Charlotte Allen has a long piece in The Weekly Standard that highlights the contemporary dating game and the pathologies—there’s really no other word—that drive it. From her conclusion:
The whole point of the sexual and feminist revolutions was to obliterate the sexual double standard that supposedly stood in the way of ultimate female freedom. The twin revolutions obliterated much more, but the double standard has reemerged in a harsher, crueler form: wreaking havoc on beta men and on beta women, too, who, as the declining marriage rate indicates, have trouble finding and securing long-term mates in a supply-saturated short-term sexual marketplace. Gorgeous alpha women fare fine—for a few years until the younger competition comes of age. But no woman, alpha or beta, seems able to escape the atavistic preference of men both alpha and beta for ladylike and virginal wives (the Darwinist explanation is that those traits are predictors of marital fidelity, assuring men that the offspring that their spouses bear are theirs, too). And every aspect of New Paleolithic mating culture discourages the sexual restraint once imposed on both sexes that constituted a firm foundation for both family life and civilization.
Allen’s basic point is that social Darwinism has triumphed in the urban dating scene: the beta men get left behind, while the alpha men get women and then teach others to do the same, deploying sales methods and psychological assumptions similar to the get-rich-quick movement (not to mention the pop-psychology, chicken-soup self-help movement).
Conor Friedersdorf takes on Allen for her hasty adoption of the “pseudo science” of the pickup artists. And while he’s probably right to do so, his rejoinder ignores Allen’s references to evolutionary psychology and to Rossie’s mentor, F. Roger Devlin. While she derides the form it takes among the pick-up artists, her basic argument seems to be that evolutionary psychology explains the behavior of those involved in the culture, even if it doesn’t work.
And contra Conor, I think the rising marriage age supports her case more than he is willing to grant. We don’t have to think that there was a golden age of marriage (as the marriage movement is sometimes thought to believe in) to see that something significant has gone on in how men and women relate to each other. Even if we decide that pickup artists are a fringe community, they are a more liberal fringe than that of fifty years ago. And while there could be other reasons for the rising marrying age (economic reasons, especially), people aren’t exactly remaining celibate while they wait to tie the knot—not to mention that our current concept of marriage is profoundly different that fifty years ago.
At any rate, Allen’s piece is largely descriptive of the current dating situation, and it’s illuminating insofar as it goes. But inasmuch as it stops there, it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
February 10th, 2010 | 11:21 am
Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but I’ve been looking at the game phenomenon from a socially conservative perspective for a while now. Robin Hanson @ Overcoming Bias has a nice roundup of links here.
February 10th, 2010 | 1:34 pm
TIPS:
Everybody you meet in online dating are the same exact people you will meet in non-online dating. There is no such thing as waiting for “the natural” moment in the real world. If it existed it would have already happened for you decades ago. Online dating is the best chance to meet single people in any large city.
The single most important thing to realize is that “chemistry” is a series of bio-chemical and audio-visual reactions to the way a person looks and how they remind you of subconscoius things in-person. It does not work-over the internet. Chemistry is not a metaphysical thing. You will not be able to decide about a person unless you meet them in person. The internet is just a place to see that certain people are single. The way that media has programmed you, the type of people the media have told you are attractive and the look and feel of the people you have gathered around you will determine how the 42+ different psycho-visual, olfactory and other sensory reactions determine if you will allow yourself to be attracted to one person over another.
1. Generally: People have made up their mind about whether or not they want to be with you 15 minutes after you have met them. Generally, men make up their minds more quickly than women because they are sensorial reactive. Decision processing is usually dramatically out-of-sync between genders based on genetic hunter/gatherer evolutionary programming. Both genders need to adjust to find the happy medium..
2. Most internet dates end in the first few emails because of misinterpretation. Many people are typing on their cell phone or iphone or they are at work or they are joking and you can’t see it in email. Do not make prejudgments based on the first few emails, they are often wrong or unfair to the other person.
3. A large number of people follow “the third date” rule. This means that if the two of you have not decided to be intimate by the third date you probably never will.
4. Almost a majority of first meetings are cancelled by one of the two people just prior to meeting because people feel no commitment to a stranger. Do not be surprised if people using the service are not too motivated re: the first meeting as many have been through these out-of-the-blue cancellations already.
