To say that The Game has aged badly would be to understate how outrageous it was even in its own time: 20 years ago, just as women had finally become empowered to pursue sex on its own merits, and on their own terms, the pick-up artist Neil Strauss published his guide to remaking an entire generation of men in the illustrious image of Casanova. He, and men like him, seemed to have figured out how to subvert women’s hard-won agency through a mix of reverse psychology and weaponised charm, which infuriated feminist critics. That the pick-up artist movement’s most celebrated star was Erik “Mystery” von Markovik, a man with goth eyeliner and a penchant for terrible faux-fur hats, only further cemented the consensus that women who went to bed with these guys were doing so, if not against their will, then certainly against their better judgment.
By 2013, the hostility had crystallised: when a man named Kevin Hoinsky set out to improve on existing pick-up artist strategies in a new book titled Above the Game, his project was subject to mass internet backlash and ultimately banned from Kickstarter for “glorifying violence against women”. And while some critics later and grudgingly admitted that this might have been overstating things a bit, a sense remained that any so-called seduction guide should be understood, essentially, as criminal in spirit if not in substance. The Cut warned: ”Hoinsky’s book may not be a rape manual, but it is a guide to exploiting the less-than-ideal conditions under which women have sex.”
A decade letter, I’m struck by the astonishing prescriptiveness of this line: the notion that any sexual encounter preceded by flirtation, negotiation, or indeed any assessment of a suitor’s desirability should be understood as “less-than-ideal” — and that any man who seeks to make himself desirable to an as-yet-uncertain woman is doing something inherently sleazy. Granted, the anti-Game backlash began in the form of reasonable scrutiny of controversial seduction techniques like “negging” (a slightly backhanded compliment deployed for the sake of flirtation).
But since then it has morphed into something much stranger: the idea that anything a man does to impress a woman, from basic grooming to speaking in complete sentences, should be viewed with suspicion. Behind this is the same low-trust mindset that leads women to treat every date as a hunt for the red flags that reveal her suitor as a secret monster. If he compliments you? That’s lovebombing, which means he’s an abuser. If he doesn’t compliment you, that’s withholding, which also means he’s an abuser. Other alleged “red flags” include oversharing, undersharing, paying for the date, not paying for the date, being too eager, being five minutes late, and drinking water — or worse, drinking water through a straw.
Today, the turn against pick-up artistry can be understood at least in part as a reaction against some of its more prominent contemporary practitioners, including men such as Andrew Tate, who makes Mystery look like a catch by comparison. But it is also no doubt an outgrowth of a culture in which male sexuality has effectively been characterised as inherently predatory, while female sexuality is seen as virtually non-existent. The question that seduction manuals once aimed to answer — “how do I, a shy young man, successfully and confidently approach women?” — is now, in itself, a red flag, one likely to provoke anything from squawking indignation to abject horror to bystanders wondering if they ought to call the police. That you are even thinking of approaching women just goes to show what a troglodyte you really are. What do women want? The contemporary answer appears to be: to be left alone, forever, until they die — or to meet someone in a safe and sanitised way, via dating app… although even that option is increasingly positioned as inherently dangerous.
Meanwhile, I was surprised upon revisiting The Game to realise that the strategies contained within the book are not just useful but mostly in keeping with more traditional dating and courtship advice, from “peacocking” (wearing something eye-catching or unusual that can act as a conversation starter), to passing “shit tests” (responding with humour and confidence when a woman teases you). Even the much-derided negging wasn’t originally designed with the goal of insulting or belittling women, but rather to teach men how to talk to them without fawning and drooling all over the place. In the end, the message of The Game is more or less identical to the one in popular women’s dating guides, like The Rules or He’s Just Not That Into You: that confidence is sexy, and naked desperation is a turnoff.
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.
SubscribeTo say that The Game has aged badly would be to understate how outrageous it was even in its own time: 20 years ago, just as women had finally become empowered to pursue sex on its own merits, and on their own terms, the pick-up artist Neil Strauss published his guide to remaking an entire generation of men in the illustrious image of Casanova. He, and men like him, seemed to have figured out how to subvert women’s hard-won agency through a mix of reverse psychology and weaponised charm, which infuriated feminist critics.
The irony, of course, is that it is the anti-Gamists who have bought wholesale into the mythology of The Game and credit women with no agency. Insofar as I remember anything of what The Game says (I believe I flipped through it once at a Barnes and Noble), it is that women are essentially robots: press these buttons and she will respond thusly. The anti-Gamists agree; male sexuality is, in their minds, so overwhelming that literally any expression of it overpowers female agency and the woman being approached has no choice but to acquiesce. In other words, if the proto-rapist presses these buttons, she has no choice but to respond thusly.
Now, of course, there are many men who use fundamentally unethical methods of seducing women, often involving intoxication and/or outright deception, but flirtation does not count among the latter; social interaction between men and women does not constitute a violation, and to imply that it does, as so many histrions these days do, is to imply that women are essentially without agency: that a woman, subject to a male’s attentions–whether wanted or unwanted–has no choice but to sit there and take it, rather than, say, getting up and walking away. Remember, ladies: if he gets fresh, you always have the option of slapping his face.
An apt reminder, though I wonder how many women need it. Trouble is: Once a man is due for a slap, a woman may have suddenly found herself with a gropey Joe–a real nasty creep–instead of a flirtatious Fred. For this type of reason, dating-app meetings that start behind closed doors or quickly head there seem insane to me when imagined from a woman’s point of view. However, these digital utilities and amorous shortcuts wouldn’t get used as often as they do if they spelled the level of danger a histrion (great noun! didn’t know it), snarling Luddite, or Puritan given to fainting spells might perceive.
“The anti-Gamists agree; male sexuality is, in their minds, so overwhelming that literally any expression of it overpowers female agency and the woman being approached has no choice but to acquiesce.”
Admittedly, I haven’t read “The Game” nor its criticism – but I would like to go deeper into this. I would contend that, male and female sexuality are equally powerful; men and women both do have agency. It’s not so much as male sexuality is overwhelming, but the potential (and sometimes extreme) repurcussions that women have to consider in interactions with men are far heavier and more significant
Men, on average, are physically stronger and are more aggressive than women.
Men, on average, commit more violent crimes than women.
These are observable, quantifiable facts. Put these two together and we can see why it is not as easy as just “slapping his face”, metaphorically or not, potentially escalating the situation, instead of just taking it and hoping it goes away.
MeToo has equalized the field a bit (maybe, even a case of overcorrection), but men, generally, do not worry about personal, physical safety as much as women.
I’m not saying that an overwhelming instance of rejection of male advances result in the woman being assaulted, but it only takes one bad encounter. I think that is why in dating and sex, it is not as “men and women are equal” as people think it is.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but there’s a certain binary thinking that underlies a lot of “feminist” criticism of male sexuality these days that boils down to “male = active, female = passive”. I’m not saying that men and women are the same, but taken to an extreme, the above binary results in “male = rapist, female = victim”, with neither dance partner able to take on any other role.
