Thursday, March 02, 2006

The Plot Thickens

Wow, scandal!

The Village Voice cover story, "Do You Wanna Kiss Me?" contains fabricated material. No shit, Sherlock. The Voice has pulled the piece from its website and has issued a statement. Gawker.com wrote about the controversy last night and again today.

The editor-in-chief who I pitched my idea to, Doug Simmons, has apparently left the paper. That's what you get for stealing my idea, getting some clueless Harvard kid to blow it up into an article full of lies, quoting my blog without my permission, and giving me zero credit. Not that I'm particularly pissed off, just fascinated at the turn of events.

Here is an excerpt from the letter I wrote Simmons on Thursday, January 26th:

Dear Mr. Simmons,

Forgive the boldness of my email, but I wanted to share an interesting story with you.

I have an anonymous blog in which I write about my sex/love life called The Truth About Cocks and Dolls (
http://cocksanddolls.blogspot.com/). The other night, I met a pick-up artist, straight out of Neil Strauss's book THE GAME. He was using many of the tricks I read about that are supposed to engage a woman's interest, and the shocking thing was how well they worked. Even though I called him out on his tricks, even as he was performing them, he still reeled me in.

Gee, wherever did Simmons and writer Nick Sylvester get the idea for that article? Hm, I wonder...

Glad to see the truth is coming out. Maybe this will even help pick-up artists not get painted in such a negative light. Maybe next time a writer will actually do some fucking research when composing a journalistic piece, instead of padding a few real quotes with made up events. What a novel idea.

Dolly and the PUAs: 1
The Village Voice: 0

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dolly, while you're at it, you should get your hands on all the seduction material there is and write a book about your perspective on it (and eventually get rich too).

Slinky said...

wow! dolly, you're like a kofi annan for PUAs!

pawlr said...

Dolly, it is cool watching you make the Voice your Bee-atch.

But please don't keep us hanging as far as the personal life goes, we still love to hear good intel from you about responses to the guys in your life.

Dolly said...

Anonymous,
Don't tempt me!

Slinky,
You are too kind.

Pawler,
I know, I know. There have been some developments in the dating life and I had a date last night which needs mentioning. Soon, soon.

londonplayboy said...

Dolly

You rock. Will you marry me?

;-)

Um Hi said...

Hey Dolly, I stumbled onto your blog after reading the cached link on Gawker this morning, and I find it so refreshingly funny and honest--you have a new fan! I'm a newbie to New York, and the dating scene here is like no where else I've ever been. Fabulous job in letting girls like me know that we aren't alone.

pawlr said...

Juliette - Welcome to the Big Apple. I suspect you'll meet a much wider sampling of high-value guys here. Just watch out for the man with the thousand eyes :) Enjoy!

Stretch said...

Serves 'em right.

Anonymous said...

I love how you're obsessed with me. ;)

~~Affection

Mary said...

Dolly, you should seriously consider writing a PUA companion for women. I know I'd buy it for sure.

Larissa said...

go Dolly go Dolly! remember to let me know when you're on the Today Show talking PUAs with Matt Lauer.

Anonymous said...

What do you look like, DOlly? I linked over from APB.

becca said...

Mmmmmmmmmk

So who are the sleazy liars? The PUAs or the sleazy lying reporters who report that the PUAs are sleazy liars? Glad to see this issue finally cleared up!

Dolly said...

London Playboy,
Where's my ring?

Juliette,
You're attractive and cultured and I'm sure you'll do brilliantly in the NYC dating scene. Whatever you do, don't get jaded. Good luck out there!

Affection,
What can I say, this oneitis will not abate.

Mary and Larissa,
I appreciate your lofty aspirations for me. I'm trying to stay level-headed about all this, so don't let me get carried away, 'kay?

Anonymous,
I have pink hair, wear slinky black dresses, and am a cartoon.

Becca,
Indeed.

Anonymous said...

Congrats babe... your drama hit Drudge Report.

"VILLAGE VOICE suspends editor for fabricating scene in cover story... "

~~Affection

becca said...

I feel kinda bad that it's a guy getting busted for mis-reporting on the PUA stuff. There have been tons of women reporters writing stuff that is just as misleading over the past few months.

Rebel Leader said...

I nominate Dolly to be the patron saint of PUAs.

SwiftSpot said...

*Hi-Five* loving the baby momma drama and glad to have you playing for our team - i wonder why the guy linked your blog...

Mango said...

Hey Dolly,

Congrats! You just made Style's latest email blast!

