Pick-Up-Artists Are Not Artists

Sorry to burst your bubbles, fellas, but pick-up-artists aren’t artists. The biggest reason being; there’s just way too many variables. For instance, if you live in India or anywhere in the Middle East, where 99 percent of the populace are Muslim, you cannot go around picking up girls because if anyone were to find out they’d, literally, stone you to death. Put plainly, not everyone can be pick-up-artists because not everyone lives in the same geographical region or observes the same religion.

Moving on. Here’s another example; if you’re tall, can afford fancy clothes and have a kick-ass ride to drive a girl around with, you’re more likely to get a girl to sleep with you than some schmuck who doesn’t have any of those things going for himself. In other words, to be a consistent “pick-up-artist” you must first have two or three things going for you, one; geography, two; good genes, and three; good socio-economic status. Now, because not everyone has the privilege of, simultaneously, having any of those things going for them, you cannot call yourself an artist whenever you succeed at picking up a girl.

A third reason why pick-up-artists aren’t artists is that the term “artist,” itself, does not apply to their activity. According to the current definitions of the word “artist,” one can only be considered an “artist” when one is “skilled at a particular task or [an] occupation,” and since pick-up-artists aren’t “skilled” but are privileged, they do not fit nicely in that definition. In other words, just because I might’ve been blessed with certain prerequisites to succeed, like a tall frame, access to capital, and a fancy car, does not make the things that I am good at, a skill. Another way to look at it is like this; if you’re an athlete and you’re 6’5 and you can dunk a basketball, that’s not a skill.

Okay, so tall athletes who can dunk basketballs aren’t skillful; but do you really mean it when you say that people that are privileged can’t be skilled at something?

That’s a great question and the simple answer is, no. Being privileged does not mean that you are incapable of becoming skillful at something. Take, for example, Prince Henry of Wales, the Queen’s grandson; he was born into privilege but yet he’s a skillful fighter pilot—-who, in one of the military’s most expensive and sophisticated aircrafts; the Apache helicopter, has killed plenty of insurgents in Afghanistan. But, the more complicated answer to that question; is that people like Prince Henry are in a different class of skillfulness than most people because of their privileges.

Like anything in life, there are degrees in which the terms like, “skillful” or “mastery,” can be applied to someone. For instance, if you’re a working-class individual, competing against a middle-class individual at becoming the world’s best bodybuilder, you’re probably not going to achieve that goal because you wouldn’t have had the same access to the type of supplements, trainers, or connections like the middle-class person would have had. Now then, when that middle-class person is granted the title of “the best” or the most “skillful,” it’s much more different than someone calling that working-class person “the best” or “skillful.” On their own, both terms may sound the same but when applied to two different people with vastly different socio-economic statuses, they suddenly take on two different meanings.

So in that sense, the best, so-called “pick-up-artists,” aren’t actually artists because they’re in a different class than most average people. Meaning, their title was made possible by the very fact that they had certain advantages that other people did not have. And this separation of advantages and disadvantages is what makes their type of skill, not a true art.

Now, if you were to say to me that, Lewuga, guys who pick up girls are enthusiasts, then I would absolutely agree with you because being an enthusiast requires none of the above things that I’ve just mentioned. But to call them artists; now that would be incorrect. But now that we’ve established that pick-up-artists aren’t actually artists, let’s take a look at some of their bullshit suggestions on how to pick-up girls.

Suggestion number 1.) How to get laid soon after she hands you her number.

After she gives you her number, text her right away, asking to hang out; she’d be so happy that you remembered her that she’ll even set up a time to meet for the both of you.

Bullshit. Guys, don’t ever do that; you’ll just look like a desperate fool if you do. What the research shows is that a woman likes a man who is aloof, and doesn’t appear needy. In other words, if you want her to remember you or to text you back, don’t text her right away. Give her some space to evaluate her handing you her number. The guy who can be patient will succeed, but the guy who can’t be patient will, almost certainly, jeopardize the girl’s interest in him.