Also, I think we should distinguish between the statements “men and women are equal” (equal under the law, equal morally), and “men and women are equivalent” (men and women are interchangeable, and have no differences, either meaningful or trivial). The former is, if not true, then at least aspirational, while the latter is neither true nor aspirational, and not even possible.
No you don’t! Physical violence is ALWAYS abhorrent (isn’t it?). Or perhaps only when a man does it to a woman? Gurls, sort out these ridiculous double standards!
Physical violence is ALWAYS abhorrent (isn’t it?)
No, it isn’t. If a man is raping a woman, and she punches him in the face to defend herself, it’s ludicrous to denounce both actions as being abhorrent. “Abhorrent” means “being worthy of being abhorred,” that is, to shun or avoid. Obviously, anyone being physically attacked, sexually or otherwise, should not be expected to shun or avoid violence as a means of defending themselves. Statements like “physical violence is always abhorrent” actually empower rapists and others because they imply a moral equivalence between attacker and defender, which disarms the moral individual (usually the defender), thus arming the immoral individual (usually the attacker), who ignores society’s moral strictures anyway. Violence is not always abhorrent, it is usually abhorrent; it is justified when reasserting the moral order while being both minimal and proportional.
OMG! That’s so pedantic and pompous.
Thank you. I usually hit the mark with my pedantry, but often miss when it comes to pomposity.
Clare! You’ve got it in for everyone today!
A woman can just stand up and walk away or even better, slap a man’s face? You obviously have never been approached by a man whose attention you did not want. “Wanted or unwanted”? Why would I need to walk away or hit him, if it was wanted? But also, why do I need to give up my space at a table/bar/bus stop because a man can’t take no for an answer?
“You obviously have never been approached by a man whose attention you did not want.”
That’s funny,.
I’d say a safe estimate would be that about 98% of men have never been approached by a member of the opposite sex who’s interested. Reminds me of that old study survey in which a moderately good-looking female approached random men on campus and asked them if they’d like to have sex with them. The YES ABSOLUTELY response rate was up around 90% When the sexes were reversed, and a moderately good-looking male approached random females and asked the same question, the response of NO was unanimous
But what you describe is both the rock…and the hard place. So what do you do when you don’t want to leave and the offender won’t go and you don’t want to escalate the encounter into a slap?
By all accounts a growing number of young men just don’t see the point anymore in dating and probably wouldn’t get a look in anyway since 80 percent of women are chasing the top 20 percent of men.
80 percent have forfeited “the game”, or aren’t really in it because the numbers are rigged? That sounds high.
That wasn’t my take on WS’s comment. He said a large, but unspecified, %age of men have given up. Presumably some of the 80% of men who aren’t in the most desired 20% are still trying.
As Kat says in her article it’s not only men that have given up trying to date. A growing number of women have also given up.
The women who are opting out are describing dating as “traumatising” and “demoralising”.
The underlying reason is the men they are chasing. Most women are chasing the top 20 percent of men. These are men with multiple options. They do not have to put much or any effort into attracting dates. They move from woman to woman, discarding them when they get bored. As a result, women get hurt and start believing that all men are the same, when in fact the bottom 80 percent of men who they ignore and who have fewer options generally behave much better.
It really is that simple.
He’s just plucking numbers out of thin air to bolster his case, which usually revolves around misogyny in some form or another.
That’s not the case. Most of the research comes from dating apps and may not be fully representative. Many men clearly believe it to be true – rightly or wrongly. But he’s not just picking figures out of thin air.
Understood it to be a loose estimate and was trying to get at the underlying point. More young men giving up on sex has general validity, but in a wider picture where fewer people risk much meaningful face-to-face interaction at all. Of course a “hookup” may or may not involve or lead to anything meaningful.
The data is from dating apps… where the majority dating takes place these days.
For instance, from one report:
“Dating apps sort potential partners into a tiny group of haves and a titanic group of have-nots. On Hinge, the top 10% of men receive nearly 60% of the “likes”. The bottom 80% of male Tinder users, based on percentage of likes received, are competing for the bottom 22% of women.”
Sounds awful.
How did you get misogyny out of that? There is no shortage of stories about the current dating scene, the professional women lamenting a deficit of suitable partners, the men who don’t much like being painted as ‘toxic’ merely for existing, the drop in marriage rates.
There seems to be a general drawback of Male interest. Older men say it isn’t worth the risk or trouble. I have teenage sons and what surprises me is their lack of interest in Females. Football, car racing, Xbox, they are obsessed by all of that but virtually no girls in any of the group or the bigger groups they hang around with and go to college with. Whether this is just some delayed childhood or a generational change I have no idea. I strongly suspect that If I had the internet and Xbox as a teenager I would have been less interested in girls too.
To be fair we never had girls in our group (as it were). The boys girlfriends would obviously have a drink with us, and there would be girls you knew when you were on a night out but we never organised to go out as a group. If you met a group you might end up mixing but it was never planned so I don’t think you’re young lads are any different to they’ve always been.
It appears to be different on the continent, where most groups are mixed. But then on the continent men actually seem to like women, and women actually seem to like men.
On the continent?
The parts of Europe I’ve visited.
When at university, social groups tended to be mixed, and my experience is that this is still the general rule on the continent. In the U.K. even people in relationships and marriages seem to gravitate towards single sex groups. Advertising reinforces this: women having fun means going out with the girls. To my view it is very much like the single sex groups that form at school, and is a sign of general immaturity (ok, my prejudice – but my general view is that people are failing to mature in the way they should, and gravitate towards activities, interests and behaviours that would once have been considered teenage).
I’m in partial agreement. Women going out or travelling in groups reflects, in part, their ongoing vulnerability when out among strangers–or malevolent acquaintances–by themselves.
It’s true that people in our so-called hemisphere don’t tend to “grow up and get serious” as early and often as they did a few generations ago; certainly not ten generations ago, when life was shorter, less luxurious, and more precarious for most. Still, I think that playfulness and a certain inward, childlike quality can be healthy, and in any case fits with psychological reality for most: “The child is the father of the man” or woman; we don’t fully get over and needn’t put away all childish things.
“Studies have shown” that American teenagers didn’t really exist as a distinct social sub-group until the mid-20th century. According to something I read, in the 18th century children were typically dressed and treated like little adults from quite a young age; not making major decisions but not having too much of a proper childhood either. Was that better?
As someone who doesn’t even require the “evidence” of something I’ve read or what a study (it was actually a public-TV documentary) purports to show to remain stubbornly hopeful, I think the pendulum will swing back toward a “goldilocks point” that’ll beat both the Golden Age and our present moment. Nevertheless, not holding my breath.
Sure – but to begin with they really were teenagers. Since then we don’t seem to have found new ways of growing up, but just hanker after youth. I’m not suggesting we go back to old fashioned stuffiness, just that we should have something to show for the years that have passed since we turned twenty. Ideally something we enjoy with passion.
To give a true life example: it is honestly ridiculous if a woman in her fifties has boy band pictures on her work office wall, or, again true, if middle aged professional women get all giggly about “sleepovers” like children. Ditto adult men who haven’t grown out of computer games. Gone bust now I believe, but the shop “Forever 21” summed this up.
