Back in college, when Facebook was still pretty new, I met this fairly attractive girl who told me she put horseback riding as one of her interests, even though she doesn't ride.
When guys would approach her out of the blue and casually move the conversation into horseback riding, she knew that had been pre-stalking her on Facebook.
I always thought that was a rather clever social hack.
She may have inadvertently miscategorized some pick up artists as Facebook stalkers, for better or worse, as it's a fairly well known opener to talk about horses: http://becomingpua.com/blog/pua-opener-horse-girl.html
Because it works. I've to look no further than myself. It's changed me significantly for the better in this area of life.
The term PUA has a negative association in the mainstream because there is a perception it uses jedi mind tricks to bed the girl. This is not helped by myriad of products aimed at newbies that promise overnight success. On average though, most decent PUAs become decent after lots of practice to become less shy and more charming. Many many of them are nerds(my wing is a RoR programmer and also very good with the ladies).
What I don't like about PUA is that the general philosophy seems to be "try over and over to do things to women. It doesn't matter that most of them don't want it, because some will. Keep pushing until you get what you want." This philosophy is widely held outside of PUA culture, and I hate it everywhere, but PUA culture seems to really put this idea into overdrive.
What is glossed over by the PUA community, is that the practice leaves a wake of doing things to women over and over that they don't want. It's written off, like "you win some you lose some!" but you just made someone's day a little worse, and caused the general animosity between men and women to be turned up a notch. The reason a man can't just say hello to a woman and have it just be a friendly hello is because of PUAs and others who follow this principle.
Women walk around totally shell shocked because of the constant "numbers game" onslaught of men who are trying to "pick them up" and I personally think it needs to stop. There are respectful and disrespectful channels for meeting new people to date, and PUA literature drives people into the disrespectful ones. That they "work" doesn't cover up the collateral damage.
That just made me chuckle considering I know I've made so many women's day, even ones that have turned me down. The first words out of my mouth is a genuine compliment. For vast majority of women, it's a flattering and memorable thing.
It is why I've had girls blog about or post to criagslist missed connections about the experience of being hit on by me. It's why I'll regularly get girls tell me something to the tune of "wow I needed that" or "omg are you serious?".
Your perception that women dislike being hit on is a common armchair belief albeit not grounded in reality. Rest assured, I make way more girls' day than
most other guys.
I'll note that I don't hit on girls in bars and clubs. I do so on the street almost exclusively and vast majority of girls I meet have never been approached while walking on the street. That debunks your point that women are tired of being hit on.
The reason a man can't just say hello to a woman and have it just be a friendly hello is because of PUAs and others who follow this principle.
You have it the other way around. The reason you can't just say a friendly hello to a woman is because most men beat around the bush, pretend they just wanna be friends etc. when in reality they have other intentions. Compare this to a guy who walks up to a stranger, tells her he may like her and in a straightforward manner asks her out.
So, to answer your question, girls are suspicious of mere hellos because of past experience of guys trying to be friends when really they had a romantic interest. These guys are probably not PUAs because almost all PUA styles emphasize getting to the point relatively quickly.
Pick up artists have a negative association because they are a group of insecure people putting up a fake facade so they can focus singularly on having sex with as many women as possible.
Worse is pickup artists who actually keep score of their conquests. Ugh.
If I'm trying to come up with a list of groups of people I would never want to know, let alone hang out with, pickup artists would be near the top of the list.
Pick up artists have a negative association because they are a group of insecure people putting up a fake facade so they can focus singularly on having sex with as many women as possible.
You've described one type of pick up artists.
Also, PUAs are as insecure and put up as much of a fascade as women in high-heels with pretty make up to hide their wrinkles.
Oh the false equivalence. I'm afraid society punishes people who are disingenuous on the inside more than on the outside. It also severely punishes women who age.
I'm sure you get enough validation from women which you use to justify your ways. Doesn't make you any less sleazy.
Considering women as defenseless brainless little flowers who can only be victims is also a major form of misogyny. Would you call a woman who pursues men for sex a misandrist as well?
Pick up artistry isn't about sex, its about power exchange with total strangers. Sex is the socially acceptable prize you win for manipulating someone you hate or resent at least as much as yourself into spending time and attention on you.
It comes from a place of isolation and frustration, it has flying fuck-all to do with appreciating women or integrating them into one's life, and it doesn't solve a goddamn thing.
