Models is the single best book I’ve read about finding a romantic-sexual partner. Although intended for straight men, the vast majority of the advice is useful for people of all genders and sexual orientations. Many people I know have difficulty finding romantic-sexual partners, and it often causes them a lot of pain.
If this summary intrigues you, I urge you to buy the book. I cannot summarize an entire book in three thousand words; there’s a lot of advice and examples I can’t include, and then you will get Mark Manson’s version which isn’t filtered through my opinions. If you can’t afford the book, I hope you will find this summary helpful anyway.
Alpha Males Are Everywhere
For the purposes of this subsection, I will define “alpha male” as a straight man who, if he so chooses, could go out on an ordinary Friday night and, about half the time, find a stranger they find attractive to have a one-night stand with. (Sorry for the terminology, feminist readers, but I’m trying to talk to the anti-feminists here; if this is teeth-grindingly awful, skip ahead to ‘summary’.) I don’t mean that they necessarily go out and have a one-night stand every night: some people don’t want to. There are some men who are saving themselves for marriage but, if they decided to stop having this goal, could easily have a one-night stand this weekend. Alpha maledom, as I’m defining it, is a fairly high level of attractiveness for a man. Nevertheless, it’s not wildly unachievable: it’s not Keith-Richards-level attractiveness, it’s hottest-guy-in-the-room attractiveness. In my adventures as a promiscuous person, I have had the opportunity to observe many men in this category.
Here’s the thing.
I know broke alpha males. I know alpha males who are financially supported by their girlfriends. I know fat alpha males. I know bald alpha males. I know short alpha males. I know ugly alpha males. I know alpha males with small dicks. I know alpha males who are programmers. I know alpha males who love D&D, Star Trek, and World of Warcraft. I know feminine alpha males. I know sexually submissive alpha males. I know alpha males who rock a dress. I know alpha males who cry at every single Pixar movie, all of which they have seen, because Pixar movies are their favorite. Extroversion definitely helps, but I know some introverted alpha males and even some socially anxious ones.
Alpha males are an incredibly diverse bunch of people. Many, perhaps most, of them are people you would never expect to be as attractive as they are.
It’s harder to come up with as clear a definition of attractiveness for straight women and queer people. Straight men as a group tend to want casual sex more than straight women as a group (even from a sex-differences-don’t-exist feminist perspective this makes sense– women are more likely than men to be slut-shamed and less likely than men to have orgasms during casual sex). So “ability to get casual sex” is a useful metric for straight men and less useful for everyone else.
But I am pretty damn sure the same thing is true for straight women and queer people. The ones who have the highest level of sexual success do not necessarily look like what you’re imagining when you think “really hot straight woman” or “really hot gay man” or “really hot lesbian”.
Now, I’m not saying anyone can be an alpha. Many people are going to have a hard time being alphas: if nothing else, if you can’t talk to attractive people, you are never going to be able to date them. But what I am saying is that that narrative you tell yourself where you’re short and therefore you’ll never find love, or you’re a nerd and therefore you’ll never find love, or whatever– maybe you should be open to the possibility that that’s not true. Because a surprising amount of the time, other people with that trait have more dates than they know what to do with.
Summary
The two rules:
- Be vulnerable.
- Don’t be needy.
The three fundamentals:
- Having an attractive lifestyle.
- Knowing how to flirt.
- ACTUALLY ASKING PEOPLE OUT.
If you can’t get a date, you have a problem with at least one of the three fundamentals. Possibly two. A few people are in bad enough straights that they have trouble with all three. And surprisingly often, your problem with the three fundamentals is rooted in a problem with one of the two rules.
This can be overwhelming: there’s a lot of specific advice. I’d suggest working on your vulnerability and non-neediness first, while picking one or two pieces of advice from your weakest fundamental. For example, if you have trouble flirting, you might concentrate on touching people you’re flirting with on the arm when you tell them a joke. That will be incredibly awkward the first time you do it, because you’re not used to it. Keep trying. It will get easier.
Also, you don’t have to be perfect! You don’t have to be a god of non-neediness and vulnerability to get a date: the vast majority of people who date or get married are needy sometimes and are ashamed of some things. You can become very sexually successful even if your clothes don’t fit, or you don’t have a sense of humor, or your opinions are bland and boring. If you’re unsatisfied, then work on your fundamentals; if you’re satisfied with your romantic life, enjoy your poorly fitting clothes and bland opinions to your heart’s content.
The Two Rules
Neediness is when you care about other people’s perceptions of you more than you care about your perception of you. Your actions are primarily motivated by gaining approval from others. Non-neediness is when you care about your perception of you more than other people’s perception of you. Your actions are primarily motivated by your own desires and goals.
Specifically, you must care less about a romantic partner’s approval of you than you do about your own approval of you. You can care about whether a romantic partner approves of you– most people do! — but you have to care more about your own opinion of yourself. If your romantic partner is like “I will only love you if you kick that puppy,” you have to be the sort of person who can say “uh, fuck off.”
Non-neediness doesn’t mean that you’re a dick! You can compliment people, or give them thoughtful gifts, or remember their birthdays, or let them crash on your couch for six months, and be non-needy. If you’re letting someone crash on your couch for six months because they’re cool and you like spending time with them, non-needy. If you are seething with resentment but don’t dare to say anything because what if that makes them unhappy with you, needy.
You can be non-needy and be an effective altruist or a white anti-racist or a male feminist, as long as you’re that because of your own values and desires. “Maybe if I give lots of money to charity people will like me and I won’t be evil”: needy. “I think it’s wrong that I have so much and other people have so little”: non-needy. “I am not going to buy you a diamond necklace for Valentine’s Day, no matter how much you feel you deserve it, because I’m donating the money to the Humane League”: epic-level non-needy.
Which brings us to the idea of polarization. At its core, polarization means this: if a person turns you down, they’re doing you a favor.
Most of the time, we think about romantic and sexual success as decreasing the number of rejections you get. In reality, romantic and sexual success means trying to get rejected as quickly as possible.
Nearly always, the reason a person has for not wanting to date you is also a reason you don’t want to date them. Someone rejected you for not wanting kids? Imagine five years from now when they’ve worn you down and you have to wake up six times a night to feed a child you never wanted. Someone rejected you for being bald? Imagine having sex with them while they try to hide that they aren’t attracted to you and it doesn’t work and you feel awful about yourself. Someone rejected you for being boring? Imagine all the bitter fights you’ve prevented about how you NEVER take them out anymore and it’s like you don’t EVEN CARE ABOUT THEM AT ALL.
It’s true that sometimes people reject you for stupid reasons. I have seen a list floating around the Internet where the author offers the opinion that you should always reject someone who sleeps on a mattress on the floor. That’s a pretty dumb reason to turn someone down, but think about it this way: now you don’t have to date someone who would turn you down based on whether you own a bedframe. What a fucking asshole. Good thing they rejected you.
Many people try to get dates by being as boring and neutral as possible, hiding anything weird about themselves, in the hopes it prevents rejection. This is literally the opposite of what you should do. Wave your freak flag high! Be open about your bald, kid-hating, boring ways, and then you will only date people who loathe kids, enjoy counting their silverware, and have a thing for Picard.
And that brings us to vulnerability. Vulnerability is the willingness to stick your neck out, even if people might think you’re stupid or weird or make fun of you about it. It’s making jokes that might not be funny, sharing fears that might make people think you’re a coward, trying things that you might suck at, telling someone you like them when you might be rejected. Vulnerability is saying: “this is who I am and I am not going to be anyone else.”
There is a deep connection between vulnerability and non-neediness. If you care about what other people think about you more than what you think about you, then there are lots of aspects of yourself you’re ashamed of or embarrassed about. If you care most of all about your own self-respect, then you’re willing to be more open.
The thing about the attractive guy who cries at Pixar movies is that, when the subject of Pixar comes up, he says “I think Pixar movies are some of the greatest movies of the twenty-first century. People don’t give them as much credit as they should because they’re children’s movies. I challenge any person with a soul not to cry at the first twenty minutes of Up.” If you love Pixar with all your heart and soul, and when the subject comes up you go “uh um they’re children’s movies I mean um I have occasionally watched one I guess but it’s not like I REALLY like them or anything,” that is not attractive.
Be willing to admit to your embarrassing moments, your flaws, your mental health issues, your weaknesses, your mistakes, and your habit of drinking milk out of the carton. This is attractive.
Fundamental One: Lifestyle
The basic rule of lifestyle is that like attracts like. You attract what you are.
If you’re goth, you attract goths. If you’re a nerd, you attract nerds. If you’re Christian, you attract Christians. If you’re an educated professional who likes fine wine and travel, you attract educated professionals who like fine wine and travel.
Here are some problems people have with lifestyle:
Looking in the wrong place for partners. If you’re quiet and love thoughtful conversation and fantasy novels, you’re not going to be very successful at a bar. However, you might do very well at a book club. A quick heuristic is to think about where you would look for friends (and then filter that for places that also have a lot of people of the appropriate gender and sexual orientation– straight men, book clubs are better than Magic tournaments; straight women, the other way around).
Pretending to be something you’re not. If you’re quiet and love thoughtful conversation and fantasy novels, but are pretending to be loud and enjoy sportsball and crushing beer cans on your head, you are only going to attract loud people who like sportsball and crushing beer cans on their head. This is not the recipe for a long and happy relationship.
Attracting the wrong people. If one person you date is a narcissistic manipulative asshole, or hates sex (if you’re allosexual), or runs up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt you have to bail them out from, shit happens. If every person you date is a narcissistic manipulative asshole, or hates sex (if you’re allosexual), or runs up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt you have to bail them out from, then you are doing something that attracts those people. Consider:
- Are you, yourself, the kind of person you keep attracting (e.g. a narcissistic manipulative asshole)?
- Are you the complement of the person you keep attracting (e.g. someone who can’t set boundaries)?
- Do you believe everyone, or all people of your preferred gender, are like the kind of person you keep attracting (e.g. you think all men are narcissistic manipulative assholes)?
Now, most of this advice is pretty vague. Here is some more specific advice. However, every piece of advice must be tested against the “like attracts like” rule and the non-neediness rule. If a piece of advice makes you less like your best self, or it attracts people that you don’t want to date or have sex with, ignore it.
Some traits are physically attractive, like a symmetrical face. Some traits are psychologically attractive, like charm and talent. In general, men tend to care more about physical attractiveness and women tend to care more about psychological attractiveness. (This is a generalization, there are lots of exceptions, and regardless it’s like 60% one and 40% the other for most people anyway.) If you are a straight man, you probably are falling victim to the typical mind fallacy and care too much about being physically attractive and not enough about being psychologically attractive. If you are a straight woman, it is possible that that’s the problem, but it’s also possible that the media has taught you that men care 95% about physical attractiveness and you should work on being charming instead.
Here is some general physical-attractiveness advice:
- Pay attention to basic hygiene, including showering, deodorant, brushing and flossing your teeth, haircuts, and clean clothes without holes.
- Wear clothes that fit you. Consult howclothesshouldfit.com. Dresses (which are not covered on the site) should skim the body without squeezing it; you should be able to see the shape of your body and it should not ride up when you walk.
- Wear colors that match. I am actually generally confused about this one myself and rely on blunt friends and/or take the attractiveness hit.
- Wear clothes that match your personality and signal the things you want to signal. You can look at what celebrities you want to be like wear (Mark Zuckerberg counts).
- Exercise. EXERCISE. EXERCISE! EXERCISE!!!!!!
- While the most important kind of exercise is the kind you actually do, lifting weights improves the attractiveness of everyone, male and female. (No, women, you will not get “too bulky” unless you repeatedly trip and inject yourself with steroids.)
- Limit soda, candy, fast food, and desserts; eat fruits and vegetables.
Here is advice for people who want to present in a masculine way. This is mostly straight men and queer people, but straight women who feel drawn to masculinity should consider it too. It’s great polarization and you will never have to shave your armpits again. People who wish to be feminine, sorry, both I and Mark Manson are totally unqualified to provide you advice.
- Move your shoulders back until the seam on your shirt that extends from neck to sleeve is straight.
- Raise your chin to a 90 degree angle; make the back of your neck as straight as possible.
- Your feet should be shoulder-length apart and either straight ahead or at a slight outward angle.
- Swing your shoulders and your arms a little as you walk. (Not too exaggerated; just a little swagger.)
- Speak from your chest voice. If your voice sounds different when you hold your nose closed, you’re speaking from head voice.
- Speak slowly yet loudly (without screaming).
Most psychological attractiveness will be covered under “Flirting.” However, relevant for lifestyle is whether you are a super-boring person. If you spend all your time working and watching the same sports and sitcoms everyone else does, you are probably boring. If you go skydiving, write poetry, or climb mountains, if you are Internet famous, or if you have ever eaten a spider, you are probably interesting. The easy way to become interesting is to try more things with an open mind. If it exists, it exists because someone finds some value in it; try to find the value and then decide whether you like it.
Fundamental Two: Flirting
Flirting is all about subtext. Two people can say the exact same thing and one is successful flirting and one is failed flirting, because the subtext is different. If you compliment someone because you’re needy and want to validate yourself with their affection, that is very different from complimenting them because you appreciate them. Subtext is also the difference between teasing and insults, sharing and bragging, and so on.
