Treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen. Credit: Bettman via Getty Images.
Be realistic, how many of you want to just be invited round when he’s free for a quick fuck? … No, you’re not going to go round for a quick Netflix and chill. You deserve effort.
So says Sarah Elizabeth, a 21-year-old actress and personal trainer from Liverpool, in a series of TikTok videos inspired by a book of dating advice called Why Men Love Bitches. Written almost 20 years ago, it’s become a surprise bestseller, thanks to its popularity with Gen Z women. The American author Sherry Argov provides her readers with candid advice about sex and dating, with the very first sentence letting us know exactly what we’re in for: this is “a relationship guide for women who are ‘too nice.’”
Given its age, Why Men Love Bitches has nothing to say about Netflix, dating apps or even texting, and yet quaint references to landlines do not seem to deter a new, younger readership apparently desperate for no-nonsense advice, which Argov delivers in spades.
There’s no moral relativism here, no aversion to generalisation, and absolutely nothing about pronouns or gender fluidity. Argov writes of a world in which men are simple creatures, interested in football, beer and easy sex. To catch a husband, women are advised to be shrewd tacticians, otherwise known as “bitches”. This means, in the main, bartering valuable feminine resources (sex; attention) for valuable masculine resources (money; commitment). Argov is not interested in sparing her reader’s feelings and comes down hard on those women who are too eager to give away their emotional or sexual power. Dating is a game, she insists, and “bitches” are the best placed to win it.
I was already vaguely familiar with Why Men Love Bitches before its recent re-emergence, because it holds pride of place at the top of the “approved dating books” list on the subreddit “Female Dating Strategy” (FDS), which I’ve been a fan of for a while (most of the friends I’ve introduced to it — with some notable exceptions — are now FDS converts).
Unlike Why Men Love Bitches, FDS is an organic creation, built up over time by anonymous social media users — all of them women, and overwhelmingly young. But both of these sources of dating advice, created 20 years apart, reach similar conclusions — and do so while being blunt, funny, and deeply, deeply “problematic”. In a cultural environment dominated by liberal feminist ideas, encountering either is like pouring a bucket of cold water over your head on a humid day.
Which is why I’m not surprised that Gen Z women are buying up copies of Why Men Love Bitches and contributing to FDS in their hundreds of thousands. The mainstream liberal feminist options available to them are truly dire. At Teen Vogue, writers are encouraging their adolescent readers to watch non-consensual porn and have anal sex, while forgetting to include the clitoris in a diagram of the female anatomy. Meanwhile, Cosmopolitan is advising its readers to spice up their love lives by trying “breath play”, i.e. strangulation — the second most common method of murder used by men against women in this country.
And recently, in response to news about the actor Armie Hammer’s alleged fetish for cannibalism, both Rolling Stone and Cosmopolitan published pieces arguing that the real problem is not Hammer’s desire to “barbecue and eat” women, but rather his dodgy attitude towards consent in general. To an eye untrained by liberal feminism, this all looks an awful lot like men hurting and degrading women, only for prestigious media outlets to label it “empowerment”.
The women of FDS aren’t falling for it. Explaining the subreddit’s official position on BDSM, the moderators write that “the primary focus of FDS is to teach ruthless self interest to women at both a micro and macro level, and this is not compatible with anything that even has a whiff of sexual exploitation or abuse.” This also extends to porn, prostitution and hook-up culture — all of which are understood by FDS to serve male interests, not female.
In Why Men Love Bitches, Argov is similarly firm in her opposition to casual sex, advising her readers to hold out on sex for “as long as you can” at the beginning of a relationship. The reasoning is simple enough: sex is much costlier for women than it is for men and, with sexual double standards still alive and well (albeit less often spoken about), a woman who appears to be “too promiscuous” risks being discarded. Argov puts it frankly:
What men don’t want women to know is that, almost immediately, they put women into one of two categories: “good time only” or “worthwhile.” And the minute he slides you into that “good time only” category, you’ll almost never come back out.
Or, as your grandmother might have put it, “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”
This attitude is now deeply counter-cultural. Popular representations of twenty-first century women generally show them sassily relishing the opportunity to imitate “good time only” sexuality, which was previously the preserve of men. Think of the first ever episode of Sex and the City, in which the protagonist enjoys a casual sexual encounter in her lunch break and celebrates “having sex like a man”. Or the hit crime thriller The Fall, in which a gorgeous Gillian Anderson demonstrates her independence of spirit by using and discarding younger men. Justifying her sexual behaviour, Anderson’s character quotes the feminist Catharine MacKinnon: “man fucks woman; subject verb object.” The implication is clear: this woman fucks back.
