Being a gentleman of a certain age means being aware (and sometimes being all-too-aware) of time and decay. It means being someone who does hear the phrase bare, ruin'd choirs in his head like the calls of the Wild Hunt growing closer and closer. There's no way around that. You're aware of time and age and decay.
Bare, ruin'd choirs--- I've seen annotations and explanations that say it really only means losing one's hair, Shakespeare's own fear of his own encroaching baldness. But we all know what it means, don't we? The image of abandoned buildings in a wintery landscape, the image of silenced voices. It's often taken to be about impotence, of course, about the failures time imposes. I can understand those things. Though I think that there's something more here.
Baldness and impotence are taken as the two key male fears once you reach a certain age. I won't try to pinpoint the number. It's a moving target after all. The best one could do is say that it's a number higher than the age where the arbitrary social rules no longer allow you to dance at clubs. Those two things, though, aren't the worst fears that age brings.
There are deeper fears, and ones that will paralyze you more than the fear of impotence or of going bald. After all, the Blue Pill exists, and current fashion allows men to shave their heads. The body's decay leads to things that far more terrifying.
I'm not talking just about the unsightliness that age brings. Flesh itself is a failure, and all the inner ills the body is heir to. Decay isn't just about looks or less frequent erections. Everything inside the body decays as well, and none of those things can be discussed or seen or acknowledged. The risks of that are too great, the social penalties too devastating. There are things that one could never risk having happen around a sexual partner, things too humiliating and degrading ever to be forgotten.
It's always a risk, revealing the body, trusting the body. And the risk of having the body fail in ways that evoke disgust is just too great. Flesh is and always has been a failure, something that makes any kind of sex a risk for seeing revulsion or disgust in a lover's eyes.
One has to just accept it. The body itself cannot be trusted, and being embodied, being inside flesh, is a clear avenue to being mocked or treated with derision. Flesh is a failure. We need to know this.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
One Zero Five: Semaphore
I do have to think about the concept of misogyny, about what it means, and about how the definition has become so unfocused, so overly broad, as to render the word almost meaningless. Like "narcissist" or "entitled", it's become a generalized term of abuse and condemnation without any clear standards. "Misogyny" is one more word, one more concept, that the gender wars have rendered too broad to be of any real use except as a way to condemn and dismiss out of hand.
I want to sit down and write about the whole idea of "misogyny" and about what it means, or at least about what it means to me. I suppose I might wait a bit, or at least until the #YesAllWomen furor has died down a bit.
What I will think about, though, is signals between men and women--- how both sides seem to be losing the ability to read signals from the other, or maybe losing the will to accept what signaling involves.
Whenever I read articles or commentariat rants about the "nice guy" issue, one thing that always comes up is women's anger that a male is being "nice" to them but has ulterior motives, motives that are seemingly always regarded as despicable or sinister. I've never quite understood that. It may be that my own grasp of "nice" is outmoded. But it's always been my view that "nice" is a signal that one is interested in a girl. This isn't base-level politeness or mere ordinary daily social pleasantry. "Nice" has always meant something else to me--- paying particular attention to a given person, going out of one's way to do small favors or offer kindnesses. It's more than ordinary politeness, and it's based on things that one male isn't likely to do for another. Being "nice" to a girl, paying particular attention to a girl, is a courtship signal. It's a way of signaling that you're willing to do out-of-the-ordinary things for one particular person. It's a way of signaling romantic interest, of signaling that you find this girl to be somehow special. I've always argued that "nice" is something more than ordinary politeness. If you weren't interested in this girl, you wouldn't be rude or impolite, but you wouldn't go beyond mere ordinary courtesy in how you treat her.
You signal a girl that you're interested in her on a romantic or sexual level. You do that by showing her individualized attention. She's no longer treated as simply someone in the background, someone to whom you distantly say "thank you" or "pardon me". She may or may not offer up a favorable response to your signal, she may or may not be interested in returning the signal, but there really shouldn't be any question that "nice" is a courtship signal. I've no idea how it became taken for granted that "nice" implies some sinister ulterior motive. It's part of courtship, part of the mating dance, and it is obvious enough. Why is "nice" somehow sinister? Why is it somehow disreputable or despicable to be sexually or romantically interested in someone and signal that interest by showing individual attention?
Again, now, there's no guarantee of a favorable response. Let's take that as a given. But if the male needs to accept that, the girl needs to admit that what's happening is a signal about someone's interest in her. It should be simple enough to tell. One basic question the girl should ask herself is whether the attentions being paid her are something one (straight) male would do for another. If the answer is no, then the girl shouldn't pretend to be surprised or shocked: there's a mating ritual in play. Say yes, say no--- that's your choice if you're the recipient. But don't pretend to be surprised. Recognize, too, and accept that if you say no, you may have to simply walk away from the male in question. Unrequited desire and unrequited love are perfectly ordinary and commonplace, but they're still painful and awkward. If there's nothing in the signal to interest you, then say no and make a clean and immediate break. Don't--- don't ---keep someone around just to benefit from the signals, just for the favors.
I'm never sure what signals the gender warriors find acceptable between males and females. To straightforwardly, directly announce sexual or romantic interest is regarded as aggression. To offer up individualized attention as a way of announcing interest, to try to make it especially pleasant--- "nice" ---to be around you is seen as having evil ulterior motives. It may well be that the gender warriors don't think males should demonstrate any interest at all. After all, they already regard seduction--- persuasion ---as evil.