5. Men are genetically ingrained to be territorial. Women’s men “friends” may suddenly nay-say the new guy, use psychological tricks to create stress and suddenly confess their “secret love” for you in order to cut the new guy off at the knees. As soon as your guy friends, ex husband, old boyfriend, (even your children) etc, hear that you have a date, they will often try to jack-up your plans in order to protect their turf. If you are divorced then you usually already have a conflict relationship over child custody and schedules, watch for the ex-husband to constantly change child pick-up times, days to pick-up and other schedule shifts at the last minute if he suspects you have dating plans. Stand firm on your plans so you are not victimized by the ex-husband’s territorial strategies
6. Many single people have an obsessive relationship with their pets if they are single. Consider how much you talk about or plan your life around your pet.
7. Men have a hard time talking about feelings.
8. Meet as soon as possible. A majority of people that spend time talking, first, on this online dating, seem to be disappointed. The majority have a wonderful set of emails and phone calls and think they have met the love of their life. .. but when they meet, the chemistry is not there and both parties are twice as hurt by the brick wall because they have already created expectations and wishful thinking via advance communication. Most people find each other adorable on hours of phone calls but only 1% of the people said they had chemistry in person and vice versa. That has been the story that most other users on online dating have posted in tens of thousands of blogs so this appears to be the consensus of a general trend. Just an FYI. One would be losing relationships if they try to force a computer system to act human by using it for the initial interaction. You have to meet in the real world to not get screwed up by the computer and its process. One has to get out of the digital/chat room world as fast as they can and into the tangible real world of touch, vision and the other senses. Another reason for meeting soon is that people blog that a large number of people they start emailing with, suddenly cancel future meetings because someone else they were emailing with met them sooner. In many cases, when they have to book the first meeting a week or more out, they will contact you the day before and cancel the meeting because they starting seeing others they dated within that week delay. Most connections never happen because someone else gets there first.
9. Sexual politics have killed off a majority of first dates. While it may seem rude or inappropriate to discuss sex on the first few dates, it is a large part of “dating”. If you get down the road and have actual sex only to find that you have two different styles, then the whole relationship is over in minutes after weeks or months of wasted “dating”. Kissing and petting are key to testing the waters early. Also, if you have not gone into Walgreen’s and asked the pharmacist for the “Home Access Express HIV Test Kit” , gotten a Gardisil vaccination and acquired “Plan B” pills (Google these if you don’t know what they are) then you are not ready to even go there. Condoms leak, spillover and break so must have these back-ups in place.
10. Brush your teeth and take Breath Assure tablets. Bad breath kills off many dates.
11. Know what you really want. Most people are specifically looking for marriages, sex, babies, distractions, fun, social status, therapy or other certain things. Compare notes on your actual needs in the first date. There is nothing wrong with just looking for sex, the volume of people is higher with computer dating so the odds are better, just be clear up front. In fact few people can have “just sex” without falling in love afterwards.
12. People with kids are able to date just as much as people without kids if they have a balanced life. Most single parents are able to get 3 full nights a week totally to themselves. If you can’t pull this off, talk to a parent who does to figure it out.
13. Don’t discuss emotional topics in email with someone you have never met.
14. On spending money: Women expect men to pay and men expect women to practice the “womens liberation” they fought for. Women want proof of stability and men want sexual reciprocation. Men get burned out buying a string of meals for strangers they will never see again. Men feel used and women feel diminished if the man doesn’t pay…This is the hardest subject in dating. Manage expectations on this from the beginning.
15. We live in an age where advertising and media train us to be attracted to certain facial types: sorority girl looks like fraternity guy looks, biker guy looks like biker girl looks, hipster guy looks like hipster girl types. Realize that we are all being forced to be superficial by this. Try to get past this, or you will miss people who are, otherwise, perfect matches.
16. Exchange cell phone numbers for the first meeting. Most people do not look like their pictures and many people never find each other the first time. Use a Google-voice number or get a $27.00 phone from Walgreens if you don’t want to give out your real number.
17. Where to meet is a political consideration. People who have done a few weeks of internet dating know that 99% of the first meetings don’t click and they will never see that person again , so they are hesitant to go too far for a first meeting . Women think men should drive to their location. Men think that they are going to have to pay for everything so the women should come to them. A good fix is to meet half-way.
18. In life you have gathered people that are very similar to you around you in order to create a controlled and comfortable insulation. In online dating you will meet the full breadth of people and they are of every type. Be prepared to broaden your horizons.
19. If you feel the need to tell people that “you need to go slow” (A concept foreign to most men) or “are still hurt from your last relationship”.. you may not be ready to date. Not only are most people on a dating site eager and willing to be in a relationship, but things move much faster online than not online. Don’t hurt yourself, and others, by using a dating site for therapy. People on dating sites go fast, generally.
20. If you are wanting to blow somebody off and you are online dating, do not say you have “met someone” and then leave your profile up. If they see your profile still up or get a notice (such as match.com sends out to everybody each time you go into your profile) they may feel lied to.