Liberal feminism understands “having sex like a man” as an obvious route by which women can free free themselves from old-fashioned patriarchal expectations of chastity and obedience. If you believe that men and women are psychologically identical, save for a few hang-ups absorbed from a sex negative culture, then this makes sense. Why wouldn’t you want women to have access to the kind of sexual fun that men have always enjoyed (the high status ones, at least)?
Both FDS and Why Men Love Bitches start from a premise that would be considered unforgivably reactionary in contemporary outlets like Teen Vogue and Cosmopolitan. But historically, it’s been considered common sense: that men and women are different — not just physically, but also (on average) psychologically — and that their interests are therefore inherently in tension.
If we accept this premise, then the strong evidence suggesting that most women dislike hook-up culture must be explained, not as a consequence of oppressive sex negativity, but rather as a consequence of something much more immovable: innate gender differences. And the recent shift towards a culture in which women are encouraged to “have sex like a man” should be understood, not as a feminist achievement, but in fact the opposite. What we are seeing now is women who are “too nice” feeling pressured into unwanted sex with what FDS users term “low value males” — the kind of men who will (as Argov puts it) “hit and run.”
Yes, it’s cold, it’s calculating, and it’s often eye-wateringly rude. But it seems that a lot of Gen Z women, exhausted by a hook-up culture that presents casual sex as not only compulsory but actually “feminist”, are desperate for advice that “makes sense”, as Sarah Elizabeth puts it. If the internet phenomenon of Pick Up Artistry developed to teach men how to persuade women into casual sex, then the popularity of FDS and Why Men Love Bitches is the next step in the arms race, teaching young women how to defend themselves psychologically against men who will make them feel “obligated, pressured or manipulated” to jump into bed.
Which is why I consider their philosophy to be resolutely feminist, even if I don’t agree with all the advice offered by either Argov or FDS — and even if the emphasis on old fashioned gender stereotypes may alarm some feminists. But then this strand of feminism doesn’t fit neatly into the conventional typology of liberals and radicals that dates back to the 1970s. Trans inclusive, sex positive liberal feminism this definitely isn’t. But nor is it orthodox radical feminism, at least not on one crucial issue: there’s no room for the “blank slate” theory of gender, in which all psychological differences between men and women are understood to be a product of nurture, not nature.
The very idea of there being evolved psychological differences between the sexes has become so taboo in some circles that even voicing the possibility is taken to be an indication of anti-feminist sentiment. And yet FDS not only breaks this taboo, but goes further, applying the discipline of evolutionary psychology to pro-woman ends.
For instance in one essay recommended in the FDS Handbook, readers are introduced to the sometimes deceptive powers of oxytocin, the so-called “love hormone”, alongside the idea, taken from evolutionary psychology, that men and women are hard-wired to respond differently to casual sex, with men generally more eager to have sex early on in a relationship, or even with a perfect stranger. In the forthright tone typical of this new feminist strand, female readers are advised to keep their wits about them following a sexual encounter with a “low-value male”:
What you have to say to yourself, next time you get tempted to send that player a message, or you get the horn and are craving some rendezvous with an undeserving disrespectful rag of a man, is tell yourself ‘THIS IS JUST OXYTOCIN. JUST A BUNCH OF FUCKING CHEMICALS.’ Keep repeating this to yourself so it’s fresh in your mind.
I’ve argued before in these pages that the evidence for innate psychological differences between the sexes is, in and of itself, morally neutral, and that such evidence could be put to all sorts of political purposes, including feminist ones. This was an idea pursued, all too briefly, by the “difference feminism” of the 1980s, which resisted the gender neutrality of other feminist schools, and paid particular attention to the devaluation of motherhood. Difference feminism was swept away in the 1990s, overtaken by forms of feminism that put more emphasis on male and female sameness. But I wonder if Gen Z might now be bringing it back, this time in bolder, brasher form.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI recall a conversation with my late wife, after I had expressed some reservations about a very promiscuous female friend (“promiscuous” meaning huge numbers of one-night stands, or half-hour stands indeed):
“You just don’t like the fact that she treats sex the way men do.”
“Really? Do you think I behave like that?”
“No, of course not you. But most men.”
“William?”
“Well, OK, not him.”
“Simon?”
“No, no, not him, of course.”
[this section repeated several times with different male friends’ names]
“So, we agree that we don’t actually know any men who behave like this?”
“I suppose not.”
The truth, I suspect, is that no one likes being treated like a rubber appliance of some sort. And few of us think that treating people like that is very laudable. And both feminists and anti-feminists should factor that into their thinking.
