of Steele's connection to the community, either. We need sources documenting this. I've heard of him, but not actually as a member of the community. We need evidence that he considers himself a member, and that he has been influential. --SecondSight 22:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Other than reverting back the mention of IN10SE stuff once, I doubt I've ever been in disagreement with your edits? Generally I think we are working in the same kind of direction. As for that bit about IN10SE's stuff, you seem to feel about it much more strongly than I do so might as well leave it out (I'm only slightly leaning towards including it as it was written). As for Steele, if you check out the links in the very same section that he is mentioned you will see that he is mentioned in them. Thus there is no need to include even more links into the section, will start to cram it up. But... if you really really really want to know more about him (such as you wondering if even considered himself part of the community) then I could probably rustle up some more stuff such as his original website and his postings to Usenet etc... Mathmo Talk 11:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded controversy section

I expanded the Media Coverage section, and renamed it "Controversy" to better reflect its content. I found some articles with criticism from feminists, and included those. In a couple places, bloggers are cited, but I only include quotes that already appear in news articles. I put in external links to the blog posts so readers can go verify the information and see the quotes in their original context. --SecondSight 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That change of name seems like a good idea, after all it wasn't generic media coverage. Plenty of that is included in the references etc... rather that section was entirely of negative coverage in the media which is aimed against what they are doing, hence "controversy" does sound like a much better title for it. Mathmo Talk 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


i deleted the practies it looked like a walktrouh and was totaly pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.107.137 (talk • contribs)

Walkthrough?? Not so at all, it is a useful part of the article hence I'm restoring it. Mathmo Talk 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't buy the Strauss promotion

The intro paragraph seems highly specious to me. The idea that Mr. Strauss, because he's had a temporarily popular book out, brought this concept to major public attention strikes me as absurd self- or loyal-fan-promotion, since it is almost blindingly obvious that the idea actually hit the public consciousness with force after the release of the movies Hitch and Wedding Crashers (and even Magnolia, to an extent, though Tom Cruise's character wasn't quite in this vein), and a followup epsisode of CSI:Miami (I think; they show so many CSI reruns these days, I sometimes get the three shows mixed up). I'm going to flag this with {{Dubious}} as to the claim, not as to the fact that Strauss is an author, though I honestly think a {{Disputed}} or other major cleanup template is actually more in order. The bias seems funky-strong to me, especially given that Strauss is used as an allegedly reliable source later, the article gets into guilt by association fallacy by pointedly mentioning Mitnick connections, etc., etc. This whole article needs a lot of work, really. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit contains some good points that could be worked into the article. While surely the publication of The Game is had a very large impact on the visibility of the seduction community there are those other lesser factors you mentioned. I'll cut out a word from the sentance you tagged, but I'll leave changing the rest of the article for later. Mathmo Talk 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is without merit. This article is about the *community*, not about dating coaches or some random guys with rules on how to meet chicks at parties. I think the simple metric would be: did membership of the community massively increase after any of these events you note? Answer: only after Neil's book came out - the London 'group' for example went from ~250 registered users to ~1800 in the months after the book came out. I think you'd find similar trends in any other community group. 132.185.144.15 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, The Game almost certainly had the biggest single impact. But numerous other coverage also undoubtedly had their effects too. Mathmo Talk 05:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What is so crazy about the idea that a guy who wrote the first book on a subject for a popular audience brought that subject to public attention? If you look on Google trends, searches for "pickup up artist," "Neil Strauss," "Mystery Method," and "Ross Jeffries" (but not"David DeAngelo") dramatically increase around the end of September 2005, right when The Game was published, so clearly it made a splash. Neither Hitch, the Wedding Crashers, Magnolia, or CSI:Miami mentioned the seduction community explicitly. Strauss' book did. None of those things explored the outlook and practices of the community in any detail. Strauss' book did. In fact, the only reason that many people know that Magnolia, Hitch, etc. were related to the community was because of The Game, or news articles and reviews relating to The Game. After The Game came out, a lot more news articles related to the community, usually centered on The Game, appeared. I did most of the research for this page and found most of the sources for it. References on the community before the The Game were usually sparse, but became more common after the publication of The Game. This article certainly does need a lot of work, and it would help if people would be specific on what they think can be improved. --SecondSight 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] External Links

Woo woo, I'm back for a while. I feel there should be some external links here. First nomination, of course, is [2]. I realise it's in the references, but /still/, it was pretty damn seminal, even if it kinda sucks and lacks as much relevance now. There was a time when FS.com *was* the community.