So what subtext do you want to establish while flirting? First, of course, you need to be non-needy and vulnerable. Second, you want to create sexual tension, which means creating uncertainty (that’s the tension bit) about whether you’ll have a sexual or romantic relationship (that’s the sexual bit). A really obvious example of this is playing hard-to-get.
But you can also create sexual tension by stating your intentions boldly, such as by complimenting someone on their appearance. The uncertainty comes from what will happen next and what you’ll say or do.
(NOTE: if you are flirting with a shy nerd, they’ll come up with the uncertainty all by themselves, you don’t have to make any.)
How to Flirt:
- Do not startle or scare someone when approaching them, such as by approaching them from behind, screaming, grabbing them, or saying something offensive.
- The best three pickup lines are “hi, I’m X”, “hey, this is kind of random, but I wanted to meet you,” and “hi, I thought you were cute and wanted to meet you.”
- Smile.
- Whenever possible, be brief. Don’t use ten words when you can use four.
- Instead of asking people questions about themselves, make mild predictions. For example, instead of saying “where are you from?”, say “you look like a California girl.”
- If the conversation stalls, just say whatever you happen to be thinking, no matter how random it is.
- Teach yourself to notice jumping-off points in other people’s statements. For example, if someone says “I go to Harvard now, but I want to move out west because the weather is too cold,” you can talk about Harvard, the west, or the weather.
- Learn to tell stories with a setup, a conflict, and a resolution.
- Open up about yourself. Talk about your passions, your ambitions, the best and worst things that have ever happened to you, your childhood. That will get them to open up about themself, which leads to an emotional connection.
- Make jokes. Here are some kinds of jokes:
- Misdirection– saying something that makes your listener think you’re going to make one point, but actually making a different one (“you know that look women get when they want sex? Me neither.”)
- Exaggeration– blowing things out of proportion in an interesting way (“I’ve seen more appetizing things in the bottom of an airport urinal”).
- Teasing– humorous, derogatory comments with a good intention (to a person sitting by themself looking bored: “who put you in time-out?”)
- Puns– playing on words (“surely you can’t be serious!” “I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley”)
- Roleplaying– pretending to be something you’re not (if a person you’re flirting with says something you dislike: “that’s it, we’re getting divorced. You can keep the kids, I’m moving to Italy.”)
- Only ask someone for their phone number if they seem genuinely interested in you and if you want to hang out with them again. Don’t make up a line or a reason, just ask for it.
How To Date:
- If a person likes you, they will make it easy for you to date them. If Chris Hemsworth or Scarlett Johanssen asked them out, do you think they could rebook those weekend plans? Then if they’re not doing it for you, they aren’t that interested.
- Have dates at night, but early enough that you can spend three or four hours together if it’s going well. (Lunchtime and afternoon dates often come off as platonic.)
- NO MOVIE DATES. (Exceptions: Rocky Horror Picture Show, midnight releases you’re both looking forward to.)
- Dinner dates are okay but you can usually do better.
- Good dates: comedy club, dance class, walk in a park or plaza, concerts, bars, nightclubs, museums, looking at books together…
- Netflix-and-chill might come off as boring, but is also cheap and can result in sex really fast. Your call.
- Whenever possible, try to include multiple activities on a date. For example, you might meet for coffee, get ice cream, go swinging at the empty playground, and then go to a bookstore.
- If you planned the date, then lead the date. Say confidently what you’ll do next (“there’s this great exhibit at the Exploratorium”).
- Have deeper and more personal conversations, without becoming a job interview.
- TOUCH. YOUR. PARTNER.
- I mean it. If someone says “stop”, obviously, you stop, and in sex-positive contexts you should feel free to ask first if you’re uncertain, but YOU MUST TOUCH PEOPLE YOU ARE ON DATES WITH.
- Start by gently touching them on the arm or shoulder for emphasis (for example, at the punchline of a joke). Wait for them to touch you back.
- If they do, you can move to more intimate touch, like putting your hand on their back or around their shoulders. Notice if they pull away; if they do, it’s probably not welcome.
- In sex-positive contexts, if you think the person you’re with wants to kiss you, a simple “can I kiss you?” is appropriate; if you’re good at reading body language, you can just go for it.
Signals of interest
- Pre-approach: smiling; non-accidental eye contact; proximity; the person initiating a conversation with you.
- In conversation: smiling and laughing a lot; playing with their hair (usually women, femininely presenting people, and shy people); making lots of eye contact; makes excuses to spend more time with you; touches you; ditches their friends for you; comes up with some pretext to be alone with you.
Fundamental Three: ACTUALLY ASKING PEOPLE OUT
Lots of people are anxious about talking to attractive people, asking people out, the first kiss, and sex. They come up with various rationalizations:
- “Oh, she’s stupid.”
- “Men are shallow and only care about looks.”
- “I don’t really care about getting a girlfriend.”
- “I’ll ask him out tomorrow.”
- “I don’t know if I’m really bisexual, so I shouldn’t ask that cute guy out.”
- “If I ask her out I might sexually harass her.”
- “I need to learn more about how to flirt first.”
The way you learn to overcome your anxiety is a process of gradual exposure. For example, let’s say you’re scared to talk to women. You might start by going up to three women once a day and asking what the time is. When that isn’t scary, try asking them what the time is and how their day is going. Continue until you can walk up to a strange woman and say that she’s cute and you wanted to meet her. It may help to tell a friend that this is your goal.
Lots of men I know are scared of asking women out because they’re afraid of sexually harassing them, so it’s time for a pep talk.
First, there is no such thing as a romantically or sexually successful person who has never ever creeped anyone out. Give yourself permission to be creepy. I am not saying that you should go around trying to creep people out; of course, if you know something is going to scare someone, you shouldn’t do it; it is best that one avoid becoming Harvey Weinstein. But miscommunications, awkwardness, and misunderstandings happen. Sometimes people make mistakes. You are not going to become Harvey Weinstein by accident. Most people have interacted with someone who has creeped them out at some point, and it does not exactly cause lifelong damage. And while there can be some negative consequences, particularly of creeping people out at work, if you ask out a random stranger at a bookstore or something and they’re creeped out, you know what will happen? Absolutely nothing. The feminist police will not come lock you up for creepiness in the third degree.
Some quick tips to avoid being creepy:
- Like I said above in the “flirting” section, don’t begin a conversation by approaching people from behind, screaming, grabbing them, saying something offensive, or otherwise behaving in a way that would make a normal bystander go “hey, what the fuck?”
- If you’re doing something that violates a social norm, such as telling a strange woman that she’s beautiful, begin with “excuse me, I know this is random,” “I don’t usually do this,” or “I’ve never done this before.”
- Don’t be sexual to strangers (e.g. “you have nice tits”) unless the context is one in which it is appropriate. (If you’re in a context like that, you’ll know.)
- Try to match up your intentions with your actions. If your body language says “I want to fuck you” but your words say “let us have a purely platonic conversation about the weather,” you’re more likely to come off as creepy.
- Be, yes, non-needy and vulnerable. You’re much more likely to come off as creepy if your subtext says “PLEASE LOVE ME.”
OK, I know that I’m the weird one here, but this doesn’t really work if a group you belong to and want to select for in partners is more or less defined by its non-association – or rather, any community that might select for the desired trait is gonna overwhelmingly select for undesired traits. Imagine that you’re a coastal liberal with a deeply held commitment to feminism, multiculturalism, and BLM, and you also love NASCAR, beer pong, and barbecue.
… or unless you’re a trans woman, I imagine, because I already very frequently encounter sleeves that can’t fit my arms, and even a tiny increase in the thickness of biceps is gonna make it even worse.
That sounds incredibly annoying! Like, I either have to spend my time dispelling stupid exotifying stereotypes or feel self-conscious about fitting stereotypes that I dislike. Why would anyone tell people to do more of it?
I continue being confused about people proposing dates in locations where it’s impossible to hold a conversation. Why?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yeah, the predictions thing seems the opposite of positive for me too.
Likewise and more so for the ‘mild derogatory comments’ thing. I think there might be a point about things working as selection, in that if that’s your kind of interaction you find out very quickly that it’s not theirs? Which is a cool thought. But then it’s desirable to have more examples of types of interactions. And the derogatory thing I don’t think you should go inflicting on random people, so it’s not good to *open* with.
LikeLike
> Likewise and more so for the ‘mild derogatory comments’ thing. And the derogatory thing I don’t think you should go inflicting on random people, so it’s not good to *open* with.
Agreed. I mean, isn’t that just negging? Which is, like, the #1 example feminists give of why PUAs are horrible. So it’s surprising to see it repackaged as a positive thing in this particular context. On that and various other grounds (e.g. it will remind a lot of once-bullied nerds of past interactions that were very negative for them), I seriously doubt that would work well consistently enough to be good general-purpose advice.
LikeLike
On the other hand a lot of online dating profiles and dating advice sites advocate for witty banter, which is people exchanging mild derogatory comments like a Spencer Tracey-Catherine Hepburn movie. There aren’t really any bright line rules, everything is very blurry and contextual. What could be negging to one person, applied to them or somebody else, is another person’s witty banter.
LikeLike
@Jeff Heikkinen
My understanding is that negging in PUA is specifically for women who act high status, but are really very insecure and fairly disgusted by themselves. Giving these women compliments then would make them disgusted at the men, since they don’t believe the compliments (just like they don’t believe their own act). Negging then supposedly makes her feel understood and actually more respected than with a compliment.
A common view in the PUA community seems to be that it is very powerful in the right situations, but very hard to pull off. Many seem not to want to use it for various reasons.
I don’t think that it is the same as mild teasing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, the weightlifting advice does not really seem to apply to most trans women or people with testosterone dominant hormone balance who want to present less masculine. Also, I generally like bodies built for endurance more than those built for speed or raw power. It’s oddly specific advice and appears to ignore the fact that different people like different things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’re hormone balance are decent, then you won’t bulk up while lifting. In fact, depending on your current body fat levels, you could very well lean out your arms.
Short version: hypertrophy is not an inevitable outcome of weight training. Furthermore, a lower body focus, particularly glute exercises, can have — shall we say — a really nice effect.
LikeLike
@veronicastraszh
How would weight lifting lean out anything? Only by increasing the basic metabolic rate?
LikeLike
Exactly. Plus lowering your body fat percentage, but in the right places.
There are tricks for trans women. One is, work hard, lean out, and _then_ put some weight back on, but make sure when you do this your hormones levels are solid. The point is, you’ll maintain muscle, but burn fat-in-male-coded-regions. During the gain phase, your build fat-in-female-coded-regions.
This is anecdotal. YMMV.
LikeLike
…why did he decide to call that concept ‘needy’? It’s a good concept as soon as I know what it is, and he could have called it something else and avoided the ‘ugh, not this again’ first impression.
“However, every piece of advice must be tested against the “like attracts like” rule and the non-neediness rule. If a piece of advice makes you less like your best self, or it attracts people that you don’t want to date or have sex with, ignore it.” ooh, I really like this, and it totally takes the rest of the advice from like ‘uch’ to ‘ah, that can be handy info then’.
Don’t touch people without permission, oh my god!! That said, the “Wait for them to touch you back” is a really good thought for like, kinds of exchanges in general. (Also, the touch thing in general is weird to me in a way that feels like information about other people being different, so that’s cool) (People should still not touch other people without permission!!).
LikeLike
I think that some people really like to be touched without permission while others really dislike it. Humanity is highly diverse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And for lots of people it depends a lot on the situation. On date with somebody you fancy, yes. At work, no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Casual touch between friends/dates is great, and asking for permission would just make it weird.
LikeLike
Also yay being yourself and finding compatible people! I’m really glad there’s a book that centers etc that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
> For example, instead of saying “where are you from?”, say “you look like a California girl.”
aaaaaaa why
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know right?! If someone said this to me I would interpret it as a *strong* signal of lack of confidence. It sounds exactly like the sort of thing someone would say because a book told them to, which totally goes against both of the two rules.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would interpret it as lack of confidence, I think I would interpret it as… a strangely large amount of confidence in something they have no reason to think is true? It would make me think they’re going to be weirdly opinionated about my life and make me need to defend my basic narrative against unwanted outside imposition all the time. It would also make me think they jump to conclusions for no reason.
…that said, if they made a prediction about me based on actual evidence, that would likely be okay, though it still has some chance of being obnoxious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You look like a California girl sounds like “what’s your sign.”
LikeLike
I think you might be misunderstanding the tone and context in which a line like this was delivered.
Every time you ask someone a question, you lose value. Making inferences about someone is a good way to avoid that.
It’s also a good way to make someone qualify themself to you (thus further increasing the perceived value from them to you) and screen for attraction. Consider the following conversation:
Male: “You look like a total California girl.”
Female: “OMG what makes you say that haha , I’m from Massachusetts, I don’t have a valley girl accent I swear”
That’s a positive reaction. The general advice there is continue to escalate.
Male: “You look like a total California girl.”
Female: “I’m not.”
That’s a negative reaction. General advice is continue to vibe, then re-test for comlpiance.
LikeLike
The truth value of this statement varies wildly from person to person.
LikeLike
@pancakemouse
This seems pretty “[citation needed]” to me.