There are signals out there. It's exhausting and depressing to think that we're losing the ability to read others' courtship and mating signals...or, worse, refusing to admit that signals exist and admit what they mean.
I want to sit down and write about the whole idea of "misogyny" and about what it means, or at least about what it means to me. I suppose I might wait a bit, or at least until the #YesAllWomen furor has died down a bit.
What I will think about, though, is signals between men and women--- how both sides seem to be losing the ability to read signals from the other, or maybe losing the will to accept what signaling involves.
Whenever I read articles or commentariat rants about the "nice guy" issue, one thing that always comes up is women's anger that a male is being "nice" to them but has ulterior motives, motives that are seemingly always regarded as despicable or sinister. I've never quite understood that. It may be that my own grasp of "nice" is outmoded. But it's always been my view that "nice" is a signal that one is interested in a girl. This isn't base-level politeness or mere ordinary daily social pleasantry. "Nice" has always meant something else to me--- paying particular attention to a given person, going out of one's way to do small favors or offer kindnesses. It's more than ordinary politeness, and it's based on things that one male isn't likely to do for another. Being "nice" to a girl, paying particular attention to a girl, is a courtship signal. It's a way of signaling that you're willing to do out-of-the-ordinary things for one particular person. It's a way of signaling romantic interest, of signaling that you find this girl to be somehow special. I've always argued that "nice" is something more than ordinary politeness. If you weren't interested in this girl, you wouldn't be rude or impolite, but you wouldn't go beyond mere ordinary courtesy in how you treat her.
You signal a girl that you're interested in her on a romantic or sexual level. You do that by showing her individualized attention. She's no longer treated as simply someone in the background, someone to whom you distantly say "thank you" or "pardon me". She may or may not offer up a favorable response to your signal, she may or may not be interested in returning the signal, but there really shouldn't be any question that "nice" is a courtship signal. I've no idea how it became taken for granted that "nice" implies some sinister ulterior motive. It's part of courtship, part of the mating dance, and it is obvious enough. Why is "nice" somehow sinister? Why is it somehow disreputable or despicable to be sexually or romantically interested in someone and signal that interest by showing individual attention?
Again, now, there's no guarantee of a favorable response. Let's take that as a given. But if the male needs to accept that, the girl needs to admit that what's happening is a signal about someone's interest in her. It should be simple enough to tell. One basic question the girl should ask herself is whether the attentions being paid her are something one (straight) male would do for another. If the answer is no, then the girl shouldn't pretend to be surprised or shocked: there's a mating ritual in play. Say yes, say no--- that's your choice if you're the recipient. But don't pretend to be surprised. Recognize, too, and accept that if you say no, you may have to simply walk away from the male in question. Unrequited desire and unrequited love are perfectly ordinary and commonplace, but they're still painful and awkward. If there's nothing in the signal to interest you, then say no and make a clean and immediate break. Don't--- don't ---keep someone around just to benefit from the signals, just for the favors.
I'm never sure what signals the gender warriors find acceptable between males and females. To straightforwardly, directly announce sexual or romantic interest is regarded as aggression. To offer up individualized attention as a way of announcing interest, to try to make it especially pleasant--- "nice" ---to be around you is seen as having evil ulterior motives. It may well be that the gender warriors don't think males should demonstrate any interest at all. After all, they already regard seduction--- persuasion ---as evil.
There are signals out there. It's exhausting and depressing to think that we're losing the ability to read others' courtship and mating signals...or, worse, refusing to admit that signals exist and admit what they mean.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
One Zero Four: Duello
Today is a day when the idea of "misogyny" has been all over the web. There was a shooting in Southern California, and as far as I know, seven people are dead, including the young shooter, and another dozen were injured. The shooter was an ex-student at UCSB, and he left one of those long, ranting, ghastly "manifestos" that we've become all-too-familiar with. He blamed women--- blamed them for rejecting him, blamed them for preferring other males--- ones he despised ---, and blamed them for ruining his vision of his university years as a time of sex and fun. He stabbed three of his roommates and then tried to get into the sorority house that he labelled as the center of the evil conspiracy to reject him, but when no one answered the door he shot two girls outside the house and then drove through the university neighbourhood shooting at random people and smashing his car into bicyclists and pedestrians. He shot himself after an exchange of gunfire with local police--- the usual ending.
His manifesto is on the web, and it's given rise to a series of angry articles by the usual gender warriors, but also to a long-running Twitter hashtag where women talk about the abuse and casual hostility they've endured from men. It's a day where the word "misogyny" is in the limelight. I suppose I should consider my own feelings about what it means.
It's easy enough to say that one doesn't hate women, that one isn't literally misogynist. After all, I support all the abstract political things--- equality of pay, equality of legal rights, an end to glass ceilings, reproductive rights. It's harder to deny a certain amount of misogyny in one's social attitudes.
No--- I don't cat-call, I don't fondle women on subways, I do take No for an answer. All simple things. But there is always a certain amount of hostility built into male-female social relationships. The boy who was the shooter in Santa Barbara was involved in various Pick-Up Artist sites, and took part at a forum attacking PUA sites whose techniques didn't work. It's taken for granted that the PUA types are all misogynists, of course, and that all PUA techniques regard women as no more than targets.