True enough and I get your point. And of course childhood and the teen years have always existed, if not at the Eternal Childhood Inc. level we see now.
On a personal note, I expect I’ll always retain some zaniness and playfulness along with an ability to be serious and more of a “second-nature” willingness to focus and work hard. But superhero super-fandom or Comic-Con every year in your middle age? C’mon!
Though I’d be tempted to push back if someone else said it (a persistent reflex of mine): We Americans bear major collective responsibility for succumbing to and exporting–often through our commercial products and mass entertainments–the deification of youth, a Peter-Pan like refusal to grow up that I hope has reached its global peak.
Its acceptable to hear modern parents saying “I want to give my kids everything I never had.” And when I was growing up, it was acceptable for your parents to tell you “You want something, you better work for it.”
Hard work used to pay off though. If you found yourself a full time job that was enough to buy you a family home and raise a family, however unfortunately that’s no longer the case for many
I can’t even imagine that! At that age girls were a 24/7 obsession with no respite.
I was 6 or 7 when I first remember falling desperately in love, & it’s been going on for the next 60-odd years since.
Still are. There is nothing quite as intoxicating as new love or a burning crush. The burning crush on a girl or women whom one will likely never even meet is the extreme example of pure optimism and hope in an otherwise somewhat devoid world.
The unobtainable is all the more desirable.
Rejection is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
In my experience as a sixty-something widow some older men enthusiastically look for “a nurse with a purse and a place where they can live for free.” This appears to be common in Florida where I live.
I have not wanted or tried to date (my husband was the love of my life and soulmate), yet I have had six older men, in six years, looking for the nurse/purse combo with free room and board, along with spending money, barge into my happy single life. I sent all of them packing.
Yes, there are male and female golddiggers of all ages. And all of the male ones I’ve encountered must visit the same website to learn all about the unsuccessful manipulations which they think will work on me (they don’t). Maybe there’s a version of “The Game” for these old grifters.
Most of the decent older men are happily married. As for me, I am not looking. My memories of a very happy 37 year marriage sustain me very well. No “Games” for me.
Yikes! What an interesting perspective and a new one to me.
Clare
There are myths about lonely, gullible and sex-crazed widows that these creeps buy into. They all think they’re God’s gift to women and you should be honored and give them whatever you have just because they’ve bestowed their unwanted attentions upon you.
The decent and adult men respect my widowhood and my choice to remain single. They do exist as well.
I had a very happy marriage, but with husband’s death, my choice became to remain single. Doing as I please, after over sixty years of doing what everyone else wanted, is what makes me happy. There are a lot of widows who feel the same way as I do.
Maybe I should acquire a large, protective dog as a pet. That might deter any future unwanted suitors.
Please keep up the fabulous job in posting thoughtful comments. Unherd needs opinions from all!
Paula
I didn’t even know this was a thing! I have to ask the now popular question: what do they think they bring to the table?
Yes – this is a bit like the “why are so many women emotionally unstable” question men have. The answer is that they are not – the stable ones are in stable long term relationships. They are not still looking.
My experience is they attempt manipulation through sob stories which all sound scripted and rehearsed. That’s why I mentioned the concept of an old grifters’ website. Two of them also tried to cause me to become disabled so they could become caretakers and then guardians who can then legally control my assets. They all have been banished. These old men seem to think that simply feigning an interest in me will win me over. No.
My opinion is that they think being male is what they bring to the table. All six of them had enormous egos and inflated opinions of themselves. I certainly did not seek out their interest.
The main attraction appears to be my small house and lot which I fully own. It is mine, and upon my death it passes to my rather large extended family, not an aged, incompetent wannabe gigolo.
If you need money, get a job or budget better. Older people are hired in Florida, so that’s not an excuse. Widows and widowers are not retirement plans.
Gosh. Don’t think we have this in the U.K. I wonder what they were like when they were young? Are these the players of yesteryear?
I have heard in the U.K. of men who manage to build a small harem of late middle aged women. Mainly through dating apps. One woman I heard of locally had invited her boyfriend to her birthday party, only to find out later he had been going around trying to get the phone numbers of her friends. I suppose you have to admire his nerve.
Different game, but same inflated ego I guess!
I don’t know if they were the players of yesteryear or what. They all had different pasts but the same underlying motive: greed.
My own thoughts are there are a number of older men in Florida who have not provided as well for their retirement as they should have. They buy into this myth of widows as gullible, easy marks and their ticket to a life of freeloading.
Some are successful, but these are the much more polished, professional gigolos.
I had a very good friend a few years ago who had worked as a PI for a Tampa law firm that dealt in recovering assets from thieving gigolos. He interviewed the victims and learned a lot about the gigolo m.o. As an act of friendship, he told me all about the gigolo methods he’d encountered in his interviews. That’s helped me a lot in widowhood. Vidua, cave.
The Villages in Central Florida, north of Orlando, reputedly is the place with the wild and crazy senior sex lives and probably has a lot more senior players than other places in Florida. It also is a majority MAGA republican enclave. An entertaining and educational documentary/movie about the Villages is “Some Kind of Heaven” streaming on Amazon Prime Video. It’s enlightening.
I hope that answers your some of your questions. Florida is a very different place, to say the least ( I am a native North Carolinian).
It really depends on the personality type as to where their interests lie.
One can always work to get included into that top 20%.
True for some but not all as it requires all the sixes:
Six foot tall
Sixpack abs
Six figure salary
Six inch member
I need to earn more!
Can you knock it down to fives rather than sixes? I might have more of a chance that way
Nah, you can’t cultivate sexiness. You either have it or you don’t.
Where is this happening?
Just type “women want all the sixes” into your browser.
You’ll get a multitude of hits.
“A decade letter, I’m struck….” please correct 🙂
Women would best be advised to follow this advice: “If in doubt, don’t have sex.” The longer a woman waits, the clearer a man’s intentions are.
You’ve missed the entire point. Male intentions are obvious; it’s a matter of whether the female also desires sex too. If so, there’s no issue (metaphorically and also literally, if precautions are being taken!)
Of course he wants sex, but is that all he wants?
What if the woman fancies the man? Why shouldn’t she fill her boots?
It hadn’t occurred to him that a woman might want to have sex.
Women are always in doubt, which means if they took your advice they’d all die sexless spinsters.
Women want sex too. They are quite entitled to have it on any terms they wish. Well, any terms they wish that they can get a man to agree to. Beautiful women can simply dictate those terms, the less blessed amongst the sisterhood must take what’s available or do without.
A parallel dynamic applies to men that’s different in the details but the same in principle, of course.
That’s very big of you, but the sense I get is that what you are saying is: if I (a man) were a woman, that’s what I’d want. That’s equality. Some women may be like that, and it would be interesting to know if trans women feel like that. But perhaps men and women are different and look for different things from sex. Indeed, the woman who approaches sex like a man (she’s decided before it starts that it’ll be over by morning) is usually put in TV and film for shock value and to make a point – it’s role reversal. As is the promiscuous woman who sleeps with men who are less attractive than her, even losers, just for sex. Jean in Sex Education is a good example.
