"Oh. I guess I must not be a man, then"

We're still on the dating theme here - I think I am working through my current acute sense of being sad and lonely by writing about this stuff a lot. And especially, writing about things that seem to be frustrating me in my efforts to find someone to be with (not just anyone, mind - the right someone to be with!) Anyway, my current slide into desperation aside, on with today's post:

A lot of the time, I see dating advice (particularly that aimed at women) and come away with a curious sense of disconnect. Typically, it comes in the form of "Men do X" or "Men are Y", or "Women are A and men are B". So often, I look at what they're saying and it feels like I don't X, and I'm not Y, and I tend more to A than B. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that forms the title for this post: "I guess must not be a man, then." I wrote a brief remark to that effect in On Being Not Quite But Almost A Man, and there are plenty of posts under the tag "men" about how it feels as though generalisations about men are harmful and misleading.

So, either the advice-givers are full of shit, or I'm not really a man, despite having all the physical sex characteristics of a man, and having no reason to suspect that my sex chromosomes are anything but XY, and being MAAB (Male Assigned At Birth). If it's true that I'm not a man, then it would be really helpful if people would stop mistaking me for one and come up with new dating advice that relates to whatever-the-fuck it is that I am, so that women know how to deal with me, instead of trying to apply the rules for something that I'm not (i.e. a "man").

For instance, from what I've seen of the advice given by Evan Marc Katz ("Dating Coach for Smart, Strong, Successful Women"), about 90% has no relationship to what I'm like, and a woman following his advice would lose me or dump me in the mistaken belief that I was not into her enough. (There again, Mr Katz appears to assume that the women he's writing for are of a certain social class and are dating men in a similar social class, and I am not, to date, a member of the social class, so maybe that's why it doesn't apply - but in that case, don't over generalise!)

As you may have noticed, I have a hate-on for He's Just Not That Into You, and a huge part of that hatred is because of this "Oh. I guess I'm not a man, then," response. A common theme, exemplified by both HJNTIY and EMK, is that when men write advice for women, they suddenly know what all men are thinking, all the time. Greg Behrendt writes that "I know how men think, because I am one." EMK in his latest video talks about how he gives "the male perspective". I'm equally suspicious of women telling men how all women think - or indeed, anyone telling anyone else how all X think. Chances are, there are more counter examples than there are people who fit the generalisation (just as there are more words in the English language that break the rule "I before E, except after C" than conform to it). Or, maybe all those counter-examples aren't men, or aren't women, or aren't whatever the group is you're talking about.

Here's another example of some analysis or advice where I felt as though I came out as strongly on the "female" side of the debate: Miss Singlefied wrote: Stages of Attraction: Men vs. Women.

According to that post, men look at the gut-feeling, instinct, "would I like to fuck her?" straight away, and then only later look at the emotional connection, and then finally look at the rational questions of "Is this relationship material?"

Women, she says, might have an underlying burst of the "wanna fuck that!", but really, the first major thought is, "Could we work?"...

We want to make sure we’re not wasting our time, so we get the pertinent stuff out of the way. Are you suitable for me? Do we have a future together? What are your credentials? ... It’s like a job interview and if a guy looks good on paper, we’re very willing to open ourselves up for the next level of attraction - emotional.

...before moving on to seeking the emotional connection and finally focussing on, "would I like to fuck him?" once the emotional and practical stuff is settled in her mind.

Typically, I have followed the path ascribed to women more closely than that ascribed to men's thought processes. Yes, I do experience an initial "lust-attraction" response, but what I want to know from the off is, "Could this work? Is this relationship material?" and all those questions in the "job interview" stage. This is one reason why I am slow to open up to a relationship in general: I'm still sorting out the "looks good on paper" questions. I tend to be quite eager to get to the emotional stage, so sometimes there's both going on at once, but as the sense of security and possible future grows (that is, phase one draws to its end), then the emotional involvement grows as well (that is, phase two starts to get into gear).

Although I have had sex on first dates, typically some sense of emotional comfort with the person has already developed through phone, email and instant messenger contact, and I only feel ready if the real-life meeting feels like it confirms the impressions from the earlier communications. In other words, I'm not really ready for sex until I have at least some level of emotional comfort with someone. Those first-date sex experiences, I feel, were much better because of that.

So, where does that leave me? I date like a woman? When you recall that I would prefer to be approached than do the approaching, partly from my introversion and partly from wanting to feel as much desired as desiring, then perhaps this is true: maybe I do want to be dated like a woman, instead of like a man. After all, on my last "first date" where I ended up having sex, I was the one putting up an "anti-slut defence" and she was the one who wanted to drag me back to hers to fuck. But in other ways, I am definitely not interested in stereotypically "dating like a woman", in that my attitude towards sex is very open, I expect or want to be in control a lot of the time (BDSM Dominant, after all!), and I want to be able to pay my own way, for example.