Thinking you aren't worth someone else's time is the goddamn problem.
I think the "socially acceptable" is the key here. Men who get lots of women earn social credits from both women and men (while women get slut shamed). These are relics from highly oppressive societies. So, in a sense, the PUA is a victim who uses mischievous means to earn societal status.
I'd encourage you to have an open mind for the idea that most guys into this are in it because they are bitter and hate women. Personally it doesn't really impact me what you think and I can see how if I was expose to the same mainstream coverage and asked to form a view, it'd be similar to yours.
Reading your perception of what PUAs are is similar to hearing someone describe hackers as evil people and Hacker News as a bad place.
Enlighten me, niete! With a comment history on here that shows you speaking up only when gender politics are being discussed, I'm confident you have a well thought out perspective to share that I may not have considered.
How is that comparison anything related to hatred of women?
A well dressed man with zero confidence is not an attractive man. A man can learn things, change his behavior, and become more confident. It is changing a pre-state to something more desirable to others. Dressing up increasing desirability as well, but behavior is by far more important than looks for how attractive men are.
Is it fair to say that some women dress up to increase their attractiveness?
Geez where do I start? I'm not sure this is an appropriate medium to share arbitrary personal notes about myself.
I will say that I've done some coaching and it isn't uncommon to run into men bitter about women due to their past break ups. The very first thing I teach em is its not healthy to do this if you hate women; not to mention you will probably have a better chance if you appreciated them(even their flaws) than walk up to one with years of built up bitterness.
That your friend keeps a literal spreadsheet of the pussy he gets is a pretty arbitrary personal note you've already shared. Zoom into the breach! Tell me what is good about the women you've dated. Just one thing, even. Be as floral as you like.
Women I've dated were/are some of the nicest people with little to no meanness in them(something I personally find a huge turn off). Their niceness and care make my days and weeks and inspire me to reciprocate.
So I don't know about other people but I find it creepy because the goal seems to be to shag as many chicks as possible.
If the goal was to have a meaningful lasting relationship with another human being then PUAs wouldn't exist, because they would have all retired from 'the game' with their SOs before they built up internet 'cred'.
The big goal for most guys is to have meaningful relationships. The local goal(steps to get to the big goal) changes week to week or month to month etc.
For example, when I started my local goal was only to be able to not be shy and to be able to hold a conversation with a lady I am interested in. Today, my goal is to be the best boyfriend to my girlfriend. If/when we break up, this goal will likely change.
So even if your goal is to find the SO ultimately, there are steps to getting there. That said, I know it isn't for me but I don't see much wrong if your only intention is to have one night stands. It's not like you are dragging out a girl forcefully to do so; more often you are end up with a girl with also a similar goal to yours(vast majority of girls aren't hanging out in a bar looking for their SO...in fact they will find that idea creepy).
> The term PUA has a negative association in the mainstream because there is a perception it uses jedi mind tricks to bed the girl.
Maybe among some people. The rest of us look at crap like 'negging' and see that the whole thing's a tactic to get the emotionally damaged to sleep with the socially stunted.
This is to a certain extent based on a misconception. First, 'negging' is simply one tactic in the arsenal of the PUA, although in the present circulation it receives a good deal of prominence due to its counter-intuitive nature and the legions of doltish would-be PUAs that run around 'negging' people since they don't have any other social skills. Sadly, here, as elsewhere, the audience which is most likely to get into the "Game" most completely are those that have the lowest prospects to start with, and a few tricks are not going to change someone with no social skills into Prince Charming in a matter of sessions.
That said, although I have more or less agreed with you with regards to the 'social stunted' part (as a generalization) 'negging' is not particularly targeted at the emotionally damaged who respond to being put down. It is a tactic charged at the supremely confident, attractive girl who is used to blowing off guys who approach her. The 'neg' is, consequently, first and foremost, an expression of confidence by the person who is approaching her. He is not approaching her as a fawning wretch, but someone who thinks of himself as her equal or even superior.
That this can be a turn on of sorts, esp. when contrasted with the usual types of social interaction encountered by very attractive women at bars and clubs, should be obvious. That the usual types of social interaction at bars and clubs are far from ideal or normative is hopefully also understood.
Negging is like that story of a visitor to the Apple campus who saw Steve Jobs walking by and didn't recognize him, and called out "hey, can you take a picture for me?"
