Talk:Seduction community

This article was nominated for undeletion on 9 March 2006. The result of the discussion was allow recreation (details)

Untitled

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)

This site reads like a commercial

This article should be modified. As it is, it mentions plenty of fringe figures with no relevance such as Johnny Soporno. Also, it is entirely uncritical. There is now a strong countermovement, first seeded by Barry Kirkey (Extramask from The Game), now there is PUAHate.com, which exposes the shams and frauds of this subculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.252.101 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

site?! surely you mean page.... & btw PUAHate.com is smaller than Johnny Soporno I'd reckon. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean article. :P --Devourer09 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seduction literature

Propose merging this in, or possibly deleting as a copyvio from http://themodernsavage.com/2008/03/09/14-seduction-books-listed-in-the-game/ , as noted in Talk:Seduction literature. I don't see any way it could expand beyond a section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see no copy violation, and the main article is rather long and so I see negative benefit in merging in this article. Mathmo ^Talk 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well, maybe no copyvio, but seduction literature is a stub and likely to remain so. Perhaps seduction community could be split in different ways? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Debate on Mystery's article

Editors of this article might be interested in the debate going on over at Talk:Mystery (pickup artist)#Requested move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pioneers of the seduction community

I really think there is a lack of information on the begineers of the seduction community, it have to be started by trainers at least from 1980s 1990s, but it only mentioned the newers workers in this area 2000s and above, I think it would improve this article to collecte olders trainers forgotten by the merchandising of the newers trainers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.105.14 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, more mention of the earlier guys would be good but unfortunately the way it works it is easier to find stuff on the more recent guys so it ends up that is what gets put in first. Mathmo ^Talk 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The 21 Convention is a pioneer event hosted by Dream. It is the first, and only event to consistently bring the major companies within the seduction community together, and release the footage absolutely free with no advertising, no cost, and no sign up required. UNLIKE Pua Lingo which has advertising.

Stop taking down the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.217.146 (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The first sentence of an article is arguably the most important one. I feel the current one as it stands -- "The seduction community is a loose-knit subculture of men who strive for better sexual and romantic success with women through self-improvement and a greater understanding of social psychology." -- is problematic for the following reasons:

• It does not incorporate the central role played by specific techniques;

• It fails to address the common emphasis on short-term "sexual and romantic success", which is ambiguous from the wording;

• It leans on two ill-defined concepts, namely "self-improvement" (vague) and "social psychology" (arguably has a distinctly different meaning within the scientific community from its common meaning in lay usage), making for an unclear or incomplete understanding of what the topic actually entails.

• It does not make reference to any of the controversies that surround the subject and which are well-documented.

I have no concrete ideas how to rewrite this at the moment, aside from changing "better ... success" to "greater ... success", which seems more correct. Any ideas? Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

many people who come in to the community are desiring to end up with a long term relationship, no need to put undue weight on the short term nature of many other relationships (after all the great majority of relationships that humans have in general are of a short term basis). Mathmo ^Talk 04:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Seduction lair

This article is bout a nondistinctive part of the community , not different from any other purpose-oriented mutual support clubs, and could easily be moved into the main article. DGG (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully but very strongly disagree, as they are the foundation upon which the seduction community is built upon. They are the "community" in "seduction community". Mathmo ^Talk 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree and merge for the same reason. --m3taphysical (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My logic was that as a large area of the seduction community they are one of the most worthy subjects in this area to deserve a separate article from the main article. Mathmo ^Talk 02:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are " the foundation upon which the s.c. is built" then it would seem best to integrate it. DGG (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My vote is for no integration. The seduction community consists of seduction coaches, dating coaches, individuals who consume seduction media without affiliating with a particular lair or program, wingmen meetups, unaffiliated friend-groups who've all read the game, and, yes, both for- and not-for-profit lairs. Of those, lairs stand apart for being (1) unlikely to receive press and (2) foundational. What needs to happen, if anything, is that this article gets expanded and its intro gets incorporated into the main SC article.drunkenfight (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New content for 'History' and 'Concepts' sections