That first advice was from a pick-up-artist who goes on to suggest that if you buy – or attend – one of his “courses,” that he’d personally teach you how to get a girl to be interested in you, again; even after she’d stop texting you back for weeks. I am no expert on women – and anyone who claims that they are, are selling you a load of crap – but I do know a little thing-or-two about common sense. And if a girl is not responding to any of your text messages for weeks – or longer – that’s an obvious sign that she’s not interested in you. And no “course” in the world will fix that.

Suggestion number 2.) An invitation to nothing.

This second suggestion is from Zan Perrion, a very popular pick-up-artist in the seduction community; and he says that you if you want a girl to be with you, you should just invite her into nothingness. For example, when you invite her to your place or to a bar, etc, don’t actually tell her what it is that you’re interested in doing. Let it be a complete mystery. Forget, for a second, how creepy or boring that might sound to a girl but, the mystery of it all, he says, will be the thing that will automatically attract her to you.

Sure, everyone likes a little mystery everyone once in a while, but what everyone likes more is to actually know what it is that they’re getting into. So for that, I call bullshit, on this advice. Guys, the truth is; the moment you invite a girl to come over or to simply hang out with you, and she asks “what are we gonna do?” and you say “we’re gonna do nothing,” she’s immediately going to find something else more substantive than what you’ve just offered her.

Instead of inviting a girl into nothingness, I would recommend that you be upfront with her and state exactly what it is that you’re in the mood for. And the reason why this method will work better than what Zan Perrion was suggesting, is because, again, research shows that women tend to go for men that are assertive, confident and goal-oriented. By taking the initiative to invite her over, and by also stating what you’re in the mood for, she will get the impression that your assertive, confident, and goal-oriented.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t mind it that guys are so interested in women that they make it their life’s mission to study how to pick them up. However, what I find very concerning is the fact that some of their methods aren’t rooted in sincerity or, in a genuine sense to actually get to know the person that they are hitting on. Rather, their goal is to manipulate and trick their victims into sleeping with them, without, in return, offering anything substantive. “A lot of my game,” one pick-up-artist said, “centers around not wasting a lot of financial resources. I don’t even take girls out….I meet them on the street and invite them to my place. If I’m attracted to the girl, my end game is to be physical. I want them in a controlled environment where I can escalate it into a sexual scenario.”

At this current time in history, where we’re discovering that sexual predators are not only manipulating and using their position of power to get what they want out of women but, in return, are causing severe traumatic experiences in their victims, we simply don’t need any more so-called “pick-up-artists” putting women in “controlled” spaces where the end goal is to “escalate” the situation into a “sexual scenario.”

Image by Jens Lindner from Unsplash

Pick-up-artist explaining how he picks up women; The grandmaster pick-up artist


Facebook | Twitter | Instagram 

Good Distraction And Bad Distraction

I THINK THERE is such a thing as a good distraction and a bad distraction. A Good distraction is when you’re still able to remain connected with your environment despite outside interferences. Also, a good distraction is something that does not hinder, but invites, authentic engagement with the people around you. On the flip side, a bad distraction is something that not only distracts you from important, momentary pleasures but it robs you of the chance to form real, concrete relationships with the people in your environment.

If good distractions and bad distractions are real, concrete things that can hinder or enhance our relationships, then why is it that some people choose the bad over the good? And whatever the reason may be, how can we, as individuals and as a society, encourage people to be less distracted?

Distractions are nothing new. We can go as far back in time as we want to and, at each point in history, we would discover that people were preoccupied with one thing or the other. Thus, what this tells us, is that distractions are prelims of human existence.

Although distractions are prelims of human existence, depending on what time period people are in, however, can determine the intensity-level in which people are distracted.  For example, when we look back to the 1960s, during the peak of the hippie movement, what we see is that a lot of people were not as distracted as they are today. Back then, there were no smartphones and no social media to distract people from important issues.