Wow. A mini-celebrity in our midst. We're not worthy... ;-)

Anonymous said...

in response to one of your previous posts:

women dying their hair, using push-up bras, wearing makeup and all the self-imposed torture (burning, plucking, chemically peeling, waxing, etc) that goes in to making our bodies sexually appealing to men is in no way comparable to the strategies laid out in The Game. Putting on mascara and batting your eyes (signs of availability and implied DESIRE for a man) are not in any way comparable playing off a woman's insecurities about her attractiveness (talk about an easy fucking target) by underhandedly insulting her as a way to lure her sorry, low self-esteemed, i-don't-look-like-heidi-klum-so-i'm-not-worthy ass in to bed for a one night stand. Women go to great pains to make themselves look good for men, and men turn around and tell them they look like crap...which apparently causes women to go all weak in the knees! so the PUA screws them and goes on his merry way. way to get that F-lock (or whatever the fuck the book called it), Guy! Way to treat eachother like human beings! On the other side of that token, however, is the fact that women actually fall for that shit. It's time for women to start realizing that if none of us accept that kind of behavior from men, it might start to go out of fashion.

Dolly said...

Affection,
Yeah, it's all over the place. Sorry I missed your call, I needed a quiet night in after all this madness.

Becca,
Don't feel too bad. This was a supposed piece of journalism that was not fact checked and, in fact, full of fabrications. Sylvester should have known better.

Rebel Leader and Mango,
See, it's PUAs like you that make me think well of the community.

Swiftspot,
Sylvester probably linked my blog because that's where he (via the editor-in-chief) got my story idea from!

Anonymous,
I want to clear up the idea of negging for you. It is not, not, NOT about playing up a woman's insecurities. No pick-up artist would say, "wow, your thighs are so fat" or "that's such a weird mole on your chin" or "you have a serious acne problem" or anything demeaning like that. The point is to keep it upbeat and playful. The first PUA I met jokingly asked, "is that your real hair color?" when I had an inch of root showing. The point is to be a little cocky, but funny at the same time, not insulting or condescending.

Also, negs are only used on women that PUAs consider to be babes, women than clearly get hit on and complimented a lot. They're not going to be used on shy girls brimming with insecurity. These are going to be the women who are secure in themselves and aren't going to freak out if a guy asks if their nails are real. Think about it, how bored would a beautiful woman be to hear, "you're so pretty" when she's heard it a million times before?

For the record, there a pick-up artists that don't like to use negs at all. But, having been on the receiving end, I promise that it is they are given in a lighthearted spirit and are not intended to lower a woman's self-esteem at all.

Elle said...

SNAP! Way to one-up the Voice...slackers.

Stretch said...

I guess this reporter has never heard of Jayson Blair...Dolly, has the Village Voice offered you any sort of apology? Let me guess...a free 1-year subscription. And don’t forget the little people when you make it on Matt Lauer.

To the anonymous person who posted above: as hateful and vitriolic as your comment sounds, you do make a valid point at the end. Many men become PUA's not because they really want to "neg" women, or even because they want to sleep with as many women as they possibly can, but because the women they want to attract won't open the door to them if they do not play "The Game." Most of the rAFC's (retired Average Frustrated Chumps / PUA's-in-training) I have met would like nothing more than to drop "The Game" and see women respond initially to their more genuine selves. But that just isn't how life works, so they have to adapt and change to get what they want. As Dolly seems to have pointed out in her last post, at the end of the day it is women (or, more precisely, the things that women respond to) that are driving this.

Damn It Anyway said...

Just remember us "little people" when you're living on the top of the hill.

Anonymous said...

Simmons and Sylvester should have known... You just can't get away with such blatantly weak reporting.

I'm no fan of Strauss either, (seriously, that Jewel piece?) but this is all quite interesting.

Get yours, girl! Keep writing with such clarity.

Anonymous said...

I would tell a girl she has fat thighs. ;)

...but that would be playful, not a neg. Playful = she knows I'm fucking around.

~~Affection

Anonymous said...

I wrote my own letter to the editor. :)

Hey,

It appears Nick has a distorted image of the seduction community. I'd love to show him what it's really like and offer him (and a guest, if desired) a complimentary field mission, where he can see first hand that being a PUA is more about making women smile and feel good that they met a man that understands them than "negging" a girl and making her self conscious. Perhaps he could even get laid, but more importantly, I think it would be a fitting term of his reinstatment with the Voice to actually do the research he claimed and re-write the article.