I don’t think that’s what I’m saying, no. You’re right that women and men do not have the same priorities when it comes to sex and why they seek it, but that doesn’t change the essential nature of dating-as-a-market in which some men and women can play their hands well, while others find it more difficult. In short, for most women, adopting the hard and fast rule suggested above amounts to simply pricing themselves out of the market.
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing or that women shouldn’t do it, in fact a great many women are encouraged to do exactly that, and it’s not my place to argue with or judge them. I’m just saying that there’s no simple rule of thumb that enables women avoid the pitfalls in the dating game that doesn’t also restrict their own freedom within it, that’s all (and I hope it goes without saying at this point, of course, that men face a similar tradeoff that differs only in the details).
We may not be disagreeing. Apologies if I misread you. I think there is a golden mean somewhere. Im certainly not advocating abstinence until marriage or anything like that.
The longer the wait, the harder it is to end the relationship if it turns out that the two of you are sexually incompatible.
But in days of yore when couples were forced to wait till they were married to have sex, they were stuck if sex wasn’t satisfactory.
I think you’ll find men should follow your advice. Then we can call you frigid.
Frigid! That’s a blast from the past I ain’t heard that in years!
“Even as we rightly rejoice in the fact that society no longer stigmatises women for desiring and pursuing sex,”
If society no longer stigmatises those women who pursue, implied outside of a long-term relationship, sex then is that a good thing. Especially as it is only possible due to those women self medicating to prevent normal healthy bodily function and ignoring the many known, and unknown, side effects of that perpetual medication.
Maybe it is time for those women to reevaluate morality, health and self-esteem against short term pleasure.
“Self-medicating” is a nonsense term to use in this context. The female reproductive system is not a disease. The only reason for males to want to control it is through fear; either of their own virility or of being cuckholded.
Perhaps, but if you’ve had much experience with women you do start to realise that the promiscuous ones are generally driven by a need for validation rather than pleasure. Whether this is due to insecurity, narcissism, or just vanity.
Many grow out of it, some don’t. The ones who do generally start to realise that the men don’t love, care or even particularly fancy them that much. They’re just there and they’re easy, so why not. That if it cost the man any more commitment than a few drinks he simply wouldn’t be there.
OMG!!! That is such an ignorant comment.
I really seem to have touched some nerves this time Clare. My apologies, but they are not meant personally. Try not to get defensive.
Our civilization is literally collapsing as a result of women not having babies. But yeah the only reason to be concerned is so we aren’t cuckholded.
Why is it the women’s job to reevaluate their morality? What’s immoral about going out an enjoying yourself while you’re young? Why can men put it about but women not?
Because the world isn’t fair! Haven’t you noticed.
Fairness is irrelevant, and that doesn’t answer my question. Why is it immoral for girls to enjoy themselves but not lads?
Exactly. The double standard still exists. That a woman is promiscuous and a s**t but a man is a stud. The word promiscuous is never applied to men.
The double standard continues to exist (in muted form, fortunately) because it is not a free floating prejudice that should have been dusted away in the great sixties spring clean. It’s more deeply rooted.
Women apply it because promiscuous women undermine the price of sex. It’s hard to hold out for commitment if some women are giving it away for a few drinks and a meal.
Men don’t apply it to women so much as to prospective wives and serious girlfriends. It’s humiliating for a man to pay a high price for something other men got cheap and threw out afterwards.
Men are also concerned that promiscuity might lead to cheating. That it shows a lack of impulse control. It’s hard to trust someone to stick to a diet, if hitherto they have been unable to see a piece of cake without eating it.
On the stud/s**t thing, being a man with a lot of notches on his belt may not be a very laudable achievement, but it is an achievement of sorts. It’s not easy and the man must be very attractive in some way. For a woman it’s no achievement at all. Hang out around drunk men and you’ll get hit on pretty soon.
Once you see that sex is a market in which women sell, and men buy, then pretty much everything else makes sense.
I’ll let someone else chip in with the evolutionary stuff.
Not sure I’d say it was immoral. I’d say it can be destructive – of self respect especially. To be honest I think it can be for some men too.
I don’t want to sound too holier than thou though. We’ve all done it. And it’s for people to find out for themselves.
I do say that women would be disillusioned if they realised just how little it can mean to a man. Some get the picture after being pumped and dumped a good few times.
I think people are confusing what is the case with what they think ought to be.
If a girl gets a name as the village bicycle then it becomes difficult for a man to enter into marriage or a long term relationship with her while maintaining his pride. He’s picking up what other men used, then rejected, repeatedly. He may also fear that other men still see her as available for use, and of course he may be right. Either way he will feel humiliated.
The reverse does not apply to a man who has bedded a lot of women. In fact the woman may feel that after all those women, she was the one he chose. It’s not fair, but it’s not going to be magicked away by social tweaking and wishful thinking.
This will always apply as long as gender roles exist in the dating dance. Men do the chasing, women run away with a degree of effort inversely proportional to how much they like the man in question, and that means that desirable men are the ones who are good at it, and desirable women are the ones who can’t be caught all that easily.
Whether this is fair on women misses the fact that it really isn’t all that fair on most men either.
Yes – things aren’t always fair, they just are the way they are and can’t be wished away.
Trite.
You sound like an elderly man who lives in a village!
And who are you to preach?!
What amazes me is the bigger picture on this: that women have somehow created a huge incentive for men to avoid them altogether, but are also somehow surprised at the continued existence of apparent misogyny (which is a predictably hugely overstated problem as well in my opinion, but never mind).
Surely the point is that it doesn’t matter why you may have made yourself unapproachable, the fact of doing so can be described in shorthand as “nobody likes you”. In practice it doesn’t make much difference whether the reason people avoid you is because they know from personal experience, say, that you’re rude and poor company, or the reason is that you belong to a class of people who have signalled that any attempt at social interaction with them by the opposite sex comes with a degree of social and reputational risk. The result is the same: you’re sitting on your own when you’d rather not be.
And it’s hardly fair, surely, to deem as misogynistic a man who behaves as if he dislikes you on the basis of your identity as a woman (ie he avoids talking to you because he quite correctly suspects that you are liable to treat any charm or civility he displays as the basis for assuming sinister intent), when it is you that has deliberately created the very conditions in which his supposed prejudice is actually accurate?
My point is that anyone is free to place such boundaries around themselves, but surely they cannot then be surprised if the boundaries actually have the intended effect?
That’s as labored as a Sunday sermon. How are you on a date?!
I disagree with you. I do have a tendency to write in longer sentences than is ideal, I grant you, but I maintain that my comment is nevertheless still reasonably well-written. I could conclude that your focusing on the style is a tacit admission that you can’t think of any way to disagree with the substance, but I’ll instead be nice to you and assume you just couldn’t be bothered.
I’ll ignore the jibe about the date, it’s juvenile and irrelevant.
John – you’re clearly too nice!
Take a hint, John. I think she’s negging you. I think she likes you.