It’s good to see that feminism is evolving….back to the truths that human beings have known for several hundred thousand years: that males and females have evolved different psychologies (also known as “gender”) because they follow different sexual strategies in pursuit of the same end- reproduction.
The only question is how many more women will have their lives ruined by the ideological blinders worn by feminists in pursuit of “empowerment” before returning to strategies that actually have some basis in the reality of evolutionary psychology.
The basis of evolutionary psychology (like sociobiology before it) is that because we are animals we will behave like other animals. Whereas because we have bigger brains than other animals we have invented cultures and we live in societies according to rules we also invented.
This is not to say that there are not gender differences – there are – but we are not slaves to our genes or our ecology.
To be fair, though, the last line is ‘strategies that have some basis in evolutionary psychology’.
Having regard to evolutionary biology does not imply exclusion of sociological, cultural, rational, or other factors or strategies when considering human behaviour.
Has it not occurred to you that all human cultures have been developed to serve our biological needs?
That’s why all human cultures are basically identical, the differences mostly superficial, or due to particular environmental circumstances. Steven Pinker has a list of over 100 ways in which all human cultures are identical.
or perhaps, rather, to help us deal with our conflicting biological needs and drives. To curb our needs and drives, or redirect them where necessary.
I like this idea, although it’s not a question of “rather” but “as well as”. Curiosity and fear, for example, might be considered to be in opposition- perhaps that’s the basis of the difference between conservatism and progressivism, the desire for stability vs experimentation. Different cultures may take a different view of these conflicting emotions/drives, but both impulses still exist.
“we are not slaves to our genes or our ecology” I find no evidence for this in the real world.
Yes, my dog’s gender is just a social construct.
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but: Years ago I was at Stanford for an event, and we had the student union cafeteria to ourselves for the afternoon-this was in a time of extreme, take no prisoners feminism. There was a large poster on the wall that had a timeline of “Herstory”-as opposed, of course, to history. Above the beginning of the timeline I inked in:” Eve eats apple”. My goodness the anger this generated! No one admitted any knowledge of how it got there…feminism is not known for appreciation of humor.
Funny! Oops, now I will be cancelled.
Comedy is near death as “victims” have no sense of humor and we have all been declared victims.
Being handsome and debonair I have been treated as a sex object my entire life!
(Well. I can dream, can’t I?)
Thumbs up !
No men do not like bitches because they are bitches, ask any man who has been treated like dirt by a women and it may surprise you but women are not all sweetness and light and men just scum.
Love and respect goes further in life not being a b***h.
But what would I know I am only a man raised in a family of women by a single mother who was raised to respect women but we don’t count in your brave new world because all man are b*****d’s
A b***h is a bit like crazy. Dating crazy may be fun for about a week but in the end, you’re left with crazy and that’s not a long-term solution to anything. And using sex as a weapon is a recipe for things ending badly.
Not sure.
Women in more sensible times, i.e. my mother’s day, were not advised to be manipulative, calculating “bitches” but merely to have reasonable standards, caution and self-respect in their dating lives. Truly bitchy – i.e. ruthlessly status-seeking, materialistic, backstabbing – women generally end up with exactly the kind of men they deserve. Probably a good example is the Kirsten Dunst Wellesley girl character in the wonderful 2003 period piece, Mona Lisa Smile. Mind you, this is fiction, so she is redeemed at the end and leaves her philandering pig of a husband less than a year into the marriage, resolving to do better in her life and no longer treat other women like garbage. But in reality, people tend not to change very much.
From observation and experience I’d say men and women are equally vulnerable to being hurt and used.
I don’t really understand ‘dating’, most of my generation fell in love with friends and began relationships that way. Perhaps it is ‘dating’ that is at fault; meeting up with a stranger, for what purpose ? How do you know if the other person’s purpose is the same as yours ? are you even clear what your own purpose is ?
Maybe these young feminists don’t know what they want, they think they can play the dating game and win. Win in what way ? If a man has been hurt more than once he’s highly unlikely to allow himself to be hurt again (unless he’s a doormat) and will be looking for a s e xual relationship on his terms.
The dating game as a system to meet potential partners seems more likely instead to breed disappointment, cynicism and misery as far as I can see.
Agreed. Dating today is an IT nerd’s idea of how it should work. You tick boxes and if enough match you’re compatible. Except you’re not, for exactly the reasons you give. Apparently noticing someone at the gym or around the office and asking them out is now regarded as creepy and stalkerish.
It’s a horror I’m glad not to be part of. I’m in my 50s and if I were to become single now I honestly think I’d stay that way, with an Old English Sheepdog for company.