Yours,

~~Affection
PUA


Think they'll take me up on it? O:-) Dolly you're coming with me if they do... ;)

-- said...

BTW, the British Scientist was effortlessly using negs tonight. In not a wannabe-PUA way (no canned "is that your hair color or etc lines) but in a totally cute, teasing way (which is, I suppose, how the best PUAs do it). Of course I'm all enamored of him now.

Anonymous said...

Now that the story is pullled from Village Voice, you can still read it here.

The Asian Playboy said...

Ray Gordon is a tool.

Dolly,

"No pick-up artist would say, "wow, your thighs are so fat" or "that's such a weird mole on your chin" or "you have a serious acne problem" or anything demeaning like that."

Well, to be honest, learning PUAs commonly misuse the neg, crossing the thin boundary of being playfully nonchalant to outright insulting. No GOOD PUA uses it in that manner or even he did, it would be used in conjunction with the right, teasing tonality or within the right context (ie she's being an outright, snobby, pretentious, beeyotch).

Frankly, I don't use negs and can go from approach to lay without using a single neg. But having said that, some women don't respond well to other sorts of friendly, flirtatious behavior and it's only when a neg is employed that she's both thrown off her guard as well as opening up to the guy.

The one neg I use the most is, "You're such a loveable dork."

pawlr said...

I think PUA'ers are mostly about giving women a chance to enjoy themselves when they go out looking for fun.

Women around me can either seize the opportunity I present or find some other entertainment. Either way, I'm cool with it. As my girl friend says, "NEXT!"

Not all PUAs "get it", but the good ones do, and they're driving the train.

The Voice certainly does not "get it" either, in that respect.

anonymous...again! said...

well, dolly, I realize that no PUA would say "you have fat thighs"-- i think the "subtly rude" approach is just as bad... And I haven't read the book, obviously, but (please correct me if I'm wrong) I get the impression that this book is about 'Woman' as the enemy- you've got to trick 'em! Where as "dating tips for women" books are all about how to make yourself appealing to HIM, make HIM feel good, make HIM feel confident, etc. etc. God, wtf? Guys need women to jerk off their fucking egos, TOO? Or else they get UPSET and need a book to tell them all about how to take a "subtle" crap on a woman in order to get her to notice him? I didn't realize the dating scene was so much like high school (I'm 22).

and to stretch:
by "door" you mean "vaginas", right?
because from what I understand, this book is about teaching CHUMP LAME-O GUYS how to become the kind of rude assholes ladies LOVE and, therefore, get laid, NOT teaching them how to be confident and intelligent and communicative in order to develop healthy, lasting relationships (not that i'm saying none of us should indulge in a roll in the hay, but seriously, do we need a book about how to mind fuck your way into...fucking?)

Someone please tell me the book isn't as bad as the impression I have of it...

And Dolly-- those fuckers stole your idea and I'm glad Gawker's making a huge ass deal about it. You could have written the fucking story without making half of it up. I hope that Harvard prick (and his boss who denied that it was your idea) never works in this town again!

sally forth said...

Dolly, write a companion book to the Game for women. I think it would be hilarious. Let's start negging guys.

Stretch said...

Anonymous,

We can't have an useful discussion about this until you actually know what you are talking about. Read the book, maybe meet and talk with a few of the guys who have also read it, then give us your opinion.

pawlr said...

Anonymous - I'm with Stretch. And if you're going to be a bitch, have the balls to come up with a handle.

P.S. By "doors", I think Stretch meant "chances", not vaginas. Boy, you got a dirty mind.

jaded city said...

well you have about 10,000 comments now on this subject, but I just wanted to say, I think what women are objecting to is the predatory nature of the PUA instructions. why couldnt this book simply be called "become irresistably charming"? there is nothing wrong with this style of flirting (sans the lying), but why does someone have to win and someone have to lose? honestly, everyone wants to hook up and have fun. it shouldnt be a war.

Stretch said...

I completely agree w/jaded city. I think some of this controversy is more of a result of an unfortunate choice of words by the people who originally came up with some of this stuff than an advocacy of principles most people would disagree with. For example, many who object to "Pickup Artists" equate the term to being a "player," when in reality they mean two different things. Describing this as "The Game" doesn't help matters.

Eurosabr03 said...