And yet...courtship and mating rituals--- dating rituals, if you'd like ---always have something of the game about them. They lend themselves to game theory fairly readily. Each party makes moves, deploys his or her assets, tries to maximize returns. Courtship and dating aren't just about mating, of course--- whether you regard "mating" as being about sex alone or as being about forming pair-bonds and longer alliances. They're overlain with all sorts of things about social status and social expectations. I suppose I'd argue that the shooter in Santa Barbara (and so many other men who claim to be "involuntary celibates") wasn't seeking sex as a physical act so much as he was seeking social validation, seeking to be regarded as "good enough" for attractive women to date. Isn't part of any social activity with a date the desire to show off and be shown off? All of that is about games--- or at least can be analyzed as a set of game moves. Doesn't that go back to "The Games People Play" in the mid-1960s?
There's something in seeing the girl you're trying to court as the Player On The Other Side. Though mating games aren't a straightforward zero-sum game. If you're the male player, you're trying to persuade a girl to go out with you and, if you're lucky, join you in bed. But the female player isn't--- or isn't always, or isn't only ---trying to block those intentions. She'll have her own agenda, which may be much more complicated than simply saying No...or holding out for whatever "the best deal" might be. Mating games, courtship games, aren't simply about one party winning and one losing. Both parties stand to gain something, even though each player's preferred outcome may be hidden. The problem I suppose is that the game isn't chess or Go or backgammon. A zero-sum game, one with a winner and a loser, may not create as much hostility as one where the outcome is always ambiguous. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
So...misogyny. As long as dating and courtship aren't purely formalized, as long as all that's built into them (sex, status, validation, loneliness, longing) depends not on purely external forces (e.g., family and clan arrangements) but on individual needs and hopes and fears, there'll be some degree of hostility, or at least wariness. Is that misogyny?
I hope that I've never been openly hostile to an individual girl, to any young companion in my past and life. I do know, however, that I've felt anger and bitterness in the social world. That goes with the territory. No one enjoys rejection, and romantic or sexual rejection hits much closer to home than, say, not getting a job. Romantic and sexual success are also social markers (let's not waste time denying that), and there's bitterness about what rejection or failure say about you (or can be imagined to say about you) to others. I've felt that kind of bitterness. (Let's make another note here, too, about the irrelevance of the word "entitled". Bitterness wells up even you know very clearly that you aren't "owed" something. Anger and bitterness at loss and rejection isn't about anything socially correct or even rational.)
I'm quite certain that I'm regarded as an evil misogynist in some quarters, and I know that I have felt anger at some social/sexual outcomes. I'm a gentleman of a certain age, though, and I see it as absolutely key to use politeness and courtesy to rein in any bitterness or anger. Whatever you may feel, we've had centuries to create social forms and formulae to get around those feelings.
"Misogyny" is a broad word, and it's broad enough to encompass lots of things. In the end, I've no idea where I fall on any kind of spectrum for misogyny. I'm note even sure where the boundaries are. If you are reading this, I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments.
His manifesto is on the web, and it's given rise to a series of angry articles by the usual gender warriors, but also to a long-running Twitter hashtag where women talk about the abuse and casual hostility they've endured from men. It's a day where the word "misogyny" is in the limelight. I suppose I should consider my own feelings about what it means.
It's easy enough to say that one doesn't hate women, that one isn't literally misogynist. After all, I support all the abstract political things--- equality of pay, equality of legal rights, an end to glass ceilings, reproductive rights. It's harder to deny a certain amount of misogyny in one's social attitudes.
No--- I don't cat-call, I don't fondle women on subways, I do take No for an answer. All simple things. But there is always a certain amount of hostility built into male-female social relationships. The boy who was the shooter in Santa Barbara was involved in various Pick-Up Artist sites, and took part at a forum attacking PUA sites whose techniques didn't work. It's taken for granted that the PUA types are all misogynists, of course, and that all PUA techniques regard women as no more than targets.
And yet...courtship and mating rituals--- dating rituals, if you'd like ---always have something of the game about them. They lend themselves to game theory fairly readily. Each party makes moves, deploys his or her assets, tries to maximize returns. Courtship and dating aren't just about mating, of course--- whether you regard "mating" as being about sex alone or as being about forming pair-bonds and longer alliances. They're overlain with all sorts of things about social status and social expectations. I suppose I'd argue that the shooter in Santa Barbara (and so many other men who claim to be "involuntary celibates") wasn't seeking sex as a physical act so much as he was seeking social validation, seeking to be regarded as "good enough" for attractive women to date. Isn't part of any social activity with a date the desire to show off and be shown off? All of that is about games--- or at least can be analyzed as a set of game moves. Doesn't that go back to "The Games People Play" in the mid-1960s?
There's something in seeing the girl you're trying to court as the Player On The Other Side. Though mating games aren't a straightforward zero-sum game. If you're the male player, you're trying to persuade a girl to go out with you and, if you're lucky, join you in bed. But the female player isn't--- or isn't always, or isn't only ---trying to block those intentions. She'll have her own agenda, which may be much more complicated than simply saying No...or holding out for whatever "the best deal" might be. Mating games, courtship games, aren't simply about one party winning and one losing. Both parties stand to gain something, even though each player's preferred outcome may be hidden. The problem I suppose is that the game isn't chess or Go or backgammon. A zero-sum game, one with a winner and a loser, may not create as much hostility as one where the outcome is always ambiguous. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
So...misogyny. As long as dating and courtship aren't purely formalized, as long as all that's built into them (sex, status, validation, loneliness, longing) depends not on purely external forces (e.g., family and clan arrangements) but on individual needs and hopes and fears, there'll be some degree of hostility, or at least wariness. Is that misogyny?
