“Respect women.” “Treat women as human beings.” “Women are people.” When heterosexual men speak of romantic difficulties with women, these pieces of enlightening advice are commonly heard from feminists, that only a patriarchal asshole could disagree with:
Treat us like individual HUMAN beings. Not lesser human beings, not inferior human beings, not hive minded group think borg .(among other rather specific things) Now applying that, it’s rather simple.
The solution is obviously to believe that women are people.
“Treat women as people.” “Respect women.” Apparently, this information is all a guy needs to know to be successful with women.
Because we all know that respect is all women need to want a man. They don’t need anything else from him to be attracted and aroused. Or maybe, being respected is what makes women hot for a guy. He never even has to make a move. In fact, last night, I was treating a woman like a human being, and she jumped on me, exclaiming, “Oh, Hugh Ristik, you respect me so much, I must have you right now!”
OK, I’ll be serious now, I promise. And seriously, respect is great. I’m all for it. But for both sexes, successfully finding relationships requires more than respect.
What good is respect?
For casual sex, respect is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success (though it still would be laudable, and would probably improve the quality of casual sex for some people). As I mentioned in my review of female preferences in men, men who have more sexual partners tend to be higher in hypermasculinity and lower in agreeableness, hardly the psychological profile of respectful men.
For mutually fulfilling relationships (either short-term or long-term), respect is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success. Relationships have at least two necessary, but not sufficient conditions:
1. Sexual attraction
2. Platonic attraction / emotional connection
Any approach to relationships must help people satisfy both of these conditions. An approach that doesn’t is incomplete. Imagine trying to build an arch that needs two pillars to support it. If you only have one pillar, the arch will fall to the ground. Does the approach described by the feminists above, which focuses on respect, include both these pillars?
Respect is an integral component of emotional connection and platonic attraction. Emotional connection can exist without respect, but such connections tend to be warped and do not lead to mutually fulfilling relationships.
Respect bears a more complex relationship to sexual attraction. For some people, a lack of respect increases attraction, though this is not the type of attraction that will foster a relationship that is emotionally fulfilling for both people in a positive way. For other people, they can shut down their attraction to those who don’t respect them. A lack of respect can either increase or decrease sexual attraction. Yet there is no reason to believe that anything more than basic respect can increase sexual attraction.
Therefore, an approach to relationships that focuses on respect is flawed, because it has inadequate provisions for establishing sexual attraction, and no provisions to help a man make the advances necessary for that attraction to be consummated.
Respect, and treating women like human beings, are necessary for a mutually fulfilling relationship. Beyond that, those pieces of advice don’t have as much mileage in them as some feminists seem to think they do. They tell you nothing about how to attract women. They tell you nothing about how to approach a woman, or how to ask her out. Even in the area of emotional connection, they tell you nothing about how to actually accomplish it.
Worse, some feminist conceptualizations of “seeing women as human beings” are actually counterproductive. Jake Squid argues:
The solution is obviously to believe that women are people. What approach would make men inclined to entertain the idea of an intimate relationship? Women like the same thing. It isn’t that difficult a concept. Every time you specify “women” you just confirm that you think that there is a fundamental difference in the thinking, motivations and desires between men and women. You are dead wrong.
In Jake Squid’s view, considering women to be different from men is incompatible with treating women as people. To some extent, it is easy to over-exaggerate differences between the sexes: believing that men and women are different species can easily lead into sexism towards one sex or the other. Yet average sex differences—that range from small to large—are well documented in heterosexual attraction and in sexual attitudes.
Yet there is no necessary incompatibility between acknowledging sex differences in preferences and attitudes towards sex, and seeing people as human beings. To truly acknowledge women as human beings, we must observe that sexually, female human beings work somewhat differently from male human beings. Otherwise, people may be quick to resent a member of the opposite sex who doesn’t behave as they themselves would.
Respect is not enough
Advocating respect as the “prime directive” for straight men interacting with women is hopelessly flawed. While respect is necessary for any positive and mutual relationship, respect is a relatively minor player in actually attracting people to you and connecting with them. The big players are qualities like charisma, sexiness, physical appearance (looks, style, and grooming), confidence, flirtatiousness, social skills, assertiveness (necessary for men, though it can help women), and empathy. A man can have all the respect for a woman in the world, but he still be rejected by her (or seen as “just a friend”) if he lacks these qualities. Yet he can have plenty of sex with women without respecting them and even while being a total misogynist, as long as he doesn’t make that attitude too obvious.
I am going to hazard a guess that most of the time a man is having trouble with women, especially related to shyness, lack of social skills, and unassertiveness, the main reason he is failing is not a lack of respect (there are men who fail with women due to a lack of respect, such as this guy in my dorm freshman year who became infamous for walking up behind women and giving them unsolicited shoulder massages, but these men usually don’t suffer from the difficulties I mentioned). More likely, it is because he is unattractive to women, doesn’t know what to do with women, doesn’t know how to connect with women, feels ashamed of his desires, doesn’t approach women, can’t ask for phone numbers or initiate kisses, or doesn’t understand female sexual psychology because he was duped by people (who are often feminists) into believing that it doesn’t differ in any salient ways from male sexual psychology.