The thing is, I won’t say this kind of approach never works, because people are complicated. There are billions of us. Everything happens. I will say, however, people have natural “creep detectors,” and if we get a whiff that someone think in terms like this, we will likely become uncomfortable and want to get away from them.
It’s the puzzle box thing: http://faerye.net/post/the-puzzle-box
Of course, “creep-dar” is never perfect, and charming sociopaths exist. You might “pull it off” now and again, but honestly, stop thinking this way. It’s dysfunctional. Even when it works, it’s off-putting and manipulative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
>> I will say, however, people have natural “creep detectors,” and if we get a whiff that someone think in terms like this, we will likely become uncomfortable and want to get away from them.
Those aren’t the type of girls that Game attempts to target.
Game optimizes for the Lowest Common Denominator. If you want specific types of partners, than yes, nuance is required. But “avoid asking questions” is a good heuristic for beginners.
LikeLike
“This technique is good for attracting the Lowest Common Denominator” is a much much weaker claim than “this technique is good for dating in general”, and the latter is what was being discussed in this thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We should look at what Manson is claiming in Models, plus more in his follow-up book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck.
The thing is, he did the PUA thing, and I guess was reasonably successful. However, like many men in that position, he found it pretty empty and soul crushing. This is easy to understand. You think you want a thing, to fill up a hole. But when you get the thing, the hole is still there.
His problem wasn’t actually about getting his dick wet. That was just an empty cultural message he was slavishly following.
Which, there are obvious ways it is better to succeed at following an empty cultural message, and then abandoning it by choice, rather than feeling shut out. I get that. But still, he wants to provide tools to people (mostly men, actually) to skip that whole step, to work on their full emotional lives.
I think this is a super important message. But more, I think it is really useful when it comes from a “dude’s dude,” and not a “SJW feminist” like me — cuz culture war stuff.
So yeah, you can fixate on status in unhealthy ways, and in turn maybe learn to hide your intentions, and if you can play “charming sociopath” well enough, you might get laid.
That’s not actually winning, whatever the loud assholes on YouTube tell you. It’s the opposite of winning. It’s empty. (Plus, honestly, creep-dar is a thing and being “guy fixated on status and who treats women like things” is pretty much peak creepsville. People notice.)
Manson wants to help you build real, honest connections.
LikeLiked by 4 people
@pancakemouse,
I agree that asking question after question puts you in a bad state. I think if you can come up with a nice situational question on the spot, that’s the best, but otherwise, making (inviting) statements is better than asking questions, especially if the questions that are going to be asked are all “interview” style questions.
I will say that there’s a New Agey, palm reading-esque nature to some of the conversation-starting statements advocated for by traditional PUA that I don’t like. (“You have this energy about you” was an example I was given to emulate by multiple sources; evidently, it works for some, but I wouldn’t be caught dead saying that.) The “California girl” line still sort of feels that way to me.
@tcheadfjkl,
No, the two are related. I personally would not term it “Lowest Common Denominator”, but there is something that can be termed a cultural mainstream, and the majority of potential partners are going to be inside of it.
@veronicastraszh,
Men care about improving their status because low status men are treated much worse than high status men. Some men “fixate” on it for the same reasons some women fixate on their weight or age. If you want men to stop caring about status, this gradient of differential treatment needs to disappear first. That’s unlikely to happen, so men are perfectly justified in wanting to optimize their placement on this axis. (I want status to be recognized as an avenue for shallowness, myths about low status men used to justify their mistreatment to be dispelled, and for blatant about-face disparities in treatment toward two guys of different status to be regarded the same as a guy doing the same to two girls of, say, different weights, or different breast sizes. But there’s no question that status differentials will continue to exist, and that men will be judged harsher on their placement on it, just like women are judged harsher for physical appearance.)
The single best, most momentous piece of advice I’ve ever received from a PUA-type source was from Lance Mason, who said, paraphrased, “you can’t generate attraction in others, but you can generate attractiveness in yourself. And the way to increase your attractiveness is to raise your social status”. It’s something that you’ve always known deep down inside, and doesn’t even sound like much in retrospect, but needed to hear it said out loud in a certain way for it to click. I’ve improved my social well-being immeasurably since then, and while it certainly can’t all be attributed to this one guru, let alone that one thing he said, I’d almost certainly be on a lower trajectory otherwise; perhaps up to and including meeting my current girlfriend of five years.
LikeLike
@pocketjacks
“I personally would not term it “Lowest Common Denominator”, but there is something that can be termed a cultural mainstream, and the majority of potential partners are going to be inside of it.”
But a central point of this post was that when you’re looking for an actual relationship, you shouldn’t be looking in the cultural mainstream, you should be looking for people like you.
LikeLike
@pocketjacks — I agree with what you’re saying. To clarify, I’m not saying “completely ignore status and pretend it doesn’t exist.” Clearly it exists and is important. I’m saying something more subtle, which is why I used the term “fixate,” rather than “be aware of.”
There is an example in Impro, where Johnstone contrasts three teachers he knew as a child. I don’t feel like digging up the text and quoting, so I’ll paraphrase from memory. One teacher was very low status, in that he signaled low status, through body language, voice, etc. He was, in turn, unable to maintain discipline in class, even thought students liked him, in a way. They would inexorably misbehave. One day, the story goes, he broke down crying in class. He ultimately left the school.
The second teacher was a stern disciplinarian. He maintained rigid order. The children behaved, but they hated him. They disliked the experience very much. (How much learning and growth do you think happened in that class? Johnstone also says that “bad teachers” are not merely less successful at educating than good teachers. He suggests that what they do is the opposite.)
The third teacher was flexible in his status. He would raise it and lower it in response to context. This was seemingly effortless. That said, he was well liked. His classes had excellent behavior. In that class, the children wanted to learn.
Johnstone described the third teacher as a skilled “status player.” The point was, he was comfortable with his status. He was able to express “low” status in a way that, over the long term, raised his status. It’s weird. I suppose you could call it “countersignalling,” although I doubt the teacher sat around and said to himself, “Well, in response to stimulus X, I must countersignal Y.”
Furthermore, I think this latter sort of behavior is what women mean when we talk about “confidence.”
Theory: men who “fixate” on status, in the sense I mean, will not achieve the behaviors of the third teacher. They will more likely attempt to embody the “stern” teacher (or some analogous behavior). In turn, they will be read as “tryhard.” I’ve seen this happen. Men struggling with this and then complain, “I was confident. Women still didn’t like me.” But women didn’t like him because he came across as desperate and phony. Such behavior is rightfully a turn off.
It’s weird, I know, but I suspect that “not caring” about status, while still caring, is the trick. So how does one do this?
I don’t think I can summarize. I believe that I have, over the years, learned to do it to a fair degree. I have relationships. I feel as if my status is high enough that I don’t need to care about it.
#####
The advice you gave in your other post, about social circles and mastery, seems very correct to me. A good attitude with a decent social circle and an activity you can excel at — indeed this seems like a recipe for success. Do that.
#####
Let me add, I don’t want to sound as if I’m coming at this from a black and white position. Some amount of “fake it till you make it” is probably fine. There are no absolutes. However, there are important degrees. Faking it a little bit on the path to real skill — yeah that can work. Why not? If that’s what it takes, then fine. But still, that is hardly the end goal. In fact, it can be the trap I’ve described, when a person gets swept up in “deep PUA theory,” where he spends hours each day trawling the message boards and inhaling the nonsense — and the cynicism. Blah. Do not do that! It is a basilisk.
As I said to @LeeEsq, a little bit of PUA can probably help a lot of guys, just to get them talking to women and being a bit more bold. Flirting is a skill. You practice skills (on consensual partners).
But still, the end goal should be emotional honesty. That’s the winning state. That’s when real relationships can happen.
And, I can say from experience, that’s when things actually get hard.
LikeLike
@tcheasdfjkls
It’s still a numbers game though. The more niche your appeal, the smaller the intersection between those who like and who like you is probably going to be, unless you specifically like the people who like that niche. Which is a lot less likely than Ozy makes it out to be.
LikeLike
I’m a person that really finds this obsession with status weird. I’m relatively sure that most people go through out life without obsessing over what their status. They might want to come across as cool or sexy and wonder what people think about them but they don’t wonder about talking about high status and low status. Most low status people find romantic partners without doing much to consciously or even subconsciously raise their status. Status is also not really a fixed thing. A person can be very hight status in one area of their life and not really liked, i.e. have low status in another area. I’m personally well-liked and well-respected in my profession even though I have no success in dating.
LikeLike
@LeeEsq
It seems logical to me that people tend to put a lot of focus on gender differences, because this is where typical minding fails.
Studies show that socio-economic status is considerably more important for women when selecting a partner than for men. Men select partners more by looks and you see women ‘obsessing’ about their looks.
‘Cool’ and ‘sexy’ involve a lot of the same things that other people call status. That people don’t use that specific word doesn’t mean that they don’t actually care about it.
LikeLike
There are different kinds of status under discussion here. Status in the context of the book Impro (which I think is the useful kind here) doesn’t mean socio-economic as such — it’s situation specific. I think even when we’re talking about that kind of status, there’s “status” and then there’s *status*. Going back to veronicastraszh’s quoted example: the well-liked teacher played around with his “status” (for instance he might have made self-deprecating remarks or physically lowered himself to the level of his students to lower it, then stood back up and looked expectant of silence to raise it), but his *status* would be high constantly. I think you want to do the same thing to be attractive.
RE the predictions not questions thing: that example strikes me as cheesy but I think the idea in general is useful. I can’t think of any concrete instances, but I think “you seem like you’d be into [media thing]” (in a relevant context) is a useful social tool.
LikeLike
@rlms
True, but that kind of status is hard to study. My point is that even in a fairly crude manner, there seems to be a gender difference. If we assume that socioeconomic status is not something that is transparent, but that is perceived by way of many proxies, then it can be the case that the right collection of signals is extremely attractive, even if there is little substance behind it.
This is especially true for social status, which is inherently something that only exists to the extent that other people believe it exists.
If people used to live in small communities, where pretending to be of higher social status was very difficult, because of the strict social control, then one could assume that strangers that one would meet would act according to their social status. If they didn’t, their clan members would punish them.
However, in the modern urban environment, the strict social control and small groups are gone, but presumably, people still act like it exists. Hence the difficulty for non-defecting men to stand out when there is so much competition and the ability for PUAs to fake being high status.
—
As for the teacher example, the teacher that keeps rigid order is clearly weak at playing status games. It unites the group against the teacher and creates a high dependency on the situation (and statuses) remaining the same. It also creates a high cost in requiring a lot of policing. Furthermore, it grants all the students the same status, which is inefficient.
A ‘status player’ merely has to police now and then to demonstrate his power. He can grant extra status to more useful/powerful students and create a common enemy in a scapegoat student. He can use students to police for him. He can adapt to changes more easily. The students can’t rule-lawyer as easily, so the teacher can play games where he enforces a rule when it benefits him and ignore the rule when it doesn’t. Etc.
LikeLike
I like this tip and would find it flattering because it indicates that the person is observing me and has a specific impression of the kind of person I am. They don’t just walk up to every random person to start a conversation; there’s something unique about me. It also introduces two new topics for jumping-off points: 1) the actual answer to where I’m from, and 2) why they thought I might be from California. It gets me talking about myself, which I find gratifying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But that’s the thing! If someone clocks me as a member of a social group, I don’t hear that I’m unique, I hear that I’m a cliché (and that the speakers thinks in clichés – usually spectacularly inaccurate ones).
I’m starting to suspect that the difference here is between people who have dealt with a lot of stereotyping and othering and those who didn’t (I’m not saying “privilege” – after all, the most horrible bullying I experienced was over me allegedly being a rich overprivileged bastard due to my birthplace – but it must be a factor, since by and large, it’s the marginalized groups who complain the most about stereotyping).
If someone tells me that my accent sounds Russian, I’m afraid that the next thing I heard would be “your English sucks, it’s pathetic, and you’re a lazy fuck who can’t be bothered to learn” or “you have a huge neon sign ‘Other’ over your head, and don’t you forget that we all see it” or “tell me all your political opinions so I could check if they’re good enough, and even if they are, you’re still gonna be held accountable for the election meddling, and your visa difficulties are justifiable because of that”. If someone tells me that I must be a programmer because I look like a trans woman, I hear “you’re a fake, you’ll never be a real woman, and I clock you”, and I’m afraid that the assumptions about me also include something about catgirls and me being OK with people randomly dominating me without my consent or something about Blanchardianism.
I can imagine some extremely narrow circumstances where I would be OK with such guesses, but overall, it sucks.
LikeLike
We all have in common that we are unique snowflakes 🙂
Seriously though, you seem to have very negative expectations, which seems unhelpful if you are dealing with relatively open minded people. Lots of people share their perceptions/guesses as icebreakers, giving you the opportunity to tell something about yourself. Another benefit is that it gives them information on whether they are perceiving you correctly and tells you what signals you are sending.
Their perceptions/guesses/stereotypes still exist if they don’t share them with you, you are just less aware of them.
PS. Just about everyone thinks in clichés/stereotypes/abstractions by default. I don’t think that it is possible to function well if you don’t. Only the level of sophistication/accuracy really tends to differ.
