She’s talking about marketing one’s website but Traci Feit Love of Copyblogger has some great advice for prospective daters.
If you want to get lucky, you’re going to have to give up the “poor me” attitude and make some changes. Here are some ideas.
Listen before you talk
Two guys walk into a bar (humor me here). The first guy walks up to a woman and says, “Hi. I make a lot of money and drive a really fast car, so you will definitely want to go out with me. Here’s my number. When you’re ready to go out, call me.”
The second guy sits down at the bar and listens. He hears the woman next to him complain to the bartender that the last Italian restaurant she tried was terrible, and that she couldn’t seem to find good Italian food nearby. When there’s a break in the conversation, he says, “Excuse me, but I couldn’t help overhearing about your bad experience with some of the local Italian restaurants. Have you tried Davio’s Cucina? It’s really excellent.”
Which guy is more likely to end up with a date?
I’m betting on guy #2. Instead of just blathering on about himself, he waited and listened for an opening. He started a conversation based on a shared interest. And because he’d been paying attention, he found a great angle to quickly capture the woman’s interest.
When I started to write the post I was thinking about the “evolutionary psychology” theory that says with its bare face hanging out that the fictional woman ought to respond, immediately and every time, to prospective suitor #1. After all, the theory goes, the only thing “females” care about in mate selection is wealth, accomplishment, and maybe dominance.
I was tempted to snark about “pickup artists,” who also tend to think “females” are interested only in wealth, accomplishment, and maybe dominance. But who might applaud suitor #2’s “method” for overcoming his beta-male status but might not consider that #2 wasn’t using a method at all but was instead, you know, actually interested, however much he might also be interested in hooking up.
But before I actually started typing I decided I was dumb to assume that only men ask women out anymore. And it occurred to me that the difference between suitor #1 and #2 isn’t so much that one’s an privileged jerk and the other is sensitive and interested in whole people and not just a quick roll in the hay.
Instead it occurred to me that #1 is trying to perform male gender, assuming that it’s the act and its accompanying props and lines that matter. #2 who’s presumably just as interested as #1, is instead acting like a human being.
And when I considered that it occurred to me that while methods might be different women can be just as liable to try dating while trying to perform female gender.
When I thought about it that way it occurred to me that conceits like evolutionary psychology, Pickup Artistry, and the whole Sex In the City dealio with shoes and Mister Bigs map nicely to the performance of gender. And that if you imagine gender is real then, yeah, you could see the stories about “genes” and “methods” as real.
—-
Anyway, there’s more in Love’s post that works well for both blogging and dating.
#2 is definitely more likeable, but really, I don’t like the whole “a woman sets up shop and men send in applications” model of dating. It creates a lot of weird unequal pressures. I’d rather feel like I’m meeting people than like I’m hanging out a “vagina available, inquire within” shingle.
(Especially when there is no actual shingle so I have to be the rejecting bitch when I just wasn’t looking for a date in the first place.)
I know it’s a cliche but I really believe that the best pick-up line in the world is “Hi.”
(Tangent: I think smoothness is way overrated, too. Hearing “hi, I, um, think you’re, like, cute?” is downright charming; being rehearsed and polished makes me think I’m receiving Standard Female Approach #47.)
Yup. It’s not so much that #1 is less likable, or that #2 is more natural, or that either is more noble or even just more successful at “scoring.” Because as you say, in the story at least all three characters plus the author are playing inside the men initiate / women respond rule set. What I realized is that even outside that set of rules pulling the gender card wouldn’t be as productive.
Or put it another way, someone playing one of the “masculine” acts isn’t going to say “hi” and neither is someone coming from one of the full-on “feminine” modes either. Instead as you say a gender-neutral “hi” has an awfully high success rate no matter who’s saying it.
—fl
Excellent point. Instead of putting on a gendered performance for what you think the other gender wants (or worse, for your same-gendered pals to admire), how about everyone trying to be an individual human being who is genuinely interested in another individual human being? Brilliantly simple.
I agree with Holly; there is nothing flattering about feeling like someone is making you a pitch based on “hey, you’re female and I want to get with someone from that group” and “smoothness” usually gets a skeptical “what is your deal, douche?” knee-jerk reaction. Sincerity and honest interest is much more appealing.
“...there is nothing flattering about feeling like someone is making you a pitch based on ‘hey, you’re female and I want to get with someone from that group’”
Yup. Not that there’s anything wrong with making a pitch. It’s just going to work way better if it’s “hey, I want to be with you in particular.“
Unless (since Eurosabra’s going to say something any second) you’re all agreed that that’s the game you’re all choosing to play. (The problem with “pickup-artists” is they assume first that it’s all a game and second that everyone’s playing it.)