Second nominee, a little more controversial: [3]. It's still quite a new site, and in the interest of full disclosure, run by a friend of mine. The advantage is, is gives a pretty good overview of what kind of things people in the community write about, as it's a collection of links to recent articles nominated highly. If it starts to get spammy or starts to suck, we can nix the link, but in the meantime, I think it's as good as any springboard in to the community.

Finally, a link to one of the lair lists. I know this issue caused us some fairly MASSIVE grief, due to competition between the Bristol Lair one, and sTRiPPed's one, but I don't see a good reason why we can't link to both and save ourselves some agro. I think this would make a good link(s) because it gives people an idea of where the community is at for them locally.

The article gives a good overview of the community, and I know we've shyed away from links to external sites in the past, but it seems we have some pretty dedicated editors now who can stop the links from becoming spam, and I think we'd be adding value by putting in a sort of spring-board in to the community.

SecondSite, Mathmo, etc - what do you guys reckon? I think as you guys are the major interested parties, we should take a small vote and see what we think! WoodenBuddha 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree about your comments regarding fastseduction being the community, well kinda and used to be etc... Admire your honesty in stating your potential conflict of interest, I've already seen that site and it does look good for the little I looked over. But I've been drifting a little away from this recently and didn't look into that site carefully. I'd take a second look at it before deciding if I'd supporting including it (also I'd reread through WP:EL again). Linking to a selection of good examples of lairs would also be another worthwhile idea to consider, but maybe a Lair article should be created first? I agree that we should be able to stop there being excessive amount of link spam with the group we have now, just like with any other well written and managed article. Mathmo Talk 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
What's up guys... I agree with including mASF / fastseduction. FastSeduction is mentioned in The Game (p. 450-451) so inclusion should be no problem. We should also have a Lair List (which one is a different question). As for growyourgame.com, it's a good site, and it is informative, but I don't think it passed WP:EL (though you are welcome to argue otherwise with reference to the policy). Websites and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, and mASF only gets through because it is mentioned in The Game and was a major place that the community developed. If growyourgame gets mentioned in some kind of publication, then we could include it. Furthermore, if we included that site, we would have to link to every half decent website with general seduction information, and it would make the page even more of a spam target. That's my take. --SecondSight 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, linked to the Bristol Lair lair list - it's the first Google hit for 'lair list' and the other one doesn't appear to be running any more. Also linked directly to mASF on FS.com - least ads, and means you're not bombarded by some of the other FS.com stuff. I'll have another read of WP:EL, so I'm holding off adding GrowYourGame. WoodenBuddha 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Amazing. Well done people, for a page that has seen significant controversy in the past we have done well in getting to a solution for now that doesn't involve us having any debating or reverting at all! The article is the better for it. Mathmo Talk 02:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream Section

I'd like to add a section about the community moving more mainstream. Salient points I want to make are: Mystery's upcoming VH1 show, VAH being taken on by a large reputable publisher, and the fact that main-stream brands are starting to advertise in the community (I note the PU podcast guys have been given iPhone's by Apple to offer as prizes, and I've heard through the grapevine that they'll be running RightGuard(!) ads soon). Anyone think of any other particularly good examples? I'd love to use the alleged film of The Game, but I have doubts on if that'll ever see the light of day, tbh. WoodenBuddha 05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All of that sounds good. Btw, why do you have doubts that the movie will see light of day? --SecondSight 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Because Neil purchased the rights back? As such it would appear production is moving backwards rather than forwards. Mathmo Talk 13:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Another good example is Wayne and Johnny's tv series (Seduction School) with those three guys (tall, short, and fat guy). Mathmo Talk 13:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example: Let the Game Begin. This movie is in post-production and it looks like Zan Perrion is in it playing himself. I don't know what this movie is about, but I don't think this is Neil's movie. Or is it?
More info: yahoo movies news at feverpitch buddytv.com The evidence is all saying this movie is for real. Can't see any link with Neil Strauss. This must be a different movie to his one. Mathmo Talk 22:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this looks like the real deal. Here is the movie's MySpace page with a mention of Zan in the synopsis, as well a picture of him on the set with Adam Rodriguez and the other main actor. There's also an extensive video montage of the movie.
Thanks, looks interesting. I'd say sometime in the near future we would be able to make an article out of this from the increasing amount of information available. Mathmo Talk 01:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thesis from University of Texas

