Archive for May, 2011

From time to time I’ve wondered why so many women, particularly feminists, are so furious about the existence of the pick-up artist community. It seems to me that once a woman has made the decision to be a floozy, it’s only to be expected that men will do whatever seems likely to get her to be a floozy for them. The only way to avoid this is to refuse to allow men to use your body if they haven’t made a formal commitment to you, i.e. married you. What did those women who supported and support the Sexual Revolution expect?

I believe that last was the correct question to ask. There have always been two types of bad girls: courtesans and sluts. Let us leave aside whether the women in question receive money for their favors, because that really isn’t relevant to the difference.

A courtesan, or her unpaid equivalent, has more to offer than her body. They have charm and wit. They are amusing conversationalists, diverting hostesses. At times it was fashionable for them to host salons for intellectual discussion. Kings followed the advice of such women. History tells us that many of them were not even beautiful, but as with Scarlett O’Hara, men seldom realized it when caught by their charms.

Sluts, whether they do it for fun or for money, have nothing to offer except their bodies. Men have no interest in their company outside of the bedroom. Men certainly do not respect them.

I think that feminists believed that, freed from chastity, they would be treated as courtesans. They had a vague fantasy that men would be honored by their favors as were the lovers of Ninon de Lenclos, and outside the boudoir would gather around them by the dozen, hanging on to their every word of wisdom. Their anger at things like pick-up artistry are a consequence of their disappointment at the reality.

The sad fact is, not every woman has it in her to be a courtesan. There are plenty of beautiful women who aren’t very interesting aside from their beauty. There are plenty of smart women who nonetheless are shy or too-serious in conversation. (That last should not be understood to refer to the authoress at all.) That kind of charm requires not only cleverness but also light-heartedness, practice, and people skills of the sort that, well, that PUAs strive to develop.

And of course, there are plenty of women who would make decent mid-level employees, and decent wives, but just don’t have the charm and wit of Lola Montes. If they obey the feminist commandment to let a series of men use their bodies, they will not receive much esteem from these men. They do not deserve what they are likely to get instead.

That is to say, many, many women who have a great deal to offer are not going to pull off being Madame de Pompadour. It is a highly specific skill set.

So women who give themselves to men who have made no commitment to them and who lack that kind of charm are going to find themselves in the “slut” category if the man in question doesn’t just happen to appreciate whatever else she has to offer. If she is lucky, they will share interests or political views or something. But then, I once read that a certain actress as famous for her political activism as for her acting could not get her long-time lover, also a movie star, to listen to her ranting. “One word and I’m out the door,” he told a reporter.

If even movie stars can’t get their lovers to respect them for their minds, other loose women are unlikely to achieve it.

Read Full Post »