Thanks, Kaija.
—fl
Well, fl, people are easy enough to read that you can get out in about 5 seconds if your pitch is actually causing offense or breaking rapport. There was a lot in the excellent Schrödinger’s Rapist thread @ kateharding.net about male-initiated approach behavior as an imposed masculine frame. And frankly, Kate called a halt to the thread because the men were stuck with the aporia of “If we follow your rules (i.e. making the initial approach wholly opt-in on the part of the recipient) we’ll never interact non-platonically with women again.” and she could not accept that that aporia was a reasonable reading of their situation and that (under PHMT) they HAD TO be the Energizer Bunnies of public transportation pick-up. The message as in Hugo Schwyzer’s “Of Never Feeling Hot” is that women are NEVER playing, they’re not even playing when they’re playing, like at bars and clubs. Of course pick-up is going to be more appealing than that.
I think you could make an ecological case for restrictions of Kate’s type, but really, it’s pretty easy to see if someone isn’t playing. As for part one (“it’s all a game”) men who see something besides hegemonic masculinity working (which is usually an issue of subcultures) will have a broader view.
[Meh. If I’m not mistaken, “aporia” is also a rhetorical technique for pretending to be at a loss rather than actually being at one. In the original, Platonic sense, aporia is the state of realizing all your assumptions about what is true are shattered, leaving you with a genuine interest in finding out what’s really true. All Kate Harding is saying is that you can’t just walk up to random strangers and start using pickup game rules on them anymore than you can walk up to strangers and start using Slug Bug rules on them when they haven’t really clearly indicated they want to play too. But here’s the thing. Guys like you don’t think it’s an optional game, they think it’s the only possible way to interact. Sheesh! —fl]
“If we follow your rules (i.e. making the initial approach wholly opt-in on the part of the recipient) we’ll never interact non-platonically with women again.”
Reminds me of a certain Sublime song:
“If it wasn’t for date rape I’d never get laid”.
I think non-conventionally-handsome men deal with a sense of their sexuality being something profoundly good and also profoundly unwanted by straight women, in a culture that doesn’t even begin to give them the tools to articulate their emotions about it. Obviously, the vast majority of the men in the SR thread aren’t rapists, but they were trying to communicate the sense of never getting an approach invitation (cf. Hugo Schwyzer’s threads “Of Never Feeling Hot” and “Feminism Made Women Too Picky”) and the resultant pushiness of operating within a performative system when one is unwanted.
[I know! You think that! It’s tempting to say “yes, you’re right, there’s no way you can ever form a normal relationship with a woman unless you lie, cheat, buy, and steal into one. Except, of course, you keep hinting actually have been in relationships with women. So… disconnect? —fl]
What if a man comes along and says something like this who has never been anywhere close to a relationship? Hi. I've seen dozens of relationships form around me, and in the ones where I have enough information to understand, I can point to a given series of events and say "Here is where the initiating party was playing the game" or "Here is how the initiating party's personality makes him play the game even if he's not consciously thinking about it."
And then I look at people who are saying "Just respect women and listen to them", and I think about the dozen women who communicated that they greatly respected me and know I greatly respected them and have absolutely no sexual interest in me regardless. From that, I have to conclude that either those women were lying about respecting me (thus further undermining any self-confidence I might have left) or there's another huge piece of the puzzle that the "just listen, be respectful, be yourself" crowd are overlooking. And the one obvious missing piece is how to perform.
[I dunno. I respect both Madonna and Henry Waxman but not being sexually interested in them doesn't make me a liar. The trick to the advice, I think, is "listen, be respectful, and be yourself" to *everybody* even if you don't want to sleep with them. That way (the trick) you'll be able to distinguish between who's also just being respectful and who thinks you're attractive too. In other words it's not really a trick at all. Put it this way (one of my favorite analogies.) When you're in a box store you're going to be more interested in advice from other customers than from people who work there on commission. Even the really nice people who work there. Because someone else in the store is going to be sharing information. Someone who works there is going to be looking for a sale. You might be willing to buy, in which case great for both of you. But if you're not there buying then it's just annoying. It's the same in a bar if you're on the make, and people can just... tell! Hope that helps. Thanks, E. --fl]
Um, fl, I’m going to be an ass and say that in the relationships that I’ve been in which were based on naïve rapport (liking the same books, movies, hobbies, museums, following the same bands, same religion, etc) I was essentially offering the benefits of active heterosexuality to women who had been passed over for relationships for years for one reason or another, which also added the spice of their finally getting laid to a “best buddies” relationship. The rest of the time, my rather snobbish cultural goods were of no interest to women who could “do better” by getting someone more masculine, more successful in a capitalist-materialist sense, or with a nicer face. I have had to Game the secretions out of women who had options, and in general thin women were harder to attract, and (really) I’ve had fellow grad students with whom I had great intellectual rapport tell me there was no spark.