LikeLike
Lots of good advice, but I’m a contrarian, so:
I think that this is direction pushing, where the assumption is that the reader has specific types of problems. I think that people can be too needy and/or insufficiently vulnerable, but also insufficiently needy and/or too vulnerable.
Note that the one really huge difference between men and women seems to be that women tend to be far more person-oriented on average and men more thing-oriented. This fundamentally means that if nerds only attract nerds, then lots of nerds are going to be single, as well as lots of people-oriented women.
As for being turned down being a favor, I think that this is only true to some extent. As you say yourself, people need to practice, so it seems to me that it can be better to have a relationship that can’t last and that helps you grow into a more attractive person, rather than to be turned down constantly and thereby never getting enough skills to capitalize on the very few chances you do get. Of course, some relationships can also be harmful to your future chances, so…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I definitely agree with the last paragraph. Continual rejection can also make people bitter and frustrated at the entire process, likely to doubt small or big signs of interest, and unable to enjoy success if and when they get into a relationship. People need some success.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True – if you’re turned down by everyone, it’s soul crushing. On the other hand:
– Good salespeople don’t mind getting dozens of doors slammed in their face to get one sale. The best salespeople can tell who’s not going to buy more quickly.
– When I was young, I took every rejection as a personal status judgment. This person was in the dating market but didn’t want to date *me*, which meant that she thought someone else was better, which meant there was something about me that could be better – if only I was more intuitive, smoother, taller, funnier, or something else good – she’d be more interested.
That’s true from a certain point of view, but it’s poison for one’s self-image. It’s also true, and healthier, to figure that people are quirky, and you’re sifting through a large group of people to find someone who’s a good fit.
(I went through a very similar process in job interviews. It’s much better for me to go into a job interview with the attitude that “Hey, I believe I’d be great at this job, and I think I’d like it a lot, but if you don’t think so, that’s cool – I’ll find something great, and I’m sure whoever you hire will be pretty good for you.”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
A lot of the advice on how to flirt and how to date seems to go directly against the political moment regarding sexual harassment. Its clear that for many people the concept of consent extends beyond sex itself and does include things like romantic touching or even flirting and asking people out on the first place. As a heterosexual man in his thirties who really struggles with this area of life, the contradictions and inconsistencies seem immense. We are told not to harass but the most successful dating methods can come really close to harassment.
Your either left with options that aren’t harassment but have low probability of success because your date doesn’t feel any chemistry or you can do high-success but risky things like attempt to touch the person your dating without asking.
I am not a natural dater. I don’t really like dating, the pursuit, or the chase. I’m very good at being friendly and talking to strangers of either gender. Asking them out if it isn’t the concept of online dating not so much. Every time I’ve done it either ended in a rejection. One time it ended with date followed by a very long text message on how the woman does not see me that way. Yet, if your a straight man it seems that you have no choice but to be good at dating.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This. The practical advice contains a fair bit of “you know those things that are pointed out as low-key sexual harassment? do those”.
The conclusion of the post is that if you are the kind of person who can get away with sexually harassing people, you will not have a problem finding dates and hookups.
LikeLike
The limited data we have about the demographics of men who are judged by Title IX tribunals suggest that it is (extremely) disproportionately African-Americans and foreigners. This in turn suggests that there are no universal human norms that define what behavior is considered appropriate, but that we are talking about (sub)cultural norms.
This in turn is then an issue for multicultural environments as well as for people who have trouble with adopting cultural norms.
LikeLike
A lot of dating advice aimed at men is like this even if it is from alleged feminists. One reason why a lot of men get frustrated during talks about sexual harassment is that you can’t point out the contradictions. Since the traditional men pursue structure of heterosexual dating is mainly in tact, it places a lot of men in a difficult position. Especially if you don’t want to get accused of sexual harassment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Context matters. A lot of what would be sexual harassment *at work* or when directed at a stranger is just fine on a date.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@LeeEsq
The correct way is to do exactly what the specific woman wants, but doesn’t explicitly communicate, not to going too far or not far enough. Unfortunately, my telepathy machine is not yet working.
So for now we need to allow men to fail, if their intent is good and they don’t do absurd things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“A lot of the advice on how to flirt and how to date seems to go directly against the political moment regarding sexual harassment”
The more extreme of the new “norms” are oppressive as hell and likely not accepted by the majority of women. Don’t feel bound by that nonsense.
LikeLike
I’m in the partner dance scene and regularly go to dance classes. I’m going to dispute that dance classes make for fun dates. They are fun but you have lots of students there who are going to take them very seriously and aren’t going to like that their class is being used as a date. Leaders and followers tend to rotate in dance classes to. There are couples that stay together for the entire class but many teachers really don’t like that. If its an especially big class, your not going to be able to interact with your date that much.
Dance also represents a good example of how you can be really into something but not necessarily find a partner there. There are lots of people in the dance scene that date each other. Many professionals like to be in romantic relationships with their partners. I think they use it as a bit of sales pitch. There are also professional dancers that feel that dating your dance partner is really unprofessional and dangerous. Many women in the dance scene often do not want it to be used as a source of dates. They want to go to dances and just dance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A dance class does make for a fun date if it’s an intro class or a social or something (and I wager this is also what Manson means by it, no sense dropping in halfway during a course). Most of ’em have an hour or so basics, followed by free dancing. You’re gonna interact during that free time, and I’d say you ideally try a dance that’s new for the both of you so there’s no annoying level difference.
LikeLike
“Start by gently touching them on the arm or shoulder for emphasis (for example, at the punchline of a joke). Wait for them to touch you back.
If they do, you can move to more intimate touch, like putting your hand on their back or around their shoulders. Notice if they pull away; if they do, it’s probably not welcome.”
I read most of this article intending to agree with you, especially regarding the vulnerability/neediness split. But then I remember doing exactly this on a date. I casually (yet deliberately) brushed her hand and she pulled away from me.
Fair enough, I thought. She’s not interested. Back off and don’t try anything with her. Enjoy having a drink with this interesting person, then go home.
Half an hour later, she literally shoves me up against the wall so she can rather emphatically kiss me. This goes on for a while, and turns into us sleeping with each other for several months,
I bring this up because people are even more complex than you’ve made them out to be. I liked this article, but I’m worried about people being labelled as uninterested in sex, when really they have specific boundaries that they are deliberately working on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve read your blog off and on for a while now, and I like it! But this description jumped out as me as being odd.
>And that brings us to vulnerability. Vulnerability is the willingness to stick your neck out, even if people might think you’re stupid or weird or make fun of you about it. It’s making jokes that might not be funny, sharing fears that might make people think you’re a coward, trying things that you might suck at, telling someone you like them when you might be rejected. Vulnerability is saying: “this is who I am and I am not going to be anyone else.”
It seems weird to describe that behaviour as “vulnerable.” I think I would only behave like that in a public setting if I felt invincible. I more things like that in familiar settings because I do in fact feel slightly invincible there.
The actual advice still seems sound, and ties in neatly with the not being needy. But the term ‘vulnerable’ seems so poor a fit that this altered version parses better for me:
>And that brings us to invulnerability. Invulnerability is the willingness to stick your neck out, even if people might think you’re stupid or weird or make fun of you about it. It’s making jokes that might not be funny, sharing fears that might make people think you’re a coward, trying things that you might suck at, telling someone you like them when you might be rejected. Invulnerability is saying: “this is who I am and I am not going to be anyone else.”
Maybe I am missing something?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s called vulnerable because your exposing yourself to the derision and mockery of others. People can be very fierce and unforgiving, demanding everything and yielding nothing. Not even on the most minor point.
LikeLike
Singer here. If your voice sounds different when you hold your nose closed, that’s because you speak with nasal twang. Not doing so is definitely more attractive (nasal twang is that whiny toddler sound, very unsexy) but it’s got nothing to do with chest or head voice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, the appropriate level of nasal twang differs per language and dialect. English doesn’t need. any vowels to be twanged but some dialects definitely do. If you try speaking French or Russian without twang, you’ll sound like there’s something wrong with you.
LikeLike
Great advice! I’ve met a lot of men in the rationalist community who don’t seem to follow even the most basic “how to be attractive” stuff. Wear clothes that fit, get your hair cut regularly, keep the beard trimmed, have good hygiene. It’s not rocket science! I’ve often wondered whether they really don’t know this, or whether they’re not interested in dating, or whether they just have gotten so accustomed to thinking of themselves as completely unattractive that they don’t see the point of trying.
Advice for women who want to be more attractive:
–Grow your hair long, brush it frequently, and wear it down.
–Wear skirts and dresses. Even a long skirt signals femininity loudly, and you will get hit on more.
–Wear red.
–Smile.
–Give them something to start a conversation about–an interesting tattoo, jewelry, or clothing.
–Makeup, high heels, manicures are not as important as you think. Maintaining a normal weight is 100% as important as you think.
Advice for everyone–there’s a big performative element to being attractive. Doesn’t matter if you don’t think you fit into that category–play the role anyway. There is no downside.
LikeLike
My perception is that ‘invisible’ makeup can give a decent boost, especially for those with imperfect skin.
I think that high heels work mainly for those who are already fairly desired, to become even more so.
I think that few men care about a woman’s nails, unless you are going for a Guinness World Record.
This depends very much on how good the person is at performing, especially for men. Going from being seen as harmless to being seen as a creep has a downside. In general, terms like puffed up, swollen head and uppity exists because it is not always accepted for people to behave in a ways that exceeds their traits.
For female nerds specifically, an aura of knowing that one is highly desired may drive away certain kinds of men, who feel ‘out-leagued’ by it. So if she actually wants those men, it may be a poor strategy.
However, it seems plausible that may nerds are so inhibited that their performance takes them from an aura of asexuality to an aura of fairly minimal sexual self-confidence, which would be an improvement. So like most advice: do it the right amount, but not too much or too little. Easy 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re reading “confidence” or “arrogance” where I said “performativity.” To try to explain the difference–Does a woman with long hair have more confidence than one with short hair? Or a woman in a red dress compared to a woman in a T-shirt and jeans? I would say you can’t tell. But the first woman in each pair is going to read as more attractive (ceteris paribus) because she is sending the signal that “I am an attractive woman, please relate to me as such.” And that signal is received and cues the appropriate responsive behavior. On the margin, of course. That’s what I mean by performing attractiveness –sending the right signals, and not being afraid of attention. No arrogance necessary.
LikeLike
Worth noting that deliberately signaling conventional attractiveness will pull positive responses specifically from people who want to date an Attractive Person. At least some of the people reading this summary are likely not looking for that kind of person. The point of dressing a certain way or wearing a certain hairstyle is not to become more attractive per se – it is to become more specifically attractive, and thus escape the background (in a positive or even neutral way) in the eyes of some subset of the population.
Again, the most important thing to ask yourself is, “what is the kind of thing that will attract the kind of person I want to date?” And then you do that thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be fair I’m a queer woman and not a straight man, but I completely disagree with nearly all your advice about female attractiveness.
LikeLike
Yeah, I wouldn’t know how to attract lesbians. Care to share your own tips?
LikeLike
1. Be a woman. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m a straight man; caryatis is generally too specific but has some right ideas underneath what they’re saying. As a general rule, you need to have some kind of intentionality with your look, whatever it is. Don’t just wear a shirt because you got it for free, or let your hair take whatever shape it dries to, or wear makeup because you heard it was a good idea and you found a cool tutorial video on youtube. You need to have an idea of how you want to look and then actually put some thought into looking like that. Because of the rule of “like attracts like” you probably just need to think about what kind of look you want to present to the world (as long as you’re careful not to just go with a look you think the world wants you to have), but if that doesn’t work you should try to figure out who it is you want to attract and what you think they would like.
To get back to what caryatis said specifically: I find long (that is, ankle length) skirts to be less attractive than just about any alternative article of clothing, so I’m not in the target audience for women who dress like that. But I’m sure those women do get noticed by men who are in that target audience, because a long skirt is unusual, and thus carries a very strong signal to the people it does attract. The same is true of a brightly-died pixie cut hairstyle: you’re signaling super strongly to people who like that sort of thing, so you’ll get noticed more relative to the background rate, and you filter away people who don’t find that attractive.
LikeLike
Attractiveness is high-variance and not entirely physical, even for women trying to be attractive to men.
The most attractive woman I’ve ever met wore baggy jeans and flannel shirts that didn’t fit well, described herself (accurately) as being a few years into the wall, and looked sort of like Rust Cohle. But she was an order of magnitude more charismatic than anyone else I’ve ever met.
The most physically attractive woman I’ve ever met, on the other hand, is not someone I’d be interested in, because she came off to me as having the personality of a damp rag.
A lot of advice seems to be confused about general vs. low-variance strategies. “Be confident” is general; “become Chad/Stacey” is low-variance. This might be an artifact of advice optimizing for numbers games, but sometimes high-variance strategies pay off better even for numbers games. (For example, the Bay Area rationalists.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think that advice is useful for one specific demographic of women, but for a lot of women is going to violate the like-attracts-like rule and the no-neediness rule. There’s a reason the advice is “look at celebrities you want to be like”, not “wear these specific articles of clothing”; if you want to signal being like Rachel Maddow or k d lang, having long hair and wearing skirts is exactly the wrong advice. Similarly, from a purely aesthetic perspective, Christina Hendricks and Queen Latifah have no need to lose weight, and learning to dress for your body type is going to be an easier way to get more dates than dieting is.