{{editprotected}}

History

Recently some figures within the community have espoused more radical views concerning relationships. Previously the seduction community, although rejecting conventional views on dating, to a large extent accepted mainstream views on marriage and monogamy. Johnny Soporno has used the discourse of evolutionary psychology to challenge the institution of marriage and the concept of monogamy within society. Stephane Hemon has also contributed to this debate, but approaches the topic using concepts from New Age Spirituality such as chakras and the attainment of higher consciousness. While Hemon proposes alternative committed relationship arrangements that involve multiple partners, Soporno rejects the idea of committed relationships and the suggestion of ownership that it entails. He asserts that ideas of monogamy developed only with concepts of property that were necessary for an agrarian society to mature. While these concepts are interesting developments within the seduction community, they are still seen as controversial especially with the collapse of Hemon's independent circle which undermined many of his former theories.

There has also been a convergence recently between the seduction coaching industry and the porn industry. Johnny Soporno, and Hoobie from Real Social Dynamics typify this trend. Johnny Soporno has worked in the porn industry for almost 20 years and has released products targeting men and women interested in the industry based on his experiences. Hoobie created a website that merged seduction coaching videos with pornography.

Concepts

The concept of social proof has received more attention now due to the theories that Adam Lyons has developed which he eventually consolidated into the theory of Entourage Game. Entourage Game changes the emphasis of pickup from doing cold approaches to engineering your lifestyle so that you create a large social circle of women who you then can date if you choose. This method is alleged by Lyons to be a more natural way of meeting a long-term partner and consequently it requires less effort. Lyons has also developed a formula for attraction:

(C - R) + Q + SE = A

which translates as

(Comfort - Rapport) + Qualification + Sexual Escalation = Attraction

This concise modelling of attraction has also been seen with Erik von Markovik with his famous M3 model which was popularized with the release of The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. The innovation of Lyon's formula is the emphasis on breaking rapport to create attraction, a concept that was touched on by Erik von Markovik with his concept of negs, although it was widely misunderstood and parodied in the media at the time.

Adam Lyon is not the first to talk about breaking rapport as a way to create attraction. Breaking rapport starts, at the very least, with David DeAngelo who spoke of "busting on a woman."Apollyon316 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Description of request- This addition covers the recent attention given to social proof and lifestyle within the seduction community as well as the convergence between the seduction coaching industry and the porn industry. I have tried to get as reliable references as possible, but due to the underground nature of the seduction community it can be pretty hard. I talked with DGG about writing about people filming pickup and posting it online as well as the trend for hiring female trainers, but I could not find good enough references for these. The proposed addition would be to add these sections at the end of 'History' and 'Concepts' respectively, although perhaps the first section might fit better in 'Controversy'. Anyway thanks for reading this, I am happy to look for better references if these are not sufficient though looking for grade A references for articles related to the seduction community seems to be like trying to find a needle in the cyber-hay-stack. Thanks for reading!

DRosin (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've lowered the protection so you should be able to make the edit yourself now. By the way, the highest heading in articles should be level 2 (i.e. use == not =). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up now, thanks for lowering the protection and pointing out my mistake with the article heading! DRosin (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as I assumed, this would get better advice here than I could give by myself. DGG (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the attribution to Adam Lyons?! The general concept of social gaming is far older than even how long he has been in the game. That is like trying to claim natural game came about because of RSD's Natural Tim. Mathmo ^Talk 04:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in History

Well, there's one completely unsourced paragraph in History, and surprise, it's the most suspicious :)

The body of knowledge in the field of "pick-up" has grown exponentially in the past decade as millions of men around the globe have taken an interest in the subject. Many write up their personal experiences and construct theories of the self and of social dynamics to share with other students. The combined material has the hallmarks of an interdisciplinary field of study and promiscuously borrows concepts and terminology from other disciplines in the arts, sciences, and pseudo-sciences. Evolutionary biology, neurolinguistic programming, and the psychology of influence are just a few of the fields that have been mined for concepts and metaphors germane to the practice of pick-up.

