User talk:DutchSeduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to My Talk Page

Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia.

Feel free to post anything you think is important here.

A wink and a smile to you WP apparatchiks!

DutchSeduction 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] g'day

Everybody gets a welcome!


Welcome!

Hello, DutchSeduction, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edits

I noticed that you left a question at Wikipedia:Help desk about changing attribution for anonymous edits [1]. Since the Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit page is inactive, may I suggest for the time being that you list the IP addresses under which you used to edit on your user page. This way, you can show the contributions you made as an anonymous user, and get recognition for them. Best, Kewp 04:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seduction community

I don't see it at WP:VFU, but maybe you're just in the process of adding it now. Anyway, I stand by my decision to delete, but if others vote to undelete it and give it a second chance, I won't object. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my decision because no one who voted "delete" changed their vote after the re-write, which often happens. But I will abstain from voting at VFU (and I found it there now, thanks for putting it in a more visible position!). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No, no one is required to vote again after a major rewrite. Some voters aren't aware there has been a major rewrite, so it's a good idea to leave a note on the talk pages of the people who have already voted, letting them know it's been rewritten and asking them to take another look. If you feel that not enough people voted after the re-write, or that not enough people knew about the re-write after the fact, say so explicitly in your WP:VFU request. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Sure, I'll give an opinion... just give me some time to read through the AfD, article, etc.--Isotope23 14:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Call to RECTRACT the VfU This does look like a classic example of the deletion process gone wrong.

The topic of the seduction community - i.e. the trainers, books, etc, teaching people how to seduce women - is notable. The problem is that the subject is also controversial and a spam target.

I have decided to let this issue rest for a while. I still believe that the topic is notable, and I will work on a demonstration of that in my userspace (see below), but this specifc article is not critical, so I am droping this VfU. DutchSeduction 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this decision is not for the best. Why go through all that trouble and then retract? On the other hand, it might be a better idea to simply write a new article about the community, and post it new. Since a consensus is needed to delete or undelete an article, it will be a heck of a lot easier to oppose deletion than it will be to get the original article undeleted. After all this debate, if the new article is half decent, I don't see how it could gather enough support to be redeleted. --Quintin3265 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Quintin, you're catching on. Get rid of those amateurish DeAngelo and Ross Jeffries articles, and let's start all over again. DutchSeduction 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I may agree with you on the non-deletion, but I don't agree with you on "getting rid of" those articles. Ross Jeffries needs some cleanup, but I don't believe that David DeAngelo is biased anymore. The article presents a good overview of his teachings. What I hadn't realized is that many in the Seduction Community dislike him for his teachings. Still, he is notable, and no matter what's written about him, everyone won't be happy. In a way, I think the DeAngelo article is better than the original Seduction Community article, because it actually talks about some key facets of his program, while the community's article was too general and didn't really provide many specifics in an attempt to appease everyone.
      • Maybe you can't see it, but it reads like a promotional piece, it is full or original research, and in some places it's factually incorrect. One small example, the 3-second rule was invented by Mystery.
        • Well, we can argue over whether it reads like a promotional piece all we want, because that's just a basic disagreement. As to things like the 3s rule, the article doesn't state that DeAngelo invented the rule. I added it to the article because he makes it one of his primary teachings. If someone wrote an article about Mystery, then the rule could be credited to him and everyone wins. --Quintin3265 16:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Except that I have no interest in promoting or crediting anyone: Wikipedia is not primarily an experiment in Internet democracy. It's a project to write an encyclopedia.[[DutchSeduction 17:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)]]
            • Yes, and an encyclopedia should have not only an article on the seduction community, but separate articles on its key figures such as Jeffries, Mystery, and DeAngelo, and additional articles on some of the more important terms used like the "neg hit." People will be credited because they deserve the credit. What you're advocating, I believe, is going out of your way to discredit some contributors by not including them - not the other way around. Think of it this way - isn't List of warez groups an article entirely for promotion? It was nearly unanimously kept after a VfD thread was posted. If that's not an article for promotion, then DeAngelo's and Jeffries' articles, in their ideal states, are certainly not. --Quintin3265 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Using your List of warez groups as an example, I think a List of notable seduction coaches is a great idea. I'm glad to see there is some precedence for this. The way your article is written it is obviously intended as promotional fluff to build up DeAngelo's commercial reputation. It makes it seem as if you are either a raging fan or friend of his or part of his enormous staff of Internet marketeers. There is a clear guideline against advertising and POV adcruft in WP. The only notable points about DeAngelo from an encyclopedic point of view are maybe DYD, "cocky and funny", his business position in the seduction community, and the fact that he tries to fashion himself as a leader of a new sexual revolution for men. The rest is BS. DutchSeduction 08:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also rather confused by all the controversy about the seduction community article. I understand that people want to avoid commercial links and spam. But the seduction community does exist, it's big (both online and offline), and it has been receiving substantial notice in popular culture. What more do people want? I've added a few more references to your list, including an announcement from two days ago confirming that "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" is being made into a movie by Columbia. Perhaps when the movie comes out, people will finally get the picture that the seduction community is a big deal. (Note: I also corrected the spelling of Neil Strauss' name; you had it spelled "Neill"). --SecondSight 00:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seduction Community references