February 10th, 2010 | 1:57 pm
Thursday, your work on this subject is good. So is Charlotte Allen’s article. She describes how “nice guys,” or beta males, find themselves either seriously on the losing side in the Game or shut out of it altogether. And so they go to dating-science school, or hire dating coaches, to improve their game and score. Some dating-science gurus will tell you that “score” means whatever you want it to mean—that, for example, if a man is single-minded in his search for a long-term relationship leading to marriage, fine. He can take his new skills and apply them to that end.
But not really, or at least not easily. Because like-minded women swimming or floating or sort of hanging out in the dating pool are fewer all the time. And yet fewer are, well, attractive. Because the understanding is this. How does a young woman know, and let others know, that she’s desirable? By being a “bad girl,” who gets hit on by a lot of men and, instead of choosing one to marry and have children with, as in days of old, hooks up with the one who’s most alpha. Rinse and repeat. Strangely, men are gradually being cornered into a dilemma that’s the mirror image of the old madonna–whore dichotomy. Either they’re celibate ascetic monks or they’re “negging,” “peacocking,” and generally exhibiting a lot of learned swagger and bad-boy behavior. I’ve seen this among acquaintances of mine, “nice guys” who adopt a persona and reinvent themselves into some embarrassing parody of Buddy Love because they don’t feel called to the monastic life. The middle ground feels to be shrinking.
An important thread running through this issue is not considered often enough or in enough depth. A man committed to traditional, orthodox religious principles, which entail fairly strict dating rules—he can be Christian or Jewish, or Muslim or, for all I know, Hindu or Buddhist—is by virtue of that commitment classified as beta, according to the social conventions of the present day. His religious commitment means that joining the self-defined alphas, identifying as one of them, and playing the Game isn’t even a wish he should be entertaining. And so, in effect, he faces a conflict between his religious faith and his prospects for marriage, or at least for marriage to a woman who is more than someone he’d “settle” for.
To my mind the most interesting passage in Neil Strauss’s The Game is where Dustin, a natural, a guy who without even trying seduces any woman he wants to, finds religion after many years, enters a yeshiva, and embraces celibacy. Strauss makes light of this, portraying it as just one more zany true-life story to be told of all that he encountered during his years in the seduction community, but it’s provocative in its own right. Alpha evolves into beta—or is it gamma? Or outright omega? Giving new meaning, perhaps, to Jesus’ identification of himself as the Alpha and the Omega. Tim Tebow answering “Yes I am” to the reporter’s question whether he was “saving himself for marriage”—another example.
February 10th, 2010 | 3:50 pm
@ Nicholas Frankovich: While I agree that it is difficult for a devout Christian man to both live the Gospel and generate the ‘tingles so ably described by Roissy, I disagree that “like-minded women swimming or floating or sort of hanging out in the dating pool are fewer all the time.”
God, in his infinite bounty, sends us new beautiful 24 year old girls every year. How great is that? Sure, many of them have flawed views of marriage that so many in our culture have. That just means that each of us men has to be stronger, more confident and approach more often with tighter game, so that we can get to a common discernment for marriage.
February 10th, 2010 | 4:42 pm
The work of “game” theorists like Mystery or Tyler Durden isn’t really either science science or pseudo science. It’s more like engineering. Oh, and by the way, it works like gangbusters.
February 10th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
Yes, Thursday, it works, if by “works” you mean “provides encouragement to insecure men to not let a woman walk all over you”. Unfortunately, it does not restrain itself there: while such perspectives as Mr. Durden’s are quite valuable for their observational insight and honesty, the mindset and behavior they go on to encourage is downright deplorable. If you’re looking for love, a modus operandi in which “works” means “succeed in maneuvering a woman into sex with you as quickly as possible” will not only not get you what you are looking for, but will make attracting the type of woman you are looking for nigh impossible.
A telling indicator of the shallowness of the the approach of Mystery, Durden, Tucker Max, et. al. to female relations is their dogmatism in regards to what constitutes the behavior of an “alpha” male. If you doubt such dogmatism exists, note (for example) the disdain on Roissy’s blog, in both the posts and comments, for those men who hold to some other approach to interacting with women; or towards those who, at the very least, display an inclination to pump the brakes a bit on such a headlong rush into treating women as objectives to be conquered and then discarded at one’s leisure.