I hope that I've never been openly hostile to an individual girl, to any young companion in my past and life. I do know, however, that I've felt anger and bitterness in the social world. That goes with the territory. No one enjoys rejection, and romantic or sexual rejection hits much closer to home than, say, not getting a job. Romantic and sexual success are also social markers (let's not waste time denying that), and there's bitterness about what rejection or failure say about you (or can be imagined to say about you) to others. I've felt that kind of bitterness. (Let's make another note here, too, about the irrelevance of the word "entitled". Bitterness wells up even you know very clearly that you aren't "owed" something. Anger and bitterness at loss and rejection isn't about anything socially correct or even rational.)
I'm quite certain that I'm regarded as an evil misogynist in some quarters, and I know that I have felt anger at some social/sexual outcomes. I'm a gentleman of a certain age, though, and I see it as absolutely key to use politeness and courtesy to rein in any bitterness or anger. Whatever you may feel, we've had centuries to create social forms and formulae to get around those feelings.
"Misogyny" is a broad word, and it's broad enough to encompass lots of things. In the end, I've no idea where I fall on any kind of spectrum for misogyny. I'm note even sure where the boundaries are. If you are reading this, I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
One Zero Three: Psychopomps
A lovely friend of mine used to tell me that she was given to wearing cropped baby-tees that she'd had silk-screened to say "Proud To Be A Manic Pixie Dream Girl". That was her skill, she'd say: introducing shy boys to new and quirky and fun things, drawing the reclusive out of their rooms and onto dance floors and out into the world. She was good at it, she always said. She'd laugh on the phone and tell me that I had a male version of the same skill. I could tempt bookish undergraduate girls into the wickedness they'd been hoping for, provide an avenue for adventures.
She was irritated and annoyed at the gender warriors' efforts to turn Manic Pixie Dream Girl into something that oppressed or exploited women. This was her skill, after all--- giving shy and awkward boys the prompting they needed. The returns, she'd say, were the same as ones I'd get from young companions who needed an excuse to step into what their reading told them would be a new world. We provided adventures, she'd say. We knew how to offer up temptation and seduction as a gift. We exchanged new worlds for sex, which was a very straightforward exchange. I always agreed with her on that.
I remain disdainful of the way Manic Pixie Dream Girl as a concept has been treated by the gender warriors. I'm as contemptuous of the way the gender warriors have ranted about the MPDG concept as I am of the way they regard roué-hood and the idea of seduction. I still don't understand where their anger comes from. Some of it seems to be based on the idea that a MPDG is "one-dimensional" in films or novels, but some of it seems to be based on the idea that looking to a romantic partner to be in any way mentoring is exploitative or reductive. Needless to say, though, I'm all-too-aware of where their anger at the idea of the roué, the Older Admirer, comes from. But there is an underlying assumption here--- the MPDG is being reduced to a character in someone else's Bildungsroman; the Older Admirer is obviously manipulating and degrading his young companion. Male evil is simply assumed.
We're all characters in someone's Bildungsroman--- if we're lucky. I want to be very clear about that. It's no small thing to be someone who can offer up new worlds and adventures to someone else. I've spent half my life trying to be someone who can provide the kind of literary experiences that a certain kind of bookish girl longs for. Yes, my bookshelves lead inevitably to my bedroom, but the exchange has always been straightforward. My friend saw her own exchanges as being very much the same: she'd lead shy or inexperienced boys out into the social world, and they'd be terribly grateful in bed. She played a role in their inner films, the novels-in-the-head that her boys were living out, but they were playing a role in hers as well. That holds true for me as well, and I've always been deeply honoured whenever a young companion has told me in later years that I'd been a story she still enjoys telling.
I suppose that this evening I'm thinking of writers like the so-called "Dr. NerdLove", who has a column at Good Men Project. He disdains anyone male who would hope that a lovely girl would provide the excuse and the occasion to go out into the social world, and of course he deeply dislikes any male of a certain age who prefers young companions and seduction games. I read his Good Men Project columns or his own website and just smile a thin, cold smile. Well, the back of my hand to him. Dr. NerdLove is not, as I always remind myself, a doctor of anything. I at least have the right to put Dr. in front of my name--- the academic if not the medical title. Beyond that, though, I look at his columns and think how deceptive he is. He promises to help "nerds" find true love or at least sex and romance, but I've yet to see any of his columns that actually urge the solitary to have sex. He seems mostly to offer up reasons why males shouldn't approach girls at bars or parties and to devote himself to telling his male readers why they aren't sufficiently advanced or valuable enough to have sex. I expect that he'd say that he's providing "tough love", but there's always a point where "tough love" shows itself as contempt and hostility and derision. He has, needless to say, nothing good to say about the idea of sex (or youth and beauty) exchanged for knowledge and a passion for knowledge, and he has nothing good to say about the idea of any kind of mentoring as a dynamic in affairs.
I've played the guide for lovely, bookish undergraduate girls. I've sat in bed and handed them books and told them about ideas and places and events and novels. I have shown them how to pick a good single-malt or a good wine. I've played the other role, too. I have been the one pulled up from his armchair or from his office desk and taken out to events and places I'd never had gone to without urging--- without a lovely young companion. I am proud to have been the occasion for adventures and wickedness, and I'm no less thrilled to have had someone be willing to take me out as part of her own adventures.