  1. Strauss, Neil, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (2005), ISBN 0060554738
  2. ""'The Game': Come Here Often?"", Alexandra Jacobs, New York Times, 11 September 2005
  3. ""'He Aims! He Shoots! Yes!!"", Neil Strauss, New York Times, 25 January 2004
  4. ""Every Maverick Needs a Goose, but Should You Pay for One?"", Anna David, Razor, July/August 2005
  5. ""What It Feels Like . . . To Pick Up Britney Spears"", Neil Strauss, Esquire, 1 August 2005
  6. ""Operation PickUp"", Hugo Rifkind, The Times, 3 September 2005
  7. ""All the Right Moves", Emma Forrest, The Observer (UK), 11 September 2005
  8. ""Girls, If You See This Man, Run a Mile", Rafael Behr, The Observer (UK), 25 September 2005
  9. ""Single-Minded", Jane Ganahl, San Francisco Chronicle, 25 September 2005
  10. ""Meet Professor Seduction ", Chuck Terhark, Utne Magazine, November 2004
  11. ""The Secret Society." ABC Prime Time. ABC, U.S.A. 30 September 2005
  12. ""Lady killers"", Lianne George, Macleans magazine, 02 September 2005
  13. ""Sexual politics: The Game by Neil Strauss"", Christopher Hart, The Sunday Times (UK), 02 October 2005
  14. ""Seduction for Dummies,"" Kristian Gravenor, Montreal Mirror, 14 July 2005
  15. ""Seduction? Any woman with her own hair and a bottle of vodka can do it,"" Rowan Pelling, The Independent (UK), 04 September 2005
  16. ""Books: Q&A with author Neil Strauss,"" Lianne George, MacLean's (Canada) 29 August 2005
  17. ""Extremely Dangerous Knowledge", Neil Strauss, Esquire, 01 September 2005
  18. ""Go On Pull the Other One," Neil Strauss, The Observer, 15 February 2004
  19. "Pickup Shticks", Jerome Weeks, The Dallas Morning News 23 September 2005
  20. Revealed: the dark arts of the ladykiller, The Scotsman, 12 Sep 2005
  21. Danger: pickup artists ahead, Deborah Netburn, Los Angeles Times, 31 August 2005
  22. The Game by Neil Strauss, Guardian Unlimited (UK), John Crace, 3 October 2005
  23. Keeping score with pickup artists in 'The Game', Wesley Morris, The Boston Globe, 27 September 2005
  24. Pulling Power, Shane Watson, The Sunday Times (UK), 11 September 2005
  25. Weitz putting 'Game' face on, Tatiana Siegel, The Hollywood Reporter, 24 February 2006


  • Comment Should this be an article on the definition of the Pickup artist?


11

"The Game" ...takes a look at the underground "seduction community" - men desperate to learn the right moves, and the "experts" getting rich off their insecurities.

