Darwinistic dating
Kay Hymowitz has a perceptive City Journal article on the “chaotic postfeminist dating scene, where only the strong survive.” She calls it “Love in the time of Darwinism” — an age when decent guys are shedding their nice guy images to compete for women who have no idea what they really want (besides casual sex):
The dating and mating scene is in chaos. SYMs [single young males] of the postfeminist era are moving around in a Babel of miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional. And because middle-class men and women are putting off marriage well into their twenties and thirties as they pursue Ph.D.s, J.D.s, or their first $50,000 salaries, the opportunities for heartbreak and humiliation are legion. Under these harsh conditions, young men are looking for a new framework for understanding what (or, as they might put it, WTF) women want. So far, their answer is unlikely to satisfy anyone—either women or, in the long run, themselves.
Hymowitz is always thoughtful, always fair. (Read her earlier essays on the Single Young Male and Single Young Female and all her other City Journal essays). One of her most cogent points relates to the Christian dating scene as I’ve seen it. She quotes a “Recovering Nice Guy” who answers women’s perpetual whine, “What happened to all the nice guys?”
His answer: “You did. You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy.” Women, he says, are actually not attracted to men who hold doors for them, give them hinted-for Christmas gifts, or listen to their sorrows. Such a man, our Recovering Nice Guy continues, probably “came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he’d have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of an a*****e than he ever wanted to be.”
This happens all the time with Nice Christian Guys and Nice Christian Girls. I think some Christian girls want the equivalent of the gay best friend so patronizingly portrayed in modern pop culture — an always supportive, caring, uncomplicated, completely asexual male friend. The problem is that they treat their nice straight Christian guy friends like they would their gay best friends, assuming they can have emotionally intimate, asexual relationships with them.
Guess what? It doesn’t work too well. The girls do exactly what the Recovering Nice Guy says — use the guys for emotional intimacy without “putting out” and giving some love and commitment in return. And the Nice Christian Guys become Bitter Angry Boys, and everyone is sad and single.
Hymowitz’s overall point is that feminism has produced a chaotic ambiguity in relationships. I think that this ambiguity is simply part of living in a modern age — an ambiguity better than returning to an age when men wooed women who were not “their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually,” and an ambiguity that is not impossible to resolve.
Also, romantic chaos is nothing new. Maybe there were clearer rules and “do’s” and “don’ts” before, but women have always been a little hazy on what exactly they want. (Don’t ask me, for instance. There’s no way I could tell you.)




WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!



















back to top18 Comments to “Darwinistic dating”
“His answer: “You did. You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy.” Women, he says, are actually not attracted to men who hold doors for them, give them hinted-for Christmas gifts, or listen to their sorrows. Such a man, our Recovering Nice Guy continues, probably “came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he’d have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of an a*****e than he ever wanted to be.”
And while you are chasing this air-headed, over made up, basket case, you are ignoring the sweet, sensible, less flashy “nice girl” who has been trying to get your attention for years.
Report comment as offensive
I read the article and even clicked on a previous writing. All I can say is I’m glad to be married to a woman who is and has been sweet, sensible etc.
Alisa, my true “dating scene experience” didnt happen until the early and mid90s. My exile was self-imposed due to no clear career vision, erractic income and my own perception that I just didnt have anything to appeal to a worthy prospect, ie I didnt see me as genuine “husband potential”.
I think you’ve opened a can of worms here. The phenomenon you described (Christian gals with asexualized guys to pal around with) was something I picked up on many years ago. Lotsa guys however are equally guilty. I’ve known not a few young women who found themselves in the role of “gal buddy”. The GB can be but isnt necessarily the church single’s group FUGNOD.
The GB is no one’s girlfriend but young men can and do hangout with her. She often hosts game night or organizes alcohol-free group date dance-athons. You can hang out with a GB and no other woman will impute anything. The GB’s I’ve had though dateless themselves most often are great sounding boards for dating advice.
Report comment as offensive
I had a boyfriend years ago who was somewhat asexual and very emotionally intimate. He was asexual because he had been sexually abused by a neighbor in early childhood. He told me about the abuse when we were 18.
I am amazed at how many people I have known were sexaully abused in childhood or high school and the results from that abuse are clearly seen then and now.
Report comment as offensive
REG it would be too easy to impute closeted gayness to lotsa young men in church singles’ groups as some (though not on any above posts) have done. I suspect instead that there is far far more of what you alluded to in your post. These men need help on a deep level. Merely “hiding out” in church alone isnt going to ever address this developmtal problem.
And in the big metro cities with real functioning singles’ ministries you just seldom get acquainted with anyone on any level of depth to learn the details of their past. We had a guy with grey hair (though it later turned brown) in our singles group. Nice guy. He was quite the dancer and you’d always see him out dancing with the early 20ish gals.
I think lotsa men and women fear any type of romantic involvemt at church. If it works out great but the inevitable bitterness from a break up can prompt someone to switch to a different fellowship (quite common in singles’ ministry I’m told). And the gossip rumor mill can work in overdrive there as nowhere else
Report comment as offensive
Boy, not the article for me. Even thirty-plus years ago, there was some of this behavior. In this dating environment clearly I would be walking around with the “L” on the forehead. Then again, the circumstances of this article seem distance from our experience with our daughter and her friends. They’ve turned out and settled in their 20s. So this is all pretty exotic for me. Still got me thinking :
I do wonder if this is more about Manhattan NY than Manhattan KS — is this really about extremes? Or is it common? The danger of elites is that while they possess some safety nets, they make the behavior socially sanctioned and so others with out the safety nets go off in the path of self destruction. That’s the sexual revolution story over and over again. (Any one remember “Open Marriage”?)