The world is full of unopened rooms and shadowed galleries. Take that as a given, and as something that should provide hope for the future. And take it as a given that guides are needed, and should be valuable and valued. Despite Dr. NerdLove and his kind, there's nothing wrong with finding a guide and a mentor to take you into the dreamlands, and the skills needed to be a guide--- a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, an older seducer, an Occasion of Sin ---are valuable and admirable. Remember that.
She was irritated and annoyed at the gender warriors' efforts to turn Manic Pixie Dream Girl into something that oppressed or exploited women. This was her skill, after all--- giving shy and awkward boys the prompting they needed. The returns, she'd say, were the same as ones I'd get from young companions who needed an excuse to step into what their reading told them would be a new world. We provided adventures, she'd say. We knew how to offer up temptation and seduction as a gift. We exchanged new worlds for sex, which was a very straightforward exchange. I always agreed with her on that.
I remain disdainful of the way Manic Pixie Dream Girl as a concept has been treated by the gender warriors. I'm as contemptuous of the way the gender warriors have ranted about the MPDG concept as I am of the way they regard roué-hood and the idea of seduction. I still don't understand where their anger comes from. Some of it seems to be based on the idea that a MPDG is "one-dimensional" in films or novels, but some of it seems to be based on the idea that looking to a romantic partner to be in any way mentoring is exploitative or reductive. Needless to say, though, I'm all-too-aware of where their anger at the idea of the roué, the Older Admirer, comes from. But there is an underlying assumption here--- the MPDG is being reduced to a character in someone else's Bildungsroman; the Older Admirer is obviously manipulating and degrading his young companion. Male evil is simply assumed.
We're all characters in someone's Bildungsroman--- if we're lucky. I want to be very clear about that. It's no small thing to be someone who can offer up new worlds and adventures to someone else. I've spent half my life trying to be someone who can provide the kind of literary experiences that a certain kind of bookish girl longs for. Yes, my bookshelves lead inevitably to my bedroom, but the exchange has always been straightforward. My friend saw her own exchanges as being very much the same: she'd lead shy or inexperienced boys out into the social world, and they'd be terribly grateful in bed. She played a role in their inner films, the novels-in-the-head that her boys were living out, but they were playing a role in hers as well. That holds true for me as well, and I've always been deeply honoured whenever a young companion has told me in later years that I'd been a story she still enjoys telling.
I suppose that this evening I'm thinking of writers like the so-called "Dr. NerdLove", who has a column at Good Men Project. He disdains anyone male who would hope that a lovely girl would provide the excuse and the occasion to go out into the social world, and of course he deeply dislikes any male of a certain age who prefers young companions and seduction games. I read his Good Men Project columns or his own website and just smile a thin, cold smile. Well, the back of my hand to him. Dr. NerdLove is not, as I always remind myself, a doctor of anything. I at least have the right to put Dr. in front of my name--- the academic if not the medical title. Beyond that, though, I look at his columns and think how deceptive he is. He promises to help "nerds" find true love or at least sex and romance, but I've yet to see any of his columns that actually urge the solitary to have sex. He seems mostly to offer up reasons why males shouldn't approach girls at bars or parties and to devote himself to telling his male readers why they aren't sufficiently advanced or valuable enough to have sex. I expect that he'd say that he's providing "tough love", but there's always a point where "tough love" shows itself as contempt and hostility and derision. He has, needless to say, nothing good to say about the idea of sex (or youth and beauty) exchanged for knowledge and a passion for knowledge, and he has nothing good to say about the idea of any kind of mentoring as a dynamic in affairs.
I've played the guide for lovely, bookish undergraduate girls. I've sat in bed and handed them books and told them about ideas and places and events and novels. I have shown them how to pick a good single-malt or a good wine. I've played the other role, too. I have been the one pulled up from his armchair or from his office desk and taken out to events and places I'd never had gone to without urging--- without a lovely young companion. I am proud to have been the occasion for adventures and wickedness, and I'm no less thrilled to have had someone be willing to take me out as part of her own adventures.
The world is full of unopened rooms and shadowed galleries. Take that as a given, and as something that should provide hope for the future. And take it as a given that guides are needed, and should be valuable and valued. Despite Dr. NerdLove and his kind, there's nothing wrong with finding a guide and a mentor to take you into the dreamlands, and the skills needed to be a guide--- a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, an older seducer, an Occasion of Sin ---are valuable and admirable. Remember that.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
One Zero Two: Transactions
There's a particular writer out there in the gender wars who calls himself "Dr. NerdLove", and whose columns always leave me irritated, dejected, and angry. His tagline at his website is "Helping Nerds Get The Girl", but of course his columns do exactly the opposite. They discourage anyone male from approaching a girl, they discourage romance and flirtation and seduction, and they discourage anyone male from having particular sexual interests or needs. "Dr. NerdLove" (who isn't a PhD or an MD, by the way) claims to be "sex-positive", but of course so many of his columns are devoted to telling his readers not to have sex. His vision of a proper relationship is exactly that of some very stodgy 1950s advice columnist--- the only proper affair is one that begins with the clear intent of becoming a "committed", lifelong relationship and proceeds without involving any sort of passionate sexual interest or sexual engagement. He very much dislikes the idea that anyone--- anyone male ---might be interested in a partner in any way that involves physical desire and any kind of social play. His especial ire is reserved for the idea that sex is "transactional" in any way, or that affairs or dates are tainted with being transactions of any sort.