15

Strauss is a PUA, or pick-up artist, a tag accorded to a man who can seduce any HB (hot babe) within minutes of meeting her, using a sequence of proven manoeuvres. Most of these are gleaned from gurus of the all-male "seduction community", who have honed their mantras from study of evolution theory, psychology, social dynamics and neuro-linguistic programming (a form of hypnosis which uses verbal cues and physical gestures as triggers to the subconscious mind). Techniques include "peacocking" (engaging women's interest with outrageously dandyish costumes) and "negging" (delivering a subtle put-down to a gorgeous female who expects a string of compliments).

18

Researching a book proposed by an editor, I allowed myself to be taken under the wings of the selfproclaimed greatest pick-up artists in the world and entered an underground subculture of men dedicated - sometimes to an unhealthy and troubling extreme - to figuring out the mystery of the opposite sex. For lack of a better term, they refer to themselves simply as 'the community'. For most, entry into this cult-like cross between self-help group and locker room begins on the internet. Type 'seduction' or 'how to meet women' into a search engine and you will find hundreds of sites trying to part you from your money. But the lucky few, able to wade through enticements to 'meet models now', may find one of the free usenet groups, internet mailing lists or message boards where hundreds of men labour day and night to turn the art of seduction into an exact science.

19

These days, a not-so-secret online network of would-be seducers swaps success stories and holds workshops on how to pick up women.

[edit] Pickup Artist Work in progress

A pickup artist or PUA is someone who is particularly skilled at the art of seducing or picking up another individual. The term is usually used to refer to a man who uses his charm and skills of persuastion to attract and meet women.


[edit] The Development of the Pickup Artist

Giacomo Casanova was known as an infamous pickup artist from the 18th century, and his talent for sweeping women off their feet was often considered a refined form of art. Robert Greene's book "The Art of Seduction" includes many references to legendary pickup artists in history and literature. Greene often portrays many of the personalities in his book as having a unique and legendary ability to charm and persuade.

In modern times pickup is increasingly considered by some people to be a down-to-earth skill that can be studied and practiced every day. For some individuals it is even a hobby or a science. The seduction community is a group of men who regularly meet online and in person to discuss and practice various techniques for sexually attracting and seducing women. Those in the community who have mastered the techniques refer to themselves as PUAs, and some of them, who go by names such as Mystery, Juggler, IN10SE, and Badboy, have entered the business of conducting workshops to help men improve their results on the dating scene.

[edit] The Seduction Community

The seduction community and some of its rituals have inspired several Hollywood films, including Hitch, Magnolia, Swingers, and Wedding Crashers. Today the main Internet newsgroup for the community attracts more than 20,000 individual posts er year, and some of the community's more popular websites can boast tens of thousands of individual users.

Despite that there is often disagreement about the effectiveness of specific seduction techniques, members of the community often share much of the same terminology and philosophy. As a result, this community has been characterized by some people as an early sign of a new men's rights movement, allowing free discussion of male confidence and sexuality.

On the other hand, the seduction community has also been widely critized. Some object to its perceived misogyny or objectification of women. These critics often suspect that some of the techniques used are either inherently dishonest or that they encourage lying. Others argue that they promote meaningless sex, one-night stands and polyamorous relationships rather than traditional monogamous ones.

Active participants in the community are often members of local clubs spread around the world which are known as "lairs" in which these techniques are actively practiced. Lairs organize parties and seminars as well as nightclub and bar-hopping exhibitions. There is also a commercial circuit of seduction seminars which are often targeted at the less experienced community members.

Although for some community members, activities are centered upon engaging in sexual intercourse with as many women as possible, many others aim for self-improvement, learning to understand women and developing satisfying relationships with them.

The community first began to attract attention and grow after some practitioners reported "successes" with women considered particularly desirable, such as Sports Illustrated models and beauty pageant winners. It is best known today through the work of Neil Strauss, an investigative journalist who wrote a series of articles and a book, entitled The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, styled as an exposé of the seduction community.

[edit] Criticism

Many of the seduction community's leaders have been critized for overt commercialism, overhyping and overcharging for their products. For example, some of the materials published and sold, like The Layguide, are actually edited versions of information freely available on the Internet. Most of the community's material is freely available on line.