C’mon now Clare; this isn’t a date….nor is there an incentive here to be extraordinarily charming or endearing. Wit can be good and can be used to emphasize a point or two…and yes, editing is both a lost art and difficult to do while composing comments on a keyboard. But a logical, well-developed narrative structure is more than appropriate for this kind of forum. John’s point is a good one, briefly stated: you get what you pay for.
And when the doctrine of ‘Affirmative Consent’ (as a for instance) requires an active and provable consent to an approach prior to the approach itself (to avoid accusations of harassment), we’ve crashed through the Looking Glass and arrived in a very perverted kind of Wonderland. No one should be surprised to see the the result.
Apparent misogyny is a predictably hugely overstated problem in your opinion, but never mind? Dear God. Could you be any more misogynistic?
Thanks for turning up right on time and exemplifying the issue under discussion.
What is misogynistic about suggesting that the perpetual accusation of misogyny in every criticism significantly overstates the actual amount of misogyny out there. You illustrate his point perfectly.
You might argue that it’s not overstated (albeit a difficult argument to make) but to declare the suggestion itself an example of woman-hatred is actually rather ridiculous.
I suppose, now, that my objection to your objection is also misogynistic?
And that the only way for any of us to avoid accusations of misogyny is to accept your implied contention that it’s impossible to overstate how much misogyny actually exists?
Doesn’t that seem a bit irrational?
“I suppose, now, that my objection to your objection is also misogynistic?
And that the only way for any of us to avoid accusations of misogyny is to accept your implied contention that it’s impossible to overstate how much misogyny actually exists?”
And yes, that is exactly how it works.
If you are accused of racism by an anti-racist, the only acceptable response is to confess that you are a racist. Any other response simply confirms your racism.
Likewise, if you are accused of misogyny by a feminist, the only thing to do is confess that you are a misogynist.
Just as, if you had been accused of reactionary behavior by a member of the Red Guard during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the only way out was to confess your sinful behavior and enter a re-education camp.
Thus the classic Kafka Trap. (they’re everywhere!)
The only way to escape is to refuse to play the Kafka Trap game entirely.
Another insightful article from Kat Rosenfield. I completely agree that dating has become an activity that we approach cautiously and nervously, instead of playfully and openly. But the problem I see with “The Game” or any “Pick-Up” artistry that is presented to men, which some then utilize, is that it has an inherent manipulative element to it and is disingenuous.
Dating is an opportunity to genuinely get to know more about a person you find interesting, in a fun and playful setting. Reciprocally, it is an opportunity for you to show who YOU are to the other party. And the flirting element is what differentiates dating to a sterile job interview. If men were to approach women already with a step-by-step guide in mind, then they are already presenting an artifice. And that is where my main concern of “Pick-Up” artistry is. It is not your self you are letting the other person see, but a representation of some other guy who claims to have had a couple of successes with this technique / approach.
Being one’s self is the best approach to dating there is. If you’re the type of person that is confident and forward, you will find others who like it and others who don’t. Likewise, if you are the type of person that is demure and carries more restraint, there will be people who will like it and people who don’t. Be fun. Be open. Be playful. But above everything else – be real.
“Being one’s self is the best approach to dating there is”
You haven’t got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Nonsense! It’s the only way to be if you wish to form a lasting relationship. If you’re thinking just of a one night stand, that’s not “dating” but simply pursuing sex for the sake of it. I’m not casting a judgement on the latter at all, but simply pointing out your misjudgement of the comment you’ve replied to.
I disagree that simply being oneself is the only approach to being in a lasting relationship. Lasting relationships – eg marriage – require hard work, which is just another way of saying that each person in the relationship changes themselves for the sake of the relationship.
It’s not a stretch to conclude therefore that the dating dance legitimately involves presenting the potential, improved version of yourself that you’ll commit to becoming for the right person.
Can anyone actually “be themselves” in those circumstances?
In the words of Father Ted “Never be yourself around women!”
Okay – I’ll bite.
What does the best / ideal approach look like for you?
Genuinely curious.
It sounds like the skills of dating have come naturally to you. However, anyone who has struggled with women will have been told countless times to “just be yourself”. This may be true if you are already confident, funny and good company. It’s not true if you are awkward, unsure and deeply insecure. It’s also advice that sets people up to become “nice guys” – going out with the expectation that if I “just be myself” women will like me. When this method fails, men feel resentment and frustration. I do, however, think you are right with your last comments to be fun, be open, but above all else – be real. There are, however, always people out there who need a little guidance on how to assertion these qualities and cultivate this kind of a persona. Rest assured they don’t come naturally to everyone.
(Will preface by saying I am sorry if I ever I misrepresent your arguments) If the goal is to make “women like me”, one is already setting up for failure. Who is “women” here? All? Most? Some? Or perhaps those with personalities and interests that align with our own?
There is no single set of traits that, once a man cultivates, will ensure he will succeed in dating because there is no single set of traits that women find attractive. That is one of the criticisms against “Pick-Up” artistry – it reduces women to this monolith. It assumes no individuality, no difference in tastes and interests. Simply use the guide and watch them fall head over heels for you.
As naive as it may sound, being one’s awkward and unsure self might not attract all. It might not even attract most. But it will attract the right people – those that find those qualities as attractive and interesting. For me personally, that is the essence of dating. Not to get on with the most number of potential partners, but to find the ones you can have genuine fun and connection with.
Whilst I agree you need to be reasonably true to yourself, it’s not just a case of everyone matching up neatly. Some people are simply more attractive than others – such people attract more interest, that’s what the word means. And ‘pick-up artistry’ is intended to generally increase attractiveness (though the particular technique used may repel some, or be generally ineffective).
The more interest you are able to achieve, the more choice you have to find someone you match well with. And the more practice you get with relationships in the mean time. Less attractive people have less choice, less practice and so less chance to learn how to become more attractive and reduced chance of matching appropriately.
You’re assuming that the dating game is only ever about finding a life partner. It isn’t: it’s also about every degree of commitment from casual sex, through the inevitably-doomed first relationship, the twenty-something could-this-be-the-one relationship that ultimately ends because one or both weren’t quite fully adults yet and didn’t know what they wanted etc.
It is true that being an awkward, socially inept man won’t put off a woman who actually wants to meet the sort of man that his character reveals of him, rather than what his personality makes him merely appear to be. But that socially inept man almost certainly wants to have a few years of fun and games and for that, he needs to stop being socially inept and must develop confidence and social fluency. Since this is something he needs to do anyway to get anywhere in life, surely it would be ungenerous to condemn him for being initially motivated to improve himself by a desire to get laid?
“Being an awkward, socially inept man won’t put off a woman who actually wants to meet the sort of man that his character reveals of him… but that socially inept man almost certainly wants to have a few years of fun and games, and for that, he needs to stop being socially inept and must develop confidence… ”
– Is this not a bit contradictory? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding. Why would the socially inept man, who as you pointed out, will attract the sort of person who finds him already endearing (precisely because of him being shy, uneasy, and awkward), try and cultivate another kind of persona? He is already naturally attracting compatible partners No Pick-Up artistry needed.