I've never understood the disdain for the idea that sex is "transactional". I suppose some of that must be based on the idea that sex can only be a good thing if it's based on the pure joining of souls and spirits, and some of it is based on a fear that saying something is "transactional" is yielding ground to the patriarchy and to MRA/PUA types who declare that all women are "whores". I've never seen anything wrong with the idea that sex and romance have a transactional element; I thought those things were built in from the start.
I've always thought that any kind of social life was about transactions and strategies. Yes, I read Marcel Mauss and his followers when I was at university--- about symbolic exchanges and the role of gifting in tribal and archaic societies. But even before that, I knew that there was something called "transactional analysis" that had its moment in the sun back in the early and mid-1960s. I knew that it involved looking at human interactions in terms of games, of strategies and transactions. I hadn't read any of the works, but I knew from book reviews and review articles that it existed, and basically what it was about. And of course I'd read things like Austen and Henry James. I always thought social life--- personal interactions, romances, marriages, friendships ---were about strategies and transactions. I took that for granted.
The idea of sex and romance as transactional seems quite natural to me--- after all, I grew up in a culture that valorizes the market and the idea of exchange. I can't see it as degrading to either party, and it seems to me that it's an efficient way to move forward in any kind of developing affair. After all, I've always preferred rituals and procedures. They have the advantage of reducing friction, of reducing the need to agonize over decisions and choices. In terms of a particular social structure, if you do A, then B will follow. X does this, and Y knows that in terms of the structure, one responds with that.
When I was younger, the point of a date--- of an affair ---was to engage with someone attractive and bright and move towards bed: through hanging out to making out. I always expected that the girl across the table or in the passenger seat of the car knew that and was there for the same thing. We'd each go through the symbolic exchanges that underlay a seduction, and, yes, that did involve taking her to dinner or for drinks and paying. I was signaling that I valued her enough to expend resources; she responded by presenting me with her time and attention. That seemed, and still seems, straightforward enough. And both parties knew that we were going through ritual moves to reach a goal both of us understood.
We're social animals. We build structures and systems, and we create rituals and procedures to move through them. We deploy strategies to seek social advantage, and we participate in exchanges--- some symbolic, some concrete, often both ---as part of those strategies. I've never seen a problem with that. At the very least, looking at sex and romance as transactional forces both parties to be very clear about what they want and about what they're prepared to give up for that. It forces us to acknowledge that there's a goal--- a physical goal ---in any affair. The soi-disant "Dr. NerdLove" is very good at chastising and browbeating his readers and anyone seeking his advice, but he's no good at all at admitting what an affair is about or that any relationship occurs within a web of social maneuvers. He doesn't really try to "help the nerd get the girl"--- he really seems to be doing quite the opposite. And he refuses to admit that sex and romance, like pretty much everything else in a social structure, proceeds by strategy and exchange.
I've never understood the disdain for the idea that sex is "transactional". I suppose some of that must be based on the idea that sex can only be a good thing if it's based on the pure joining of souls and spirits, and some of it is based on a fear that saying something is "transactional" is yielding ground to the patriarchy and to MRA/PUA types who declare that all women are "whores". I've never seen anything wrong with the idea that sex and romance have a transactional element; I thought those things were built in from the start.
I've always thought that any kind of social life was about transactions and strategies. Yes, I read Marcel Mauss and his followers when I was at university--- about symbolic exchanges and the role of gifting in tribal and archaic societies. But even before that, I knew that there was something called "transactional analysis" that had its moment in the sun back in the early and mid-1960s. I knew that it involved looking at human interactions in terms of games, of strategies and transactions. I hadn't read any of the works, but I knew from book reviews and review articles that it existed, and basically what it was about. And of course I'd read things like Austen and Henry James. I always thought social life--- personal interactions, romances, marriages, friendships ---were about strategies and transactions. I took that for granted.
The idea of sex and romance as transactional seems quite natural to me--- after all, I grew up in a culture that valorizes the market and the idea of exchange. I can't see it as degrading to either party, and it seems to me that it's an efficient way to move forward in any kind of developing affair. After all, I've always preferred rituals and procedures. They have the advantage of reducing friction, of reducing the need to agonize over decisions and choices. In terms of a particular social structure, if you do A, then B will follow. X does this, and Y knows that in terms of the structure, one responds with that.
When I was younger, the point of a date--- of an affair ---was to engage with someone attractive and bright and move towards bed: through hanging out to making out. I always expected that the girl across the table or in the passenger seat of the car knew that and was there for the same thing. We'd each go through the symbolic exchanges that underlay a seduction, and, yes, that did involve taking her to dinner or for drinks and paying. I was signaling that I valued her enough to expend resources; she responded by presenting me with her time and attention. That seemed, and still seems, straightforward enough. And both parties knew that we were going through ritual moves to reach a goal both of us understood.
We're social animals. We build structures and systems, and we create rituals and procedures to move through them. We deploy strategies to seek social advantage, and we participate in exchanges--- some symbolic, some concrete, often both ---as part of those strategies. I've never seen a problem with that. At the very least, looking at sex and romance as transactional forces both parties to be very clear about what they want and about what they're prepared to give up for that. It forces us to acknowledge that there's a goal--- a physical goal ---in any affair. The soi-disant "Dr. NerdLove" is very good at chastising and browbeating his readers and anyone seeking his advice, but he's no good at all at admitting what an affair is about or that any relationship occurs within a web of social maneuvers. He doesn't really try to "help the nerd get the girl"--- he really seems to be doing quite the opposite. And he refuses to admit that sex and romance, like pretty much everything else in a social structure, proceeds by strategy and exchange.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
One Zero One: Gateways
There's a trope that the gender warriors are fond of deploying--- one that comes up at Good Men Project, too. It's the the image of the gatekeeper, of women as gatekeepers to sex. Both the gender warriors and their awkward allies at Good Men Project insist vehemently that one of the graver sins of evil male culture is that women are seen as "gatekeepers". I can read the paragraphs where the idea is disparaged, but I have no emotional connection to the idea, and I really can't grasp it.
