This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article was nominated for deletion review on 9 March 2006. The result of the discussion was allow recreation. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Pickup artist was copied or moved into Seduction community with this edit on 13 August 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Seduction lair was copied or moved into Seduction community with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
|||
This is not an article that should exist on wikipedia. When there is any sources that could be mistaken for WP:RS referenced here, they are completely mispresented and the article's claims synthesized.
For example:
Academic research has also confirmed to some extent that "game" and attraction principles do have a factual basis in social, physiological and evolutionary psychology.
So this is a WP:RS claiming that "game" has a factual basis? The source linked is not readable anymore but this is obviously WP:OR.
Another reference described as academic is actually a blog post or a personal essay mispresented as a study. It is described:
An academic paper on the community, published in 2012 by Eric C. Hendriks in the journal Cultural Analysis, details the value system guiding successful members of the Seduction Community based on an international study including participant observation of bootcamp and "lair" meetings in Germany.
This is again WP:OR as the article referenced was not a study and did not refer to any such studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esailija ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Goodnewsfortheinsane, your whole section here would be a perfect case example for teaching people about writing a balanced article- that is, how one might think they're doing so when actually their own bias slips under their awareness. Ill use it, thanks! :) Mr.troughton ( talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Agree and merge for the same reason. -- m3taphysical ( talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
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. [1] 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 [2], 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 [3], 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. [4] 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. [5]
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. [6] Hoobie created a website that merged seduction coaching videos with pornography. [7]
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. [8] 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 is just pseudoscience. You can't even quantify this as a mathematical proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.21.14 ( talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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. [9] 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. [10]
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
Hi, this is a call to all puas. We need your humor to improve the parody of this article: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Seduction_community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.224.188 ( talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
None of the claims of "the seduction community" are made in peer-reviewed journals. Virtually none of the "gurus" have any training whatsoever in psychology or the social sciences. It is preposterous that this article is allowed to present itself as "social psychology" in an unchallenged fashion. The claims of "the community" are utterly unverified and therefore pseudoscientific dogmatism; this fact should be reflected in future edits. Steeletrap ( talk) 04:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It has recently come to my attention that this section was used to advertise precisely one study by one author. I have edited the tone a bit, but kept the reference as it seemed somewhat relevant (notwithstanding the purported original intent). In any case, I would encourage others who are interested in the academic view on seduction (and the seduction community) to edit this section and include sources by reputable authors. For those who have the time and the interest, I would recommend searching pubmed for terms like "seduction" or "pickup" (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=seduction ). A quick search of mine returned two possibly interesting sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24483605 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253794 - but I am certain there are many more. Chymæra ( talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that pickup artist should be merged into this article as there seems to be a big overlap in the scope of the articles. Any thoughts? -- 81.4.180.206 ( talk) 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What should the "slashed term" in the introduction mean? How could this be said clearly without the / ? -- User:Haraldmmueller 08:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: MOVED to Pickup artist, per WP:COMMONNAME.( non-admin closure) While many supported without stating whether they preferred the hyphen or not, others have pointed out that without the hyphen is more commonly used. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Seduction community →
Pick-up artist – Rationale: Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NPOV. No one refers to pick-up artists as a "community" other than pick-up artists. It borders on abuse of the word. The current article is the result of a merge between the
Pick-up artist article and a badly PoV-pushing
Seduction community article (both dating, under various titles like the malformed "Pick Up Artist", etc., to 2006). Many of the flagged problems of the latter article remain, but the merge should obviously have been to the better-written article and better-attested, more neutral term. Spelling-wise, "pick-up artist" dominates by a wide margin, followed by "pickup artist", and "pick up artist" last (because it's not really grammatical in most
registers, in which compound modifiers are not written with a space). The lead section will need some massaging after the move. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
User MrOllie has been reverting a lot of edits to suit his own agenda and using personal attacks. He will not even let any of my minor edits stand, including:
The additional point that female pickup artists exist Typo fixes Removing a promotional link
I have opened a dispute resolution because of this. As a new user, he is breaching the don't bite the newcomers rule.