And that’s how my first wife and I met. But when you are widowed in your late 50s it’s a bit different. All of your friends are likely to be paired up, and unwilling “singles” may even be viewed with suspicion. Internet dating can be a boon in that case.
When the shock of bereavement had receded somewhat I did indeed try Internet dating (not a sex hook-up site) and met a woman to whom I have now been married for over 10 years.
I belonged to an amateur drama group, and a friend (who didn’t) asked why I hadn’t met someone there. I answered: “They’re all too young, or too married, or I don’t fancy them. And we only number about 50, of whom about 5 are single.”
That’s love in middle age!
I’m sorry to hear that you were bereaved, but it’s wonderful you found happiness again.
Re dating, perhaps maturity has something to do with it, knowing and understanding yourself, what you want and need.
I personally think feminism is a kind of derangement brought on by a combination of stressful social conditions at odds with instincts, aggravated by indoctrination in education and media. It’s very difficult for both young women and men, sad really, but it won’t go on forever.
Your last paragraph is a gold mine of insight, succinctly expressed!
No, no, no, no. ‘b***h’ is completely the wrong word. Bitches – real bitches – are women like Becky Sharp. They will ruthlessly deploy sex and charm to reel a man in. Then when the ink is dry on the marriage-contract, beware what she’s putting in his tea.
Plainly though, what is meant by ‘b***h’ here is much more akin to Elizabeth Bennet, who stands in contrast to her headstrong and naive sister Lydia (https://medium.com/@Imeldathehon/in-pride-and-prejudice-why-did-wickham-run-away-with-lydia-156f32e970f1).
So it’s all there, in the pages of a two hundred year old book? Yup!
Exactly – the b***h is never going to make a happy relationship anymore than b*****d. They deserve each other!
Men hate bitches. Men do not watch Desperate Housewives. If they do, the sound is off and the women near naked, that’s the only way.
Men ARE pretty simple. They want fun, friendly, at least somewhat attractive (which covers a WIDE range of looks) women that like and value them. Women that respect themselves and men equally. Women that like themselves and that other people value.
Men who like bitches are EXACTLY the men that women should avoid. Seen the husbands of Bridezilla? The most pathetic bunch of gutless eunuchs that has ever existed.
Women who think being a b***h will win love and respect are never going to find either.
And don’t deserve it, so this is one of the more just corners of life, isn’t it?
What’s that? There are innate psychological differences between the sexes rooted in biology? Shocking stuff. It’s almost as if mammalian females are predisposed biologically to be more selective in their mates, whereas mammalian males are primarily concerned with spreading their genes as widely as possible. Watch any nature documentary ever made – it isn’t difficult to deduce the psychological implications of such a dichotomy in human society.
The idea that humans are somehow above these primal animal instincts has always been just hubris, and the more recent post-modernist idea that we’re all just blank slates is nothing more than infantile delusion cooked up by crackpots that love getting high on their own supply!
Exactly right.
mammalian males are primarily concerned with spreading their genes as widely as possible
A myth I reckon. A male would ideally like to have children with 50 different females? How could that even work?
It’s probably more accurate to say that the average male is of interest to only a small percentage of females, and his priority is to identify them as soon as possible. The surefire way to do so is to try it on with all of them. So if there are 100 males and 100 females, every male tries it on with all of them, starting with the most attractive however defined. This isn’t because he wants to spread his genes as widely as possible; it’s because he wants to spread them at all.
If it’s a myrh that evolution favours males who spread their genes widely, this will come as a shock to scientists.
The reason that males are designed to spread their genes is actually not difficult to understand.
Because the reproductive payoff is the same whether a man spends a month or an hour to seduce a woman, it pays to spend only an hour, then go on to impregnate another and another.
This, of course, is in a state of nature. We lived that way for around 250,000, with men who spread their genes out producing those who didn’t. So genes for that behaviour are much, much more likely to be spread throughout the population.
In contrast, women benefit more by having sex with the best male available who will help her raise the offspring. That means being more choosy, holding out for the best deal possible.
So men and women have different strategies for reproduction. No amount of feminist wishful thinking can change hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary history, anymore than calling basic biology a “myth” .can.
I think you’ve bought into a bit of ancient sexism designed to belittle men.
A man who fathers 50 children can’t support them all. In most places on earth in history, neither can a mother raise a child on her own. There just aren’t the free calories, house-building materials or improvised weapons to repel predators lying around. There are some exceptions, notably Africa, but generally a man can’t provide 50 winterproof houses for 50 children by 50 mothers.
So a man who inseminated 50 women would not leave lots of descendants. He’d leave none. They’d all die in infancy.
Ancestral populations containing such males have not survived into modern times.