If you'd asked me at seventeen about the gatekeeper idea, I'd have thought for a second, sighed, and said that yes, of course it was true. All these years later, I'd still say that. It seems like an obvious thing--- males apply to women for sex, women decide whether their suitors are to be allowed past the velvet ropes into the Heavenly City. I am a bit puzzled about why the gatekeeper image is supposed to be a bad thing. Isn't it just another way of presenting consent--- that it's always the girl's choice? I do wonder what the gender warriors and the GMP columnists see as the downside to the gatekeeper image. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of why it's a bad thing from the girl's point of view. Is it just that the gatekeeper role is supposed to be passive? Does the trope assume that waiting and (yes) passing judgment is necessarily something that removes "agency"?
If you're male, the gatekeeper image seems to be a very clear depiction of reality. Go to any bar or dance club on a Friday night. Every male knows the scene. The single males are gathered at one end of the bar, building up their courage. The attractive girls are gathered down at the other end, waiting for suitors to approach, marking which ones meet the night's standards, waiting to be paid court to.
I can recall so many female friends in my university and grad school days who looked forward to Friday and Saturday nights at the bar without ever worrying about money. The protocol was simple enough. A girl would carry her ID and cash for cab fare home. She wouldn't need anything else. She certainly wasn't buying drinks--- "That's what boys are for," the girls would have said. One friend was notorious for announcing that she was "like the Queen--- I never carry cash". I don't recall ever being angry about that. It was just the way things were. I understood the idea--- you bought girls drinks to get them to grant you dances or grant you time to make your presentation. I never thought buying girls drinks was a way to pay them to go home with me, but I did understand that it was buying time where I could try to persuade them that I was worth hanging out with.
The ritual was simple enough. A girl allowed you to buy her a drink or allowed you to dance with her for a song. You tried to make a case for why she needed to be spending time with you and making out with you. Buying the drink was a recognition for her value, of the value of her time and attention. The final decision to pay attention to you at all was always hers. I think I once quoted a line from Christopher Coe's "I Look Divine" about the difference between Trade and Tribute, and the line applies here. The girls at the end of the bar waited for tribute, for acknowledgment that they were desired, for acknowledgment that here--- in this place, on this night ---they were the ones with the power to choose.
In all my long life, I can't recall a girl asking me to dance, let alone buying me a drink. I'm male, after all, and my particulars aren't impressive. I'm a petitioner, not a gatekeeper. I've understood that all my life. The girls at the end of the bar don't need to pursue. They just have to wait. They wait, and then they choose. That's something I can envy, but there's no point in feeling bitter. It's the way the world works, or at least the way the world works there in the club on a Friday night. If a girl walked down the bar and asked me to dance or asked if she could buy me a drink, I'd be...wary and suspicious. Why was she violating established ritual? Could I trust someone who'd break protocol? Was I being set up for something?
One day I'll have to find an explanation for why being a gatekeeper for sex is a bad thing. It certainly has its advantages for the girls at the end of the bar. It may only be power that works inside clubs and at parties--- a very narrowly-focused kind of power. But that's...not negligible. The power to acquire free drinks, the power to choose or dismiss potential hook-ups--- it's not being a cabinet minister, but it's something that matters in social lives and on weekend nights.
If you'd asked me at seventeen about the gatekeeper idea, I'd have thought for a second, sighed, and said that yes, of course it was true. All these years later, I'd still say that. It seems like an obvious thing--- males apply to women for sex, women decide whether their suitors are to be allowed past the velvet ropes into the Heavenly City. I am a bit puzzled about why the gatekeeper image is supposed to be a bad thing. Isn't it just another way of presenting consent--- that it's always the girl's choice? I do wonder what the gender warriors and the GMP columnists see as the downside to the gatekeeper image. I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of why it's a bad thing from the girl's point of view. Is it just that the gatekeeper role is supposed to be passive? Does the trope assume that waiting and (yes) passing judgment is necessarily something that removes "agency"?
If you're male, the gatekeeper image seems to be a very clear depiction of reality. Go to any bar or dance club on a Friday night. Every male knows the scene. The single males are gathered at one end of the bar, building up their courage. The attractive girls are gathered down at the other end, waiting for suitors to approach, marking which ones meet the night's standards, waiting to be paid court to.
I can recall so many female friends in my university and grad school days who looked forward to Friday and Saturday nights at the bar without ever worrying about money. The protocol was simple enough. A girl would carry her ID and cash for cab fare home. She wouldn't need anything else. She certainly wasn't buying drinks--- "That's what boys are for," the girls would have said. One friend was notorious for announcing that she was "like the Queen--- I never carry cash". I don't recall ever being angry about that. It was just the way things were. I understood the idea--- you bought girls drinks to get them to grant you dances or grant you time to make your presentation. I never thought buying girls drinks was a way to pay them to go home with me, but I did understand that it was buying time where I could try to persuade them that I was worth hanging out with.