Unless, of course, the aim is to maximize the number of partners one can “catch” (an objective I personally find unhealthy and damaging). If maximization is the goal, I can see how one would reach for the Pick-Up playbook and try to develop the skills and techniques that these guides are marketing. It promises that you have all your bases covered by having an approach that will attract even the women who don’t find one’s innate characteristics interesting.
That said, I think having that aim (maximizing number of partners) and the specific method – Pick-Up artistry, seduction, manipulation (whatever one chooses to call it) – combined makes the criticism of Pick-Up artistry valid – that it is predatory. As sanctimonious as it sounds, Pick-Up artistry relies on a level of deception to achieve a goal. An extreme example would be Netflix’s “The Tinder Swindler” – the goal is admittedly different (deceiving women for money, instead of sex), but the idea is generally the same. Sorry to rely on an extreme example to emphasize a point.
It is not objectionable for a man (in your words) to “desire to get laid”. What is objectionable is the method and the extent by which one would go into making another believe that he or she is experiencing something genuine, when in fact it was only something borrowed from a playbook – easily taken on and off at one’s convenience.
“– Is this not a bit contradictory? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding. Why would the socially inept man, who as you pointed out, will attract the sort of person who finds him already endearing (precisely because of him being shy, uneasy, and awkward), try and cultivate another kind of persona? He is already naturally attracting compatible partners No Pick-Up artistry needed.”
No – socially awkward men (well women too, since we’re on the subject), usually have great difficulty attracting the opposite sex in the dating game. My point is that although it won’t prevent them eventually acquiring a serious partner in life, it does make their earlier years difficult.
Your argument here seems to make a simplistic distinction between the sincere search for a long term partner on the one hand, with everything else being an insincere and deceitful game of sexual target practice (sorry if I’m oversimplifying your position as well), whereas in fact a person can go through a series of monogamous relationships prior to finding the right life partner, all of which were entered into sincerely and with the intent that they might be enduringly stable.
However, the socially awkward man more often doesn’t experience this: he finds that he is stuck being single while young, and it is that problem to which a deliberate effort to solve through emotional growth – and perhaps a little bit of tactical facade management – is a wholly justifiable reaction.
Perhaps better than “be yourself” is the advice “don’t try to be someone you’re not”. It’s about making the best out of what you have. My first step in overcoming shyness was to accept it and be comfortable in describing myself as shy to women. Oddly none of them believed it, and people don’t generally dislike it anyway. Self describing as insecure is different. Also just aim to chat to a woman and be happy if nothing comes of it – otherwise you’re putting unnecessary pressure on yourself.
This unsolicited advice sounds rather trite and obvious.
Perhaps – but you’d be amazed how many men struggle with it, especially when young. Lots of men become absolutely tongue tied. Others try and put on a laughable front of overconfidence. Alcohol is a godsend to many. It’s the stuff of comedy – but still painful at a certain age.
Exactly and extroverts do better than introverts at the dating game. I wonder why it’s predominately men who are commenting here?
I noticed that too and am glad to see the belated participation of several women, on an article written from one woman’s perspective. Still, the decided majority of comments, and I think subscribers, at UnHerd are men–wouldn’t you say?
Responding to a personals ad always felt like applying for a job, and the date felt like an audition. I never fared well.
This is like telling a woman that she shouldn’t get all dolled up to go out. She should just try look like she does on an average day. The initial phases are just about generating attraction.
Yabbut…
There is an underlying reality here which must be noted. Different people want different things at different times. And sometimes what is wanted is superficial and meaningless (let’s say a one-night stand) and the ‘date’ is simply an opportunity to push the encounter in that direction. In that case this is not in any way an “opportunity to genuinely get to know more about a person”…it’s just an opportunity to have meaningless sex. Yes, it is manipulative, and the patter disingenuous, but that too is a part of the ‘game’, and everyone in the dating market is and should be aware of that possibility. Sometimes both individuals are interested in the exact same meaningless thing.
Equally, from the other perspective, the “I genuinely do want to get to know more about a person I find interesting’, even then we still tend to build ‘artifice’: we tone, we shade, we obscure (even slightly). There are stories we tell (because we think they show us being clever, or bright, or funny, or something else which is positive)…and there are stories we don’t tell (because they show the exact opposite)…and there are even stories we selectively edit and tell. The real question here: what the heck is our ‘real self’ anyway…and what & how do I show it.
Are we not someone else with our best friend than we are with our boss? Are we not different with our brother than our brother-in-law? Do we not deal with our parents differently than our neighbors…than the lady at the store who rings up our groceries? Are we not different as a husband, in the midst of a loving 40 year marriage, than we were as a young man trying to impress the future wife on a 2nd date?
I think the real point here is that if we sincerely wish to ‘find true love’, then we must be willing to engage, to join the dance, to play — at least in some way — ‘the game’. As you yourself say: be fun, be open, be playful. I think this is absolutely true. But for many people that is distinctly NOT being themselves; it’s pretending to be something they’re typically not. But honestly, if you want to change your life, find a partner you can love who can love you, then refusing the game simply won’t work….and being the ‘authentic you’ who prefers to sit at home, eat a bowl of popcorn, and watch a movie will pretty much eliminate the possibility of ever meeting anyone, let alone a soulmate.
There is so much I would like to unpack in your response!
Your use of “dance”, “play”, and “game” (small ‘g’ as compared to “The Game”, the book) as analogies to dating describes a scenario where dating is a shared activity between aware and willing participants. In the world of “Pick-Up” artistry and “The Game”, it is not so much a scenario of dance or game that is created, but rather a hunt. Select a target, discover his or her vulnerabilities, exploit, camouflage, strike.
It is true that in our interactions, especially in the context of dating, we tone, shade, and obscure. We, initially, put our best foot forward. But that metaphorical foot is, ultimately, still a part of our “self”. They are our best and genuine traits. It is very different from presenting someone else’s foot entirely – traits, behaviors, mannerism picked up from “Pick-Up” artists. And in this modern era of dating, it has never been easier to present one’s self as someone else entirely through a phone screen. Women are into taller men? Let me add an inch or two on my Tinder profile. She likes the athletic type? Let me type in my description that I run and workout regularly. The ability and motivation to be genuine has become even more paramount.
I think what is lacking in the approach that Pick-Up artistry markets (and modern dating in general) is responsibility. At the end of the day, when we date, we deal with people. People who have their own expectations, intentions, history, and emotions. Pick-Up artistry disregards all that and focuses only on being able to achieve the goal (whatever it may be). If two people find themselves with similar goals (casual sex, friendship with sex, a relationship), that’s all fine. But more often than not, that is not the case. And that sole focus on what we want and a disregard to the effects of our interaction with another might be is where my main concern is.
Flirt, rather than deceive. Invite and attract, rather than hunt and exploit. There’s a bold line between these actions. I think dating, sex, and relationships would be more fun, rewarding, and fulfilling for both parties involved if we add that layer the Pick-Up community minimizes or disregards – a layer of responsibility for the other.
I understand…but still, a distinction without a difference.
Our motivations are not clear, even to ourselves (in fact they’re as confused as the entire notion of our ‘authentic self’ is confused)…and they change and evolve as the night wears on, as the conversation shifts, as our interests change….as the conversational feedback loop prompts new & different approaches.