That initial shock at the lack of deference allowed that person to have more of an interaction than most people got.
You are welcome to judge from behind the monitor but if you actually went out and looked at reality, you'd realize there is nothing magical about negs and that
negs themselves won't get you a girl--whether emotionally damaged or not. It could in certain cases help you increase attraction a wee bit. In that sense, it isn't much different than tips we read about pitching to VCs etc.
I guess the thing that people don't like about it is the part where you insult people you don't know for selfish reasons? I mean maybe that's part of it?
That's a fair point. To that I would say once you lift the curtains and take a peek, you will find many different school of thoughts within this. Some of the most famous personalities and ideas about PUAs in the mainstream isn't even very popular inside the PUA community.
On the other hand, there are entire "systems" that are premised on being dead honest about your intention.
If someone consents, it presumably means they deem the exchange to be mutually beneficial, so I don't know how you could determine some cases to be "taking advantage."
If you take advantage of someone's ignorance to sell them snake oil, they may think (for a while) that the exchange was mutually beneficial, but you're still evil.
To be more specific if snake oil really did solve the world's problems snake oil salesmen would still be snake oil salesmen. They are trying to get something by convincing others of a thing whether or not it is true.
Maybe?
Anyways I'm mostly commenting on what others may perceive. This is the best explanation I can come up with. I'd honestly rather judge actions based on what happens rather than what was intended to happen. Even if the attitude pisses me off.
That is a cute talking point, but does it have much to do with reality? Not really.
In pick up artistry, the goal is to be and act like a natural. Sometimes there are a lot of silly hoops on the way and it does not work for everyone, but it does work in the end.
There are plenty of men and women who are dumb and/or easy to please. Though I would agree with your parent comment that given a woman doesn't like "facebook stalkers" and is alert for their presence, she probably also won't like PUAs and is alert for their presence.
I agree, the guides you can read on /r/seduction [1] are so hilarious that I can't believe anybody who writes these would be dumb enough to actually try them.
Sounds more like the guy just managed to get over his ex and "get back out there".
How much of that was due to the fact the girl liked him already (Women don't generally invite single guys over on their own unless they have at least some interest in them, or are already good friends) and how much was due to his "swagger", "DHV", "negs" and "kino" is up in the air.
That is one of the biggest misperceptions in the mainstream: that PUA is about using negs/DHV/kino. the reality is that most good methods will emphasize that a decent part of this is a numbers game and simply about talking to enough girls. That in itself is a skill.
As an example, my results shot up significantly when I went from talk to 1 girl every 4 hours at the beginning to 5-10 an hour. I happen to try and find a girl who naturally digs me than one who needs convincing.
Everybody's going to get lucky some of the time, especially when PUA methods encourage hitting up as many women as you can see.
What I find amazing is when some of the more hardcore PUAs declare that hookups without the sleazy tactics "don't count", as part of the cultish nature of the community.
Edit: fwr, yes, the real benefits come from a bit of confidence, and it is often enough to overcome the ridiculous tactics.
Oh sure, my wing is a hardcore nerd who's been with over 250 girls. He actually has an Excel for past 5 years charting his "lays" per month. Note that this is not typical and I would personally never go to the extreme that he is at.
For me, I know if I talk to 8 random girls on the street on average I will score one date. It is normal for me to get 2-3 dates over the course of a weekend.
As I said, these kinds of thank-you's are common. I just linked to the first one I found. You can conclude that either 1) people who read seddit are a bunch of idiots and don't learn anything from it or 2) it works for some of them. I'm inclined to believe #2.
A lof of PUA stuff is oversold, but there is plenty of good advice to be found as well. It definitely made a difference for me.
I haven't used this particular opener but can in general say that it works for some guy on some girls and doesn't when used by other guys on other girls. Basically it's not a total dud nor magic from my experience of seeing my wings use it.
If a classmate or a coworker checked me in FB or something of the sort (not possible really since I keep my online identities fairly secret) I would consider it being attentive and interested, not a stalker. Stalking is not a word to be throwing around willy-nilly.
That's because you probably are not used to having attention placed on you, so all attention is "wanted." If you are a male, you almost never have had to deal with unwanted, persistent, obsessive attention, and so you are unaware of early cues that can indicate the person you're speaking with is a creep. Things like, "this person extensively investigates my background before having met me," "this person obsesses over me," etc.