The ritual was simple enough. A girl allowed you to buy her a drink or allowed you to dance with her for a song. You tried to make a case for why she needed to be spending time with you and making out with you. Buying the drink was a recognition for her value, of the value of her time and attention. The final decision to pay attention to you at all was always hers. I think I once quoted a line from Christopher Coe's "I Look Divine" about the difference between Trade and Tribute, and the line applies here. The girls at the end of the bar waited for tribute, for acknowledgment that they were desired, for acknowledgment that here--- in this place, on this night ---they were the ones with the power to choose.
In all my long life, I can't recall a girl asking me to dance, let alone buying me a drink. I'm male, after all, and my particulars aren't impressive. I'm a petitioner, not a gatekeeper. I've understood that all my life. The girls at the end of the bar don't need to pursue. They just have to wait. They wait, and then they choose. That's something I can envy, but there's no point in feeling bitter. It's the way the world works, or at least the way the world works there in the club on a Friday night. If a girl walked down the bar and asked me to dance or asked if she could buy me a drink, I'd be...wary and suspicious. Why was she violating established ritual? Could I trust someone who'd break protocol? Was I being set up for something?
One day I'll have to find an explanation for why being a gatekeeper for sex is a bad thing. It certainly has its advantages for the girls at the end of the bar. It may only be power that works inside clubs and at parties--- a very narrowly-focused kind of power. But that's...not negligible. The power to acquire free drinks, the power to choose or dismiss potential hook-ups--- it's not being a cabinet minister, but it's something that matters in social lives and on weekend nights.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
One Zero Zero: Space
There's a Tumblr that posts photos of Men Taking Up Too Much Space On The Train that seems to be a current favourite on the part of various of the gender warriors. The Tumblr posts phone camera shots of men sprawled out on subway or bus seats or sitting with legs wide apart or legs crossed with ankle at the knee, filling up space to the side. The idea, of course, is that these men are acting out of "male privilege" and "microaggression" to dominate the women--- a "public assertion of privilege".
I can look at the photos and wonder about some choices. There's a difference between sprawling out in an empty subway car and doing the same in one that's filled. I have to question the choice of some photos of men who are elderly or just very large-framed--- some of the men in the photos are going to spill over into other seat spaces no matter what they do. And I'm male enough to instantly recall women with purses and shopping bags taking up seats and floor space--- that retort comes to mind. Nonetheless, the Tumblr has a point. Territory is being claimed, power is being asserted. It may not be directed at women, though, as much as it is just a general statement of being powerful enough to claim and defend space.
I've always tried very hard not to sit like that. Out in public, I try to take up as little space as possible. I really do try to be inconspicuous on subways and busses. On city sidewalks I try to keep moving and slide past and around people and objects. Take up no space, never be an obstacle. Try, really, never to be noticed. I was brought up to be polite in a very old-school way, and part of that was being told always to remember that, wherever you go and whatever you do, you act as if you're the least important person in the room. That's not bad training, actually.
The goal, as I've always said, is to be looked at neither in praise nor blame. Nondescript, just part of the background. One shouldn't need to claim great expanses of social territory any more than one should need to stand out in a crowd. Just be part of the background, something that's never seen as out of place, something that doesn't draw attention.
I've never wanted to be noticed in public. Public space is something one navigates as quickly and with as little contact as possible. Get to your destination without creating a problem. That's what matters. When I am noticed--- when I'm lecturing to classes, when I'm trying to flirt with a lovely Young Companion ---it should be by my choice, and in a space that's reasonably restricted.
Being in command of space is always a risky thing--- a challenge, always. I'd rather be a grey, unobtrusive figure on a subway car than spread out to demonstrate my alpha status. If I'm going to command space at all, I'd rather have it be in a lovely girl's gaze across a table. The spaces I want to command never have anything to do with dominating areas in public.
I can look at the photos and wonder about some choices. There's a difference between sprawling out in an empty subway car and doing the same in one that's filled. I have to question the choice of some photos of men who are elderly or just very large-framed--- some of the men in the photos are going to spill over into other seat spaces no matter what they do. And I'm male enough to instantly recall women with purses and shopping bags taking up seats and floor space--- that retort comes to mind. Nonetheless, the Tumblr has a point. Territory is being claimed, power is being asserted. It may not be directed at women, though, as much as it is just a general statement of being powerful enough to claim and defend space.
I've always tried very hard not to sit like that. Out in public, I try to take up as little space as possible. I really do try to be inconspicuous on subways and busses. On city sidewalks I try to keep moving and slide past and around people and objects. Take up no space, never be an obstacle. Try, really, never to be noticed. I was brought up to be polite in a very old-school way, and part of that was being told always to remember that, wherever you go and whatever you do, you act as if you're the least important person in the room. That's not bad training, actually.
The goal, as I've always said, is to be looked at neither in praise nor blame. Nondescript, just part of the background. One shouldn't need to claim great expanses of social territory any more than one should need to stand out in a crowd. Just be part of the background, something that's never seen as out of place, something that doesn't draw attention.
I've never wanted to be noticed in public. Public space is something one navigates as quickly and with as little contact as possible. Get to your destination without creating a problem. That's what matters. When I am noticed--- when I'm lecturing to classes, when I'm trying to flirt with a lovely Young Companion ---it should be by my choice, and in a space that's reasonably restricted.
Being in command of space is always a risky thing--- a challenge, always. I'd rather be a grey, unobtrusive figure on a subway car than spread out to demonstrate my alpha status. If I'm going to command space at all, I'd rather have it be in a lovely girl's gaze across a table. The spaces I want to command never have anything to do with dominating areas in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)