"There was, I regret to say, a certain froideur which seemed to inspire female interest. It’s almost as if the best thing you can give someone you would like to be with is a certain space to project onto you what they want you to be, rather than spoiling things by evidencing who you actually are." <-- this is definitely true, in fact something of a truism about female preferences, but the first time I've read a man being honest about how that can rationally incentivize the kind of behaviour women are at first drawn to, then lament. But at the same time, I wonder if it's entirely gendered - I think a lot of us, before we're ready for a serious relationship, feel more comfortable projecting things onto a semi-available person willing to dispense some sex and attention than someone actually looking for commitment. Women don't realise this is what they're doing, because we're all socialised to believe we want nothing more than true love from age 18 onwards, but I think for many young women that isn't true. Certainly in my early 20s I wasn't ready for the kind of relationship I have now, although I don't think that was clear to me then. I enjoy Annie Lord's dating columns in Vogue (a prime example of the kind of mainstream sexual frankness women can write without comment and men really can't), but it never strikes me she's actually looking for a man to, you know, get a joint mortgage with. She's out there looking for stories and excitement, and that's fair enough, but if young women are culturally permitted to do this, men should be too, without necessarily being labelled as immature commitmentphobes.
I happen to be a highly reserved heterosexual female who can imagine no worse torture than having to openly discuss my own sexuality, but I've been grateful for the varied representations of female sexuality by other, less repressed women, and I feel there's a void where men do the same in any kind of mainstream way. There's this weird silence about what men want and what men feel, which just gets filled up with women trying to understand it, whether successfully or not. I think it's one of the reasons we have so few prominent young (and by young I mean under about 45) male novelists writing novels about the lives of men in today's society, because there would be no space for them to write honestly and perhaps unflatteringly about their experiences with women. The only novel I've read in the past ten years that tried to get inside the head of a straight, unattached 30something man is 'The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.', which was itself written by a woman. I'd love to read something along these lines by an actual male writer, but I suspect it wouldn't get published.
"Froideur," as you put it, is attractive to some people (of all genders) because it's an ego boost to feel that someone who is generally reserved, cool and unemotional would be so attracted to you that they would open themselves up to you, exclusively. By the same token, some people find people who come across as (at best) warm and accessible or (at worst) needy and desperate unattractive because their affection seems to be so freely given. Some people may feel the opposite - having an open and affectionate suitor makes them feel special. Gender may or may not play a factor in this - film and TV suggest that some men, at least, dislike emotional and "clingy" women, just like some women may dislike sensitive men; whether this is particularly widespread in real life, I don't know.
Moreover, sexuality and attraction are not brute biological forces. Female beauty standards are highly variable throughout history and across different societies; what is considered appropriate when it comes to expressing attraction and talking about sex also changes based on societal conditions. You obviously know this because you mention "centuries of hang-ups," which presumably you think come from societal norms. Sexual attraction, both in the way it is experienced by any given individual and in the way it is talked about or represented in media, cannot be reduced to an "immutable characteristic."
Men should be in touch with their emotions because it's part of being a healthy human being, not because they want "sexual rewards" from women. You honestly sound like an incel using that kind of language. Orienting your whole personality around attracting people, whether that means pretending to be emotional or pretending to be distant, is obviously unhealthy. It may or may not get you laid; that's beside the point.
I think I agree with you, insofar as you seem to be arguing that men should try to be authentic rather than performative, but you're totally off base to claim that straight male horniness, as it appears in our culture, is a natural quality. For the record, I think the kind of straight female sexuality you describe is also highly performative and socially conditioned, and can be quite unhealthy. In my view (and I certainly don't expect everyone to agree), it's damaging for everyone, regardless of gender, to treat sex and relationships like transactions, and like they are the most important part of being happy.
Finally, you seem to be basing your observations on a bubble of like-minded people, on social media and in real life. Straight male sexuality, even in its most aggressive forms, is barely stigmatized in many realms of Anglo-American culture. Louis CK just won a grammy, for goodness' sake. Even straight male comedians who aren't noted sex pests regularly joke about sex and relationships - it's delusional to claim otherwise. They may not appeal to everyone but it's not like they've been driven underground by a horde of twitter feminists.
Very good piece, James. Cogent, inclusive, and thought-provoking. The plaudits were deserved, I think.