The consequences of undue focus on “respect”
When, instead of having his actual challenges addressed, a man is told that he just needs to treat women like human beings and respect them more, he may recognize that advice as the sanctimonious platitude that it is. Furthermore, the advice cynically assumes that he isn’t really respecting women to begin with.
With some men, that advice might even backfire. A man might come back and say “I tried treating women with respect, and I didn’t get anywhere… therefore, women don’t want to be respected, and I need to be an asshole to them.” Obviously, this is flawed reasoning: the problem is not that women don’t want to be respected, but that respect is not enough. However, a man in this position won’t know that, unless we tell him, which means acknowledging the many factors in success with women, rather than placing a moralistic focus on respect.
All very good points. However, a lot of shy men put women on a pedestal and see them as something entirely ‘other’ which they can never understand and so, much like my mother when confonted with a computer, they make no effort to understand.
What men who are not attracting women need to understand is that the fault lies not with the women, but with THEM. They might not be particularly attractive, but that need not be a dealbreaker if they can manage to be interesting in other ways.
Something I’ve noticed with geek men (and a lot of the shy men come into this category) particularly is that they don’t flirt with female geeks because they’re *too much* like them. They say things like ‘But I don’t see her as a woman, she’s one of us!’ which comes back to the idea of women being entirely mysterious, different creatures.
Also, they will often chase women who are, frankly, entirely out of their league. Of course a fat nerd whose idea of a great weekend is a LAN party isn’t going to be able to get the interest of a woman who looks like a model and whose main interest is fashion.
Likewise, a woman with untidy hair and bad teeth who loves Star Trek and spends all her time chatting on the internet is not going to be able to get, as a boyfriend, someone who looks like Johnny Depp.
Mr LAN party and Miss Trekkie, however, would likely make a brilliant couple themselves, with plenty to talk about and without the constant nagging feeling that at any moment their partner is going to come to their senses and run away screaming, while the fashionista and the Depp lookalike would also be a good match.
In my experience, women are lot more prepared to accept what their realistic options are than men, possibly because women tend to be less focused on looks in the first place. Yes, Johnny Depp and whoever are pretty, and they’ll enjoy looking at them, but they wouldn’t even think about trying to flirt with someone like that. They’re more likely to try to find someone more like them.
So why do so many men, who are not particularly attractive, persist in chasing women a great deal more attractive than they are, even when they do not have the additional advantages that some other men have, of being well-paid, especially charming etc? Even if they did by some miracle manage to convince this theoretical stunner to date them, they would have so little in common that the relationship would be almost guaranteed to fail.
Yes, I’d love to drive a flashy sports car, but I’d look a bloody idiot in it, it would cost more than my house, and I’d be constantly in fear of it being stolen. On the other hand, I can afford a Mondeo, I’d not be so scared it would be taken from me and I wouldn’t have everyone assume I’m a complete arse whenever I drove past.
A lot of the men who say they can’t get a date, however, are doing the equivalent of trying to buy a Ferrari when they’re offering Ford money.
Hugh: Hell man, I think my blunt force trauma style of writing is wearing off on you
Now granted, I’ve not yet finished “the game”, but this post has inspired me to write something here a bit later (I just woke up)…
As for Sam’s comment….I don’t know, I know a fair number of geeky guys who are dating and or, yep, married to women who count as “conventionally attractive”…even downright hot….hell, a porn gal I know is married to a dude who spends roughly 30 hours a week playing “world of warcraft” and owns every Star Trek Christmas orniment…
Hugh,
what is “respect” anyway? I mean, what does it mean to be “respectful” of someone, woman or man? Does it mean behaving in a certain socially approved of manner? Does it mean accepting their point of views on life? What is respect, for real?
I think a lot of the discussions around this subject are going horribly wrong because of a lack of definition of the they’re dealing with. I can entirely disrespect a woman or a man for her opinions on topic a and still treat them like in a socially approved of way. If respect is simply another word for not infringing on basic conversational conventions, then we could just as well eliminate it from the equation – it’s then a necessary condition of all social conduct not something specific to any kind of courtship.
As for this
That doesn’t even make sense from a truly feminist point of view, I’m afraid. Many feminists might argue that differences aren’t “essential” or biological, but they will usually still accept their existence based on socialisation (patriarchy) – thus, one may very well argue about the reason for differences (even some biological differences are likely caused by social processes), but it is, frankly, impossible to deny their existence.
No, there IS NO incompatibility here. “Human Being” comes in two versions, with socially and biologically partly different needs and desires. There is, however, a logical difference between SAME and EQUAL (hope that does make sense in English, not my native language). Unfortunately, this is not apparent to some.
RenEv,
I’m very interested in your take.
You know, a lot of nice guys confuse chivalrous patronization with respect.
When they are actually opposites.
Like I said, I often try to treat women like any other a-hole…
And I think women who often step into “men’s worlds” can appreciate this. For example, if you play sports with a female athlete – she’ll tell you not to apologize for any rough contact and just want to be treated like any other player (not a “weak” female one).
What happened to respecting women as people because they *are* people and deserving of that respect, not because it’ll improve your chances of getting laid?
Holy crap. I find myself agreeing with Byrdeye on this one.
jfpbookworm said:
Nothing. In this specific context, respecting women was presented by some feminists as the main things that men need to do to be successful with women. That is why I respond by showing that respect is not sufficient for that goal.
Again, more men have basic respect for women than many feminists, including you above, seem to think. Respecting women isn’t a particular challenge. Yet getting somewhere with women is a challenge for many men (which may including “getting laid,” but which isn’t limited to casual sex).
jfpbookworm:
Why are you framing this as being about “getting laid”? As I already pointed out, this is a strawman framing of the issues that Hugh, Tom and I have been articulating.
In my view the “Respect women as people/human beings” discourse serves double duty for feminists both as an (inadequate, as has been discussed) substantive response, but also as an ad hom against the men raising the issue. “You don’t respect women, therefore we can disregard what you have to say on the subject”.
Fine. If you have distaste for that, replace “getting laid” with “getting women to be attracted to you” or whatever.
Point is, respecting others is the right thing to do even if you don’t get personally rewarded.
[quote comment="10258"]Point is, respecting others is the right thing to do even if you don’t get personally rewarded.[/quote]
No, it is not the right thing to do. Stating that is it implies one is entitled to respect. No one is obligated to respect anyone in the same way no one is obligated to feed or clothe anyone. Respect is earned, not given on demand.
However, if one wants respect, an excellent means of earning it is giving it out without the expectation or desire of reciprocation.
I categorically disagree with this, TS. Everyone is entitled to respect unless and until they nullify it by victimizing other people. You don’t have to like someone, you certainly don’t have to love them or be attracted to them, but respecting them is a fundamental moral obligation IMHO.
I’m wondering if there’s something ‘definitional’ going on here as tobias says, because quite frankly TS I haven’t noticed anything in your writing that would suggest that you don’t have respect as your ‘default’ approach to people.
“Engaging intimately with women” is where I’m coming from. That’s a two-way thing.
Nobody sensible disputes that, except TS, and as ballgame points out, that appears to be a definitional thing. If he didn’t approach people from a default position of respect, then I wouldn’t have invited him to blog here, and I probably wouldn’t regard his as a friend the way I do.
[quote comment="10279"]I categorically disagree with this, TS. Everyone is entitled to respect unless and until they nullify it by victimizing other people. You don’t have to like someone, you certainly don’t have to love them or be attracted to them, but respecting them is a fundamental moral obligation IMHO.[/quote]
I disagree. The moral obligation you mention is to treat others fairly, equally and civilly; essentially, treat others how one would like to be treated. This may look like respect, but it is not the same thing. Respect is a matter of valuing a person on some level. But one need not value a person to treat the person equally.
[quote]I’m wondering if there’s something ‘definitional’ going on here as tobias says, because quite frankly TS I haven’t noticed anything in your writing that would suggest that you don’t have respect as your ‘default’ approach to people.[/quote]
Yet that is my default approach, not the default approach. It would be improper for me to hold others to my personal standards.
[quote comment="10258"]Point is, respecting others is the right thing to do even if you don’t get personally rewarded.[/quote]
Fine. But reiterating that particular platitude is not a goal of this particular post. The goal of this post is to debunk the specific claim made by multiple people over at Alas that respecting women is both necessary and sufficient for romantic and/or sexual success.
Renegade – I don’t doubt that there are some geeky men dating attractive women, but I’d bet they have something *else* going for them. As I said, women tend to put less emphasis on attractiveness as a selection criteria than men do. Quite a lot of men are guilty, because the physical attractiveness is *their* primary selection criteria, of ignoring the other factors, both in themselves and in the women they’re interested in. That often leads to them unthinkingly going for women who have the looks *and* the other criteria and who are therefore expecting ‘something better’.
If a woman *looks* great but has a poorly paid job, isn’t particularly socially adept, whatever, (and I know I’m oversimplifying here) she’ll often have more luck with men than an attractive but poor man with iffy social skills will have with women. She’ll also have more luck with men than women who are well paid and socially adept but not particularly physically attractive, where a man who lacks the looks but has the rest will often do quite well with women.
To get back to the subject of respect, what it means will vary from person to person. For some women, the ignoring of the other selection criteria, however else a man behaves, will be perceived as a lack of respect – being judged first, if not exclusively, on their looks rather than considering the whole package.
An example of a non-romantic type: I have a particular acquaintance who likes to have a few beers and argue with work colleagues. When arguing with men, he’ll do his best to run rings around their arguments, and often succeeds. If arguing with women, rather than concentrating on what they say, he’ll often go off on tangents and annoy them into going away by commenting on some factor of their appearance that they ‘need to fix’. I’ve never seen him do that to a man, but I’ve seen him do it to several women, basically telling them that because they’re not physically perfect they’re not worth talking to.
Recently one woman challenged him about doing this, by pointing out that the reason she didn’t change the thing he was attacking was that she’d found that in a work situation attractive, feminine women were taken less seriously – that if the men she was dealing with put her in the ‘attractive’ box with their first assessment, that they were, in general, less likely to take her professional opinion seriously. His reply was again a lack of respect – he told her she was making excuses and it wasn’t true. Her opinion didn’t exactly mesh with his, so her experience of the matter was worthless.
A lack of respect isn’t always a matter of ‘being an arsehole’ as defined in the standard dating script. It can also be a matter of who you choose to pursue in the first place.
Without women respecting men as human beings, any respect of men for women as human beings is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. This is a message that too many in our first world countries CANNOT understand.
Here’s where we run into the biggest of the road blocks to a better society. We need, we desperately need:
” Women are people, not saints ::: Men are people, not demons. ”
” Women are people, not horses ::: Men are people, not leaders. ”
We are all members of the same species. Yet! Yet, there are great chunks of our political spectrum which look at one segment of the species as non-human. For many feminists, leftists and hard-rightists, it is seeing all males as demonic & dangerous cash-machines. For many in the third world it is seeing all females as work-horses in need of heavy control. That must end! That must stop.
______________________
RE: Yes, respect is not enough. Physical traits are a huge part of the human mating system, so is body language. Any ugly person with beautiful body language will get more dates than a physically beautiful person with bad body language. There are also many sub-traits, such as matching one’s society in terms of appearance and scent.
Should any of us reading this be single and trying to date in a goodly many places on the globe we would have trouble due to scent: Many people think first-worlder’s, such as us, STINK as we bathe too often and use deodorant. These things must be thought of.
What counts as sexual or romantic “success” if you don’t respect the person/people with whom you are engaging?
[quote comment="10359"]What counts as sexual or romantic “success” if you don’t respect the person/people with whom you are engaging?[/quote]
A good point. I think that one of the issues involved here is that people define this differently. But generally speaking, when respect of some kind is involved, I think that the overall definition being used is “being able to establish a mutually satisfying intimate relationship.” That relationship may be casual or extended; it may be primarily sexual, primarily platonic, or somewhere in between. Some of those relationships involve and require deeper levels of respect than others.
When respect of any kind isn’t a concern, I think that it can be the same definition… except with the word “mutually” being replaced by the word “personally.”
What counts as “respect” if you don’t have sexual or romantic success with the woman you are engaging?
A woman initiated contact with me recently and eventually revealed that she was a single mom *groan* who was not interested in flirting with anyone. But she just liked talking to me cuz my voice was soothing.
IOW, she was tooling me as an emotional tampon whenever she got stress cramps. The female version of a “booty call.”
WTF? As soon as I found all that BS out I haven’t talked to her since. You want emotional compansionship and a shoulder to lean on lady – well you shoulda picked the right guy to knock you up then.
yeah, Byrdeye, it’s called friendship. Such an ugly thing when it raises it’s green and scaley head.
That’s right – the LJBF friendzone. The beta provider gofers women use for everything except sex.
Honestly, I don’t mind a low-maintenance friendship like that…but she was wanting far more time and longer conversations that were worth my time. The precious time I can use far better for women who WILL give me sex or other more productive endeavors. All just to get her emotional fix. Something that I personally don’t need that much of.
So, let me get this clear. She is wrong for expecting another adult to reciprocate common emotional terrain? I can see why you would balk at the idea of respect, if this lower denominator of human interaction isn’t worth your time.
Is there some reason why all my posts are not showing?
Well, she just has a higher emotional drive than me.
Which means I don’t enjoy long emotional talks as much as she does. Maybe I could tolerate that more if she were putting out (or doing something else) for some quid pro quo exchange…but minus that it becomes lopsided in her favor.
So sheerly on its own, no it’s not worth my time. I’m ok with very brief chats…but I’m not her dikless stress ball, sorry.
Why would you tolerate it more if she were putting out [sic]? Wouldn’t that entail a greater level of intimacy? I would think that sex would complicate the situation rather than ease the co-mingling of pesky human emotions/reactions.
Okay, everyone mark this date in your blackberries…
I agree with Byrd on something. As a female with a lot of male friends who are not, well, so lucky in love, even though they ARE attractive in some why or another (or a combination of ways), I have to say, I get sick of listening to their life woes all the time. Granted, I am wierd for a female, well, for a human, in a lot of ways, but yep, sometimes it does get to a point where one must really resist the urge to say “that’s unfortunate. Now, are we going to fuck or not, because you know, I have shit to do.”
YES I know that sounds TERRIBLE….but it’s true.
Q Grrl:
Are you saying that she’s entitled to his time, even if he’d rather be doing other things with it?
Regarding your earlier question, sexual success is having sex with a person or people you find sexually desirable, and romantic success is having a romantic relationship with someone you find romantically desirable. As Hugh said, respect is much more important for the latter than for the former.
Q Girl – I don’t crave the intimacy. I crave sexual validation as well as physical pleasure. And that’s what sex would satisfy on both counts.
Ren – Lol!!!! See, you do know exactly how I feel! What it simply comes down to is a mismatch in needs and bartering to chieve a fair deal.
Well guess what – if some lady can openly state to me that doesn’t need sex or want it from me…then I can also state that I don’t need emotional bonding and want it from her. If she can cut me off from sex, I can cut her off from long draining emotional talks. Fair is fair, right?
I do not think there is any need to apologize for this. Some people want emotional intimacy while others just want to have sex. That does not mean there is no connection, only that emotional intimacy is sometimes an investment some people do not wish to make.
But who’s actually argued that? (Those Alas quotes don’t argue that; they just argue that you’re better off treating women as individuals rather than as interchangeable members of a class.)
Brandon: She’s not entitled to anything.
Byrdeye: If you’re the one who doesn’t crave intimacy, why are you angry at her? Maybe you need to be more upfront about your anti-social tendancies. I’m highly anti-social, but I wouldn’t get angry at other people for either not picking up on that or for acting as if I were a normal social butterfly type. I’ve generally taught myself to state that I need “alone” time, even if I’m in a jam packed pool hall, or what-not. People look at me like I’m odd, but they do get the point.
As for sex, that can be bought, so again I don’t understand your anger towards this woman and her honest interaction with you.
Q Grrl: it can indeed be bought, but in a lot of places, doing so is illegal, and in the minds of a lot of men, legality aside, not desirable, for a variety of reasons, everything from moral ones to the stigmas attached to it to fear of disease.
Err, angry would be an overstatement. I simply saw what the deal was and backed out as soon as I did.
She basically wanted me to satisfy her needs, but did not want to satisfy ny of mine. In other words, take, but not give. Hey, that’s fine for her…but not for me. So, no deal.
I don’t think she’s saying that. I read her comments as criticizing the whole idea of transactional relationships, where emotional support is provided, but only at a price. (Wonder what he charges for friendship with men?)
Byrdeye: do you feel that I am taking something from you because I’ve engaged in political/philosophical discourse with you?
Well, every relationship is transactional. And if she can actively deny sex…I can actively deny emotional support.
End of story. I don’t see why I deserve any more criticism than this woman here. If a woman only wants emotional support from men – fine. But, yes I do put a price on my valuable time. Otherwise, I might as well just work for FREE 40 hrs/week.
Man, I hate to do this twice in a row…
All relationships are give and take…there is usually no set fee, but people in almost all kinds of relationships, romantic or even friendships, there is a give and take dynamic…YES, often they just enjoy eachothers company and hanging out together, but there are times where one person has needs and the other person sees to them (everything from the proverbial shoulder to cry on to bail money, heh), and though not required, it is asumed that if the other party needs that, it will be given…
And sometimes it’s not. One side does all the giving, and need it or not, there is no giving done in return. And one can even really like this person, enjoy their company, but on an important level, the relationship is very one sided. In Byrd’s case, it sounds as if this woman was interested in being more than friends with him. It seems Byrd is pretty blunt about if they are going to be more than friends, sex is part of the bargin for him. Now, if she does not want to have sex, that’s fine, but she cannot expect for him to then be ready to move on to something deeper if his need (sex) is not being met, and continue to expect him to provide for her emotional needs on a deeper, more than friends level.
May sound harsh, but it is kind of true, at least for a lot of people.
Q Girl – Not really because you aren’t dumping your personal emotional burdens on me – but we are all engaging in general discussion here.
Agreed Ren. Let’s be honest – if you go balls out for your friend over and over – and he never helps you out once when you need it…aren’t you going to dump him as a friend? YES, there is an underlying need to “square the books” in any relationship.
Maybe not down to the red cent, but it should at least be in the same ballpark. Otherwise, one party is getting tooled – and that’s not friendship.
RE: I don’t think anyone was saying people should stay in relationships or friendships where their needs aren’t being met. Byrdeye and this woman are obviously both better off looking elsewhere for their needs to be met. But saying that one shouldn’t stay in a relationship one’s not getting anything out of is not the same thing as the saying that a relationship is a transaction that must be balanced.
If I enjoy someone’s companionship, and they enjoy mine, why should I concern myself with the idea that I’m not squeezing as many favors out of them as I could be?
^ Again, if you are both equally enjoying each other’s company – then your books are balanced.
——
Dear AW,
Look, I’m just sick of hearing about your failed marriage, your bastard kid and…and to top it off you even inform me that you don’t want sex? Wow, I hear this broken single mama (which you hid for a long while) record story every damn day in this country. Gee, how can I resist you now?
Sure, I did enjoy parts of our talks…although my interest started waning as you started taking an emotional dump on me with all your personal problems. And mostly all typical ones for a classic feminist AW.
I think the low point was when you called several times just to hear my voice to “calm your nerves.” Wow, is that like when a guy makes a booty cal just to bust a nut? No, I am not your emotional tampon or Charmin to wipe your ass on…
Sure we can still have a few short chats – no hard feelings. Hope you don’t get any either…
C-ya!
jfp:
Oh, hey, I totally agree with that…just enjoying someones companionship is great.
oy.
yeah, i get the “shut up and let’s fuck”impulse in certain contexts, but I don’t think “I pretended to listen to you, so now pretend to be interested in me sexually so we can go through the motions of intercourse” sounds like a really terrific bargain. Yeah, if that’s the case, by all means, break it off. You’re both better off, i would say.
and yeah, i think if one -is- that baldly about quid pro quo, no muss no fuss, then as Ren keeps saying: a straightforward exchange of money for sexual satisfaction would be the best solution, same as it would be for paying someone to give you a deep-tissue massage or cook you a gourmet meal or clean your house.
that is, if it really -is- sexual satisfaction you want, and not, say, someone to be -your- emotional tampon, for your hostility.
that said, i do agree with the general consensus that yep, there’s give and take in any relationship, platonic or otherwise; apart from mother and infant, unconditional love is just not something adults can expect.
or, put it this way, because i do know some spiritually evolved people that i think -do- embody that sometimes:
relationships are about mutual exchange. yeah, putting it in baldly transactional terms a la capitalism makes people recoil, and no, maybe it -isn’t- that simple for most people.
but, yeah, no one likes to feel used, that’s quite true; and yeah, there are ways of using people besides the sexual or even material realm.
Uh, there’s already been a lengthy discussion here why prostitution is lame.
But if you’re going to suggest that – and all she needs is emotional support – then why shouldn’t she just pay for psycholgical counseling? Instead of trying to score it for free from a regular guy?
She should. No one is ruling that out.
Generally, it’s a bad idea to get into a relationship you get nothing out of in the hopes that circumstances will change.
It’s not exactly the capitalism that makes me recoil. It’s more that the idea that relationships are about using others more than they use you that makes me flinch, because that way (for me at least) lies social anxiety and paranoia.
Q Grrl – Agreed.
BTW, you’re not a lesbian, right?
Not that it matters either way, other than I am just testing a theory here…
Yeah, I’m one of those hairy-legged masculine dykes. Who hangs out almost exclusively with men. So I’m kinda in the camp that men and women can be friends, with all that mushy sharing of stories and emotions!
Seriously? Because it was a honest question.
You don’t come off as a butchy dyke…so I was curious if that’s true or not.
oh, yeah. It is true. Although most other dykes are going to argue the butchy part b/c I’m such a geek. But I do fall on the masculine side and spend almost all my free time hanging out with men, drinking and playing pool. Or is that just drinking? Hmmm.
I guess I’m more of a mature tomboy, if such a category exists.
Damn, I need to party with Q Grrl…pool? booze? I like those things!
Beer, not booze. But it’s still fun. Oh, and cigarettes.
Decadent I am.
Ok, well you do reinforce the truism that radfems = lesbian.
Although not the one that lesbians are all hostile against men. Perhaps that’s just the unattractive ones who are more insecure…
Heh, well I’m no pretty girl. And I can downright hostile with men. Daran and Tom can attest to that, I believe.
uh huh.
otoh: witchy-woo, Biting Beaver, pony, delphyne, Sam, and actually come to think of it most of the radfems who most drive me up the wall: straight. and they hate you, Byrd, or at least they would if they talked to you, not sure if they all have.
and BB at least, as I recall, is rather conventionally pretty (she’d posted a photo somewhere). blonde, waify, etc.
and actually pretty much -every- woman and quite a lot of men have expressed extreme disdain toward you, BE. and for all we know you could be a Playboy centerfold who for some strange reason is playing this little trolling game. it’s not your manly manhood. it’s your ever so charming personality.
but then, the last straight woman who told you that, you just insisted that she -must- be a lesbian, so i don’t expect this little missive from Reality World will penetrate either.
actually, ime, at least in my errant ‘yoot, it went more like this:
(random dude): “Hey, baby! Howzabout a smile on that pretty face!”
Me: (ignore)
random dude: Hey, I’m talking to you. Hey! HEY!
Me: (ignore)
random dude: bitch! you should be grateful anyone’s paying attention to you, you’re not so hot…
beer isn’t booze?
Beer is beer. Booze is that fancy stuff that knocks you on yer ass and you can’t buy on Sundays. I mean, really, beer is more like water than booze.
Belle – the only women who have expressed extreme disdain for me online are lesbian/radfems.
And offline, a few lesbians.
Really a tiny minority here – but with a lot in common. That’s why I found it interesting.
Q Grrl: Beer is also acceptable, I am a fan of beer.
Belle: Yep,Bitting Beaver is both hetero and very attractive. A lot of radical feminists are apparently very conventionally attractive (I know the term “bombshell” has been used by some of them, either describing someone else or themselves), and I always find it odd that many of them spend a lot of time appologizing for it? Genetics apparently made them that way, not much they can do about it. Blonde, tall, thin, busty, good looking with no make up or effort…well, that’s just the way they are…not much they can do about it really….so why appologize?
I don’t get it.
How are you defining “extreme disdain?”
oh yeh, that’s -former blonde bombshell.- good of her to keep reminding us i feel, apologetically or otherwise.
You’re American, aren’t you? European beers are a bit stronger.
Prefer cider myself.
Q Grrl:
Yep.
Belledame:
We’ve already discussed this. What many of us need is sexual validation. Buying sex is like buying a compliment: if it’s bought, it isn’t worth having.
So we agree that no man has a right to this from any particular woman, and analogously that no woman has a right to any particular man’s emotional shoulder to cry on. (Or do we agree this? What about husband and wife?)
However many women expect their male friends, including their male “just good friends” to perform this service when needed, so there’s a possible “entitlement” situation here. Also a shoulder to cry on is recognised in general terms as a valid need for women (less so for men), while sexual validation isn’t.
Daran:
Cider is the nectar of the gods…
And sure, women expect their male friends, just good ones especially, to be there for them when they need them on an emotional level…however, most males also expect their female friends, especially the goods ones, to be there in the same capacity… emotional connection amid friends of different sexes is not a one sided thing, even most of the time…usually it is a two way street.
However, some people do not feel it is worth it to have friends of the opposite sex (if they are hetero, that is) unless the potential for sex is on the table…and I personally have no issue with that so long as they are upfront about it, but yeah, they figure they get their emotional needs met elsewhere, so…sex is the trade off. And that mindset is not exclusive to males.
Wow, this guy should be a PUA GURU!
4600 women…& now has a family with SHANNON TWEED – 6′ blonde bombshell…and happily UNMARRIED!!!!
Gene – I want your life.
But there’s also the “as long as the potential of sex is on the table”-version of that statement I suppose. I think I have usually better friendships with women who are in a long term relationship – it doesn’t kill every erotic tension there might have been (or is) but it keeps it in the appropriate secluded little room in our heads, I suppose, and allows the brain to embrace the other emotional elements of a friendship.
tobias: Yeah, I think that is pretty natural too…that secluded room thing.
ah well then.
me, i think the y’know physical/sensual pleasures/human-animal contact are worth having all on their ownsomes, but what do i know.
and, too, the fact that you’re paying someone for a service doesn’t mean there isn’t still a relationship. If I go out to a restaurant, the waitperson is being paid, essentially, to be at minimum pleasant to me, in most places. Yeah, it’s a job. My behavior still makes a difference as to how genuine that is. And ultimately: I’m there for the food, sie’s there for the money. Hey, who knows, we might even talk to each other.
i have to say: you know, I feel like there’s a bit of “I wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me as a member” going on here as well.
as for emotional validation: as noted earlier, yes, there’s therapy for that, and it’s something i pay for gladly. Because, as a matter of fact, it is -not- the same relationship as I have with my friends or loved ones; the service i am paying him for is different, and valid. And yes, it’s still a relationship.
for that matter: how exactly does sexual validation differ from emotional validation? does it have to involve actual fucking? Is someone saying, “My, you look very attractive today, Mr. ___” satisfactory?
Or are you talking about sexual -intimacy?- Because that is different.
Good point, belledame… there is a difference between desiring sex for pleasure, for validation, and for intimacy.
I think you are right that sexual validation doesn’t require sex. Having someone compliment you on your attractiveness would be a form of a sexual validation; sex would provide a lot more, of course.
As for the difference between sexual validation and emotional validation, I would say that sexual validation is a type of emotional validation, but a type that can only be fulfilled by someone validating you in a sexual manner.
I think there are multiple reasons that a man might feel unfulfilled by buying sex:
1. Lack of sexual validation, due to not properly “earning” it himself
2. Expected lack of emotional intimacy in the sex
Personally, I wouldn’t want to have sex with someone who I wasn’t sure was attracted to me and enjoying it herself. That is why I don’t think I could ever have sex with a prostitute. I’m not sure if that is the same thing as a lack of sexual validation (because I wouldn’t want to feel that she was faking attraction), or also a 3rd motivation.
Belledame,
it’s a simplification, but I believe it’s true that for a lot of men, self-esteem is based to a significant extent on their scorecard, I mean, I suppose it’s called “scoring” for a reason: The person who scores the most, wins. So, if your world consists only of sexual winners and sexual losers, alphas and betas, sexual validation is what you need to get out of the L camp.
On the other hand, it can also simply mean to be perceived as a sexual being by women. You know, the occasional extra long look, the flirting, all that. If a man doesn’t get that, and I know not just a couple of men who don’t really, then, yes, they DO need sexual validation. They need reassurance that they aren’t some kind of accidental eunuch.
I think that’s a fair statement in this respect. It’s often “legitimate” confusion, though, in my opinion.
belledame[actually, tobias] said:Yes. And another reason that you have reminded me of is perception of oneself as an agentic being who is able to reach his own goals. If a man’s goal is to have sex (or sex and a relationship), and he is unable to reach that goal, he will feel inadequate. This is the same attitude that makes people too proud to take money offered by others when they haven’t earned it. Likewise, many men will not want to have sex without “earning” it by attracting the woman; paying for it is a type of “cheating.”
There’s no magical formula, damn it, because all different women look for all different things, what with being you know, individuals. I always thought that the point of ‘treat women as human beings!’ was to point out that it’s individual taste as much as anything. Universally appealing factors tend to be universal to all humans, not just women. Self esteem, confidence, positive body language, not smelling bad. But if someone says “What do women want!” then they’ve already disregarded the women they’re interested in as individuals.
uh, Hugh, I didn’t say that, tobias did. [Oopsies. Fixed now. --Hugh]
Welcome to our blog, Minna.
It is a truism that some men have much greater success with women than other. Which men, precisely, depends upon what particular criteria for success you are using. For some its number of sexual partners. For others it’s maintaining stable long-term relationships. There may be no magic formula, but there must be something those men are doing that less sucessful men aren’t.
Maybe what they’re doing is treating women like individuals?
(Or maybe they’re not doing anything special, but are just very attractive.)
It’s good to be here! 8D
There may be no magic formula, but there must be something those men are doing that less successful men aren’t.
I’ve often found that someone complaining about their lack of success is often looking for a girlfriend, (mine is not the entire realm of personal experience bucket of salt etc etc) rather than being interested in someone in particular. While that’s not a bad thing in itself, the problem is that that’s coming across to the women he’s talking to, who’re then like “…no”. It’s not exactly flattering to have someone be interested in you more because you’re An Available Woman than because you’re you. That’s something I assumed was gender neutral, as well: even if you’re looking for a quick shag, seeming genuinely interested in the other person for being themselves would be a seemingly obvious way to have them think you’re a good person to let into their pants.
Which makes those phrases shorthand for an entire way of looking at people. Which in turn makes those phrases not terribly useful as a way of telling the people who actually need to be told. >_
*nod*.
to break it out of a gender specific/romantic frame for a moment:
what it reminds me of is, when I was in high school, i had a rather desolate “best friend”ship with a girl who, in retrospect, well, we really didn’t much like each other. but it worked for a while.
sooner or later we began to slowly fall out. one day sort of toward the beginning of the end, we were sitting in the library having a quarrel, i remember, and finally i just said, “well, in that case, why don’t you just leave? [if whatever it was that i was doing bothered her so much, i forget what the sniping was about]”
her response: an exasperated, “Where else am I going to go?”
i.e. i’m not enjoying your company any more than you are mine, but it beats being alone by yourself.
at the time, insecure little high schooler, i didn’t have the words to express what was wrong with that, or probably the nerve to say it even if i did (because i really didn’t want to be alone either).
now, of course, i’d have either told her to not let the door hit her or else just gotten up and gone to enjoy the sunshine myself.
back to the sitch at hand:
it’s odd, you know, it strikes me that with a lot of people, these guys, okay, it’s a combination of both too high and too low standards. There’s this, like, idealized fantasy of what the “desirable” woman is supposed to be (i mean esp. with the whole, alpha beta business); at the same time, one gets the impression that, well, yeah: the women are interchangeable; what’s really wanted, all that’s -seen- is this vague outline of a Woman onto which one can project all one’s fantasies. but, unfortunately that doesn’t really allow for being with her as a -separate live 3D person,- so much.
Heh. Several times through my childhood, I’d hear women telling each other that “love comes when you stop wanting it so badly”, (which is a good way to make someone want to kick you in the shins, what a smug line D:) but there’s truth to it, insofar as it seems to be an unattractive trait in anyone.
Man, I hate those sorts of friendships. Especially since they seem to come about when you’re desperate for someone to care, which is when you’re in the absolute worst position emotionally to cope with them. :C
Some VERY interesting comments. As far as I can see, few men actually sexualize women, this is entirely because of emotional validation. Emotional validation cannot be simply fixed by going to therapy. Emotional validation is something you experience with EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL you ever communicate with. Obviously we can’t be validated by every single person, and sometimes it doesn’t matter, casual interactions, for example. And many people who cause negative emotions in us NEED to be counteracted with people who emotionally validate us. You cannot go to therapy to talk about your issues with 1 individual to offset 500 interactions that were all negative. Likewise, and back to my point, if a male has sex with a female, the reason is because of emotional validation and sexual validation, otherwise we’d be perfectly happy to have sex with inanimate objects (and some of us are, but you might notice that this is rare). You NEED to be validated emotionally AND sexually. This is why shy men are the way they are. A shy man MAY presume too much about women, however, most shy men are probably feeling sexually unvalidated. Yes, sexual validation means as something as meager as a compliment on appearances. However, after compliments are common then sexual validation may change in an individual. This same thing is true to emotional validation. As you become more aware of how society perceives you, your needs will change. Emotions: you will get involved more in people’s underlying emotions, deeper conversations, you will be more social and socially attractive.. ‘charming’. Sexual: As you become aware of your basic looks you will have stronger desires to make something meaningful. As you become more experienced sexually you might become less interested in basic sex and more interested in a variety of other sexual things, as most people do with age.
There are TOO MANY assumptions based on TOO MUCH GENERALIZING. This is where feminists falter and where average men and women make so many mistakes that it’s difficult to get along with the opposite sex in the modern USA.
Good points, Ben. Welcome to the blog.