from http://topicalrambling.blogspot.co.uk;

Body language and sexuality are inextricably linked. This is where words are lost and 'primal' image takes over. Body language is our most primitive form of communication. For a few years now the Pick-up Artist (PUA) community has been in the internet's spotlight, arguing for a sexual language of radical consciousness. The anti-feminist community red-pill has also been in the spotlight, arguing for male [supremacy?].

It is curious that the PUA community is so focused on reading women's body language yet the community has not thought about really studying in detail the ways in which body language can affect society as a whole. Many pickup artists assert that women have specific 'indicator's of interest' (IOI's) that are micro cues that give a man (or woman?) the signal he is doing alright in conversation. One cannot help the crack of a slight cringe at the scientism of their proposal, the possible end result being a system of sexuality.

One underlying question is could a woman consciously project her own identifiable set of IOI's? This question may lie on the crossing point between the 'red-pill' interpretation of female sociality (anti-feminist; dealing with psychology) and the PUA community's (potentially progressive; yet largely myopic) interpretation.

My own speculation is that if women do or did have control over the use of their particular IOI's then it is possible that this would be the very seeds of their liberation from historical repression. The work of 'Jane Eire' illustrates this kind repression perfectly. Society attempted to put external controls on men and women in order to repress what was thought and felt on the inside. Joan Anderson explores this in her excellent piece on Jane Eyre; women have to follow the dictum of 'perfect submission and stillness' [1]. These controls generally took the form of systems of manners. More notably, the liberal philosopher Michel Foucault also gives some insight into how these manners could shape society in his famous works 'The History of Sexuality'.

Essentially, again to speculate, the IOI's that the PUA community discusses would have been taboo in Victorian society. If a woman was to show these mannerisms then perhaps she would be scolded or outcast from society (or perhaps denounced a 'floozy', or derided as an animal). Men could be equally chastised.

To continue, the only way women would be able to overcome societies controls would be to dismantle their societies mannerly system of sexuality. How would this be done? Probably through the subversion of the existing rules of the existing mannerly systems. That is through techniques of reversal, exaggeration or repetition. We no longer live in this kind of society.

The red-pill argument is that woman in today's society have to much power over men. Perhaps these claims are true. One could imagine a Machiavellian woman using the today's PUA system of IOI's to get what she wants from a man (be it consciously or unconsciously). If this attitude was to be brought wholesale into society itself then, yes, woman would have significantly more influence over men than at first perceived. One thinks of a bunch of kids chasing candy.

In this light PUA would simply be a description of the systems of control women have.

Surely the role of men today is not to simply deride women, but to deconstruct these notional new systems of control that are created by women (supported by 'feminist' men). Would the new role of man not be to find his own IOI's for women and to subvert them (thus liberating man in the classical way and evening the playing-field)? Male IOI's being perhaps a flair of the nostril or sideways glance.

One strategy would be to perform a kind of 'denial of service (hesitant to use the word attack)'; the conscious performance of exaggerated male IOI's to the extent that the responding system of female IOI's becomes redundant.

Still at the end of the day body language is tantamount to dressing the shop window.