It’s not clear to me why this is a better explanation than the obvious alternative from, so to speak, the other side: the PUA bloggers were already thinking of women as objects, to be used and manipulated for the benefit of men, which is right in line with a “Dark Enlightenment” view that men should be controlling them and keeping them in line. Same attitude to women, just on a societal rather than an individual scale.
I was a fan of PUA, but I never thought about “women as objects”. For me it was more like: all humans are imperfect, but it is okay to speak publicly about imperfections of men, while it is taboo to discuss imperfections of women. Still, I want to understand the whole homo sapiens species with all its faults. Otherwise, I will be constantly surprised, which will prevent me from reaching my goals. One of those goals is a mutually satisfying heterosexual relationship. If my model of female psychology is wrong, I am walking on a minefield. And looking at the divorce statistics (and also an evidence from my previous relationships), the minefield is full of mines.
I fully understand that other people may study PUA for completely different reasons. For me, this feels like saying that some people study chemistry for evil reasons, so we should never mention atoms and molecules. Sorry, the information is already out there, and those people have enough opportunity to study it elsewhere.
For me, this feels like saying that [...] we should never mention atoms and molecules.
What does?
(From what you write, one would think that someone’s saying that because the PUA community sometimes/often/generally treats women as objects, we should never mention any of the things they talk about. But I don’t see anyone saying anything like that.)
It’s not clear to me why this is a better explanation than the obvious alternative from, so to speak, the other side: the PUA bloggers were already thinking of women as objects, to be used and manipulated for the benefit of men, which is right in line with a “Dark Enlightenment” view that men should be controlling them and keeping them in line. Same attitude to women, just on a societal rather than an individual scale.
I was a fan of PUA, but I never thought about “women as objects”. For me it was more like: all humans are imperfect, but it is okay to speak publicly about imperfections of men, while it is taboo to discuss imperfections of women. Still, I want to understand the whole homo sapiens species with all its faults. Otherwise, I will be constantly surprised, which will prevent me from reaching my goals. One of those goals is a mutually satisfying heterosexual relationship. If my model of female psychology is wrong, I am walking on a minefield. And looking at the divorce statistics (and also an evidence from my previous relationships), the minefield is full of mines.
I fully understand that other people may study PUA for completely different reasons. For me, this feels like saying that some people study chemistry for evil reasons, so we should never mention atoms and molecules. Sorry, the information is already out there, and those people have enough opportunity to study it elsewhere.
What does?
(From what you write, one would think that someone’s saying that because the PUA community sometimes/often/generally treats women as objects, we should never mention any of the things they talk about. But I don’t see anyone saying anything like that.)
Some people have a preference to not discuss PUA on LessWrong at all.