(Just a personal anecdote, but back when I was a girl I looked ugly as hell with long hair; short hair flatters my features. I’m one of Nature’s butches, I suppose.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think that it depends on whether long hair fits with your face and whether you have nice hair. People with very rough or very fine hair are probably better off keeping it short.
LikeLike
I would say mid-length for fine hair like the classic Swedish blond(e). The precise length is going to vary by gender, but almost certainly an inch or longer for anyone. At shorter lengths fine hair doesn’t have enough mass to look like anything.
LikeLike
For women (and to a lesser extent for men), I really like the Truth is Beauty fashion typology. Depending on your facial features, long hair or short hair may be more flattering. I myself am a Dramatic Gamine, which means that long hair makes me look like someone doing drag badly. 🙂
LikeLike
And one last thing I would say on this topic: as much as you can, buy your clothes in the store (as opposed to online) and try them on beforehand. Even if you know that what you’re buying will fit, you want to be able to look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are pleased with the aesthetics of the thing you’re thinking about buying. This can be very helpful if you don’t have a particular look you’re going for, or if the look you want is conveyed by subtler things than a specific pattern or t-shirt slogan.
LikeLike
This conversation on dating has suddently turned into a very strange conversation about body type, apperance and behaviours ususally expected from women. I liked that Ozy actually didn’t gender that bit at all – you can be chubby, feminine nerd guy and still be hot was the jist, I think. Same goes for women, there are people who are into the person you are, these tricks are just a better representation of the person you are.
LikeLike
Yeah, “be thin” is nearly useless as dating advice, and the only thing it achieves is shaming people. A good rule of thumb would be to replace “don’t be fat” with “don’t be bald(ing)”. Because hair loss can also be sometimes stopped (at a certain expense and with moderate health risks), and hair can sometimes be brought back (although in many situations only at a huge cost). As a matter of fact, stopping androgenic alopecia is orders of magnitude easier than stopping gaining weight. But does it look out of place in a conversation about dating advice? Yes, as it should, just like the “be thin” “advice”.
LikeLike
There is going to be a good bit of the grace is greener on the other side but in heterosexual datings, I think that men are still more bound by traditional expectations than women. A lot of the dating advice aimed at heterosexual men is about getting good at the traditional male pursue role rather than how to get around it if your not a natural dater.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The issue in general is that men are strongly discouraged to blame structural causes for their personal problems, which results in those who police traditional gender norms to not be taken to task as much as they should.
The very high percentage of women among public advocates for men is illustrative in this regard. Karen Straughan, Cassie Jaye, Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, Erin Pizzey, Alison Tieman (Typhon Blue) and Helen Smith are examples. These people don’t get treated particularly well by mainstream society, but they can’t be policed by the male gender role.
LikeLike
Stating that men are discouraged to blame structural causes for their personal problem is a good way of defining the issue. In heterosexual relationships, if a man if unhappy with his love life the fault is generally assumed to be entirely his own. If only he would make these changes than everything would be so much better for him. For women her problems can be seen as her own fault, the fault of some larger structural forces, or a combination of the two. It depends on who is doing the judging.
This explains why in heterosexual relationships men are expected to take women as they are, don’t get jealous over her past experiences if she liked them and if she had a rough time at it be a gallant and gentleman to make up for her past bad experiences. However, women generally aren’t expected to take men as they are. They could reject a man if he was very successful in the past or not have to make up for anything if a man had a rough time at it.
LikeLike
I’d agree with this. Long hair almost always looks good. Whereas to me those girls who look good with short hair, would also look good with long hair, while the converse is not true. If you’re of an ethnicity where wearing long hair down is difficult, just wear a hairstyle considered feminine and not guy-ish.
For me and a lot of other men, tight pants >> skirts and dresses. I also don’t particularly care for high heels either. I think the issue is not so much pants vs. skirts and dresses, but whether you have the self-confidence to wear something sexy.
I hear so much about the color red, how it makes men look more dominant and women more sexy. But ehh, I think it’s overrated. Don’t really care about colors.
Generally good advice. If you’re the type of person who doesn’t smile a lot, then at least be warmer toward your desired guy than you are to others, and make sure he knows it. I think it’s the latter that trips people up. People want to know how to attract who they want without taking any emotional risk themselves, and that’s not possible.
I will say that I think there’s a particular form of warmth that women who draw lots of men to them have. Many of the most famous seductresses throughout history have hardly been “perfect 10’s”. This, I gather, is what they were really good at.
I’d say that the single most attractive non-physical trait a girl can have toward guys is openness. And you don’t need to wear anything in particular to be open, though I do agree with the gist of what you’re saying.
More important than what you wear is who you’re with. Girls in general underestimate the extent to which being in the vicinity of another guy can deter other men, under the assumption that the two of you are together. And of course standing in forbidding formation with a bunch of other girls will present similar difficulties. But most girls would feel unsafe being all alone, while being all “open” to relative strangers (or complete strangers). Generally, being with exactly one other girl is something of a sweet spot, but obviously this can’t be a constant constraint on your social life. It’s a difficult balance to strike, I realize. I will say that if 80% of our efforts lead to 20% of the variance in our results, this is within that 20% where some effort and tweaking can lead to 80% swings in results.
Yes. The vast, vast majority of women wear too much makeup and perfume.
The weight part is true, with my only caveat being that the optimum range for men probably leans higher than the optimum range that other women enforce on you. Even in 2018, women seem to overestimate the appeal of being Twiggy and underestimate the appeal of being thicc. (Sorry not sorry.)
If you need to lose weight, diet is far more important than exercise. When you do exercise though, the most efficient ways to burn fat are high-intensity interval training and resistance circuit training. The former is the “heaviest” form of cardio; the latter is the “lightest” form of resistance training. This middle range seems to be the best for fat loss. Most women seem to gravitate toward long, lower-intensity forms of cardio, and if you do it for social reasons, because it’s something all your friends already do together, then fine, but otherwise, most women would be better served by upping the intensity of their exercise at the expense of its duration.
And yes, I guess I fulfill the stereotype of the guy who got into fitness and now never wants to stop talking about fitness. But hopefully some of the above was helpful to someone out there.
Very much this. It’s a form of play, and when everything’s going right nothing in the world is more fun. Sadly, such moments never come often enough for us regular folk.
But also, because there’s this performative element, I find much of the moral panic about “fakeness” and “manipulation” to ring hollow and disingenuous, when in most cases it’s just following the rules of the road. (Regardless of my opinion of the particular act being called fake or manipulative, for which criticism could be warranted.) Already socially successful men do the same things, which apparently doesn’t bother anyone. People’s problems are with the outcome, not the process, though they’ve constructed layers in their head to avoid admitting that.
LikeLike
Fantastic article. I am on board 100%, but would like to clarify this definition:
“For the purposes of this subsection, I will define “alpha male” as a straight man who, if he so chooses, could go out on an ordinary Friday night and, about half the time, find a stranger they find attractive to have a one-night stand with. ”
The men who can achieve that are few and far between. Most professional pick-up artists don’t even “pull and close” one out of every two nights they go out.
I know, because I’m involved in the “community” and go out most weekend nights. I’ve seen closing time at bars and clubs. Take a nightclub with 400 girls — maybe 1-3 go home with a stranger.
I personally define alpha male based on behavior, not on results, as does the “community”. Here’s a good guideline that I glanced over and tend to agree with:
http://tobealpha.com/alpha-male-characteristics/
LikeLiked by 2 people
From that, we can conclude that (1) PUA is spectacularly bad at achieving its goals, and (2) it tries to appear more credible by moving the goalposts from “get a lot of sex” to “behave in a way that we claim results in lots of casual sex, but it actually doesn’t”. And possibly also (3) that it breeds misery by convincing the followers that what they really need is lots of casual sex, and meaningful and satisfying long-term relationships are impossible or undesirable, but then actually not providing them with an even remotely satisfactory amount of casual sex, and likely even less total sex than in a typical mono relationship.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Sophia Kovaleva
You are assuming that these men have better alternatives. My perception is that they generally seek out PUA because they fail at both getting a girlfriend and at getting one night stands. If they go from no sex to once a fortnight or once a month, that is a big change for the better.
It may also be the confidence booster that they need to enable them to get a girlfriend.
I’ve also seen PUAs claim that their skills help with getting a girlfriend and keeping her happy. PUAism also seems fairly diverse. People seem to often focus on the worst bits and ignore the better parts.
Anyway, you may be interested in this thesis by the sister of a PUA, who has a fairly nuanced opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Aapje
(3) has this assumption behind it, but (1) and (2) don’t – they’re just about bait and switch advertising, which is a problem regardless of whether better alternatives exist. Like, if someone published an article “THC cures depression!”, which had a fine print “*in this paper, curing depression is defined as achieving elevated levels of serum THC”, I would call bullshit, regardless of how well it works for the conventional definition of “curing depression”.
LikeLike
@Sophia Kovaleva
From what I’ve seen, PUAs tend to promise better sexual success, not sex twice a week. They also don’t seem to promise general happiness. You’ve been responding to a PUA here who also says that this is the mainstream view in the community.
So what ‘bait and switch advertising’ are you objecting to? Aren’t you actually objecting to the things that anti-PUAs say that PUAs believe (aka a strawman) and disagreeing with PUA objectives?
I get the latter, but I think that many men are very cynical about the possibility of achieving a more fulfilling relationship (in general or from their current situation), so your criticism is probably about as useful as telling a homeless person that just getting a house is not going to fully fulfill their needs.
LikeLike
PUA is varied, and it is possible to find some decent ideas in that space — including, btw, Mark Mason. That said, it does have a kind of central message, which involves hacking status (rather than deconstructing one’s relationship to status), along with an ethos that can be summarized: “the way to get hot women is to manipulate them from behind a constructed facade.”
There are some people involved in PUA who try to push back against these trends — including the book we are now discussing. But those trends are damn commonplace. It’s fair, I think, to call them the central message of PUA.
This is terribly unhealthy, and obviously so.
“Perhaps I can become a charming sociopath” won’t work, unless you are in fact a sociopath. Otherwise, you become a tryhard not-quite-alpha wannabe. Both outcomes are pretty gross.
Or else you steer more toward Manson’s approach, which is about working on your inner self. This is much better, certainly for a pretty broad cross section of people.
Of course, if you’re severely “messed up” — well, this is all “self help.” If you have a deeply troubled personality, self help will not be enough. At that point, therapy, maybe. Beyond that, philosophy.
LikeLike
@veronicastraszh
Many people don’t (merely) have a problem with their inner self, but have a problem with how they interact with people.
In our society, we expect people to interact in non-straightforward and emotionally manipulative ways. Presumably, this is because we are glorified apes, ruled more by our emotions than by logic. People tend to get unhappy and upset when they are not emotionally manipulated, so arguably, the right kind of manipulation is the most moral behavior.
This reality flies in the face of the self-image and the view of humanity that most people have, so they are in denial. People who are people-oriented and have good social skills seem to learn to manipulate by building up a non-logical mental model, based on pattern recognition and responses to those patterns that they have learned. By not understanding what they are doing, they have the luxury of being able to ignore what they are doing in favor of a fiction (and they get to avoid facing the morality of their actions).
Autistic people can have a problem with the most basic emotional manipulations, like looking into the other person’s eyes for the appropriate amount of time and at the appropriate time. Merely nerdy men typically do reasonably well for basic interactions, but dating requires more advanced social skills/emotional manipulation, which often exceeds their mediocre people-oriented capabilities.
One solution is to appeal to these men’s strengths (systematizing) by building a more rational model of emotional manipulation. Then this can be used to give the other person a set of interactions that triggers the right emotions.
This is fundamentally no different from learning to recognize that your partner is tired and consciously deciding to give them a back rub, to trigger the right emotions.
—
A complicating factor here is that PUAs are also concerned with their own emotional needs. For example, they seek to reduce the negative effect of facing many rejections.
—
From my perspective, there are three common criticisms of PUA:
1. A rejection of conscious emotional manipulation in general
2. A claim that PUAs tend to manipulate immorally/selfishly
3. A claim that emotional manipulation is not the (only) solution
I think that 1 is rather silly, because the people who claim this never seem to reject the same emotional manipulation when that is done unconsciously, which means that they either fundamentally don’t understand humans or that they are hypocritical and ableist.
Two is a lot more reasonable, although I think that it’s a poor argument against emotional manipulation, but it can be very reasonable criticism of PUA culture or communities. Note that this criticism isn’t merely about manipulating women into behavior they will regret, but also about using misogynist beliefs or other strategies to defend the male ego against many rejections. I don’t think this criticism is fair if it is a demand that men never do anything to harm women, because any strategy will sometimes harm and sometimes help.
For criticism 3, a fair argument can be made that PUAs tend to see every problem as a nail, because they found a hammer. Men can (also) have other problems than interacting badly and then PUA-tactics cannot fix these. However, critics of PUA tend to make the exact same mistake in the other direction, by denying that better emotional manipulation can help a lot.
In general, dating advice almost always suffers from focusing on one problem and one solution.
PS. I have no idea what you mean by ‘deconstructing one’s relationship to status.’ Are you talking about overcoming insecurity?