I thought I'd chime in here re: Anon's comments because I am a "dirty PUA" the same way some cops are "dirty." Given that women go to bars, clubs, etc. partly to meet guys, but above all else for ego validation (and this is what drives Mystery's neg theory), it becomes a reasonable tactic for the PUA to withhold such validation, ego stroking, etc. in order to leverage it in a quid-pro-quo for what is in the end a mutually-beneficial encounter. I can do genuine interest and sincerity, it's just that in isolation, that won't get me laid/a date/a phone number/attention from women. Suppose, however, I notice a woman who seems a bit out of her element, a bit uneasy in the bar, maybe "fat" (say 5'4" 130lbs in our ridiculous culture), a bit unsure of herself in the big city, new job, etc. If I extend the same warm, friendly vibe that her stereotypically-hotter friends are getting from the rest of the PUA crowd, with the caveat that I know that the rest of the world thinks she ain't all that, but *I* can see her true self--her sense of humour, perhaps a brand of change-the-world activism & idealism--all the stuff that guys don't "really" care about, or so we are told--granted, it's manipulative, but it's only sinister if the PUA is making promises (of a relationship, say) he doesn't intend to keep AND if the woman in fact desires a quote-unquote relationship. Am I happy about this? No. Do I especially enjoy doing it? No. Has it made the difference between hopelessly begging a totally ordinary-in-appearance woman for attention or sex and bedding her? In my admittedly-limited experience, yes. Granted, it's a heckuva viewpoint to come from, but it's not messing my karma up any worse than being a spineless wimp who would prostrate himself before any woman was. Ross Jeffries, one of the earliest PU gurus, once said that men who are NOT continually frustrated are more likely to be kind and generous, because when one is in a place of abundant success, one can afford to let a woman go if getting involved with the PUA is genuinely NOT what she wants/needs/is looking for at that point in her life.
A more controversial POV was that PU frightens average women with the prospect that average men will be empowered, giving them a greater choice of partners, perhaps equal to that of the average woman. Going from a monopoly to a free-market always terrifies those who have always relied on the inelastic demand from their disenfranchised, desperate, unfree single-supplier consumers.
Again, I know that's not the best paradigm for my karma, but I simply can't meditate enough to get Zen on this issue, and sex is much more theraputic anyway.

Eurosabr03 said...

As good a place for this as any: PU hits the Middle East...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/689907.html

The Asian Playboy said...

"A more controversial POV was that PU frightens average women with the prospect that average men will be empowered, giving them a greater choice of partners, perhaps equal to that of the average woman. Going from a monopoly to a free-market always terrifies those who have always relied on the inelastic demand from their disenfranchised, desperate, unfree single-supplier consumers."

I agree with that point, actually.

Traditionally, patriarchal societies kept women in line via the power/money/political paradigm and in today's society of sexual opportunity, sexual choice is ENTIRELY in the woman's hands.

Not that it's intentional or malice, mind you, but in the end, sexual choice is still the woman's providence and the actions of the PUAs are to influence that choice or, in extreme cases, take that power away, thereby leaving the woman on- dare I say it?- the same sexual playing field as average frustrated chumps.

Stretch said...

I'll admit that there are some parallels between the "dating" market and the free market (raise value by creating artificial scarcity, for instance), but supply and demand curves? This is a bit extreme.

IMO, men continue to have more power than some of these comments acknowledge. After all, even in today's society women are still in the decidedly unpowerful position of generally having to wait for a man to make the 1st move. Also, women who aren't as genetically advantaged can't do as much to improve their position in the dating pool as a man can, because men tend to select for natural genetic traits more than personality traits. So in that respect men do have a bit more "choice" and "power."

On the other hand, women don't have to deal with the approach anxiety men face when making the 1st move. This was well illustrated in Norah Vincent's recent book "Self Made Man" (she posed as a man for over a year, even did a few "cold approaches" and wrote about how most women don't understand what that is like).

At the end of the day, one would hope that if both men and women learned these PUA skills some sort of detente between the sexes could emerge.

Eurosabr03 said...

When one reaches the level of the totally-ordinary, totally-average AFC, the "genetic traits" men are searching for are totally unexceptional as well. So while it's true that a woman who is at the lower end of the scale appearance-wise can't do much about her DNA, she will almost ALWAYS have SOME guy approaching her, whereas men at the lower end of the scale must DO something more than just SHOW UP and have a pulse to SPARK interest, even in the case of the totally-ordinary woman. The above post spins this as some kind of disadvantage for the woman, since her social role supposedly "prevents" her from approaching men. I think women would have even more social aptitude to begin with and that approaching a man in a friendly manner and then transitioning to whatever she wants or "ejecting" would be easy, provided basic safety concerns are taken care of by the logistics of her approach.