Adopting such an approach, my young friend, is a recipe for disaster. As much a disservice it does to any women of quality that cross your path, it involves adopting an even more benighted view of men. Here is a (very) brief sampling of men who, by their words and deeds, would earn from the “Pick Up Artists” the dishonorable distinction of being considered a “beta”:
George Washington
John Adams
Abraham Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt
George Patton
G.K. Chesterton
Richard John Neuhaus
Not a single man on this list would find the advice of Mystery or Durden to have the slightest appeal. Though its observations on the “games people play” is insightful, its proposed course of action amounts to little more than post-adolescent vengeance: “Attractive women can be manipulative, so I’m going to master the art/science of the manipulation and beat them at their own game.” Men under 35 adhering to such a self-demeaning strategy have my sympathy and prayers that they’ll move on to something more likely to bear lasting fruit; men over 35 who haven’t figured out what a anemic bill of goods they’ve been sold that such “engineering” is are just damned fools.
February 10th, 2010 | 8:48 pm
To Mr. Frankovich’s and Mr. deCarthage’s comments: Adam Smith said, “Religion reigns supreme in the hearts of women.” If instead of considering membership numbers, one were to consider actual attendance and participation in religious activities, one would find, with a few exceptions, that there are more religiously-committed women than men, at all stages of life. A religiously committed man should not have a problem finding a religiously committed woman for a committed relationship founded on a shared faith. He just has to go looking in a religious environment, rather than nightclubs. A young man who comes to church every Sunday and Bible study every Thursday will be an alpha in the context that is important to him and any future spouse.
Unless he sets a priority not just on religious commitment but on youth and beauty or other temporal attractiveness. Not every religious community does have a steady influx of beautiful 24-your-old single women. Moreover, as religious commitment prevents men from engaging in stereotypical alpha behaviors that fail to acknowledge the image of God in the women with whom they interact, so religious commitment prevents women from displaying or enhancing their attractiveness in all the ways women operating under other standards do. For starters, they are likely to dress more modestly and spend less money on their appearance.
February 11th, 2010 | 9:17 am
As someone who met his wife on a dating website, I might have been inclined to sympathize with Shelly’s 20 tips. Unfortunately, her consumerist vocabulary leaves me with a feeling of disgust and an ascetic urge to leave the world.
February 11th, 2010 | 9:25 am
[...] Dating … a scene upon which my young daughters will soon enter. [...]
February 11th, 2010 | 9:44 am
Paul
I was speechless after reading Shelley’s 20 tips, a curious mix of descriptive observations and prescriptive advice. If ever had a therapist give me such advice, I would think he had misplaced his ethical compass along the way to a brand.
February 11th, 2010 | 1:46 pm
Liam,
Yes. In fact there couldn’t be a better illustration of the sickness of our dating culture than this well-intentioned list of tips. No. 3 advises us that if we’re not “intimate” by the third date we probably never will be. Yet, according to No. 9, we should also be rushing to drug stores to prevent “intimacy” from entailing an S.T.D. Thank God for intimacy, I guess.
More broadly, the meeting and mating of human persons, destined for immortality, is consistently described in terms of consumer preferences, similar to our preferences for where to eat or shop for clothing. There is no inkling, as far as I can see, of love as the proper vocation of every human being or as anything other than one more item on the menu of whatever floats your boat. Unfortunately, this perspective is commonplace on most dating websites. I recommend avemariasingles.com for a refreshing change. Speaking in the degraded language of American consumerism, which infects us all, it is a good alternative for those who happen to like the flavor of Catholic teaching on human dignity and marriage.
February 11th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
to paul,
i’m not sure “avemariasingles.com” is such a “refreshing” change…. per a friend of mine:
a. only 1,400 searchable male members throughout the world
b. only 36 men within a 15 year age range who have never been married, do not have children, and have a college degree within the entire state of California
c. apparent discrepancy between the advertised and actual membership numbers
d. poor quality profile questionnaire and technical features compared to other sites
e. some 14% of members do not believe abortion or contraception to be wrong
there may indeed be something redeeming about the site, but at least one friend thought otherwise.
February 11th, 2010 | 3:50 pm
Well, I do want to offer a caveat: the Church does an awful job of dealing with long-term single people. That is, people who never discerned a vocation to religious or clerical life, but never found a mate. And not finding the correct mate is not necessarily a matter of God’s deliberate (as opposed to permissive) will – finding the correct mate is a mutual thing, so all that is necessary to frustrate the invention is for one of the two not to find the other, which is something that can be the product of free human will (for example, many people appear to instead find the *wrong* mate), rather than God’s will. Yet, the Church has tended in practice to treat the issue of congruence of state of life with vocation as necessarily Providentially determined, and it’s not. But we don’t talk about it much. That’s one reason people find themselves drawn where the talking is going on, informed by principles that do not have their best good in mind.