So it's a nice PR piece, but a lot of it is unverifiable, and pretty much all of it is original research, is my guess. I don't think there needs to be an argument for legitimacy. Thoughts on removing this paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.205.153 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read even just quite a small selection of sources it is quite undeniable the amount of words/material they've borrowed/utilised from other sources. Mathmo ^Talk 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As well Johhny Soporno and Stephane Hemon, two almost totally irrelevant fringe seduction community teachers seem to take up an erroneous space in the History. These two have almost as much space in the history section as Neil Strauss or Mystery while they are even within the community itself almost unknowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.225.214 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Johnny and Stephane are considered extremely fringe. Those sections of them should be removed. Apollyon316 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote the bit about Johnny and Stephane. I think what is interesting are the concepts discussed and not the actual figures and their prominence. I think the first sentence:

'Recently, some figures within the community have espoused more radical views about relationships.'

sets out that these views are slightly fringe, but I think their prominence within the community is sufficient to include them in the article. DRosin (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We should also include puahate.com, which is the counter movment of the seduction community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azubane (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PUAHATE.com is just a random forum that started up recently, and absolutely nothing more.... read WP:SOURCES etc... to see why nothing on that site is suitable for quoting in this article. Mathmo ^Talk 07:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

unnecessary promotion of 'mystery'

not every dating page on wikipedia needs to be full of spammy links to the mystery page. If someone wants to make the claim that mystery needs to be singled out for special mention, this should be sourced and argued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.78 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide view

This article is tagged with a concern addressing a worldwide view according to the United States. The undated tag instructs editors to refer to the talk page. Where is this discussion located? I've looked for it, but can not find it. It may be here somewhere within an ambiguous section. Where? What is the specific concern? If the issue is not addressed, the tag needs to be removed. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove it and if anyone disagrees they can revert my change and preferably comment here as to why. Devourer09 (t·c) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that many wikipedia articles are the victims of spurious tagging; it is a hit-and-run tactic that lowers an article's perceived quality without discussion and with little or no punitive action against the perpetrator. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that readers are aware of problems with the article. If an article has no sources then a reader should be more skeptical when reading the information. I believe that sourcing is the most important problem with most articles. Devourer09 (t·c) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I feel there are enough reliable secondary sources within the References section of the article to establish the topic's notability. Also, if you look in the archive of this talk page you will find multiple instances of people trying to gain consensus for deleting the article but failing. I'm just putting this out there so there is no edit warring over whether the article is notable or not. --Devourer09 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with this. The article does need a clean up though. Blackjack676 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with the cleanup. I was trying to work on it but I lost most of my internet connectivity recently so I can't do much for it now. Devourer09 (t·c) 01:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A Problem in the US Only

This whole thing is a problem in the US only and should be pointed out as such. No other culture lacks the social skills of people in the US. The shame of course is they pick a 'solution' that's so typical of them - and actually further propagates their own silliness. A little commentary on how pathetic the whole thing is would not be inappropriate and would only be opposed by stunted males from the US still acting like cowardly preteens. Put this article - if indeed it need stay here when so many really important things are systematically and wantonly deleted - in its proper context. And what would women and feminists say if they saw this rubbish? Thank you. previous unsigned comment by User:86.217.219.169

In fact i have met with members of the seduction community in places other than the US. I am sure that, if you go looking, you will find references to lairs, courses, gurus, books and media articles on the topic, world-wide: including at least Canada, Europe, and southeast Asia. Also, while the question may be relevant, of whether this kind of social activity is pathetic, it is hardly neutral point of view. So, if you can write balanced prose on the topic, then please do. In fact commentary from women and feminists does exist. Inclusion of prominent opinions in a section on controversy would serve to improve the article. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are many lairs for PUAs all over the world. It's quite an international community. To write the article with the perspective that it's pathetic would introduce bias and would make the article not WP:NPOV. If you disagree with anything I've said then you are free to refer me to WP:RS that help prove your point. Thanks. :) Devourer09 (t·c) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

acronyms and jargon

I stumbled upon an online seduction community and it was so filled with jargon and acronyms that the conversations were incomprehensible. The discussion on acronyms and jargon should be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick questions/queries

Just wondering whether anyone else has problems logging into the asf site or forums? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwan0 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)