I maintain a website for some short films, and as part of that I look at the access logs for the search keywords that bring people to the site.
Female actors often have a lot of searches coming from their original hometowns. Sometimes the same ip address over a period of months. I guess that might be mom back home, but I tend to think of it as a little more stalkery.
Male actors can have the same thing, but it happens much less often. Which is another argument against it being mom back home.
Instead of shooting out a reaction formed entirely from your intellect, while sitting at a keyboard: go do it first, then come back and tell us if you think the problem was solved by a simple "no thanks."
The gay bar scenario is telling -- males can be very aggressive, and simultaneously, willfully oblivious to "back off" signals. Your polite request for privacy and unwelcoming body language might protect you from, say, 90% of approachers. The remainder can be very overt and dominating in their attempts.
So yeah, if you're so confident that you've solved the problems of every attractive woman, everywhere: try it out.
Obviously problems happen. Personally I don't care to be approached, generally, and I think it's better than being afraid of everybody. I've been approached by gay men and didn't suffer any trauma. I don't mean there cannot be psychos out there, but if you assume anyone who checks you out or looks you up in the net to be a stalker, I think that's completely over the top and that kind of paranoid attitude will cause more harm than good.
Have you done what you suggested would be a quick way to solve the stated problem? If not, then we're still dealing with your rectally-sourced speculation.
Additionally, what you're offering is like me -- suppose I live in a nice house in the hills -- going down to the ghetto and asking why people bother locking their doors at night and putting bars on their windows. I don't do any of those things and I don't have a problem with home-invasion roberries -- why are all these people so paranoid and afraid!?
Put another way: you would have no clue if, say, you were riding a bus full of predators, because you are not prey -- a woman more likely would.
I could type an entire essay here explaining how and why women have different motivations and risk profiles than you, but I doubt you would respond with anything more thoughtful than "obviously, problems happen." Instead of speculating as to why you might be so obtuse here -- I would guess it's because you are resentful of the seemingly inconsistent and inexplicable behavior of women -- let me just offer this: stop fixating on how things should be and start understanding things as they are now.
This is really no different than entrepreneurs bitching about how risk-adverse investors are, and how they won't respond to 99% of cold calls, even if only to politely decline. Or how investors vastly prefer known founders, even when they have been previously burnt by them, rather than taking risks on unknown quantities. But at the end of the day, investors have the money and women have the vaginas, so they make the rules and they don't have to be fair, scrutable, rational or consistent -- they only have to be advantageous.
I'm talking about a very particular case and you are pestering me with sweeping generalisations.
Each one should make his or her own risk assessment. I was talking about dismissing people from your environment who look up your public information as stalkers.
The problem is that the "harm" that can happen can be terrible terrible harm. Some gay (or other LGBT people) can be literally killed if the wrong person approaches them. There is an element of danger that straight cis men rarely are able to notice.
Stop trying to tell marginalized groups that they are silly to be worried. We know our own lives and our own experiences. We've seen the odd stare or remark someone has made. We all worry that sometimes this person will go very far. Work on reducing the amount of hatred that spewed out by some groups which encouraged the people that attack us.
I've been to a lot of gay bars over the years, and I have never had a problem once I've made it clear I'm not gay. This may be in part that I've grown up having a lot of gay friends, plus I'm quite a confident and friendly person. I know quite a few confident women (not arrogant) and they never seem to have any problems with being harassed by men.
Now imagine 90%+ of bars was a gay bar and saying "I'm straight" won't work. This is similar to what women will face. Apples and Oranges.
After all if a woman says the same ("I'm a lesbian"), often that'll encourage some idiots.
And sometimes there are loads of "straight" men in gay bars. Why do you think many lonely heart / hook up ads some gay men will say that they cannot accommodate (the sexytimes in their house)? They don't want the wife or girlfriend to see. :P
I'm not sure if you're missing the point willfully or accidentally, but you are either way. No one should have to expect to be sleazed onto if they're at a bar.
The weird/stalkery part of it is checking them out extensively on Facebook first instead of just talking to them.
If I was a girl in college and a classmate did that first I think I'd be a bit weirded out that he felt the need to try to come up with interests to talk about in advance instead of just starting up a conversation and finding out stuff about me.
But there's a lot of social conditioning in this—like, if I was a guy in college, and a girl did that to me, I'd be more understanding because girls in the US generally aren't encouraged to cold-approach guys in the first place, and so it would be cool for it to happen, period.