There is absolutely no doubt at all that some % of the individuals in the ‘game’ are venal & manipulative and have no interests other than appetite. This market is no different from any other market.
And the advice for every participant is always the same: Caveat Emptor. In truth it is as easy to be deceived (in our understanding) by the Completely Sincere Non-Game Player…. as it is to be deceived by the PickUp Artist.
I think part of the objection to these books and techniques is that it blows the idea of promiscuous women seeking pleasure on an equal basis with men out of the water. If the game is revealed from the man’s point of view as: identify target; manipulate; use; discard – then both the gloss and the equality rubs off a bit. And especially if it’s clear that the target is a woman the man would not consider as relationship material by any stretch. Both because she isn’t attractive enough, and because she’s been through the mill too many times. In short, they shatter illusions that women are keen to hold onto.
There’s something distasteful about your comments.
Perhaps. But if women could read some men’s minds and see the way they operate they would find that really distasteful too. Much as I can understand you not liking what I say – it is also motivated by a kind of distaste. Perhaps it’s a distaste that a man only feels once he has daughters – and no longer feels quite the same about women being treated like pieces of meat.
I havent read ” the game”. But there was a time in my life when I had great fun chatting up women and being chatted up by them. I hope the younger generation are still having fun but it does seem smart phones have taken a lot of the fun out of it as Kat notes here.
I have a family now and really once you get a bit of sense and professional success thats the thing to aim for ( for most people) but I wouldnt take back those years of fun either.
I do have friends still stuck in that phase of life and that is something to watch for too
I’ll be honest, I’ve still got no idea how to chat up women and I’m somehow married with kids. Booze always helped though it was a fine line. Just the right amount and the nerves disappeared and the conversation flowed freely, one more too many and it all fell to pieces
Advice is maybe a bit late, but the answer is not to chat them up. If you’re shy, just get used to exchanging a few words in non pressured situations. Then start having conversations. Get better and more relaxed with practice. Show real interest in her. If you spend most of your time listening, women will think you are the worlds best conversationalist. Be genuine. Of course, it really helps if you actually like women, and don’t see them as needing “chatted up” simply in order to get access to sex.
I wasn’t looking for tips, but thanks for the offer. What I meant was I did ok (not great, there were more failures than successes obviously) with girls back in my younger days but if you asked me to put pen to paper and explain why I was sometimes successful I wouldn’t be able to, as to this day I’ve no idea what worked and what didn’t. Just pot luck and whatever mood the (un)lucky lady was in on the day I suppose
Unsolicited advice again.
OK – but I think “treat women like human beings” rather than like commodities or prizes is pretty unobjectionable.
It used to be fun, and it sometimes it can still be.
The real problem is that you hardly get any response anymore, the girls are so quick to dismiss you that it takes the fun out of it.
It is a bit like playing poker, right, the excitement comes from the perspective that choosing one or the other move may bring you closer to winning the plate or losing altogether. But nowadays there is no victory, it just takes longer to get to the same end result – being ghosted and ignored.
Would you still play such a game?
Some of the advice in American dating manuals “from basic grooming to speaking in complete sentences” reminds me of Georgian books on manners, where the burgeoning polite classes were enjoined not to spit, blow their noses on the table cloth or poo in the corridors.
In both cases one thinks, really? You have to be told??
The best way to get paired up is to relax, stop worrying about how long it is since you last had a shag, and enjoy a pleasant evening in the pub.
I’ve found a few bedfellows that way in years past, one that has remained a friend now the fling has ended.
By the way, I posted a belated response, which you may not have noticed, to The Bristol Hudibras. Real talent and skill there.
*I hope you’ll share more work when it’s topically relevant, as your previous posts have been.
Definitely easier if it’s somebody you bump into on a semi regular basis, the conversation flows much more freely
How odd that all the below comments are from men
Exactly. I’m the lone female voice here. What’s that all about?!!!
I’m old enough to have missed most of this angst over dating. There was still angst, of course, (that’s known as being young) but it was generally understood that clumsy attempts at courtship (that shows my age!) were well-meant rather than predatory. Adversely, I think most young women found over-confident, highly-groomed or sweet-tongued men with some measure of suspicion. I suspect women’s lib and PC have had a lot to do with this, though they’ve also led to some very strong positives.
More than 50 years on, I’m still grateful for the fact that I didn’t marry for love alone, nor any particular aspect of the focus of my attention. We became best friends before realising that sex, looks, brains, money, etc aren’t the be all and end all; not that I’d disregard any of them!
There’s an old Jimmy Stewart movie (before even my time) which includes a scene in which the hero asks permission to marry his true love:
Do you like her, son?
Sir, I LOVE her.
Yes, but do you LIKE her?
Fortunately, our mutual answer was yes!
I wouldn’t want to go back on the dating game again; not for anything.
If human beings are animals, their drive is to recreate (on many levels.) Still, the erotic drive stands paramount. If, and when, man and women shun each other…
“The Earth will forget mankind. The play of life will go on.”
― John Gray
I’d say we are animals. But not only.
The earth and its remaining creatures may very well endure and thrive after our species has perished. Or life may emerge elsewhere in the universe, as it may already have done.
From a less cosmic or transhumanist perspective than John Gray seems to express (after skimming some intriguing quotes from this author I admit I hadn’t heard of, I’ll look into his work): Our actions affect future generations and Mother Nature too, in some measure, for good or ill. Whether one regards this as something of meaningful import or a trivial blip on mankind’s “cancerous” record (Gray) depends somewhat on received opinions and inherited personality–but also upon individual moral choice.
“and that any man who seeks to make himself desirable to an as-yet-uncertain woman is doing something inherently sleazy.”
Haven’t woman been doing this for generations?
Ah, no, you’re not allowed to use the arguments against women. They’re only for use against men, and if you won’t agree with this then there will be tears, accusations and you won’t have a moment’s peace until you give up on this doomed attempt at fair-mindedness.
I can see we have both been voted down
Upvotes from me. Shame people don’t comment. I’d like to know what they disagree with, or disapprove of. It seems obvious enough to me that women getting dressed up for a night on the town are, at least in part, doing it to get attention from man or men yet unknown. And they do it way more than most men.
But it is also no doubt an outgrowth of a culture in which male sexuality has effectively been characterised as inherently predatory, while female sexuality is seen as virtually non-existent.
How’s that working out?
It’s true that in retrospect the world of pickup artistry doesn’t seem so bad, compared to how disastrous the relationship between men and women has become at present. But in the end, it was still only a group of men, poorly imitating the true confidence of a smaller number of more successful individuals.
I remember this sort of thing being all the rage when I was at University but it always had the nature of a Ponzi scheme about it. And those who were most enamored by this world of ‘tips and tricks’ where invariably the most lost and least truly confident people I knew.
I can’t say I was ever great at attracting in those days but eventually I worked out what JBP has been trying to teach men for the last decade. That if you work to become truly confident and competent in all domains of life, you will become attractive to perspective partners naturally.