LikeLike
That is not how normal human relationships work, not even close. Your ideas are bizarre.
Right now, billions of people are sharing loving, caring, open, and thoughtful relationships with their friends and partners, which are not based on manipulation. This is normal. It is quite common. In fact, it is very lovely and rewarding. It’s what people, most of us, should want, and what people like Manson are trying to teach — to the degree these things can be taught in a self help context.
To me, you sound as if you have a severely disordered personality that you’ve “typical minded” into cynical, broken politics. This is both tragic and terrible. I’m sorry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It depends on how cynical you want to get about human relationships. To most people things like making eye contact aren’t emotional manipulation because it is simply how people interact. Same with a myriad of other ordinary transactions. Very few people are going to see trying to get people laughing as manipulation in most circumstances because people like joking around. If you have a very transactional way of perceiving human relationships, either because your cynical or have another atypical way of perceiving relationships, everything can count as a manipulation because your doing x to get y. Its manipulative in the sense of trying to invoke a particular response.
The latter interpretation isn’t really that useful. Even assuming for the sake of argument, we should perceive human interactions cynically going that cynical will create an almost psychotic society. A healthy society requires a presumption that people act in good faith and aren’t trying to do everything for their advantage.
LikeLike
@veronicastraszh
Most people believe that it’s “not how normal human relationships work,” yet dispassionate observation makes it clear that everyone who is even minimally people-oriented desires emotional bonding based in part on manipulation (and counter-manipulation).
The classic example is ‘do I look fat in this?,’ which a hapless partner may answer honestly. A wiser partner may pattern match this to the set of questions that require a rote answer (‘no, you look great’). The truly wise recognizes that the question generally is a (manipulative) demand of assurance that the partner is willing/able to overlook physical flaws and is based on an overly romantic and illogical view on love, where people who are truly in love have a severely compromised perception of reality. Because the truly wise recognize the real need, they can act in a more sophisticated way, for instance by giving unsolicited compliments to their partner, especially for the body parts that they are insecure about, increasing their happiness in comparison to a situation where partner has to manipulate to get the compliments that he or she needs.
If (more thing-oriented) people/men would start answering that question honestly, rather than respond to the true question that is being asked, the happiness of people would go down and fewer men and women would be able to have a relationship.
Our society is developing in the direction of less forced co-dependency due to difficult circumstances, which means that there is a greater need for people to be able to satisfy the personality-dependent needs of others, if they are to have a satisfactory relationship with them.
This is especially true for relationships between men and women, as there is strong evidence that the one truly large (personality) difference between the sexes is their tendency to be more people- or more thing-oriented.
Of course, we can also pretend that there is no difference between more people- and more thing-oriented people & not teach people coping strategies or actual understanding that allows them to deal better with mismatches. Then women can keep writing stupid (typically minding) op-eds how men need to learn to connect with their emotions, while (typically minding) men covertly complain about illogical women. Then men can get angry at the women who demand emotional behavior that is not natural to them, while women can get angry at ‘misogynist’ and/or immature men. Then we can all be angry at each other, for having the wrong personality.
I prefer the ‘cynical’ approach where we recognize personality-differences and the different needs that result from that. I prefer to teach people strategies to make others happy at minimal costs to themselves. I prefer to have PUA-style movements in the mainstream (like neuro-linguistic programming), rather than vilify them for their realism/cynicism, which ironically results in the very radicalization that is truly objectionable.
Human relationships are deteriorating quite well already, without my “cynical, broken politics”. I am analyzing the changes that I see in society and looking for solutions. There is nothing inherently immoral or broken about seeing people as they truly are, rather than believing in a fantasy.
LikeLike
@LeeEsq
Yes & that is a cop out, because it is a refusal to look at why people do the things that they do & what the various benefits and harms of that behavior are. If you uncritically and unquestioningly accept some human behavior, where do you stop? Is racism also “simply how people interact”? Can you reduce racism if you merely vilify it and refuse to recognize the mechanisms behind it? Or can an understanding of the tendencies/needs that lead to racism enable you to let people express them in less harmful or even beneficial way?
Why not? I think it ought to lead to the heterodox conclusion that manipulation of others is not inherently bad (or selfish), but that it is the morality of the outcome that matters.
A certain level of transactional thinking is also healthy in that it allows people to consider whether their relationships with others are actually healthy for them. Of course, plenty of people already do this, as can be seen by the many people who divorce, those who switch jobs, etc. However, by vilifying emotional manipulation and denying that people need it, we deny people the understanding of certain kinds of dissatisfaction that they feel; and the tools to fix their relationships.
Emotional manipulation is not necessarily selfish. People can and do emotionally manipulate people in both altruistic and win-win ways. Being able to predict the emotions that your actions cause in others actually allows you to more effectively make other people happy and to prevent making them (very) unhappy.
It also allows one to recognize how much others are actually trying to avoid emotionally hurting others & instead, to give positive emotions. So it can reduce ressentiment, rather than cause it.
Compare it to medicine. Knowledge of the human body can help you kill people more effectively, but you can also use that knowledge to heal people. Knowledge gives power, but it is orthogonal to morality. You can use that power for good and for ill.
So I’m not arguing that people should act merely for their own benefit. On the contrary, I would argue that many people are hurting others by accident & fail to capitalize on opportunities to make others happier, because they lack good understanding of how their actions effect others. Such an understanding can also help people improve their own happiness, by setting up their life so their emotions are changed by others in positive ways.
Anyway, the inferential distance is perhaps simply too great here.
LikeLike
Dude, that is a deeply cynical and distorted view of normal human interaction. It is not more “objective.” Instead, it is a false objectivity that will block you from the direct experiential aspects of human connection. Likewise, people (in particular women) need to be aware that people like you exist, to avoid you. “Creep-dar” is important, but it needs to be finely tuned to recognize the more skilled kind of sociopath.
The comments to this post include a number of men who seem to believe they simply cannot form honest emotional connections, and instead they must form connections through facade and manipulation. This is grotesque.
You are making yourselves monsters. In turn, this justifies the continued suspicions that women hold toward men. In short, hell yeah I blame “the player.”
PUA is an arms race. I think women are up to the challenge. Do better.
#####
Note to random men who are reading this: don’t be this way. You are lovable. Genuine emotional connection is possible. PUA (and related ideologies) are teaching you a broken way to relate to women. Even if you “get sex,” it won’t fill your void.
There are better ways, I promise. Mark Manson is a good start.
LikeLike
It depends on what you mean by honest emotional connections. I have plenty of platonic honest emotional connections with men and women. When it comes to romantic connections, I don’t seem to have what it takes. This is from a person who never tried PUA stuff. Most people I know seem to be capable of forming romantic connections relatively fast: falling into and out of into romantic relationships again or meeting new partners st a bar or theater by chance. That never happened to me yet. I’ve had friendships created this way but never a romantic relationship. That suggests that aoemryhing is missing in me.
LikeLike
@leeesq — This might sound a little weird, but you strike me as the sort of person who would probably benefit from small doses of PUA, just some flirting skills, a bit of risk tolerance. It’s hard for me to picture you going down the rabbit hole and becoming that guy.
Here is the deal: there is a thing about “highly systemizing thinkers.” We have a habit of falling for mind viruses, absurd, totalizing beliefs, things such as neoreaction or Roko’s basilisk.
Remember the post on {other forum} where they were talking about how engineer types often end up flat earthers? It’s that thing. In the case of PUA, you’ll see people reach the state where they cannot observe even a simple interaction, for example two people sharing a smile, without hyper-analyzing it as a “status display,” which I assure you, this will not help them in trying to relate to women. If every interaction is a transaction, every simple gesture filled with threat and conflict — it’s madness. You’ll take a person already socially awkward and struggling to make sense of body language and turn them into — well scroll up. Read.
You don’t have this problem. You have a different problem.
LikeLike
If by risk tolerance, you mean asking people out or making flirtatious. I’m doing that or did that to no great success. There is a limit to how much rejection a person can bear before you give up out of the entire thing. I’m at the point where I just can’t see anything but rejection being the result and everything looks like I’m being pushed to go the entire way.
LikeLike
@veronicastraszh
You don’t seem to truly understand what I say, which is a pattern in our interactions.
Fundamentally, I am arguing for noticing and responding to people’s emotional needs. Things that socially adept people (can) do naturally, but that other people have difficulty with.
Have you ever talked to an extreme libertarian, who can’t see the difference between taxation and theft? Your inability to distinguish between sociopathy and mutually beneficial emotional manipulation seems similar to me.
PS. Note that more sophisticated people can recognize and participate in this willingly and with full understanding, in the same way that people can recognize flirting and participate willingly in such a ritual.
LikeLike
@Aapje — I engage with you the way I would engage a flat earther. But more, I engage with you as I would engage a flat earther if we were both literally in orbit above the Earth and they refused to look from the window of our spacecraft to view the clearly round planet.
I’ve been in relationships, both good and bad. I’ve also been lonely (the longest stretch being a decade, a lingering time of frustration and porn). I know things you do not know because I’ve experienced things you (perhaps) never will.
Love is real. Emotional connections are real. They don’t work the way you think they work. But more, for someone searching for connection, ideas such as yours are a form of self-sabotage. Men who follow them are only making their situation worse by undermining their own capacity to form emotional bonds.
So many women I know, when discussing manosphere-adjacent men, describe such men as “emotionally stunted.” These women are correct. Such men are indeed emotionally stunted. They simply don’t know how to open up, to be vulnerable, to make connection.
But this is even worse for neurodiverse men, “systemizing” men. We “weird brain” people are prone to hyper-analyzing our situations, which leads to intrusive thinking, which leads to a kind of cynical, even paranoid, detachment. Such men (and women like me, it turns out) then lose to capacity to just be in a relationship, to have honest, open emotional connection. Everything becomes about status and “frame” and constant self doubt.
Cut it out. Stop encouraging this mindset.
And to other men, stop listening to men who haven’t been (and probably never will be) in a long-term, honest, trusting relationship. Relationships like this exist. Women want them. You could have one. But you have to get your mind into the right place. The cesspool of manosphere bitterness is trap. Fall into it, you might be lost for a very long time.
Mark Manson is a pretty great source of advice on how to do escape this trap. He did PUA. He got out. Of course, “self help” will only get you so far.
Therapy.
LikeLike
I find some what Aapje says extraordinarily cynical but I’m not in exact agreement with your response to him either. It makes sense for people who hated repeated failure in a particular area of life to be bitter about it regardless of their gender or sexuality. Expecting heterosexual men who have been generally unlucky not to be bitter seems uncharitable. People aren’t unlimited emotional mines with endless reserves.
On a personal level, the idea of being the person that somebody turns to for a long-term relationship after they had their short term relationships whether the enjoyed them or not is not thrilling. It feels like your on a tight-rope, that you have to wait longer and work harder to get less, and that your circumstances are irrelevant.
LikeLike
@veronicastraszh
You are a romantic who believes that relationships have to be built on a match between the things that the two people are naturally inclined to do. Preferring this as the basis for a relationship is understandable. If Alice and Bob both like ice skating, they can enjoy themselves together. If Elisabeth wants a hug when she is sad and Mary likes giving hugs to sad people, then Mary will naturally give Elisabeth the emotional support she craves.
However, very, very few people match up perfectly. At that point, people can either fail to make each other happy in the ways in which they mismatch OR they can be ‘cynics.’ Bob can go ice skating despite preferring to do something else. Mary can give a hug, despite not enjoying that hug. If the sacrifice is relatively small compared to the gain & both partners do this for each other, they can have a very healthy and mutually beneficial relationship despite their differences.
Most romantics seem to realize this and do expect such accommodation (and even call such sacrifice ‘true love’), but also prefer to pretend that this is not a quid-pro-quo. They prefer to live a lie (which is also a need and I’m not saying this is wrong).
I went hardcore cynical in my comments not to advocate cynicism as the only basis for dating or a relationship, but to argue for the value of it and to point out that there is a lot of cynicism that people pretend they are not engaging in.
—
My strong impression is that person-oriented people tend to be much more romantically inclined than thing-oriented people. Given the large person/thing-oriented mismatch between men and women, women are likely a lot more romantic on average. There is a lot of evidence for this (women demanding romantic gestures from men much more than vice versa, lots of cynical relationship humor by male comedians, the kind of books that men and women like to read, etc). Presumably, there is also a cultural aspect to this, where women get taught a far more romantic ideal than men.
So this means that assortative mating based on similar levels of romanticism can’t work very well.
My preferred solution is mutual accommodation based on a healthy amount of cynicism. For example, our culture already assists men by formalizing Valentine’s Day, to give men a relatively easy to follow script to make a romantic gesture (the gendered messaging is more evidence that men tend to be a lot less romantic than women). Similarly, partners can agree on doing certain romantic gestures or the less romantic partner can plan out ‘spontaneous’ romantic gestures on his/her own.
Those things get (literally and/or figuratively) beaten out of them when they are young (long before the ‘manosphere’ enters the picture). Furthermore, women tend to only like a certain type of vulnerability. If men are naturally vulnerable in a way that women tend to dislike, they won’t be very successful, if they show their true selves. So what is your solution to men who naturally mismatch with their gender role expectations?
Oh right.
