It's been a month. As in every month of my life thus far, I've learnt a lot, so I'm happy to be back to pass this new knowledge on to you people.
So, recently an object of my affection who knows me to be interested in (read: obsessed with) human sexuality, evolutionary biology/psychology, etc. recommended the ostensibly ubiquitous male-female relationships book: "He's Just Not That Into You". Perhaps as those of you who've got to know my personality through the medium of my writing will have predicted, my reaction to this book was somewhat critical. Or actually, very critical.
Let me just say this up front: I'm 100% sold on the idea that a person's attitude vis-a-vis me can be read off from her actions much more accurately than it can from her words. Even I, your friendly neighbourhood paragon of online dating success, have found myself on the receiving end of cold silence after snogging somebody at the end of a great first date punctuated by assertions of how "great" it's been, and how "we should do this again". Yes, even I.
So, now you know that I don't disagree with the premise of the book. With that, I actually agree. However, just about everything else in the book is highly misleading, to the point that I think following Greg Behrendt's advice will actually hinder you in your dating life. Briefly, I'll just point out some obvious flaws. Firstly, the author is a D-List Comedian who helped write a couple \bsexo?\b & the City Episodes. His daytime talk show where he discusses relationships? Cancelled after 3 months. An utter jackass, just check out his interview on Colbert to clear up any doubts. Oh, and his marriage made in heaven? Well, he's only been married for something like 5 years. Basically, he's got zero credibility for writing his novel. Same as I have, essentially. Secondly, there's no empirical data to back up anything he says about what women or men actually think. His "letters" from women are obviously fabricated to prove his points, and his "responses from men" are no different.
Now to it. Perhaps in the spirit of laziness, I'll just proffer some talking points, rather than coming up with a coherent discourse.
(1) Games Games Games. Whilst the book seemingly purports to outline a dating M.O. that dispenses with game-playing, importantly, it itself is nothing but a strategy for playing a dating GAME on your own terms: the way you should act towards men is to sit back and let men do all the pursuing. The book actually suggests doing that. And whilst it is true that the male-approaching system typically yields better results than the opposite approach, I think women are probably applying this rule in a very overbroad manner, to the point that this advice turns out to be no different from that dispensed in "The Rules", which by the way is another ESSENTIAL read for all men.
(2) Hoop-Jumping. Unfortunately for men everywhere, there are clueless guys all over the place who are totally willing to try to win a woman's approval by jumping through any hoops that women set up for them, which only reinforces the mentality that what women should do vis-a-vis men is set up hoops to jump through. And "He's Just Not That Into You" takes the hoop-jumping expectation to an unprecedented level. The truth is, however, that the most sexually successful guys are those who refuse to jump through a woman's hoops. We'll come back to this later.
(3) Teleology. A big problem with the book stems from what the author takes "being THAT into you" should entail. Here's the unwritten subtext: if he's THAT into you, he wants to be around you 24/7, pursue a monogamous relationship with you asap, get married, have kids, live a storybook romance life, be totally attentive all the time, cover puddles with his coat for you, etc. The problem is, not all people want such a formulaic love-life. Say you're like me and you have a "no consideration of getting married until I'm 40, noway nohow" sort of rule. Well, then apparently you're just not that into her, because all proper men want to get married. (Forget the scientific evidence that suggests that men are biologically wired to be reluctant to settle down into a long-term monogamous relationship. That's just not the sort of thing that can be condensed into a pithy catch-phrase.) The book very briefly addresses the possibility that your beau might not be teleologically-minded by suggesting that you ascertain whether his reluctance to commit is really just fear that he's masking with spurious ideology. But it never bites the bullet to admit that if he really doesn't believe in marriage, well then the advice in the book might just be completely INAPPLICABLE. I'd suggest this is not mentioned because it would hurt book sales, but who wants to be cynical?
(4) The Ditch-Him vs. Dearth Disconnect. Here's a weird thing: one of the premises of the book is that men are basically rubbish, for the most part. We're all useless man-children who do nothing but manipulate and malign women for our own personal pleasure. The "good" ones are really hard to find because they're so rare. Yet, if he's not calling you 12 times a day when he had to run out of town suddenly for a family funeral (e.g.), he's just not that into you, so ditch him for somebody better. See the problem? Finding somebody great is like finding the holy grail, but you should still ditch somebody good to try to find grail-man because you you're worth it and shouldn't "waste the pretty". Is this actually a recipe for life-long spinsterhood, because that's what it seems like to me!
(5) Change Him, Not Yourself. Here's a big news flash: you can't change people. If you try, you're setting yourself up for failure. So, if you want to take the advice of this book without ditching your boyfriend who only calls you once hourly, you've got to change him. But how about this instead? Understand him. And tailor your actions towards him accordingly. (And men should do the same towards women.)
(6) Complexity. Maybe it's too obvious to need mentioning, but people and their motives are really just too complex to be summed up in one dating maxim: he's just not that into you.
(7) An Attractive Man. Here's the big problem with the book. The kind of guy that exhibits "that into you" behaviour is not the kind of guy that most of you actually are attracted to. Think of it like this: that guy is Richard Gere in "Unfaithful". Attentive, loving, wonderful, and utterly predictable. And NICE, so very nice. The premise of the book is that men are biologically wired to pursue (which we are) because we get great pleasure out of the challenge of doing the work necessary to get what we want. But that sort of advice also applies to women too, to a degree. The platitude goes: nothing worth having ever came easy. Think of somebody you were with who came easy: he was totally emotionally available, showered you with praise, always wanted to be around you, called you 20 times a day when he wasn't fawning over your every move, etc. What do you call that? NEEDY. Too available. And nobody likes that. What do we like? Well you women seem to like Oliver Martinez in "Unfaithful": powerful, charismatic, highly sexual, dominant. And most importantly: operating independently and without consideration of the woman's approval.
( 8 ) Men are S e x-Obsessed. Here's another weird disconnect. That men are s e x-obsessed is a big premise of the book. Basically everything we do is motivated by wanting to get s e x with women. By logical extension, I think, we can conclude that men want as much s e x as they can get with as many people as possible. So to my way of thinking, "he's just not that into you" doesn't really explain why the guy doesn't come upstairs for s e x. I don't feel like I'm particularly sexually prolific, but I've slept with people I wasn't really into, even with people I actually didn't like. Haven't we all? So even if he's not that into you, if you're offering \bsexo?\b on a first date, and he's a \bsexo?\b-obsessed male, he's coming upstairs! So we clearly need a better explanation for why he isn't.
I think there's more to say. But I'll stop for now and think some more.
