Please explain to me what exactly a woman gains from you picking her up for sex then doing the same to somebody else the next night.
Why would you assume that sex is better for men and that women "get less" from it? Do you know anything about the female orgasm? Spoiler alert - they can have FAR more pleasure than we can.
Actually you do make a great point dancing much like sex you can do with several partners in a night. For that song she feels special like she matters to you then you move on to another partner. What is mutually gained from the experience beyond a few chemical reactions in the brain?
When you go to a ball or a social dance club you would be VERY foolish to believe that your dance partner will never take another dance partner.
Your premise seems to assume that women crave meaningless sex the same way that men do but when you examine the genetic make up that just isn't the case at all.
Women genetically have instincts to seek out long term partners and have children and you can see examples of this in the type of males who are normally successful with women. I'm sure you can become very good at putting a spin on the game and make it seem like you are doing it for the mutual benefit of women but being picked up and dropped is not something they wish for in the same way men are genetically designed to spread their genes everywhere so crave several partners much more.
First let's change "meaningless" to "casual" since meaning is created by the person in the act. I find nearly all sex meaningful - I can't possibly imagine what meaningless sex would look like or be.
Second, I think you are confusing:
1. What patriarchy, monogamy, and capitalism have taught you about sexuality
with
2. Genetics.
There is a TON of research that directly contradicts your unqualified assertion that women don't crave casual sex. For starters I urge you to look at:
sneak copulation and female promiscuity
penis and testicle size in primates
"Human testis size indicates that males evolved under conditions in which their sperm competed inside females... But the larger human penis suggests that hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied"
the
penis as a semen scoop
"the penis acts as a "semen displacement device" and its shape has evolved in part to displace another man's semen."
The
extreme competition of your sperm (did you know that 99% of your sperm has the sole purpose of 'kamikaze'-ing other men's sperm and only 1% of your sperm actually seeks out and fertilizes eggs)
There are a lot more resources about this topic as well. Basically all of it concludes that humans are inherently promiscuous, monogamy is NOT the natural state of humans, and women, although more deceptive / sneaky about their promiscuity, like and practice casual sex just as much, if not more, than the average man. The physiology and evolution of our genitals proves that we are inherently competitive and that women are very promiscuous and will seek out sex and sperm. You say there is "no benefit" but this is patently false - females benefit when they have sperm competition happening inside of them, creating an environment where the best genes fertilize her egg. It is in the females best interest to have a provider male who will give her and her offspring food, while secretly copulating with the genetically fittest men in the population. In short, women are hard-wired to make nice beta males rear children which aren't theirs - and that's genetically RIGHT.
This is corroborated in
recent studies where women have MORE sexual partners than men.
Tl; dr, women are promiscuous, and like sex just as much, if not more than men. Anything to the contrary is a myth propagated by patriarchy, just like burqas and chastity belts.
many of these self help "how to pick up women" books are filled with lies and fake psychology that doesn't actually work.
Not sure which self-help books you're referring to here. Reference and quotes? Show me something specific and then we can actually discuss it. These vague value judgments are meaningless.
The techniques only work for a jacked up good looking guy because genetically he already has the tools to attract women who have instincts to create the best offspring. A healthy attractive guy would be a prime target. But still guys will eat these books up hoping for that one super secret technique that brainwashes women into thinking they are a prime slab of man.
This is known as an "
argument from personal incredulity" and is a common fallacy. Basically, "I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false." This is a common argument against pickup. Rather than it not working, you simply don't believe it works. Well..... it does. I could show you first-hand.
I've SEEN it work with men who are not at all physically attractive.
@Dorian Gray and my good friend R is a short, balding, funny looking older dude with a gap tooth and very little Japanese, and he's slept with hundreds upon hundreds of fit young hairdressers, models, and hostesses. There are countless guys who are physically unattractive and yet women still fall for them. Luckily for men, we can still strike high above our physical "level" if we get everything else under control and improve our game.
However, I do agree with you that any "super secret technique" is not likely to be true. Instead, any pickup book worth its salt with teach you to
improve yourself in every way you can, let go of your insecurities if you can't change them, learn about the women you want to meet, and proactively go out and meet them. I can't see how that's despicable, a "lie" or a "super secret technique".
And please, if you're going to make sweeping claims like "women don't like casual sex" or "pickup is all lies" at least TRY to support it with evidence of some sort.