I was once briefly under the impression that feminists might be my ally in criticizing all oppressive gender roles, including the gendered demands that women place on men. When I learned the truth, I became more cynical.
LikeLike
I think the both of you would do well to have this conversation again, sans words like ‘manipulation’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@LeeEsq
There is also the issue that people usually aren’t born to be great partners. I’m also quite cynical about the tendency in the business world to expect employees to be more and more perfect, where there is less and less room for people to grow into a good employee on the job. I see something similar in dating, where many men never get the opportunity to learn.
Less socialized women more easily get a chance from well-socialized men than less socialized men from well-socialized women, due to the higher sex drive in men. Furthermore, the men who don’t get a chance tend to be those who have more difficulty with social skills in general, while the women who don’t get a chance tend to be less good looking. Since the men who get less experience also tend to have less natural ability to be social, they experience a double whammy when it comes to developing themselves into good partners.
Also, nowadays men are lied to a lot about dating & relationships, which greatly harms conscientious men. This kind of betrayal logically makes people bitter, especially when they see far less conscientious men break the rules and prosper doing so.
And of course, very few people are willing to hold society accountable for these things. See Veronica, who blames ‘manosphere bitterness’ for trapping men, ignoring that general society is trapping quite a few men. The ‘manosphere’ is when people try to escape the trap.
Of course, one can disagree with their suggestions, but when many men are desperately trying to find alternatives to the pain that society inflicts on them*, perhaps society needs some fixing…
* Also see Jordan Peterson.
LikeLike
@LeeEsq — Bitterness is not a mandatory outcome. Frustration — yes, frustration seems inevitable, but bitterness is an extra step.
When I went through my “incel” phase, I was lucky in one respect. At the time, the “mansosphere” was only a nascent thing. The attitudes existed. I encountered them. PUA was beginning to spin up. However, it had not yet metastasized into what we see today: a mass of emotionally stunted men feeding back on each other. It’s a trap. It’s understandable, in the sense we can understand any angry, radicalized movement. But the dopamine hits they give you, of “validation,” but which arise from elaborate theories encouraging you to hate women — it’s a spiritual dead end.
I’ve given you tons of concrete advice. I think much of it was good advice, but it seems pointless to repeat it now. All I can say is, you cannot force people to like you. You can only control your own values, your own goals. This is the internal-versus-external validation thing. Much has been said about this. The knowledge is there if you want it.
In recent months we’ve had a number of mass killing being done by angry men, most of whom seemed to resent women. This will continue. People will continue to die. Likewise, even short of murder, angry “manosphere” guys are not going anywhere. We women have to deal with them in our day to day. Likewise, those trapped in the nascent fascist movements are going to be here for a while. (But I think this stuff is all one thing, modulo external trappings.)
So it goes. We women know this, and we will mourn our dead and carry on. We will build tools to recognize toxic, bitter men and avoid them. We will share our strength.
And women are strong, but not in the way some wannabe “alpha male” would recognize.
You might find love. You might not. Either way, what kind of person do you want to be?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Aapje – I’m not sure anyone’s disagreeing here on the base level, but let me take a shot.
“Manipulate” is one of those words like “exploit” that have a completely technical meaning, but that carry a, well manipulative or exploitative connotation.
I think it’s a little better to use a similar word with a more constructive connotation for what you, Veronica and Lee are talking about. If I know my partner gets anxious if I don’t respond to her texts within a few hours and reassured if I text her spontaneously every so often, I can call that “manipulating” her, or I can call it “communicating” that she’s important to me.
Both are arguably descriptive from a certain point of view, but “communicate” (or “signal” if that’s your thing) (1) is less likely to offend people (especially my partner) and (2) will hopefully help me to grow the aspects of my personality that I value – kindness, empathy, seeing the relationship as a constructive relationship between equals, etc.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@jossedley
Sure, but my point was that this kind of language is used to vilify. When people are talking about behavior they like, it’s ‘communicating’ or whatever. When people talk about things they dislike, it’s ‘manipulating.’
In this way, people portray a grey spectrum of behavior as black/white. It pits teams against each other, where the other side is entirely evil and the own side is a bulwark against this.
Look at how Veronica vilifies the entire ‘manosphere’ as toxic, fascist, etc.
But I was probably overreaching with my comment(s).
LikeLike
What I’m finding is that I hate both the manosphere and the PUA but that I also find the critics of the manosphere and PUA ridiculous. I can see the misogyny and hatred in the manosphere and the harm that they have the potential to cause. Yet, the critics of the manosphere have nothing to offer anybody left on the outside either. What the critics of the manosphere propose leaves a lot of people excluded. It offers no comfort whatsoever.
LikeLike
@LeeEsq
Note that the progressive media and feminist environments tend to portray the ‘manosphere’ as a single entity and define it by the worst elements, by cherry picking statements and such, something they do not do for feminism. By doing this, the outgroup is vilified and merely gets confirmed in their belief that society is fundamentally hostile to them and their interests; while society gets shielded from the strong arguments to have empathy with and help (failing) men.
You say you hate the manosphere, but there are plenty of people who don’t deserve that at all and who argue/fight for such things as equal treatments under the law, rights of the accused, custody rights, support for male domestic violence victims, etc, etc.
LikeLike
There seems to be an inordinate amount of Jew-haters in the manosphere and incel communities. A lot of the Alt-Right blames my people for inflicting the world with degenerate pornography and causing the incel problem in the first place. They have a falsely romantic view of the past. The pre-Sexual Revolution world was not a good one when it came to romance and sex. The problem with the critics of the manosphere is that they have nothing to offer those left out besides do more work.
LikeLike
@LeeEsq
The ‘manosphere’ is way more diverse than Social Justice, not in the least because Social Justice is an actual ideology and community. The ‘manosphere’ is a made up group which is defined from the perspective of Social Justice, similar to how George W. Bush came up with the Axis of Evil, to denote Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. This grouping may make sense from an American perspective, but not from the perspective of those countries, as Iraq and Iran were actually enemies at the time, these countries have/had greatly differing ideologies, they don’t cooperate that much, etc. The main reason why Bush grouped them is that they all reject and resist the current world order and the way in which it is dominated by the West and the US.
Similarly, Social Justice people have a tendency to treat those who oppose Social Justice as a single group and call them the ‘manosphere’ or MRAs (including those who explicitly say that they are not MRAs & call MRA beliefs stupid). In general, there is a tendency to treat those who oppose Social Justice as if they are the mirror image of Social Justice, which is a mistake.
—
Anyway, for obvious reasons the alt-right oppose Social Justice, not so much because of the tactics, hypocrisy, bias, etc that makes most MRAs reject Social Justice, but because they reject the goals.
However, this doesn’t mean that all of the ‘manosphere’ are Jew-haters. My experience is that MRAs tend to oppose the religious requirement to circumcise sons in Islam and Judaism, just like they tend to oppose the American cultural norm to circumcise sons. Other than that, they like to do the find/replace thing where they replace ‘men’ with ‘Jews’ in feminist writing and then point out how bad it sounds, which is a tactic that doesn’t work on antisemites. PUAs seem to typically not care about Jews one way or the other, which makes sense, because why would they? I’d expect incels to be very susceptible to conspiracy theories, but don’t have enough experience with their forums to know more.
Note that Social Justice also has a reputation for antisemitism, both by the classification of Muslims/Palestinians as oppressed people and Jews/Israelis as oppressors, but also by favoring policies that have disparate impact on Jews (Affirmative Action, #metoo).
Perhaps it is most accurate to say that you find most antisemitism at the political fringes.
—
If you want to speak out against alt-right and/or incel beliefs, I suggest calling out those groups specifically.
LikeLike
@LeeEsq — The “manosphere” (and related groups) have collectively discovered that they can weaponize male frustration toward their shitty politics. As I say, it’s a trap. They will do little to ease your frustration. In fact, they thrive precisely inasmuch as they increase men’s frustration. They want it to fester. Angry men are useful men — to fascists.
Regarding your final comment, on what we non-manospherians can offer you. Well, we offer you the truth. It’s not a truth you like, but no one promised you a comforting lie. Women have hearts and minds. We have subjectivity, and deep yearnings that are not satisfied by being some man’s status symbol or brood mare, nor by hooking up with a man toward whom we feel little attraction and no emotional ping. We are going to make romantic/sexual choices that we believe will fulfill our lives.
I’ve been engaging with you on this topic for perhaps five years now (at least four), over on [other forum]. There you have received an enormous amount of advice, tons and tons, and not just from me, but from a wide variety of people, men and women, liberal and conservative, those who have been lonely, those who are not, on and on. You cannot narrow this down to “feminists” or “SJWs.” We who give you advice don’t always agree, but we do agree on certain things.
Please consider this possibility: when you engage this topic, you’re not actually seeking constructive advice. Instead, you want to find people who will act as emotional sponges to soak up your frustration.
How well does that work? Do you find yourself less frustrated in the end?
We are not trained therapists. We do our best, mostly, but are your expectations of us realistic?
The manospherians will not lose patience with you. Of course not. They will feed your grievances with bad theories. Choose wisely.
LikeLike
(Oh and when I said you’ve received advice from “women and men,” I should add, “and at least one enby.” If @M—- ever happens across this forum, they should feel acknowledged.)
LikeLike
This a thread of the discussion that’s fallen off, but I think that Sophia’s probably right about pickup artists being surprisingly bad at the thing that they’re supposed to be experts in, and almost certainly right about them having a lot less sex than they would be having in relationships. I remember reading Nick Krauser’s blog and noticing that back before my current LTR, I had years when I posted numbers equal to about ~1/2 of his even though I wasn’t trying to maximize partner numbers and had a few nontrivial monogamous relationships (one of which lasted over six months), and I was a skinny autistic dweeb.
LikeLike
@veronicastraszh
“Feminists” (and related groups) have collectively discovered that they can weaponize female frustration toward their shitty politics. As I say, it’s a trap. They will do little to ease your frustration. In fact, they thrive precisely inasmuch as they increase women’s frustration. They want it to fester. Angry women are useful women — to those who hate men.
Of course, I don’t believe this and am just doing this exercise to point out how uncharitable you are.
LikeLike
Men aren’t unlimited pain receptacles. There is a limit to much much frustration men can take. Accusing men who are doing their best but failing in this area of life as not wanting advice is a common thing. I’m out there, I talk to women, dress well, and I’m in a hobby group with a good gender mix. Whatever is supposed to be happening is not happening. The best that I seemingly can get are women glad to take compliments but who do not see me that way at all. It’s draining,
LikeLiked by 1 person
@LeeEsq – hey man, I probably don’t have any more advice for you than you already have heard, but I just wanted to know that I hear you, and am praying for you.
Do you have friends who are in relationships and can give you honest feedback?
LikeLike
Say you are in a LTR half the time and go out once a week when not in a LTR. Futhermore assume you have a one night stand 1/0 of the time you go out. Thats 2.6 One night stands a year. Over a four year period you would have had 10 sex partners. Over an eight year peiod you would have had 20. The average male hassomething like 7 lifetime. If pua gets you even the conservative numbers I cited above (1/10) then in only four years of pua you will have more sex partners than the average man. If you go out more than once a week, have a better hit rate or spend less time in a LTR your rate can increase. Getting someone from ‘no sex’ to ‘more sex partners in four years than the average male has life’ is not a spectacular failure.
LikeLike
Men who seek out PUA are also typically less successful than the average man. So they need to be compared to a control group of similar men, not the average man.
We also don’t call an oncologist a murderer if his patients die earlier than the average person.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One would expect PUAs to have a lower success rate than alphas in general, because ridiculously attractive people don’t need a system.
LikeLike
I disagree with this. Being ridiculous attractive can help a lot but the number of times relationships or sex amounts to raw physical attraction is rarer than people think. You need to have at least have some idea how to go about things, whether your pursuing or responding. Just as a person can be too dumb to fool, a person can be too dumb seduce. Even with ridiculously attractive people, alcohol and other inhibition lowering drugs seems to play at least some role in sex if less so than everybody else.
LikeLike
Some elaborations/suggestions re: touch and affirmative consent–
Instead of just asking for permission to touch/kiss/etc (ie: “Can I hold your hand?” “Can I kiss you?” “Could we have sex?”), ask about the other person’s desires (ie: “Would you like it if I held your hand?” “Do you want me to kiss you?” and, if things have already started to get hot and heavy, “Tell me: do you want me to fuck you?”) Framing consent-seeking this way stresses lust (hot) rather than violation-avoidance (unsexy), it encourages your partner to think about what’s happening as a fulfillment of their longings instead of yours (which will help you avoid seeming insecure, grasping, or desperate), and, perhaps best of all, it screens for enthusiastic consent rather than reluctant compliance (which helps to make sure that everyone involved has a good time.)
Way back when I was an undergraduate, I adopted affirmative consent norms and started asking rather than trying to use guesswork. I found that this both improved my success rate and helped me to avoid putting other people in uncomfortable situations.
LikeLiked by 7 people
It seems to me that overdoing that may come across as trying to please the partner with no awareness of consideration for your own desires, which doesn’t seem super attractive either. Ideally, both partners’ desires should be considered equally, and the right balance of asking vs offering to achieve it probably depends on the partners’ communication strategy.