Men are programmed to find and secure a mate. Once they find one they invent something like marriage to ensure she stays found. If the objective of male life was to inseminate as many women as possible no such limiting social structure would ever have evolved.
Strawman. The sex drive must be weak enough to allow you to build a sustaining society. Of course. Just like it must be weak enough to let you take time off to eat, But in any realistic society optimum behaviour is still different for males and females, even if they live in stable relationships, Both sexes need to consider available resources.For a male, more sex partners, one-off or additional wives, means more children that might survive, and the sex itself costs very little, For a female the food and the risks of pregnancy come out of her own body, and the number of children is capped, anyway. Their best evolutionary bet is to get the best circumstances and genes for their children, so they are strong enough to produce many grandchildren.
You really cannot build evolutionary scenarios on how you guess ancient societies would have worked. But it is a safe bet that the thermostat would be a bit more towards ‘eager’ in males and a bit more towards ‘picky’ in females.
So, a long journey just to get back to where we started.
Remember: Communism is the most painful way to move from Capitalism to Capitalism
Quoi?
low value, in the sense that he doesn’t want the commitment they want. But in truth the problem is probably that he has far higher mate value than they have. They are simply setting their sights too high and going for men who don’t think they are good enough to stick with.
the answer isn’t to be a b***h. The answer is to find a nice guy who feels lucky to have you, and who values the kindness you bring to the relationship.
if you insist on mating up, I’m afraid this is what you get. From the point of view of an attractive male, if he loses you, another one, perhaps more attractive, will be along shortly.
sorry, and all that!
I agree. So many rigid programmes of thinking are based on the idea that the world is populated by manipulators, and that the only strategy is to counter with your own manipulative moves. A sort of toxic human chess.
Better way, if you’re a nice person, is to believe (not with reckless naivety, mind) that there are countless nice people in the world, and you can easily meet them, be nice to them, and they’ll be nice to you.
That’s a lot closer to the human behaviour that I have seen around me all my life.
So why opt for the miserable programme in the first place? It’s your choice, after all.
Anecdotally (I’m sure there is a supporting study somewhere) the minority of men are involved in a majority of the casual encounters with women. By definition the average number of partners men an d women have is equal but the variance between men is likely to be much higher.
But if you are playing games don’t be surprised if you end up only getting involved with those who are adept at playing. On both sides.
There are indeed many studies such as you refer to, and on related findings.
Exactly as you say: if you don’t like playing silly or nasty games, whom have you to blame if you persist in associating with people who play them?
Yes – human beings are a mixed bag. Avoid the bad ones, seek out the good ones, and do your best to be one of the good ones yourself. And don’t beat yourself up if you’re not perfect.
I like what you are saying,but it sounds dangerously close to a proposition I heard a lot in my youth: “Women like nice guys – therefore you should behave like a nice guy and then women will like you”.
The failure rate was very high indeed.
Very much like the old political saying regarding the value of sincerity; “if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
That’s not what ‘low-value’ means in the subreddit FDS. It usually refers to men who want to settle and marry, but aren’t rich or good-looking enough.
This is one of the milder comments from one of its threads:
Really? What a dreadful person. She sounds like a complete parasite.
The bad news for her kind is that only a limited number of men can afford her, and only a subset of those would be willing or stupid enough to buy what she has to sell.
No wonder young women often seem angry and confused, and no wonder young men spend so much time playing video games.
Stark bilge! A false dichotomy – ie. nice (but boring) girl versus nasty (but sexy) girl. Simply a justification for a certain type of woman to indulge in the sort of status-grabbing power play she delights in.
Perhaps the bitchy and difficult women appeal to the kind of competitive man who likes to flatter himself that he has won an exceptional woman where lesser men have proven inadequate to the task. The difficult woman, conversely, will flatter herself that only the very best of men need apply to be her mate.
All very primitive and animal – but that’s middle-class breeding for you.
not sure “b***h” is the right word for someone whose aim in life is to hook up, possibly for life, with a creature that is only interested in football, beer and easy sex.
That’s true. Not all men are just into football, beer and easy sex. Some of us really like wine too.
I thought you were going to write, “some of us don’t like football or beer”.
So you are a campaigner against sexual violence. Isn’t that a bit like being a campaigner against murder involving hammers but not murder in general?
Men don’t like bitches at all. But boys with arrested development do. Known as simps, dickstands or omegas these poor unfortunates are indeed attracted to toxic femininity.
Evidence seems to suggest that men are finding other pursuits in life rather than women. Marriage is an extremely dangerous contract for men to enter into and most are waking up to that fact.
Get used to it.