Picking Up and Acting Out: Politics of Masculinity in the Seduction Community Mathmo Talk 03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mathmo, is this published yet? Where did you find it? --SecondSight 05:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

An american friend pointed it out to me, it would be in the University of Texas Library I presume (I know in NZ the university is required to have a copy of all the thesis's by their students). Mathmo Talk 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

It seems that this article is too much biased in favour of the views expressed by "The Game". The existence of communities of people who excange information about seduction and practice it massively may be a noteworthy phenomenon, but this article doesn't seem to offer good coverage of it.

The article seems to merely present the language and the positions of a few, self-proclaimed, pickup gurus, without providing information about the possible validity of those claims, the actual extent of the phenomenon worldwide and its prevalence in different geographical locations and ethnic and social groups.

In fact, the article claims that there exist a "community", albeit loosely organized and fragmented, rather than possibly multiple communities of people holding different views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.17.163.154 (talk) 00:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is your point.... because there is nothing strange about about stating the observation that within a community there could exist various sub communities of various views. For instance inside the community of runners there are varying views on ways to train etc.... Mathmo Talk 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to cover the various views, if any. It seems just focused on "The Game" and little else.
Thanks for voicing your concerns. One reason that information on Neil Strauss' The Game plays a large role in the article is that he publicized the community, and also because so much of the media coverage is centered on his book. There are many views on the community that I would love to cite in this article, both pro and con, but I can't because they aren't written in reliable sources (and are instead in media like blogs that are unciteable on wikipedia). If you think that this article is biased in favor of the views expressed in The Game, you would need to back up this claim with specific quotes from the article. As for "the actual extent of the phenomenon worldwide and its prevalence in different geographical locations and ethnic and social groups," I would truly love to know this information, but we don't know, because nobody has done any scientific studies on the seduction community. The lack of that information doesn't invalidate this article. However, partly thanks to this article, some researchers are taking notice of the phenomenon (see the link to the thesis above, though I can't cite it in the article because it isn't published, at least not yet). Another improvement would be to better describe the different schools of thought in the community, but again, this goal is constrained by the fact that some schools of thought get lots of media coverage providing us with citeable news articles, while others get none at all. --SecondSight 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banter

The use of banter is often suggested by the seduction community, the rationale being that sexual tension cannot exist without polarity; thus, teasing and otherwise "messing with" the person can actually create attraction. (If you just have a bland conversation about work or something, it won't create that polarity.) Captain Zyrain 07:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commonalities among different seduction writers

If you've ever read The Lolita Method (by PRED), you may have noticed some similarities between it and The Professional Bachelor by Dr. Brett Tate. In fact, it was so striking that I thought it might be the same author:

  • Both devote a considerable amount of space to bashing feminism and modern women, especially making references to their rotundity and to the undesirableness of older women;
  • Both classify females into several overlapping categories, many of which are strikingly similar (e.g. Pred's "old yeller" is similar to Pred's "the ugly girl" and there are other parallels with the sex freak, romantic artist, gold digger, etc.)
  • Both talk about the need to watch out for what her friends will say about you
  • Advising never to volunteer advice or opinions but just to humor her as she talks on and on

Maybe these are all just universal concepts for seducing chicks in the U.S., I dunno. 129.174.73.132 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)