Besides for really allowing me to get a feel for exactly how “one size fits all” is a misnomer, my phase of approaching 300+ women in a year taught me that even very beautiful women can be shy, that failure to connect can be no one’s fault, and that people in general are often unaware of their attraction triggers. But I was still doing all the work, whereas my blond, muscular, conventionally-handsome roommates were still being approached by women every day at the supermarket (if a woman will approach, she’ll fuck) even when they weren’t recognized as minor TV celebrities. There is a definite pecking order, and it ends with people like Eivind Berge, who is willing to argue (citing Baumeister) that there is no true sexual agency for men, 40% of whom, historically speaking, were never chosen by anyone.
I’ve also seen how the traditional provider role was eroded, and how my own father’s marriage was a very near-run thing even on that basis, so from my perspective women want men who are both materially successful in a way that’s not open to me (as a “humanities tax” payer) and naturally masculine in a way I am not. That leaves learned masculinity, or Game.
Um, no, fl, pick-up artistry is performative. The quiet, assertive performance of masculinity is the key. #1 is pure commodity-model, not PUA, and it suffers from the fact that once you go meta, things go bad. #2 telegraphing without explicitly saying so that he can take you to any of the finer places and not feel the pinch of $300 is both commodity-model and a more subtle approach, while #2 as written is that glorious naïve, authentic rapport that the anti-PUA crowd know and love. Of course, if the woman you deal with it turned on by checked tablecloths, drippy garlic bread, and red pepper it’s a winner. All else being equal, social dominance within a value system that appeals to the woman will prevail, and conventional masculinity is more likely to project that dominance, hence PUA.
CAPTCHA “grandmother aconities.” Sinister.
“#2 telegraphing without explicitly saying so that he can take you to any of the finer places and not feel the pinch of $300 is both commodity-model and a more subtle approach”
Wow, that’s some reading between the lines, ES. If the only Italian restaurant called “Davio’s Cucina” is $300 for dinner that was a lousy example. Because I’m… pretty sure the results would be the same if #2 overheard the woman pining for a taqueria and he recommended the Jalisco Kitchen on 23rd.
—fl
Eurosabra – What #2 telegraphs to me is “I’m not just thinking about me and what I have to offer and what I should say, I’m listening to you so I can think about us.” Dominance you can get on any street corner whether you want it or not; humility (which is not submission or inferiority) is a lot more attractive.
True story – I’m just about to leave for a date with a guy whose pickup line was “hi” and then we talked about our lives and our opinions a bunch and decided we liked each other and started cuddling. I’m not sure if he was performing commodity-model or if he was going meta in my value system, I guess the best performance really is the one you don’t even notice.
“Dominance you can get on any street corner whether you want it or not; humility is a lot more attractive.”
I like that, concise and true, and I think I’ll use it next time some PUA/MRA/Nice Guy™ whines or opines to me about how all women want dominant guys. Of course, he will assume I am lying, but at least I’ll have made my point pithily :)
Overthinking and reading too much between the lines of a random/casual interaction is a possibilities killer. Bottom line: I can tell the difference between someone talking AT me and someone talking TO me. The former is an instant turnoff; the latter might uncover some chemistry, which means body AND mind are interested in seeing if there’s any possibilities to discover.
And honestly, I’m much more impressed by someone who suggests a hidden gem el cheapo restaurant (one that you can’t find in the city restaurant guide) with awesome food than an expensive chi-chi one. ;)
Then again, I might be out in public to hang with friends, get out of the office, have a beer whilst watching the game, waiting (again) for my late-ass friend to show up and not interested in “meeting someone” at all. In which case #2 is welcome and #1 is not (see Holly’s comment about having to be a rejecting bitch when you weren’t accepting applications in the first place).
[Your last paragraph is a nice summary of a problem an on-line friend had when she moved to a new city. She was a writer in in her old neighborhood and the best place for her to write had been an out-of-the-way bar where she could order a beer and then be left alone for hours. She said it was impossible to find one in her new town because no matter what, guys would see her alone at a table and it never mattered that she was clearly busy: she was there, they wanted to play, she was clearly a fucking bitch for not wanting to play too. Thanks, Kaija. —fl]
Post new comment