In my experience bitches aren’t attractive. It’s just that broadly speaking people are as agreeable as they have to be. Attractive women need not be very agreeable at all; no matter how obnoxious they are, someone new will be along soon to put up with them.
I’m not sure what laughable TV fiction like The Fall tells us. In TV land senior policewomen are sexy, independent, decisive and shrewd. In real life they’re Cressida d**k.
You’re also falling for another ancient cliche here, which is that male sex is casual sex as an end in itself. The fact is that women are more choosy and also generally better looking. If you ask women and men to rate the looks of a few hundred random faces, the men will rate far more of the women attractive than vice versa. In a population of 100 females and 100 males, the former will probably accept 3 or 4 of the males as a partner but the males would accept 30 to 40 of the women. The males’ task is to identify those 3 or 4 women in a limited amount of time. The most reliable way is to try it on with a lot of them. That this results in more sex is a happy accident but men are promiscuous because they have to be.
Actually, in a state of nature, all of the men and all of the women will engage in pair bonding. The women will try to hold out for the best male, just as the men will seek the best female. People will jockey for attention to attract the best mates, then settle when those potential partners are taken by competitors. Females have more at stake, because they can only reproduce a few times, while men can foster tens of thousands of children.
The differences between men and women are ultimately due to females having few, large gametes, while males have billions of mobile ones. Every difference between men and women, physical and psychological, hinges on these facts.
But no one wins by not finding a mate.
That’s very illuminating as an alternative way of explaining male ‘promiscuity’. Also, men’s emotional engagement in sex is often underestimated. It’s fashionable to think of sex as a shallow experience for men because we’ve heard so much from feminists for years conflating male desire with violence or our old friend ‘misogyny’.
First of all, when I see “FDS”, I think of the old “feminine deodorant spray” product.
Secondly, women have tied themselves up in knots – on the one hand telling the world they are just like men, and, usually in their late 20s if still single, realizing they are not.
It is fascinating being divorced and dating in today’s society – lots of freaky sex, but also, sadly, what seems to be a high prevalence of anxiety and depression in young women. Feminists blame men for this, which is a tactic to shift blame from themselves.
this is probably true, but I doubt it is based on whether you sleep together on the first date, the third or much later. Men fall for some women, but not for others, based on what the women are like. The key question isn’t “did she sleep with me too soon”, it’s “is this someone I would want to spend a lot of time with”.
and frankly there are some women (and men) that no one really wants to spend a lot of time with, if they have any other alternative.
one thing that really does matter to men (and women), and is perhaps indicated by willingness to jump into bed at the drop of a hat, is faithfulness. No one wants to spend their life worrying that they might be being cheated on.
Exactly. This is best synthesized in a very good line from Juca Chaves, a brilliant Brazilian humorist: The ideal woman is a dame in society and a s l u t between the sheets – and makes both aspects clear right away.
One painfully obvious flag for “not this one” in a woman is using sexual access as a prize/weapon/bartling chip. It reveals both lack of character and unfixable disinterest in sex itself.
One wonders how the “adherents” of the “be a b***h” protocol can think such manipulation is not immediately obvious and purpose-defeating…
I suspect they think men are too dumb to see it. They might be surprised at how obvious they are.
an interesting moral question – if a woman behaves like this, lying and manipulating to get her hands on the money and status she wants – is it acceptable for a man to string her along and lie to her just to get …, then dump her.
FDS seems like the red pill for modern women; whereby they realise that “valuable feminine resources (sex; attention)” are exchanged for “valuable masculine resources (money; commitment)” in the sexual marketplace.
The problem FDS’ers don’t have, which red pillers do, is that the government guarantees her access to the ‘masculine resources’ once married, the money is hers regardless. No such guarantee the other way.
Of course we could see relationships as something other than transactional – but maybe I’m just a naive romantic.
Precisely. Somehow society don’t seem to mind the “monogamic prostitute” model. Men do. Hence the current wave of avoidance.
Well, it seems to me that women have f-cked each other up as much as anything else; viz Vogue and Cosmo.
What’s wrong with Viz? Great comic.
Viz means namely.
As a Gen Xer I can’t imagine dating today. LOL. I don’t really think this is true. I’m quite sure I never wanted to date a “b***h”. That doesn’t seem to be what the author is even describing here… or at least not what I would call a “b***h”. I would say my biggest mistake being young was not dating enough different people and just seeing what types of personalities worked best with me. I continually tried to fit the square in the round hole so to be speak. Falling pray to the initial love passion, that this feels so great it is love and it must work out? Honestly all the posturing when it comes to dating is a bit meaningless… really unless you want to engage in hookup culture. In my later years I finally figured out that no matter what games you play, or how much you like somebody, or how much you want to make a relationship work… none of that really matters. If you are going to be in a loving committed long term relationship, you are going to wind up spending a lot of time together. There is no where to hide at that point… well… if it going to work out at least. What finally worked for me was just finding somebody I genuinely liked spending time with. Doing things together. Just liked having her around because we found pleasure in each other’s company. No games.. no struggle… just somebody who at least shared a few interests, liked doing a lot of the same things, and who you could spend a all day with and not have it be a chore. If I was transported back to that world I would just date a lot of different people until I found that kind of easy togetherness. Why make it a struggle?
