dating

Feminism – helping ugly chicks get laid since 1970

Girl meets boy online. Boy says no. Girl’s sister uses social media to shame the boy. Boy gets called a “creep”, an “asshole” and an “actual piece of shit”. The dating site deletes his profile, because upon learning “his views on women, it was clear to us that he isn’t the ‘catch’ he perceives himself to be, and shouldn’t be permitted to interact within our community.” Welcome to the brave new world of 2016.

So what actually happened? A Scottish woman messaged a man on the website Plenty of Fish (POF) and got this unexpectedly long response, justifying the man’s decision not to pursue her contact:

I was specific with age because I would like to start a family one day and, to be honest, I think that the necessary timeline before doing so is shortened/compressed with a lady over 30.

I was also specific about weight as I have never been attracted to big women. However since moving to Scotland and going on POF I have learned that ‘average body type’ is commonly held to be around a dress size 14/16.

I had to google this, but that dress size, with a waist around 34 inches, indicates a woman as being very overweight and all likelihood medically obese.

Without trying to sound big headed, I’m fairly good looking, I keep myself as fit as I can, I have a highly skilled job that I work very hard at and consequently earn well into six figures.

I’m also tall and the ladies like that a lot. This means that I can afford to be quite prescriptive in my search and I absolutely do not have to consider dating women who are over 30 and overweight.

There is obviously a large population of Scottish ladies who have a clearly unrealistic opinion of their own appeal/attractiveness as potential partners. I wish you all success in your search but would suggest that you lower your standards somewhat.

Accurate? I don’t think sizes 14 and 16 are very overweight or medically obese, but if one is used to sizes 0 to 8, perhaps everything else will seem big. Full of himself? One person’s full of himself is another person’s realistic. Rude? One person’s rude is another person’s honest. Necessary?

Probably not. But herein lies “Ash”’s main rookie mistake: he explained his reasons for rejecting the approach. Instead, he should have done what an overwhelming majority of men and women do online (and to some extent in real life): ignored the message and not replied at all, or simply replied with a variant of “Thanks but no thanks” without any further evaluation. He would have saved himself all the trouble and the story – with his photo – would not have made news internationally (that it did, reflects the increasing Buzzfeedification of the “respectable” news business). “Ash”’ mistake was voicing what many people – both men and women – think about themselves and about others. That might not make him nice – I suspect that most my readers attach high priority to sparing people’s feelings and will therefore consider him an “asshole” – but since when is being nice a prerequisite for dating or anything in life for that matter?

There are a few uncomfortable truths for the feminists and Sensitive New Age People to face:

In choosing a partner – whether for a night, for a date or for life – everyone uses their own personal criteria. These may be quite simple or quite extensive, depending on an individual, but no one out there ever says “Oh, I’ll take anyone” or “First come, first served”.

Age and physical appearance are very common criteria. Again, their importance varies from person to person, but if someone tells you that in their search looks don’t matter, they’re most likely lying to you. Physical attraction is not everything, of course – it’s just one of many types of attractions (others revolve around personality, intellect, interests, lifestyle, etc.) – but there is no use pretending that it doesn’t matter. It is visceral and often subconscious. No one is attracted to everyone. This might be an uncomfortable fact in our age obsessed with celebrating and at the same time obsessed with transcending age and looks, but just because it’s uncomfortable it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Like attracts like. This is the reason why couples so often share educational and socio-economic background, interests, lifestyle, beliefs – as well as age bracket and body type. Conversely, this is the reason why you don’t see many pairings of a professor and a garbage collector, or a sportswoman and a couch potato. This is why a large age gap between partners attracts comment and often even disapproval, and why people are intrigued at the sight of a couple where one is slim or athletic and the other one overweight or obese. You might not like this sort of assertive mating between similar people (for example because it entrenches class stratification) but you are raging against deep-seated human psychology.

Which brings me to the last point: the sex, dating and relationship game is very inegalitarian, because humanity is very inegaliterian. We are all born with different measures of looks, intellect, talents, charisma, personality, sense of humour and other qualities. The environment and own effort can help us work with what we’ve got, but to a large extent we are the beneficiaries – or the victims -of a genetic lottery. All this matters, because societies put varying degrees of importance on different characteristics, in large part reflecting the voiced and unvoiced views of the majority. We might all be equal in the eyes of God (if you are religious) or the law (thank you, Enlightenment) but we not equal in the game of life and the game of love. Life just isn’t fair that way.

So let’s go back to “Ash” and his suitor. “Ash” is attracted to slim women under 30, his unnamed suitor is attracted to tall, fit and good-looking men. Putting aside the fact that of the two only “Ash” is considered shallow and lookist, let’s now face some reality. Contrary to inspirational memes, you can’t be anything you want, you don’t deserve everything, the world doesn’t owe you anything, and your wishes are not fate’s commands. Just because something would be nice if it happened it doesn’t mean it will. Probably more often than not it won’t. If you’re overweight or unattractive you are unlikely to attract a hunk or a babe; if you don’t train you are unlikely to run, much less win, a marathon; if you’re unqualified you are unlikely to get that dream job. These are just plain truths that no safe spaces will protect you from.

Our society has fetishized self-esteem and being offended. Sure, self-esteem is important and you shouldn’t go out of your way to offend people, but realism, truth and resilience are equally important. The result of this fetishising is generations of snowflakes; fragile, insecure, touchy, and unprepared to cope with harsh realities of life. Hence the tens of thousands of hopefuls who think they can be the next Australian or American Idol, most without having a modicum of talent, and millions more who expect great and rewarding careers straight away, without putting in hard yards. We have legions of mostly young people who can’t accept they might be wrong, and are incapable of confronting anything which doesn’t accord with their worldview.

We are only human; we can dream, we can fantasise, we can be unrealistic – whether it’s in love, in our career, or in any other aspect of our life – and there are indeed stories to inspire us: a 2 and 10 pairing up (the 2 has a magnetic personality), a young tech multi-millionaire, a rags-to-riches story, a Paralympian gold medal winner. But we should also understand that these are exceptions rather than a rule, and we shouldn’t feel crushed when the same doesn’t happen to us. And we definitely shouldn’t be offended when someone, from time to time, pricks our bubble, brings us down to earth and reminds us of the often harsh reality.

Comments

comments