And although they had the Vietnam war, Civil Rights, and the Space Race with the Soviet Union to worry about, they were still able to come together to agree on certain things, like protesting the Vietnam war, listening to the Beatles and fighting for the environment. Granted, the economy was a lot stabler back then than it is today; social welfare programs had just started, and the federal government had increased its spending, we cannot overlook the fact that, despite outside interferences, people were still able to form meaningful connections.

Fast forward to the present moment, and distractions are not what they used to look like in the 1960s. Today, the type of distractions that we have not only prevents us from being hip to how people around us might be feeling, and to some of the important issues of the day, but they also have the added bonus of real, economic losses attached to them. Today, even something as harmless as being distracted on social media costs our economy $650 billion dollars in lost productivity. In other words, the more time you spend on social media the lesser the economy stands to benefit.

Seeing that both our interpersonal relationships and our economies stand to lose when we are distracted, what we now need, more than ever, is a reimagination of what it means to be distracted in a good way. On the surface, that sounds like an oxymoron, that is; how can being distracted actually be a good thing? and that’s true. But, when we look deeper, however, we can see that there are real, tangible outcomes for good distractions.

A good distraction is when you set your phone down and allow yourself the chance to wonder and connect with your environment. Secondarily, good distractions are great for not only fostering mindfulness but they are also great for fostering creativity, and creativity often leads to solutions. What this means is that people in the 1960s were onto something, that is; by allowing themselves to be distracted in a good way, they were able to agree on creative solutions that ended up changing the society in which they lived in.

We, in this generation, are certainly entitled to that same potential so long as we begin to choose good distractions over the bad distractions. But how do we encourage people to choose the good over the bad? It’s no secret, that when it comes to making positive choices, people will choose the bad over the good. One simple reason people do that is because the bad is convenient and sometimes more inexpensive than the good. To change that, though, we need to introduce them to posts like these. Another idea is to create educational programs, lectures, and seminars about the good, the bad, and the ugly of distractions.


The economic cost of using social media; Masahabe.com

U.S., economy during the 1960s -1970s; Years of Change

Three reasons you should let yourself get distracted; Fast Economy


Facebook | Twitter | Instagram 

Why Millennials Hate It When Their Friends Are Sad

millennial on computer

Why do our friends wish for us to be more happier and jolly when we’re sad and overwhelmed about life? And with all their attempts to cheer us up by making us laugh or telling us stories about the times we were happy, out-going, or vibrant—and, yet none of it seems to work, why don’t they just stop and accept our sadness?

Naturally, there are vast amount of reasons why our friends may dislike our melancholy, but in the spirit of convenience and for making sure that you can get back to your social media—and not have missed the latest newsfeed or tweet, I will break down what I believe to be the reasons in three observations.

  1. They think that because we’re all so “connected” that there’s no way that one of us could possibly be feeling sad, isolated or lonely.
  2. It reminds, confronts, and forces them with the reality that we may actually be sad, lonely, or overwhelmed, despite how “connected” we are.
  3. Due to our constant “connectivity” and cradled-upbringings with technology, some of us fear that we lack the social skills to communicate in ways that would resolve the dispiritedness of our friends.

If you’re the person that feels sad and often question why life is overwhelming, unfair or difficult, that’s absolutely okay and one hundred percent normal. Psychoanalysis, Donald Winnicott once said that childhood and adulthood are inherently difficult, thus we must allow ourselves the opportunities to regularly mourn over the most obvious or subtle things.

However, if you’re the person that are constantly trying to cheer up the latter individuals, you must keep in mind that life needs it’s moments of acknowledged sadness and mourning. Furthermore, what those in the latter may actually want is not cheering up but rather a shared moment of sadness and mournful sympathy. And if you’re worried about not having the right words to say to someone that may be feeling sad, isolated, or overwhelmed, don’t worry, just you being there–either physically or technologically—is enough.


Facebook | Instagram | Twitter