February 11th, 2010 | 5:51 pm
To get to specifics, some college-age Catholic women I know once discussed that if a man is looking for a potential wife who is, like him, a committed Catholic, he should get involved in pro-life activities. Experienced pro-lifers know that women make up the majority of participants in such activities, and his involvement will signal he is as committed to the Church as the young women he encounters. I believe the next 40 Days for Life campaign begins next week.
I am not sure I agree with Liam’s views regarding Providence and discerning a vocation and finding a spouse. I have always had trouble with the concept of “God’s will for my life” where that will is some big plan I must figure out and live according to. I focus more on God’s will for me in the present because that is the time I’m obeying or sinning. His will for me at present may be that I do those things I consider preparation for marriage and that I be actively searching for a spouse, but if I do this and never marry I am not sure that means I have failed to conform to His will for me, and therefore sinned. I will not claim expertise in this area, but those things those people who are interested in courting and marriage do, such as budgeting, learning selflessness and communication, and making new friends, seem worthwhile in themselves, even if our purposes in doing them for whatever reason are never fulfilled.
I do agree with Liam that the Church does a terrible job of helping those who have completed their schooling sort through matters regarding whether and even how to find a spouse. It seems to me that no moral matters are more complex than those surrounding romance, and yet, once a Christian single graduates from his Christian college or the Christian groups at his non-Christian university, he is unlikely to hear sermons on the topic or be invited to Bible studies or otherwise receive guidance unless he seeks it out, which he may very well find embarrassing to do. We can hope and pray and suggest to our pastors that, as more and more of the Church’s members are unmarried and unconsecrated beyond the age of 24, the Church will learn how better to help them.
February 14th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Charlotte Allen’s article is frankly a much richer and stronger contribution to the commentary on the dysfunction in contemporary male-female relations than Mary Eberstadt’s recent First Things article, “What Does Woman Want?”
Perhaps Ms. Allen should be writing for First Things.
February 14th, 2010 | 3:51 pm
Well, I do want to offer a caveat: the Church does an awful job of dealing with long-term single people.
And how do you want to be ‘dealt’ with?
February 14th, 2010 | 8:52 pm
It’s funny to see formulas offered as if combining the right ingredients always produces the desired result. Lastly, I don’t think this a problem with the management of the Church. A suitably motivated individual that can think on his own can meet attractive members of the opposite sex. The problem for all ages is making sure to avoid those who have less than Orthodox Catholic standards. We have the Women’s so-called Liberation Movement to thank for the current state of affairs followed by No-Fault Divorce. It was a flaw of our Catholic beliefs to listen to strangers and some of us thought they were sincere. That was a mistake. I will continue to open doors for ladies, I will get them flowers, and I will love them, not just because of their looks but because both of us believe in and trust God. All Catholics should be wary of the latest take on dating. We should look at dating pre-1968. Take your time, get to know the other person, and, if there is chemistry, meet each other’s family, or at least brothers and sisters, and then, depending on your ages, talk about your plans and desires before the ceremony. Talk to a priest beforehand as well. Someone has got to help you look past the hormones to practicality regarding your future. Finally, don’t blow a lot of money on the honeymoon.
February 16th, 2010 | 2:17 pm
The Church, or at least some parishes, need to better address the moral and pastoral needs of single people age 23 and older. Even faithful “cradle catholics” need to be constantly reminded of even the basics of what that means in their day-to-day lives. Teens and very young adults involved in church programs directed to them get lessons about chastity, hopefully in its physical and spiritual aspects, and practical Christian advice about dating. Once they become too old for these programs, the lessons stop, but the world’s messages celebrating fornication and the dating or hook-up culture most of us agree is contrary to God’s design never stop. One of the ways the Church can “deal with long-term single people” is by giving them a refresher course on the lessons they hopefully received as young adults. Nor should we forget that there are converts and cradle catholics who collapse early and so never heard what the Church has to say about courtship and more general preparation for marriage. This can be done in Sunday homilies or through special pastoral programs for “long-term single people,” but I do feel a need for it.
I assume that Mr. West’s advice following his statement is meant to be a description of “dating pre-1968.” I’m not sure it’s accurate. Courtships in my family have gotten longer with each succeeding generation. I think the time period the Roman Catholic Church requires for an engaged couple to prepare for marriage has increased as well. As for discussing plans and desires, in simpler times, these discussions may have been more abbreviated, because almost all couples had the same basic plans and desires about division of labor and child-rearing in a Christian home.
February 22nd, 2010 | 3:31 am
I do want to offer a caveat: the Church does an awful job of dealing with long-term single people.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact