In the next chapter, we will discuss just how and when these “rules” are set and what they should always include.
Chapter Twelve
Their Way and the Highway
Earlier we discussed the comparison of relationships to a “game,” which you often hear in the early stages of courtship in some variation of the following: if you want to land the right guy, you have to play the game.
This oft-heard statement is equal parts dumb and offensive. First off, “landing” a man is a shameless insult to you as a smart, loving, and desirable human being. This idea connotes entrapment (definition: land v. “to catch or capture”), which is apt if you’re dealing with a mouse in your kitchen, but less so when looking for a suitable companion. You aren’t “trapping” anyone into being with you, because you don’t need to resort to cheap tactics to find love. This isn’t a hunt, and (one hopes) at no point will firearms be necessary.
The second problem with this perpetually repeated aphorism is the “game” it refers to. The problem can be stated simply: nothing about the “game” is yours to control.
Two of the most popular books on “dating” (I use the word loosely, as their description more closely resembles a kind of semi-cordial gender war) in the last twenty years present a kind of his-n-hers guide to romantic dysfunction—The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists by Neil Strauss and The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider. The first, published in September of 2005, is a journalistic exposé of a secret society of “professional seducers” known as the “Seduction Community.” It sounds similar to a secret society of villains in a Sherlock Holmes novel, only less villainous and more comically ridiculous. In addition to exchanging tactics in Internet chat rooms and through newsgroups, the SC (as I’ll refer to them as from here on, since the real name is so goddamned silly) also meets in study clubs all over the world called “lairs.”
To quote Nathan Rabin, “I am so not making this shit up.” In researching the core values of the world’s goofiest modern cabal, I came across a website named The Attraction Forums. I won’t mention the address; I don’t want to give it credence, even if I’d love to see you all descend en masse and crush it beneath the weight of your absolutely righteous indignation. The site describes itself as the “free pickup, dating advice, and message board for men!”
The dopily enthusiastic punctuation is theirs, not mine. Should you ever decide to run it down, you’ll find a treasure trove of accidental comedy. Never has so much casual misogyny been expressed with such poor grammar, spelling, and syntax. When I registered for the site (for research purposes only, I assure you), the anti-spam question it asked was, “What is two plus five plus one?”
A gathering of the Algonquin Round Table this isn’t. When I clicked into the forums for the first time, I was met with these charming newsgroup subject headings:
“Y’all think this bitch is playing games?”
“How do I re-friend a girl on Facebook without my girlfriend finding out?”
“What’s the best excuse for cheating?”
“Seduction is like cold calling…”
“How to run a winning text game…”
“The reason all women are game players.”
“Best advice for having sex with strippers.”
And my personal favorite:
“Limp dick leads to relationship!” (Again, the enthusiastic punctuation is theirs, not mine.)
If that’s not enough to bring your blood to a steamy simmer, you should hear the philosophy of these would-be Lotharios. Building on ideas originally postulated by a former comedy writer, Ross Jeffries, in his book How to Get the Women You Desire into Bed, these “PUAs” (short for “Pick Up Artists”—like I said, they aren’t the cleverest lot) employ a combination of couched insults, double entendres, and juvenile Jedi-style mind control. In the New York Times article that inspired his book, Strauss describes one of the PUAs’ primary tools, the “neg”:[xxviii]
“Neither a compliment nor an insult, a neg holds two purposes: to momentarily lower a woman’s self-esteem and to suggest an intriguing disinterest.”
In the article, Strauss gives a few examples of the “neg”:
“Nice nails. Are they real? No? Oh, they look nice anyway. Is your hair real?”
Apparently, questioning the authenticity of various parts of your body is a fantastic way to get you into bed, since the PUAs of the world swear by it. They also like to practice a bastardized version of what is called “neurolinguistic programming,” the use of language to encode a particular response. One technique involves using phrases that are homonyms of more suggestive ones—for instance, using the phrase “your mind” sounds like “you’re mine.” Jeffries refers to this as an example of a “weasel phrase,”[xxix] one intended to subconsciously create positive associations of the PUA in the listener. This strikes me as a particularly apt use of animal metaphor, as it refers to a species of vermin.
Another method is to ask questions intended to incite a kind of sexual sense memory. One example he cites is, “Have you ever been really attracted to someone?” The idea is that, by describing an occasion when you were extremely attracted to a guy, you’ll unwittingly conjure up the same level of attraction for the PUA who is asking the question.
Starting to notice a pattern here? At their core, these men don’t even consider you to be a human being. To them, you’re no better than Pavlov’s dog, blindly salivating whenever the bell is rung.
As a guy—hell, as a human being—I’d love to say that this contemptible view of women is unpopular. But the sad truth is that Strauss’ book wasn’t only an international bestseller, it’s also the source of an upcoming movie and is being incorporated into modern corporate sales techniques. (An article on SalesHQ.com named it one of the “20 Best Business and Sales Books.”) Strauss even operates his own school for teaching pickup artistry.
Strauss’ school is called the Stylelife Academy, presumably because Pathetic Douchebag Academy was already taken.
The other aforementioned popular dating book, The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider, is in its own way just as alarmingly retrograde as Strauss’ book. It refers to “capturing” a man right in the title. Love and relationships are reduced to little more than a game of cat and mouse. You aren’t finding the right guy who shares your interests, values, and passions, and treats you with love and respect. You’re ensnaring an unwilling victim like a bear in trap jaws.
The first of the thirty-five “rules” validates the “animal trap” metaphor immediately:
Be a “Creature” Unlike Any Other.[xxx]
This is a variation of one of Strauss’ tactics: stand out as much as possible. In the world of the PUAs, it’s called “peacocking” (the animal metaphors just keep piling up), and the tactic is pretty much the same for both genders. Urbandictionary.com defines “peacocking” as follows:
“The action or actions exhibited in the beginning stages of courting. These actions are typically only temporary and exist during ‘the chase’ of a mate, much like a male peacock displaying the fruitful colors of his feathers to capture the attention of a mate.”[xxxi]
There is that word again, “capture.” It’s repeated in different variations so often in these two books (and countless others on the subject of dating) that it makes courtship sound like the most devious and depressing hunting expedition in the history of humankind. Notice that the word “temporary” is another key component. You don’t acquire a mate through your innate worth in their scenarios; you stage an elaborate and unsustainable scam that some poor sucker falls for. You’ll never learn how to create a healthy and enduring relationship, but you’ll learn how to become a better and more efficient con artist.
Reading through the other “rules” offered by Fein and Schneider, you’ll find absolutely nothing to help you find real compatibility or mature adul
t love. Instead, you’ll get advice like this:
Don’t talk to a man first (and don’t ask him to dance).[xxxii]
Don’t stare at men or talk too much.[xxxiii]
Don’t call him and rarely return his calls.[xxxiv]
Don’t open up too fast.[xxxv]
The advice is pretty clear, ladies. Shut up or lose your man forever. In fact, most of the rules tell you what not to do. For a book written by women, it certainly has little faith in your decision-making process. Try some more:
Don’t meet him halfway or go dutch on a date.[xxxvi]
Don’t accept a Saturday night date after Wednesday.[xxxvii]
Don’t see him more than once or twice a week.[xxxviii]
No more than casual kissing on the first date.[xxxix]
Dating sounds like a barrel of laughs, does it not? This book should come with a Catholic school nun to slap your hand with a ruler every time you fall out of line. But that’s not the most offensive thing about The Rules. No, that honor falls to the bald-faced and galling chauvinism the book wholeheartedly endorses. For example:
Don’t tell him what to do.[xl]
Let him take the lead.[xli]
Don’t expect a man to change or try to change him.[xlii]
Be honest but mysterious.[xliii]
Bind your feet like a geisha, and sit prostate before him as if he were an ancient Sumerian god.
Okay, I made the last one up, but you get the picture. Daddy runs the show, and you’ll do what he says, when he says, if you know what’s good for you. After the first few chapters, there are no surprises, just variations on a theme. Actually, the most surprising thing about the book is the year it was published—1995. Yes, twenty-three years after Roe v. Wade and seventy-five years after women got the vote, a dating book written by women tells you to speak when spoken to, keep your head down, and do what your man wants you to do.
I’ve not yet mentioned another of my favorite “rules.” It occurs near the end of the list, and it accentuates just how rickety a foundation the whole book is built upon.
Don’t discuss the rules with your therapist.[xliv]
Know why they don’t want you to mention all this malarkey to your therapist? Well, your therapist is a licensed mental health practitioner who would take one look at these codes for female living and declare them to be the ravings of a madman. There isn’t a responsible psychologist or licensed therapist on the North American continent who would endorse such an unequal, unfair, and male-dominated rulebook. If your therapist does endorse this malarkey, demand to see his or her credentials immediately. It’s quite possible that he or she received them in a sleazy alley that more often specializes in animal tranquilizers and murder-for-hire.
One of the final “rules” in the book reads:
Do the rules, and you’ll live happily ever after![xlv]
If the authors were being honest, however, it would read:
Do the rules, and you deserve what you get!
Like I said, folks, this and The Game are two of the most popular dating books published in your lifetime. Both promote a fervent belief that your place is either on your back or in the kitchen. If that doesn’t convince you that their advice is ridiculous, you might as well put down this book and pick up one of theirs.
But don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Let’s all agree that any rules to live by should be set by you. In the next chapter, we’ll discuss how to set them, thereby guaranteeing you the happiness that will be yours to enjoy.
Chapter Thirteen
Your Way
The two books referenced in the last chapter are by no means the only examples of baffling-to-insulting dating advice you can find on the web and in print. My rule of thumb about self-help books is the same as it is for any kind of advice: if the advice sounds dumb or nonsensical, chances are outstanding that it is dumb or nonsensical.
Good advice illuminates something that we’ve not thought of before. It often does this in a way that, once the new idea or observation is mentioned, you marvel that you didn’t think of it yourself. It seems natural, and you instinctively sense that the advice provides a smart plan for future action.
As Malcolm Gladwell so expertly demonstrated in his book, Blink, instinct often better indicates what you should do than careful and meticulous study. The research examples Gladwell provides are both numerous and far-reaching. He quotes studies on subjects as disparate as popular music, the medical profession, military training, gambling, and divorce. Over and over again, the power and legitimacy of instinct comes through.
This doesn’t mean every instinct you have will be right. Gladwell also talks about our subconscious programming, a latent set of codes, biases, and ways of interacting with the world that we aren’t aware of. Those of us who were raised in dysfunctional environments (I include myself in the group) have a kind of faulty programming about certain things. For example, if you were attacked by a dog at a young age, it’s likely that you’re instinctively mistrustful or even afraid of dogs as an adult. Even after some kind of therapy, it’s likely that your instinctive reaction will be mistrust or fear, although in your conscious mind you no longer fear dogs.
I mention this potential for faulty instincts as it dovetails nicely with an exercise I want you to try. Take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. On one side, write the qualities that you want in a romantic partner. I’m not going to suggest what those qualities should be. As I’ve said previously, these are your rules, not mine. However, the qualities should relate to a man’s direct interaction with you (for instance, “good listener”), and those behaviors which affect you indirectly (for instance, “good with money”).
Once you’ve written down everything (wrack your brain) you want, move to the second column. Now do a mental inventory of the men you’ve dated. Try to come up with a composite showing regular patterns in the men you choose. Now go through the qualities in the first column and write either yes or no next to each one in the second column. Yes, most of my boyfriends have had this quality or no, they have not. Give the answers serious, thorough consideration. I’m not asking whether you’ve ever dated someone with these fine qualities. At some point in your life, you could’ve encountered many of these positives, if not necessarily in the same person. This is a discussion of averages. If a majority of your boyfriends have been good listeners (if that quality is on your list), write “yes.” Otherwise, write “no.”
After you’ve gone through the entire list and answered to the best of your ability, think about patterns of behavior that you didn’t list. What are some other commonalities among your exes? Are there good qualities you didn’t think of? Equally important, are there bad ones that show up repeatedly? Write any additional consistent qualities you’ve noticed in your exes, both good and bad, in the left column, and put a “yes” next to it in the right.
Now sit back and take a look at the result. How closely does your “perfect” man mirror the reality of your previous boyfriends or partners? Did you often answer yes in the right places? If so, give yourself a pat on the back. Either you’ve become proficient at choosing potential mates from the outset, or you’ve learned how to articulate your needs well enough to weed out unworthy men before wasting an undue amount of time on them.
Both of these skills improve with practice and, like any other practiced skill, they begin to function nearly at the level of instinct. For a comparison, let us look at professional baseball players. To hit a pitch thrown at major league speeds (anywhere from 80-105 miles per hour) requires instantaneous decisions from the millisecond the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand. Hitters don’t “see” the baseball crossing the plate and adjust their swings accordingly. The limitations of human sight and agility make it a literal impossibility to do so, given the sheer speed at which the baseball moves and the short distance (about sixty feet between pitcher and batter) it travels.
So how the hell do hitters ever hit the stupid ball?
Yes,
professional players are more athletically gifted than most of us. Yes, their strength, speed, and agility all play roles in what happens after the pitch is released, but you’d be surprised at how little these skills determine whether or not the hitter makes contact with the ball. A study of the reflex times of major league players surprisingly showed that their reaction times aren’t significantly faster than the average person. Rather, professionals generally have better eyesight (pro players average above 20/20 vision), as well as lots and lots of practice.[xlvi]
Back to how they hit a baseball. Seeing as it’s impossible to react to the flight of a baseball as it nears the plate, players rely on keen sight and educated guesswork. Anticipating the trajectory and speed of a baseball comes down to a few simple factors: the position of the pitcher arm, his grip on the ball, knowledge of his pitching patterns, and familiarity with the basic speed of his various pitches. That’s pretty much it. Bat speed and superior coordination may affect where and how far the ball travels after it is hit, but the players can’t do anything without good instincts.
That’s all well and good, but I’m not the starting shortstop for the New York Yankees. I’m trying to find a guy who doesn’t forget my birthday and isn’t pathologically allergic to foreplay.
Don’t worry, there is a point here. Take a look at your worksheet again. Perhaps you’re staring down at a sea of disappointing “no” answers, which doesn’t make you foolish or hopeless. But these answers do indicate a rift between your conscious desires and what your mischievous little subconscious is seeking out. Like the tug-of-war that can occur between your heart and your loins, bad programming (a problem I understand firsthand) is a conflict between your conscious and subconscious mind.
Your Ex-Boyfriend Will Hate This Page 8