WikiSchnitzelBoy ( talk) 09:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources cited by these statements explicitly say 'gender roles', and we should follow the sources per WP:V. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to replace the current source with a source that links to the male and female sex since that's what the entire article is all about. The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity etc. The article clearly is about males and females, men and women. i.e. sex roles i.e. the roles between the two sexes. (and the source used should reflect this fact, not sure what Wiki policies says that it shouldn't) Vallonen ( talk) 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you telling me there are no sources for the male and female sex? As for the sources in place those are clearly incorrect since they do not link to the male and female sex but to gender, and gender and gender identity is not what the article is about. I am aware of the polices and I can't find anything that says that incorrect sources should be used instead of correct ones, nor can I find anything that says that incorrect sources should be used until there are correct ones available.
Added, it appears it says 'sex roles' in that very source.
Vallonen ( talk) 15:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that the source mentions 'sex roles' which directly deals with the male and female sex, men and women. i.e. the roles between the two sexes. Thus my edit is not only correct by in keeping with the source and the content of the article itself which deals with male and female, men and women, and with men picking up women. The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity. Read it.
As for changing the content no, those two edits are consistent with the male and female sex. Vallonen ( talk) 16:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, you claim that I am putting words in the authors mouth, that too is incorrect, Quote from the article "...The rise of "seduction science", "game",[2] or "studied charisma" has been attributed to modern forms of dating and social norms between sexes which have developed from a perceived increase in the equality of women"... clearly this deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity.
You can't use sex and gender interchangeably, they are NOT the same thing. So either this article is about sex (male and female, men and women) or it is about gender and gender identity, it can't be about both. Vallonen ( talk) 16:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If you report what the sources say PearlSt82 you should perhaps start by using the article itself as the source which clearly says 'sexes' i.e. male female, not gender or gender identity.
Interesting to note that MrOllie called for assistance, perhaps I should resort to doing the same. A bit childish, but still. Vallonen ( talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I reiterate: If you report what the sources say PearlSt82 you should perhaps start by using the article itself as the source which clearly says 'sexes' i.e. male female, not gender or gender identity. Quote from the article "...The rise of "seduction science", "game",[2] or "studied charisma" has been attributed to modern forms of dating and social norms between sexes which have developed from a perceived increase in the equality of women"... clearly this deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity. Vallonen ( talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly deals with the male and female sex PearlSt82, not with gender or gender identity. Thus the source should reflect this. You can't use a source that doesn't cite what the article itself is about, which is male and female, men and women, and men picking up women. Vallonen ( talk) 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly states that it deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity. As I've pointed out previously, you can't use sex and gender interchangeably, they are NOT the same hing. The source used should reflect this. As for sex roles it's used in the source itself.
The issue here is that sex and gender are used interchangeably despite the fact that they are NOT the same thing. Vallonen ( talk) 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Shouldn't one rename Category:Seduction community? @ Insertcleverphrasehere:, maybe you can help? Wikisaurus ( talk) 22:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The article seems to be stuck in the 2000s. Much like early Marxism (an apt, and original, analogy — no offense intended to any Marxists reading this), many of the least radical/toxic concepts of the turn-of-the-millennium pickup community gradually percolated into the mainstream. In many cases, those happened to be the ideas that were most grounded in bona fide research (no surprise there).
Furthermore, while I’m sure someone somewhere is still running “bootcamps”, there is now a huge industry of dating coaches who clearly don’t fall under the definition of “pickup artist” (see my separate edit removing that “synonym” from the lead sentence once I finish writing my talk page comments). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
A separate Context section (or first subsection of the History section) should be added, covering the relatively rapid mid-late 20th century changes in Western society’s courtship conventions, and other aspects of the sexual revolution, among other things.
Honestly, without that crucial paragraph(s), this article will remain a Wiki article, not a ‘Pedia article.
Other revisions to the layout might also potentially improve the article as well.