You can pretend to have shared interests at first regardless of how you find out about the other person's interests, so it's not restricted solely to that sort of creepiness, but it still feels like an awfully roundabout way of talking to someone you want to talk to compared to just talking to them.
Doesn't everyone invite everyone to stalk everyone now by putting their information everywhere online? Stalking your crush is the original purpose of Facebook according to that movie.
The main thing e-stalking reveals is how interested the guy is, and maybe how smooth he is (smooth guys don't do as much research, or they know how to hide it better). So if he brings up the horses, she knows he's into her and maybe a little awkward, but it doesn't tell her he's definitely a psycho- she'll probably judge his weirdness from his appearance and manner.
The creepiness of normal stalking depends on how attractive the target finds the stalker. If you're a hot, rich, 100 year old vampire, you can watch a girl sleep every night for months and she'll think it's awesome (but the vampire didn't admit he was doing it until after they were dating).
If he realized "horseback riding" was the key she'd used to encrypt all her passwords, then that'd be a serious red flag. So there's certainly a point where stalking becomes creepy no matter how hot you are, but looking at someone's Facebook profile isn't it.
I'm not denying stalking exists. I'm just saying that her "stalking detector" is utter nonsense.
Someone who knows enough about you to find you online (knows your name, has seen you, has probably said hi to you) actually saw you online either by searching or by FB suggestions, and saw the part of the profile that you left public. So far nothing stalky about this. This is just someone who wants to know more about you or wants to strike a conversation with you.
Now, if this was a complete stranger who followed you to your locker to find out your name, has it tattooed in his or her butt, slept in his or her car outside of your house, etc, then yeah that's pretty fucked up.
But the fact that people look up what you make public about you isn't stalking. Looks to me like someone with a precious princess complex. Checking on someone's FB and not directly admitting is normal if there's not much confidence, as in not enough to actually send a friend request. Trying to avoid awkwardness is completely human.
Well, it's not a big investment in time to check out somebodies Facebook profile. Besides you might not have an opportunity to talk to them face to face right away.
Besides if you check out somebody you might like and find that they are into Scientology or extreme right wing politics or whatever you might reconsider asking them out in the first place.
As typical of reddit: sounds clever, but ultimately shallow. And obviously written by nerdy boys.
The real world is far more complicated. I'm sure most girls would agree that less attractive gents can be considered "so sweet" and handsome gents can definitely be creepy.
Yes, but this is the internet where words take on nuanced meanings. Back when I was visiting colleges (pre-FB), there was a school that had a social network that was very similar to the early Facebook. Looking for possible dates on there was referred to e-stalking. And since Facebook has taken off, I've heard the word used in the same context fairly often.
As with all pre-mating rituals (both new and tech-based and old and non-tech-based) someone looking you up on a social network is simply part of the game if the person is attractive to you. If they are unattractive to you, it is [e-]stalking.
And for some people, someone looking you up online so that they can "casually" steer an initial conversation to a pre-researched interest is itself a signal that makes that person less attractive to them.
EDIT: I've known otherwise-attractive guys who've done things like that and provoked "creepy" as a reaction; I've known otherwise-attractive girls who've done similar things and provoked "desperate" as a reaction.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but in general the further you get past just talking to mutual friends for "research" the more you're risking coming off bad. The real trick is trying without looking like you're trying. "I dunno, fly casual."
The thing that gets lost in all these attempts to come off good initially is that just being able to talk to someone entirely off-the-cuff and carry a conversation is a very valuable skill—one that's worth practicing!
It can come off as creepy if you know a lot about a person, but that doesn't necessarily just come from FB stalking.
For example I have a friend who has an extremely good long term memory , he can recall the smallest details about the most insignificant events and conversations that happened many many years ago. He also basically carries an encyclopaedia of trivia around in his brain.
He eventually learned that he had to pretend to be dumber and more forgetful to avoid being thought of as creepy and pedantic.
She was teaching (as a grad student) and realized on the first day of class that she already knew the names of almost all of the students in the class, and little bits about them, from random encounters (like "I was sitting behind those two on the bus a few months ago").
She pretended to be learning their names, anyway, because that's just way too creepy, as you said.