The fact we’re looking with nostalgia at the culture of tricking women just long enough the score a one light stand, only shows how far we’ve really fallen. And don’t forget that the situation we’re in now is a direct reaction to this behavior!
I think courting is a lost art. Dating is nothing like it. I have often thought I would have liked to have been courted. It’s a more respectful dance more of a waltz than a tango.
But courting requires a man to be sufficiently besotted with a woman to want to put in the time. And for the woman to be sufficiently restrained as to require him to do so. Both have to be sufficiently skilled to play the game. I would also argue that part of the purpose of an extended process of courting is that in the process of seeking to get what he wants, the man loses his heart.
More prosaically it’s about bonding.
Not to be confused with: he swept me off my feet and made me feel like the most beautiful woman in the world – til he cleared out early next morning.
This’s a very easy read. Didn’t really read into the background of the author. I think a famous columnist and author? Pardon my ignorance. But think the author is most likely in a relationship as her writing reads very clearly instead of being filled with hard to understand analytical angst. Mostly agree with her points in her conclusion though I don’t remember every point in the article. In the end, I think to each his own. No need to read too many books or seek too many opinions which ultimately confuse and burden. Faintly recall the book mentioned somewhere years ago. It’s the individual interactions that count and I doubt any one person can really be influenced all that much by one book or movie. It probably just brings out what’s in the individual. X
This is partially the reason why the number of lesbians has increased. If you are a lesbian, you have consort with women, and no discussions with men. Until you are 38, and you suddenly realize that a baby is what is DESPERATELY NEEDED!! It is so pathetic at that point to go to a sperm bank. Rather than finding a partner who is a reasonable person, you stick a big syringe up your yadawadabingbang and squirt away. So often you find that you are now inpregnated with the sperm of your OB/GYN, or of the black guy who contributed to the sperm bank. In other words, you allow the word of anonymous sperm bank managers to give you the material to complete your life based on a commercial transaction. The only person who is not complicit in this comedy of stupidity based on lesbian idiocy is the kid, who is stuck with the combined DNA package. Hopefully the child will not meet and fall in love with another sperm-baby who is their half-sibling, which has been known to happen.
To fall in love and find that special other person, you must take a chance
I’d wager the increase in homosexuality (both sexes) is due to the fact there’s no social stigma in it anymore. I’d wager the % now is the same as it’s always been (as I believe it’s a biological trait) however more people kept it under wraps in the past as it was frowned upon (and illegal obviously)
I find your comment offensive.
That’s a shame – I found it merely daft!
I believe it’s commonly known as a vagina.
Yadawad is?
Nah, fair reminder. To me the more off-putting part of Paul Thompson’s comment is the kind of fascinated disgust with the process at fertility clinics. As if lives that are conceived in a way he doesn’t respect are dirty and personally offensive to him.
Blimey.
Pretty sad that such common sense requires such rigorous qualification.
So absolutely true.
But even the perceptive Ms. Rosenfield misses the more fundamental truth.
She tells us that the ‘turn against pick-up artistry’ is “an outgrowth of a culture in which male sexuality has effectively been characterised as inherently predatory, while female sexuality is seen as virtually non-existent.” And this is true.
But whence the culture?
The answer, of course, is that the culture is itself the outcome of that same sexuality.
We make the culture. The culture does not make us. And it is — as much as we may not, in this Progressive Age, like to hear this — the assertive, exploratory, aggressive male who almost invariably approaches the female with sexual intent and begins the Dance and thereby starts the Game. It is our nature to pursue, just as it is the nature of the female to be pursued.
[Does it even need to be said that this does not mean ALL males are this way? Or that aggressive, pursuing females also exist? And that there a million variations thereof?]
Unfortunately, beneath the tidal onslaught of 3rd & 4th Wave Feminism, post #MeToo, leaning-back, and the so-called ‘campus sexual assault crisis!’, the Dance has been warped, suppressed, corrupted, and forgotten. Sometimes it’s hard to even hear the music playing.
We speak of ‘The Game’ as a how-to manual. We denigrate it for its brash and Machiavellian tone. We sneer at the manipulation and are ‘shocked, shocked!’ at the explicit nature of the goal of the game, which, of course, is sexual/romantic access to women. But forget all that.
That Game exists within the larger Game which is Life…and more specifically the male/female sexual interaction & engagement portion of Life…which is, in fact, very much a ‘game’. How could it not be? The difference between this ‘game’ and Monopoly or Checkers, is that winning & losing here, is impossible to define.
So given two strangers, a man, a woman, both interested in the opposite sex as potential partners (short term? long term?), how do they meet & interact?
If I want to buy a loaf of bread, and this is my first time in the grocery store, I probably just ask someone, “Where’s the bread?” Simple & effective. But love doesn’t work like that. In the first place what each desires is not so materially plain as bread, not even to one who desires it. Nor is the object of desire identifiable by appearance, or stance, or tone of voice, or conversational content. Both individuals in the ‘game’, this ‘dance’, deal initially only with assumptions based on apparent superficialities (though some are deeply rooted in what Helen Fisher might call one’s ‘love map’…the experientially encoded set of qualities that we inherently find to be significantly attractive).
So instead of a blunt, grocery-store-like request, we have ritual; we have protocol; and each part of every step in the evolving, prescribed courtship dance does itself have a million variations which change by dancer, by time, by place, by desire, and by experience. The book is simply (or so I would imagine) an outline of some basic steps in this unending tango.
The stereotype, of course, is that what men want is sex…and what women want is love…and that each seeks that primary objective by nominally offering the secondary ‘other’. Men proffer ‘love’…women flirt with ‘sex’…and each moves round about the gameboard, watching how the other responds and shifts their offer & approach/response accordingly.
Does each thereby objectify the Other? Of course we do. There isn’t any other way. We are all players in someone else’s drama, just as they are players in ours. We seek to make ourselves attractive & desirable in a way which is apparent to the Other….but to do so in a ‘Goldilocks manner’: striking a balance which is not too much, not too little, and ideally just right. So do they.
We recognize this is an iffy proposition, and adjust offers & approaches & responses accordingly. Sometimes we do it well; sometimes not. Sometimes the dance feels magically natural (two strangers in the night, exchanging glances…)..sometimes it feels like we’re clomping about in a pair of ice-bound, way-too-large galoshes.
But what we’ve lost in the #metoo era, after the ridiculous redefinition of sexual assault as ‘anything unwanted’… what has been buried by the insanity of ‘affirmative consent’, and stifled by the fear of ‘toxic masculinity’…is the magic of the dance & the ineluctable fascination of Love. Romance is a contact sport. And you can’t play if you never want to be bruised or bumped….or if every bump and bruise produces a lawsuit and police report.
We do not need to defend so-called PickUp Artistry…because PickUp Artistry is simply courting writ crudely. What does require a rigorous defense is love, is romance, is the Dance itself: Moonlight and love songs, Never out of date, Hearts full of passion, Jealousy and hate, Woman needs man, and man must have his mate,
The world will always welcome lovers, As time goes by….
Well, we hope that’s still true. Sometimes I wonder.