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article was nominated for deletion review on 9 March 2006. The result of the discussion was allow recreation. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Pickup artist was copied or moved into Seduction community with this edit on 13 August 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Seduction lair was copied or moved into Seduction community with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
|||
This is not an article that should exist on wikipedia. When there is any sources that could be mistaken for WP:RS referenced here, they are completely mispresented and the article's claims synthesized.
For example:
Academic research has also confirmed to some extent that "game" and attraction principles do have a factual basis in social, physiological and evolutionary psychology.
So this is a WP:RS claiming that "game" has a factual basis? The source linked is not readable anymore but this is obviously WP:OR.
Another reference described as academic is actually a blog post or a personal essay mispresented as a study. It is described:
An academic paper on the community, published in 2012 by Eric C. Hendriks in the journal Cultural Analysis, details the value system guiding successful members of the Seduction Community based on an international study including participant observation of bootcamp and "lair" meetings in Germany.
This is again WP:OR as the article referenced was not a study and did not refer to any such studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esailija ( talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Goodnewsfortheinsane, your whole section here would be a perfect case example for teaching people about writing a balanced article- that is, how one might think they're doing so when actually their own bias slips under their awareness. Ill use it, thanks! :) Mr.troughton ( talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Agree and merge for the same reason. -- m3taphysical ( talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
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. [1] 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 [2], 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 [3], 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. [4] 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. [5]
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. [6] Hoobie created a website that merged seduction coaching videos with pornography. [7]
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. [8] 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 is just pseudoscience. You can't even quantify this as a mathematical proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.21.14 ( talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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. [9] 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. [10]
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
Hi, this is a call to all puas. We need your humor to improve the parody of this article: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Seduction_community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.224.188 ( talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
None of the claims of "the seduction community" are made in peer-reviewed journals. Virtually none of the "gurus" have any training whatsoever in psychology or the social sciences. It is preposterous that this article is allowed to present itself as "social psychology" in an unchallenged fashion. The claims of "the community" are utterly unverified and therefore pseudoscientific dogmatism; this fact should be reflected in future edits. Steeletrap ( talk) 04:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It has recently come to my attention that this section was used to advertise precisely one study by one author. I have edited the tone a bit, but kept the reference as it seemed somewhat relevant (notwithstanding the purported original intent). In any case, I would encourage others who are interested in the academic view on seduction (and the seduction community) to edit this section and include sources by reputable authors. For those who have the time and the interest, I would recommend searching pubmed for terms like "seduction" or "pickup" (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=seduction ). A quick search of mine returned two possibly interesting sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24483605 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253794 - but I am certain there are many more. Chymæra ( talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that pickup artist should be merged into this article as there seems to be a big overlap in the scope of the articles. Any thoughts? -- 81.4.180.206 ( talk) 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What should the "slashed term" in the introduction mean? How could this be said clearly without the / ? -- User:Haraldmmueller 08:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: MOVED to Pickup artist, per WP:COMMONNAME.( non-admin closure) While many supported without stating whether they preferred the hyphen or not, others have pointed out that without the hyphen is more commonly used. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Seduction community →
Pick-up artist – Rationale: Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NPOV. No one refers to pick-up artists as a "community" other than pick-up artists. It borders on abuse of the word. The current article is the result of a merge between the
Pick-up artist article and a badly PoV-pushing
Seduction community article (both dating, under various titles like the malformed "Pick Up Artist", etc., to 2006). Many of the flagged problems of the latter article remain, but the merge should obviously have been to the better-written article and better-attested, more neutral term. Spelling-wise, "pick-up artist" dominates by a wide margin, followed by "pickup artist", and "pick up artist" last (because it's not really grammatical in most
registers, in which compound modifiers are not written with a space). The lead section will need some massaging after the move. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
User MrOllie has been reverting a lot of edits to suit his own agenda and using personal attacks. He will not even let any of my minor edits stand, including:
The additional point that female pickup artists exist Typo fixes Removing a promotional link
I have opened a dispute resolution because of this. As a new user, he is breaching the don't bite the newcomers rule.