LikeLike
Pingback: Rational Feed – deluks917
“there is no such thing as a romantically or sexually successful person who has never ever creeped anyone out”
My gut reaction: Sounds like becoming romantically or sexually successful isn’t worth it, then!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me add that THIS WON’T BE EQUALLY EASY FOR EVERYONE. For instance, interests tend to differ by gender so if you are a cis-hetero man who is only interested in programming, star trek and role-playing or a cis-hetero woman who loves shopping, clothes and fashion it’s simply going to be a lot harder to find someone doing the kind of things you find interesting (you might consider other interests but forcing it won’t help).
SO DON’T BEAT YOURSELF UP IF YOU FAIL. It doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t able to overcome awkwardness or aren’t a lovable person or anything like that you just drew a tough hand. I did that for a long time and it’s actually easier once you stop thinking you must be somehow lacking if you can’t get things to work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’re a cishet man who’s only into Star Trek I’d suggest developing an interest in the passionate love of Kirk and Spock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems unlikely that very many hetero women will be into men who are excited by that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, I’d add that people should be very dubious about the advice you get from people you know well but have a truly platonic relationship with. Especially if they are hetero and attracted to your gender.
Most people don’t like thinking of individuals they relate to in a wholly non-sexual fashion (teachers, mentors, family members etc..) so if you fall into that category the advice you get won’t actually tell you what to do to be sexually appealing. It will tell you how to be someone they would approve of someone else dating. Note that it is much more likely that women will view their male friends as truly platonic than vice versa (there are more guys who feel attracted to their female friends than vice versa).
I mean just think for a minute about how you would advise your opposite gender parent how to do better dating. To do that right you’d have to think about them in a sexual context and in your mind’s eye imagine which attractive things you’ve seen others do work for them but since no one wants to think of their parents that way you’re likely to just fall back on properties that would make them a good partner or friend not mate attracting qualities.
This is how so many guys end up trapped thinking what they need to do is signal how nice and what a good person they are rather than how interesting they are. Of course one should be nice and good but you want people to think of you as the person really into X or who does Y and remember you were nice not to think of you as the person desperately trying to be nice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huh that non-sexual should just be sexual.
LikeLike
Some thoughts re: interests–
If you treat your set of interests as immutable, you’re probably going to have a duller and less joyful life than you might otherwise. It’s healthy to cultivate your curiosity and explore the world. I would recommend treating your existing interests as jumping-off points for expansion. If you enjoy playing strategy games, you might also be interested in history, economics, and social thought, or, taking a different tack, sports (if you start with sabermetrics/strategy-focused outlets). If you like collecting and taxonomies, you’ll likely find ways to enjoy conoisseurship-focused fields like fashion and gastronomy. An fondness for tabletop RPGs could segue into interests in fiction-writing and acting.
The good thing about this is that if your set of current interests isn’t helping you to connect with people of your preferred sex, there are probably plenty of untapped areas which you’ll be able to expand into which might help you to find something useful. And in the process of doing that, you’ll become a more knowledgeable, cultured, and well-rounded person.
I would also say that in general, shared interests are overrated as compatibility indicators. Your personality is not reducible to your list of fandoms, and things like mutual physical attraction, complementary senses of humor, complementary approaches to communication and conflict resolution, complementary attitudes about spending time together and personal space, and shared ethical values are probably more important to the success and flourishing of relationships. As long as there are things which you can enjoy together and talk about, and as long as you don’t find each other’s hobbies and friends obnoxious, you’re probably okay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shared interests might be overrated as compatibility indicators but I’m guessing a fair percentage of couples meet through their interests. Hobby circles might replace work circles these days.
LikeLike
I just attended a friend’s wedding yesterday at which the rabbi spoke at some length about the couple’s shared love of Lois McMaster Bujold, which was how they found each other on OKCupid. (Although, the point of bringing it up was that her works have a specific _moral and philosophical_ outlook on life, not just that the couple are both into sci-fi.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The most important part of this post by far is the law of “like attracts like”. This rule has two important uses. The first is probably a little more obvious; it’s an important way to filter your potential dates. You should try to be the person you have the most fun being, because you want to make sure that whoever you wind up dating is actually attracted to you as you will be when you’re dating them, rather than a front that you put together to get a date.
The second thing that it’s good for is the reverse: it’s a good way to figure out whose filters you get through, and what specific things you should do / change to find people you’re attracted to. The best way to use it, in my mind, is to think about the kind of person you want to be dating, and then ask yourself where (literally, what location) that person is likely to hang out at. Then you can go there and see if there’s anyone you like. More to the point, you don’t waste your time accumulating unnecessary rejections by going to events or places that aren’t targeted towards the people you like.
And, lastly, remember the “like attracts like” rule when you’re assessing the advice at the bottom! If something sounds just-plain-wrong to you, it’s probably just plain wrong for you. For example, I love movie dates. I think they’re great: you can get food or coffee beforehand and use that time to chat and get to know each other better, then you’ve got a long period of being together in a low-pressure environment, and then the movie gives you something to talk about afterwards. But of course this won’t work for everyone; some people will, for example, find that a movie distracts them from the person they’re on the date with, and thus interferes with the point of the date. I think the only decent “generic” date is the coffee date, which is pretty well understood in our culture to mean a low stakes meeting in a public place where conversation can be had and there is optional food. Otherwise you pretty much have to tailor the date to yourself and the person you’re going out with. The point is to pick something that (1) you both actually like, that (2) will allow you to converse or provide a starter topic for the same, that (3) you can both participate in, and that (4) is not something you regularly do as part of a group (but note that you can invite someone to something you regularly do alone or to a one-off group activity and it can work as a date).
LikeLiked by 2 people
This sounds like a very good book. I hope people read it.
LikeLike
Re the neediness an vulnerability points, a lot of it seems to reduce to having a strong self image, or strong values about yourself. Unfortunately I think a lot of people, particularly with mental health issues, either don’t have a strong self image, or don’t like the person they are
LikeLiked by 1 person
That poor self-image may in fact be an accurate reflection of how much other people tend to like the (true) person.
I wonder to what extent this is a confounder. It makes sense that we’d observe that people who are willing to be vulnerable do better in dating, because people whose vulnerabilities are attractive are encouraged to display vulnerability. The people whose vulnerabilities are greatly off-putting presumably tend to hide their vulnerability.
If so, telling these people that they will do better by displaying their off-putting vulnerabilities is probably not going to work, unless things changed and their vulnerabilities have become attractive over time (perhaps because they surrounded themselves with people more like them).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve thought about faking an attractive vulnerability. I know, of course I like some ridiculous things, but I’m not hugely into any of them, so trying to portray it as if I was would really not be truthful. I’m not hugely into anything anymore.
My genuine weaknessess fall into the category of being needy, so they can’t really be used as attractive vulnerabilities.
LikeLike
If you’re trying to fake a vulnerability, you’re on the wrong track and severely missing the point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tapio Peltonen
Some people have the weakness of being overly caring and such a person would generally be attracted to a needy person.
LikeLike
I remember reading this book many years ago! I was following Mark Manson’s blog around the time it came out, along with the launch of his now-defunct site postmasculine.com. From what I vaguely remember, I didn’t think Models was anything special to be honest. It wasn’t that different from I’d read in several other books of this kind. I found his real value to be in his blog.
But I’ll give my two cents based on my admittedly vague memories of it, and what I can glean from it based on this OP and the comments. I now really want to read it again and give a fuller account. I don’t mind paying for it again. (It was one of the few such ebooks that I actually paid for, I remember. Most of them, I just got through bit torrent.)
Now, this is always a difficult subject to talk about because the very act of presuming to give advice of any sort can feel like humblebragging or whatnot. Let me just say that if you’re my age or older (I’m in my late twenties), I doubt you have anything to learn from me. Anything I have to say is directed at younger guys who were like me when I was younger, the sole demographic I feel qualified to speak to. With that said,
1. There was a lack of sufficient attention given to social circle development. This really should be the bread and butter of all dating advice, especially for men. Most romantically lonely men are socially lonely as well, and the latter is the root cause of the former. And the fact is, meeting through social circles is still the default way to meet people.
But it’s not just about making friends. Not all social circles are created equal, and not all friends are created equal. To get the obvious out of the way, it needs to be a social circle that’s conducive to meeting new women. Social circles available and welcoming to currently low-status men have a tendency to consist of nothing but other low-status men. But secondly and more importantly, you need a social circle that builds you up rather than tears you down when you try to improve your love life – either because they themselves are struggling guys who are being crabs in a bucket, or because they see themselves as socially above you and resent you trying to move up in the world. Quick acid test: if a very hot girl, widely considered to be above your pay grade, were to enter your social circle and took an interest in you, specifically, would the others be happy and excited for you, or would they resent you? Keep in mind that those who resent and obstruct will not admit to doing so and can maintain decent plausible deniability. This is about trusting your own judgment.
Part of improving yourself is making some changes, some leaps. If you’re in a group that tries to keep you down, you need to find a new group.
And part of realistic, grounded dating advice, as opposed to just wishful thinking, requires digestion of some female-unfriendly truths. Here’s one: this criterion, that your friends build up rather than tear down your sexual self-confidence, goes significantly more for female friends than for male friends. Though of course neither are good for you and you should eventually separate yourself from both, it’s worse if she’s a girl. I can go over why in detail if anyone presses the issue, but for now I’ll move on.
I personally do not associate socially with any women who’d see me as undateable. Let’s be clear about what that means. I’ve been in a long-term relationship for five years and most of my female friends are with someone as well. But even if we all were single, this would still apply; there’s a difference between not wanting to date someone and seeing them as undateable (being insulted or revolted at the idea of being with them, or finding the idea of them in a sexual context funny or gross, etc. etc.) It’s a question of whether they respect you or not. And women will notice if a man is looked down upon by other women. You don’t need this kind of negativity in your life.
Build a mix of people in your life, men and women, some at your social level, others a bit above, some below, who respect you. Specifically, who respect you as a sexual being. This can seem a strange way to phrase it, especially if we’re talking about straight male friends, but I think you know what I mean. Nothing will continuously keep paying dividends quite as much as this.
2. On the whole notion that “like attracts like”, I share the criticism that some have voiced. Sounds a bit too much like “retreat into a niche”. What if that niche has a heavy gender skew against women? Then this advice isn’t even universalizable. Rather, I much agree with Henry Gorman above:
People are more than their hobbies. It’s not even so much a question of opposites attracting; it’s that I consider what hobbyist subculture a prospective partner belong to to be almost irrelevant information.
If anything, hobbies in general are more important for finding a social circle, not a partner. Your typical dates, past the initial couple of dates, will have way more variety in things you do and places you visit, than typical nights out with friends, because it’s easier to manage this with just one other person, whereas with a group of people it’ll just naturally default to one or two core activities. So you better be able to enjoy those one or two activities. Hobbies are especially important for men, because much of male value within a group comes from competence and expertise at a shared activity. Groups that just hang out for the sake of hanging out are more difficult to penetrate as a single, unattached male, and generally you simply have less value to them than a single, unattached female. A common mistake for lonely men is, I think, trying to get into this latter type of group, understandably because taking the time to get good at something takes longer. But your true worth is always going to be undervalued in such a scenario. I’ve personally been lucky (and much of it is just luck) in being able to start or join those aimless-socialization groups, either through work or fortuitously happening to befriend the informal leader of such groups. But if I had a son, and he was entering his teens and was the type to struggle socially, I’d give him the following advice: find a social activity, like a sport, music, debate, or theater, that you enjoy, that you can become very good at, and use that as your main base for making friends and meeting girls. You can branch out afterwards, but have that main base. Unmoored to such a base, raw jungle socialization will always undervalue boys like you.
3. The way “vulnerability” is defined here is a bit idiosyncratic, but the message seems fine. The big caveat I’d add, though, is that it absolutely has to be 100% willing on your part and on your own initiative. For instance, if you feel uncomfortable dancing, don’t allow yourself to be pressured to dance in front of everyone. (I’m not talking about being merely one of hundreds doing the straight-male-shuffle; I’m talking about more a situation like being put in the center of a crowd circle.) This particular situation might be rare, but situations that put you in a similar position relative to others probably come up now and again, and in the moment it may be easy to rationalize as you being “willing” to “stick your neck out”. Only time you should try anything you might feel uncomfortable with is on your own initiative.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I endorse this post! I wanted to jump in and add that when it comes to dating, your social circles are most useful for their second-order connections. I would generally recommend against asking out or trying to hook up with people who you regularly hang out with, because they’re going to price the potential awkwardness and disruption that the relationship itself and potential future breakups could bring to their everyday social life, and they’ll likely decide that the potential drama isn’t worth it. Dating in high school is the worst because everybody knows everyone else and they all have to spend a ton of time together, which raise the potential social stakes of every relationship and make people more risk-averse. Instead, go for friends-of-friends, charming acquaintances, and people who share some kind of communal or organizational affiliation with you, but who you don’t know particularly well. You’ll be familiar enough that they can get comfortable with you, but you won’t be so close that a relationship or hook-up could mess up their social life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Autism and Polyamory | Living Within Reason
Very interesting post!
LikeLike
Pingback: Thinking out loud – “What, to you, are the primary goals of parenting?” – Patching the Mainsail
Pingback: 100 Tips For A Better Life – ideopunk