I’ve just tried to post a perfectly reasonable comment, and in spite of two attempts at getting around trigger words it’s still held up for moderation (which never seems to happen).
when the author uses a word rhyming with tuck, we can surely reply using a word a bit like rope and one that is similar to the sixth number – without getting stuck forever waiting for moderation.
ɹosuǝɔ-oʇnɐ ǝɥʇ punoɹɐ ʇǝƃ oʇ sʞɹoʍ sǝɯᴉʇǝɯos sᴉɥʇ
Clearly. This new format and it’s approval proctor is irritating in the extreme. An article can be rife with violent images and gross profanity, but to comment using same-even direct quotes-is too much for the delicate moderator. Discus is a far superior forum, in many mores ways than just these mentioned…
I hope that it is safe to say; “I agree”…my first reply is held for approval. It is in no way profane or threatening. This new format adds a new excitement to posting on UnHerd-will it be approved..? Yes! Open the Champagne!
I posted something about the Play Shopping and F***ing and it was rejected.
You should have said sh**ping
We may not like the software, we didn’t write it. But to deny it exists is a somewhat futile.
Do you mean hardware, as in biological programming?
Underscores my advice to any young male who woudl ever listen. Never, ever marry. Always ensure there is a contractual barrier between her and your assets. Check the law in your own country, but ensure that she cannot lay claim to your hard-work by virtue of some spurious notion of “emotional support” or whatever.
Enjoy a partner as long as you choose; if it fails – make sure she has always know that she has the independence woman have always wanted and that she is not your responsibility.
Well…”partner” implies some mutual responsibility-as marriage ideally should be…and then there are the children.
What a refreshing take on matters between the sexes. I don’t get calling women who value themselves and their potential husbands as bitches, but I suppose the term is being used to attract attention.
In my own experience, it’s a much better idea to value and elevate the innate differences between men and women. Like it or not, the moment a woman engages w/a man in sex, she starts building a nest for the relationship, as well as for any forthcoming children to be nurtured w/in. Men don’t automatically do nest building, they need to be persuaded to use the better part of their natures to respect and protect the nest and its inhabitants. Men are wired to be persuaded, but they won’t be persuaded by women who sexually act out like immature men (and why ought they be?)
Given the longevity of commitment to nurturing a baby to young adulthood, and to building strong familial ties, it takes serious self-respect and smarts for a woman to be Very Very picky when it comes to whom and when (with that whom) she’s going to have sex.
Life isn’t about living happily ever after. However, mature, loving relational stability provides a haven for the hardships, and even tragedies, that are a part of life. Unhinged sexuality, where young women are (stupidly) encouraged to emulate immature masculine sexual mores, leads to nothing but embittered loneliness. I’m tempted to go on about aging Hillary voters, but I won’t.
Based on my own dating history, yes. but only if they’re also alcoholics.
Comments are almost all men .
Really an article for women.
Maybe people like men don’t want to be labeled?
Having researched this – admittedly very briefly – aren’t the women on these sites just a bunch of angry, misandrist saddos. A sort of female equivalent to incels.
After all if they had been successful with men, they wouldn’t be on there looking for “strategies”.
It’s the same as women attracted to ‘bad boys’. It’s not a gender issue …. same for both.
If men love bitches then why do they call them bitches? I’ve never known a man to say “I really want to marry a b***h” unless that’s a term they always use for women. The advice given here seeks to help women find a relationship with a sort of man who no longer exists.with old sex as a strategy to obtain a commitment and the man will likely just decide you aren’t interested.
‘Do men love bitches?’ Only men with masochistic tendencies. But then I wouldn’t call a woman who is quite sincere and open about not starting a sexual relationship until she is ready a ‘b***h’.
So, you are saying that Dr Jordan Peterson is right. I kinda suspected as much all along.
20 year old book = Gen X = sensible because we are the only people on the planet with any f*****g sense at this point. You’re welcome, Gen Z.
Whenever I see the phrase ‘female empowerment’ it frequently seems to mean some women flashing her bits and pretending it gives her power over men. No it doesn’t, it just means that a certain kind of man is getting his jollies. I don’t know if being a ‘b***h’ is the right description, but I have to admit they seem to be the more empowered to me. And certainly more worthy of respect.