Her memory serves her well in life; she writes fiction. She's also really useful for me to have around -- I have a terrible memory for data I'm not actively using (possibly due to lots of general anesthesia as a kid...), so she remembers tons of things for both of us.
Certainly YMMV greatly on these things. Speaking for myself, if someone simply looks up public information on the net about someone else they are interested in, that's pretty normal and anyone who claims to have never done it is likely full of shit (or very old).
The creepiness comes in depending upon how they use that information. If they use it to lie and suggest their interests are aligned in ways they aren't or in other deceptive ways then yeah that's creepy but in a way that is actually independent of the so-called "e-stalking". It would still be creepy if they learned the information they used from a friend or whatever other old-school method.
If, on the other hand, the person sees on Facebook that you're a huge fan of some hobby and they too are actually a huge fan of some hobby and they mention that, I don't see that as being creepy at all, but again YMMV.
So you would want men to look up your interests online so they can intentionally deceive you by pretending they like the same things? Even if you don't consider it creepy, it doesn't sound like the basis of a strong relationship.
The point of posting your interests online would be to attract other people with similar interests. That girl was anticipated a stalker, but what she got was most probably a perfectly normal guy who checked her out beforehand to ensure compatibility.
He was probably a perfectly normal guy, but I doubt that he checked her out to "ensure compatibility." It is perfectly normal for young men to pretend that they are interested in things which they aren't in order to attract a girl's attention. Maybe some of the guys who approached her were genuinely interested in horses, but the majority probably just wanted to give a good impression.
There's nothing wrong with trying to give someone a good impression, but when you research someone's hobbies so you can feign interest in them, you are starting your relationship off on the wrong foot. If you can't be yourself around someone, then things probably aren't going to work out anyways.
Social - adj. 1. Of or relating to society. 2. (internet) Relating to social media or social networks.
Hack - noun. 1. Use of a resource for something other than its intended purpose. 2. An appropriate application of ingenuity.
Social hack - noun. 1. A hack whose underlying resource or intended purpose is social in nature.
The parent poster's hack is doubly social. First, the underlying medium is a social network. Second, the purpose is to reveal hidden information during socializing.
Real (ok, "real") mindreaders also have some tricks up their sleeves, low-tech but still useful. Some of the tricks work so well that the "mindreaders" unconsciously trick themselves into believing in their own powers.
Nope, it is not a bank safety campaign, nor is it sponsored by any bank. It comes from the financial minister of Belgium. They do not have acces to your bank account information unless you are under a taxe fraud investigation.
If I were going to do this, I would: 1. Have done quite a few more people than I showed in the video, so you're seeing only the most dramatic. 2. Try to crack their email account by guessing their lost-password question from info on Facebook or other such sites, which is where I probably got the address as well. (Plus Facebook provides photo confirmation that you have the right $FIRSTNAME $LASTNAME.) 3. From there, the sky's the limit.
I don't know what the success rate of that would be, but I'm pretty confident I'd come up with plenty of fodder for a 2 minute video in well under a day of sitting in a tent.
And that's just my first knee-jerk thought. A few practice runs before hand and I'm sure I'd find some other easy tricks to pull.
He didn't. He told the person how much money they spent on alcohol, or how much the house they were selling cost.
The house information would be available at a land registry, or on a credit report. The alcohol information might be available through a brag "I just spent 400 dollars on Z", or through some kind of facebook-tie in "I like X bottles of Y". Or loyalty points.
Here's a story from earlier this year http://www.pcworld.com/article/249138/rfid_credit_cards_are_... And as other commenters have noted, you only need to "succeed" with a few people to put together this video, so even if only a small portion of the population has a vulnerable card it can be enough. But even a vulnerable CC might not have enough info, so we can consider an even more classic magician's/pickpocketer's trick of swiping the person's wallet off them without them noticing and getting a password reset on their online transaction history page using the physical card and info gathered from social networks to pull off the simple social engineering. Not very likely, but if we're trying to come up with ways to get at a person's transaction history...
Some people would call it stalking, some would call it "research" and plain being careful who you are dating (or trying to).
Lets be honest, %99 of normal people would be looking online somebody that they are interested on. Either what they do, what friends you might have in common, etc. Normal fare.
If you are not, then it is weird. You either not interested, too busy, or just careless.
When guys would approach her out of the blue and casually move the conversation into horseback riding, she knew that had been pre-stalking her on Facebook.
I always thought that was a rather clever social hack.