Some of the techniques advocated seem to require radical appearance and personality makeovers which defeat the implied purpose of the systems in many critics eyes. For example, in practice many of the seminars advocate dressing in certain styles and going to certain bars which only feature certain genres of persons. This advice would not be suitable for someone who does not in general like that particular scene. Most of these criticisms are discussed in great detail in Neil Strauss' book.

Amidst much of this criticism is the skepticism with which this community has been received by mainstream media. It has been touted as the men's alternative to books for women like The Rules which spawned the concept of the Rules Girl, but a lot of attention has focussed on whether or not this type of men's rights movement is an effective way to learn how to become a ladies man and whether or not it is a subject that can be taught at all.

[edit] Wikinfo

http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php? Fred Bauder 13:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David DeAngelo

I think you have misunderstood the motives behind my edits on the David DeAngelo page. See my explanation on the talk page. I have no beef with you, in fact, for the most part I've appreciated your work on the seduction community-related pages. I urge you to not jump to conclusions about my motives. I've also supported your inclusion of the LairList.com link on the Seduction Community page because I am disturbed by what you say about other versions of the list being censored. Please do not lump me in with DeAngelo fanboys. My main motivation right now is to make seduction community-related pages as objective as possible, so that they will survive any future possible pogroms like the one against the original seduction community article, and so other editors won't become biased against those pages. I hope you can see where I am coming from on this. --SecondSight 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adcruft Discussions with Commercial Spammers

Dutch Seduction - let's get this sorted out. Most of your recent comments verge on attacking me, and almost certainly fall foul of Wikipedia's policy on civility. I don't have any argument with you, and like you, I want to build up the pages here. I've put a *LOT* of work in to the pages so far, as you know, and I've added to almost all sections of almost every pages related to the community.

Yes I'm pro FS.com. The reasons why are discussed in great detail on various talk pages. I don't have any business relationship with them. I've even mentioned on certain pages that I don't like linking to them too hard, and would like people to find alternating links. I'm happy to have a smaller number of links to their pages - where the site is the original source for a page, I think it's only fair that we link to them tho. I don't think my comments on the Seduction Community site are POV - but I think branding the site commercial, without pointing out it's free to use, and considered independent, is a POV. If you want to suggest a rewrite where you call it commercial, while making sure it's clear that it's free and independent, then I'll happily accept that.

I've stopped deleting your links to the sites you've founded. My opinion is that neither should be linked to from wikipedia, but I'm letting it rest, because I'd rather see the pages grow than spend time arguing about it. I consider this compromise. Please compromise yourself, by:

  • Not continuing your smear campaign, where you try and brand all the hard work I do here as 'commercial ad cruft' and 'spam attack warfare'. It isn't, and you know that. You know I've contributed a LOT of work on all the pages, built up the navigation template, worked my ass off making the Mystery Method page good, defending the RSD page from deletion - ultimately, it'll lead to lots more negative light on the pages if they're full of edit messages like that
  • Adopting a non-POV stance on FS.com in the 'Seduction Community'. I don't know what your argument with them is, but Jesus, let's aim for truth here. And truth is that the site is: advertising supported; free to use; widely considered independant. If you want to call it commercial, fine. Call it commercial. But also mention that it's free to use and considered independant, because otherwise, it's misleading.

So please agree to these two points. They're easily done. For my part, I will:

  • Stop harrassing you when you promote DutchSeduction and LairList

Can we agree to this? I think it's a fair compromise.

WoodenBuddha 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WoodenBuddha, taking your comments to heart, there is no need to compromise in this way. Heavily promoting commercial sites that you favor is POV and comes across as adcruft. You've had many other readers intervene and agree with me on this point. Adding nonprofit, noncommercial references is going to give the pages neutral and unbiased sources and will preserve NPOV. DutchSeduction 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

DutchSeduction - you founded both sites. I know you keep 'rebutting' that with "I don't run either site", but you did found both. I've not had 'many other readers intervene' - show some proof if you think that's the case. The 'compromise' I ask from you is civility. If you think I'm posting ads, then try an 'Edit Summary' of "I don't think this is NPOV, please see the talk page" and actually discuss it, rather than fighting. Additionally, please read Talk Pages before running in guns blazing.