WikiSchnitzelBoy ( talk) 09:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources cited by these statements explicitly say 'gender roles', and we should follow the sources per WP:V. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to replace the current source with a source that links to the male and female sex since that's what the entire article is all about. The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity etc. The article clearly is about males and females, men and women. i.e. sex roles i.e. the roles between the two sexes. (and the source used should reflect this fact, not sure what Wiki policies says that it shouldn't) Vallonen ( talk) 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you telling me there are no sources for the male and female sex? As for the sources in place those are clearly incorrect since they do not link to the male and female sex but to gender, and gender and gender identity is not what the article is about. I am aware of the polices and I can't find anything that says that incorrect sources should be used instead of correct ones, nor can I find anything that says that incorrect sources should be used until there are correct ones available.
Added, it appears it says 'sex roles' in that very source.
Vallonen ( talk) 15:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that the source mentions 'sex roles' which directly deals with the male and female sex, men and women. i.e. the roles between the two sexes. Thus my edit is not only correct by in keeping with the source and the content of the article itself which deals with male and female, men and women, and with men picking up women. The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity. Read it.
As for changing the content no, those two edits are consistent with the male and female sex. Vallonen ( talk) 16:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, you claim that I am putting words in the authors mouth, that too is incorrect, Quote from the article "...The rise of "seduction science", "game",[2] or "studied charisma" has been attributed to modern forms of dating and social norms between sexes which have developed from a perceived increase in the equality of women"... clearly this deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity.
You can't use sex and gender interchangeably, they are NOT the same thing. So either this article is about sex (male and female, men and women) or it is about gender and gender identity, it can't be about both. Vallonen ( talk) 16:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
If you report what the sources say PearlSt82 you should perhaps start by using the article itself as the source which clearly says 'sexes' i.e. male female, not gender or gender identity.
Interesting to note that MrOllie called for assistance, perhaps I should resort to doing the same. A bit childish, but still. Vallonen ( talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I reiterate: If you report what the sources say PearlSt82 you should perhaps start by using the article itself as the source which clearly says 'sexes' i.e. male female, not gender or gender identity. Quote from the article "...The rise of "seduction science", "game",[2] or "studied charisma" has been attributed to modern forms of dating and social norms between sexes which have developed from a perceived increase in the equality of women"... clearly this deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity. Vallonen ( talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly deals with the male and female sex PearlSt82, not with gender or gender identity. Thus the source should reflect this. You can't use a source that doesn't cite what the article itself is about, which is male and female, men and women, and men picking up women. Vallonen ( talk) 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly states that it deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity. As I've pointed out previously, you can't use sex and gender interchangeably, they are NOT the same hing. The source used should reflect this. As for sex roles it's used in the source itself.
The issue here is that sex and gender are used interchangeably despite the fact that they are NOT the same thing. Vallonen ( talk) 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Shouldn't one rename Category:Seduction community? @ Insertcleverphrasehere:, maybe you can help? Wikisaurus ( talk) 22:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The article seems to be stuck in the 2000s. Much like early Marxism (an apt, and original, analogy — no offense intended to any Marxists reading this), many of the least radical/toxic concepts of the turn-of-the-millennium pickup community gradually percolated into the mainstream. In many cases, those happened to be the ideas that were most grounded in bona fide research (no surprise there).
Furthermore, while I’m sure someone somewhere is still running “bootcamps”, there is now a huge industry of dating coaches who clearly don’t fall under the definition of “pickup artist” (see my separate edit removing that “synonym” from the lead sentence once I finish writing my talk page comments). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
A separate Context section (or first subsection of the History section) should be added, covering the relatively rapid mid-late 20th century changes in Western society’s courtship conventions, and other aspects of the sexual revolution, among other things.
Honestly, without that crucial paragraph(s), this article will remain a Wiki article, not a ‘Pedia article.
Other revisions to the layout might also potentially improve the article as well.
RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)