Three of these el greedos have prospered off the sweat of my labour.
No more though – too expensive.
I’ll try and go for decent human beings from now on.
What took you so long?
Innocent abroad, slow learner, think the best of others. Remarkably, I’m still of the opinion that there are decent ones out there.
Well, don’t be too trusting. Make her pay her own way; never marry.
I am reticent on the “don’t marry” part because I believe children deserve to have a father around. But the reality of people ever considering women not “paying their way” in any exchange or relationship always blew my mind. On what grounds do people see normality in paying the bills of a heathy, work-capable adult? I never did…
I’ve decided against marrying again. I’ll just save time and effort by finding a woman I don’t like and giving her everything I own.
Liberal feminism has always been destructive for women, as has the baseless ‘blank slate’ dogma. Whatever the harms done by gender stereotyping may be, they are far exceeded by the imposition of the feminist ‘gender-neutral’ stereotype. I’ve not heard of ‘difference feminism’ before but it sounds very positive and worthwhile to me, particularly its affirmation of the value of motherhood.
I am reminded of a previous article by Peter Frankin on this website (I’m not sure if UnHerd allows hyperlinks in comments, so I will edit the link text): https://unherd.com/2018/05/whats-point-intellectual-dark-web/ which includes the following: “Indeed, if you believe that there are some ‘hardwired’ differences between the sexes, then it’s all the more important that things shouldn’t be arranged to the convenience of only one of them.” – with which I heartily agreed when I read it.
Edit: the text converted to a hyperlink anyway, so I have removed the change with which I tried to prevent that happening
If she’s a b***h early on, it’ll get worse. Same for guys – if he treats you like shit early on, it ain’t gonna get better.
Despite my dashing looking, immaculate sense of style, profound knowledge of science and culture, witty repartee and gentlemanly behaviour, I have never found having sex easy.
It is easier within my marriage but still requires that my wife is keen too.
I don’t think that there are many men like Sam Malone in Cheers for whom every lovely woman drops her knickers on command.
It certainly appeals but its pretty bloody good having the same partner for thirty years with whom sex tends to become more fun year by year.
Yes, men seem to like easy sex, cricket and beer and those things are lovely but we are capable of enjoying other aspects of life.
These articles are so annoying when some smartypants thinks that people and their relationship can be generalised.
Silly me for bothering to read it.
This young woman does her best, but doesn’t go deep enough. Darwin noted the Battle of the Sexes in his Great Book on Sexual Selection.
It was then codified in the 60s by William Hamiltion, and given it final, Mathematically, Precise form by the near-genius Trivers in the early 1970s.
I can’t be bothered to cite Chapter and Verse, folks, but look it up.
Thanks for your post.
If not too much trouble, which book by Trivers did you have in mind?
I can’t see anything in the article about “being a b*tch”. It looks like a clickbait book title from back before clickbait was a thing. The advice seems to boil down to “don’t sleep with a man in the hope it will make him want a long term relationship – because it doesn’t work like that”. Sorry, that’s not being a b*tch!
And if anyone’s feeling like a wee rant about feminists being nasty to us men on the basis of this article – try again.
Maybe there is lots of “being a b*tch” stuff in the book – but Ms Perry hasn’t mentioned it. Chill, folks – or go watch Netflix…
As the mother of two Gen Z young women, I appreciate the main point of this article, as I see it: Blank slate” feminism and “sex positive” ideology go against biological/psychological reality and end up harming, not empowering, women.
Because my daughters, like pretty much everyone else of their generation, spend a lot of time on youtube and social media, they are constantly bombarded with messages urging them to get power through using their sexuality. One of them seems to think that porn stars and prostitutes are just using their power in a neutral (or even positive) way.
I am happy to learn that this FDS movement exists to counter such views.
I changed the postings to “newest”…but it does not work-this is ridiculous.
Men only like a woman to be a b***h in the bedroom. It gets tiresome when taken outside that context.
…I guess so, I married a few of them.
Large stuffed animals can save you from seeking unsatisfying comfort.
Or enjoy the kiss and the promise and go to sleep alone with great fantasy fuel, if you have found yourself having wasted your evening with someone ho thinks they can do better.
Find someone who is spiritually clean.
What a tease in that picture, advertising a breast on her head and then waving him away!
xz
Regarding the (apparently ) innate male tendency to slot women into “fun time” and “worthwhile”, the last time there was a large scale attempt at changing human nature, an entire nation was dedicated to it. So how goes “Soviet Man”?