WoodenBuddha 13:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who you think I am or who think founded these various sites. I did neither. Stop accusing others of what you yourself are doing. See my edit history. Yours is checkered with promotional adcruft. I'm surprised if you don't understand why promoting FS.com as "A free, moderated, alternative was created (see: alt.seduction.fast), which is now indisputably, and by some margin, the largest and most prominent forum in the scene. While the forum now has heavy commercial advertising, it's still free to use, and considered independent" seems like adcruft to many other WPers. Again, I have nothing against the site whatsoever, but stop letting bias creep in. The owner of FastSeduction.com is Learn the Skills Corp. It's a commercial website plain and simple. Stop trying to cover that up! DutchSeduction 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on RSD page

To DutchSeduction and WoodenBuddha (I'm leaving this comment on both your talk pages): I want to alert you guys to vandalism of the RSD page. See Talk:Real Social Dynamics. Someone went around and added RSD links to all the community-related pages, which I reverted. The same person blanked out almost all of the RSD page (including the criticms section) and replaced it with information directly pasted from RSD's website! Check out the page history to see how disgustingly blatant this was. I reverted him and left comments on the talk page, but then someone with a very similar IP address did the same thing again, which I just reverted. I am beginning to suspect that it is someone affiliated with RSD. If that person continues their behavior, I think we should report them to an admin and try to block them, and if that doesn't work, consider getting the RSD page protected or even deleted. Despite any disagreements we might have with each other, I think we can all agree that abuse like this needs to be stopped, and I propose that we cooperate to crack down on editing like this. I am getting close to midterms so I can't be on wikipedia all the time, so hopefully you guys can continue to keep an eye on these pages. --SecondSight 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formhandle

I don't know what's up with him. It seems like you guys have had some political issues, but I don't really know anything about that. I don't know whether he sees the page as either competition or advertising. He didn't find out about it through me, because I didn't want to mention the page on mASF for a while because I didn't want to attract tons of spammers or POV editors. I don't know why he thinks the page is spam. As for the link to the mASF Wiki, I don't think it's anything to do with him; probably just some random person trying to improve the page. --SecondSight 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some history with Formhandle+mASF and the Seduction Community article: when the article was marked for deletion, there was an announcement made on mASF to see if people would be interested in contributing and saving the article. I think Formhandle was negative about WP at that time, and it appears as if he still is. I was surprised to see that he now has his own seduction wiki on his site. I personally don't have any political issue with him at all, and can't understand what is making him angry. DutchSeduction 10:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Formhandle was angry about a comment made next to one of my edits where I suggested advertisers were asked to pay $30,000 for an ad. I can imagine why he wouldn't want people to publicize information about his ad rates, although I didn't realize it at the time. The comment is not part of any article, and hopefully my reply to him will calm him down. DutchSeduction 10:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WoodenBuddha

As far as I can tell appears to be a commercially motivated vandal to the various seduction community pages.

[edit] LairList.com

Can you provide a reliable source that shows LairList.com is a registered nonprofit? I can't find it on GuideStar (see results) which is the main database of US non-profits. The site itself makes no claim to be a nonprofit organization. Thanks, Gwernol 19:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the URL provided does not take you to the quote claimed, so I don't see how this is a reliable citation for the quote anyway. Gwernol 19:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources and URL verified! DutchSeduction 19:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help. Yes, I'd prefer "non-commercial" to "non-profit". Best, Gwernol 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help cleaning up the seduction community pages.

[edit] Mystery Method

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. – Ryan Delaney talk 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)]

Never added a single commercial link to any page! I think you have me mistaken for someone else. Check my edit history. Only content and improvements to the pages were added by me. Thanks for looking out for the pages, though. DutchSeduction 20:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] David DeAngelo (again)

Just out of interest, have you read any of David DeAngelo's works? -- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which ones?
--Sasuke Sarutobi 10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have skimmed through a lot of them. They aren't total garbage at all, just terribly commercial and far inferior to many alternative approaches. DutchSeduction 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by your alternative approaches. For instance, I don't quite understand the difference between C&F and P&C. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment on my talk page about the COI of interest potential you have with David DeAngelo. Mathmo Talk 02:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New seduction community template

In light of the recent nomination of Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (here). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)