A second point of pondering is that of the role of money. With the Manhattan setting, are we looking at behavior that is part of the economic bubble, the one that is deflating so?
Third, the appeal to Darwin is misplaced. To know if the behavior is actually useful in a darwinian way, one must have a trans-generational view — one obviously not granted to mortals! Oddly, here is where Tradition comes to play. Social forms endure (Tradition) because they give the participants an advantage — in traditional marriage, typically being that of being more resilient over a wider range of stresses.
Report comment as offensive
Harris, dittos. I especially liked your question about the applicability to Manhattan Kansas vs Manhattan NY.
And yours is a good observation about elites and their safety nets. Highly paid unmarried starlets can pop out and raise a child sans daddy with little difficulty (e.g. Elizabeth Hurley.. not sure why THAT Dad wouldnt want to stay around her!) But once such matters filter down the socioeconomic ladder we know the tragic results born-out by the innocent children of fatherless homes. (So far no one’s breeched the psychological effects of fatherlessness but the entire USA is about to learn, I fear).
Its wholly foolish to generalize and apply to America at large those behaviors from big metro-secularized cities on either the Left or Right coast. Akin to watching the Flintstones to learn about prehistoric civ.
Once again, for the Christian community to celebrate eventual marriage –but chaste living prior to that– when so many don’t see realistic marital prospects on the horizon does put we Christians in a bind. I wish we could have Family Life Marriage Conferences for the chronically unmarried.
The solution seems to still be churches where early marriages are celebrated, supported and role-modeled (sort of FMLC all the time). The armed forces are full of couples who married in their early and mid 20s. These couples are isolated from inlaws or other supportive relatives. Some local churches near bases do an early marrieds outreach but far too few.
I know a pastor’s son who married before 25 but in civilian life at large he’s more the exception than the rule.
Report comment as offensive
Sorry for the garbled abbreviation. FLMC not FMLC
Report comment as offensive
Huh. So it wasn’t my imagination. I noticed this in high school back in the late 70’s. Girls tend to like bad boys that treat them rotten. And they can’t make up their mind what they want.
I was snubbed more than once on this account, and it hurt. I’m still mad about it… I suppose I’m as stupid as they are for holding on to it this long…
Report comment as offensive
Girls have a tendency to missassociate “bad boys” with authoratative leadership. “Nice boys” dont come across that way.
Its even harder to distinguish should said girls having been abused by “bad men”.
Its an anchient issue.
Mature, good christian girls find good mature christian boys who understand the difference.
On the other hand, I still think most girls are nuts
Report comment as offensive
“Girls have a tendency to missassociate “bad boys” with authoratative leadership. “Nice boys” dont come across that way.
Its even harder to distinguish should said girls having been abused by “bad men”.”
This is what I did. I had emotional intimacy with one who was sexually abused in childhood, and as a result was somewhat asexual. Then I met my husband on a good Christian college campus and mistook him for a leader, when what he really was was abusive. There were other girls on the same campus who recognized him for what he was; I could not. I was too inexperienced, sheltered as a child, and I relied too much on group leaders to do my thinking (and feeling) for me, as a good churched girl “should” do.
Report comment as offensive
spiritual brainwashing/abuse by bad men is worse than the sexual abuse, victims will say
Report comment as offensive
One comment I heard from a girl on “nice guys” makes sense. If a guy won’t stand up TO you he won’t stand up FOR you.
Report comment as offensive
12-
that may be true with good guys. However, my abusive guy would stand up to me everyday, but he did NOT stand up for me
Report comment as offensive
“Recovering Nice Guy” sounds like he has as many issues as post-feminist women who have no idea what they really want (besides casual sex). They are both on the “crazy cycle” (Google it). As Ravi Zacharias has said, “Love is more an act of the will than a feeling.”
Report comment as offensive
“One comment I heard from a girl on “nice guys” makes sense. If a guy won’t stand up TO you he won’t stand up FOR you.”
Thats typically true. Nice guys are either afraid to 1. offend or 2. be decisive.
Report comment as offensive
So you’ve all heard of Paul Coughli’s book, No More Christian Nice Guy and the sequel he’s trying to sell with Jennifer Degler: “No More Christian Nice Girl?
http://tinyurl.com/6kdt8v
Report comment as offensive
I think several of you are missing it. I’ve stayed out of this because I’m from a different generation where men were supposed to be considerate of women, and women expected it and appreciated it. However, I think some of you have misdefined “nice guy”. A nice guy can indeed be decisive and take up for himself and his woman when threatened. He is nice because he considers others, and considers that his woman needs protection from whatever.
“Nice” doesn’t mean he’s a Casper Milktoast. (You don’t remember him?)
I percieve that part of the current problem is the way women see themselves. Most women, I believe, appreciate the courtesies appropriate between men and women. But some men are afraid of being rebuffed by the woman.
Also, there is a general coarsening of society. That’s not the kernel, but a large part of the problem. There’s no such thing as “manners” anymore.
Report comment as offensive
Hymowitz’s overall point is that feminism has produced a chaotic ambiguity in relationships.
This is new?
Ever hear of a writer named F. Scott Fitzgerald, for example?
The mess of human sexuality has been festering among us for a long, long, time. Every couple of weeks, the folks at wmb discover it again; for about what, the ten thousandth time?
Report comment as offensive