Sex, shame, desire, and morality, are a huge and messy portion of the 'human comedy' and it is the role of artists, writers and performers to describe that comedy. Unfortunately, morality (whether derived from tradition or progressive politics) can inhibit and obstruct that enterprise. It pushes things to the side, sometimes with good reason. I'm guessing this is what you meant by 'cultural safe space': the (re-)acceptance of a discourse about male desire in art and literature and newspaper columns, because there are plenty of safe spaces to be found on-line, or so I'm told, should you need to indulge yourself.
"There was, I regret to say, a certain froideur which seemed to inspire female interest. It’s almost as if the best thing you can give someone you would like to be with is a certain space to project onto you what they want you to be, rather than spoiling things by evidencing who you actually are." <-- this is definitely true, in fact something of a truism about female preferences, but the first time I've read a man being honest about how that can rationally incentivize the kind of behaviour women are at first drawn to, then lament. But at the same time, I wonder if it's entirely gendered - I think a lot of us, before we're ready for a serious relationship, feel more comfortable projecting things onto a semi-available person willing to dispense some sex and attention than someone actually looking for commitment. Women don't realise this is what they're doing, because we're all socialised to believe we want nothing more than true love from age 18 onwards, but I think for many young women that isn't true. Certainly in my early 20s I wasn't ready for the kind of relationship I have now, although I don't think that was clear to me then. I enjoy Annie Lord's dating columns in Vogue (a prime example of the kind of mainstream sexual frankness women can write without comment and men really can't), but it never strikes me she's actually looking for a man to, you know, get a joint mortgage with. She's out there looking for stories and excitement, and that's fair enough, but if young women are culturally permitted to do this, men should be too, without necessarily being labelled as immature commitmentphobes.
I happen to be a highly reserved heterosexual female who can imagine no worse torture than having to openly discuss my own sexuality, but I've been grateful for the varied representations of female sexuality by other, less repressed women, and I feel there's a void where men do the same in any kind of mainstream way. There's this weird silence about what men want and what men feel, which just gets filled up with women trying to understand it, whether successfully or not. I think it's one of the reasons we have so few prominent young (and by young I mean under about 45) male novelists writing novels about the lives of men in today's society, because there would be no space for them to write honestly and perhaps unflatteringly about their experiences with women. The only novel I've read in the past ten years that tried to get inside the head of a straight, unattached 30something man is 'The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.', which was itself written by a woman. I'd love to read something along these lines by an actual male writer, but I suspect it wouldn't get published.
"Froideur," as you put it, is attractive to some people (of all genders) because it's an ego boost to feel that someone who is generally reserved, cool and unemotional would be so attracted to you that they would open themselves up to you, exclusively. By the same token, some people find people who come across as (at best) warm and accessible or (at worst) needy and desperate unattractive because their affection seems to be so freely given. Some people may feel the opposite - having an open and affectionate suitor makes them feel special. Gender may or may not play a factor in this - film and TV suggest that some men, at least, dislike emotional and "clingy" women, just like some women may dislike sensitive men; whether this is particularly widespread in real life, I don't know.
Moreover, sexuality and attraction are not brute biological forces. Female beauty standards are highly variable throughout history and across different societies; what is considered appropriate when it comes to expressing attraction and talking about sex also changes based on societal conditions. You obviously know this because you mention "centuries of hang-ups," which presumably you think come from societal norms. Sexual attraction, both in the way it is experienced by any given individual and in the way it is talked about or represented in media, cannot be reduced to an "immutable characteristic."
Men should be in touch with their emotions because it's part of being a healthy human being, not because they want "sexual rewards" from women. You honestly sound like an incel using that kind of language. Orienting your whole personality around attracting people, whether that means pretending to be emotional or pretending to be distant, is obviously unhealthy. It may or may not get you laid; that's beside the point.
I think I agree with you, insofar as you seem to be arguing that men should try to be authentic rather than performative, but you're totally off base to claim that straight male horniness, as it appears in our culture, is a natural quality. For the record, I think the kind of straight female sexuality you describe is also highly performative and socially conditioned, and can be quite unhealthy. In my view (and I certainly don't expect everyone to agree), it's damaging for everyone, regardless of gender, to treat sex and relationships like transactions, and like they are the most important part of being happy.
Finally, you seem to be basing your observations on a bubble of like-minded people, on social media and in real life. Straight male sexuality, even in its most aggressive forms, is barely stigmatized in many realms of Anglo-American culture. Louis CK just won a grammy, for goodness' sake. Even straight male comedians who aren't noted sex pests regularly joke about sex and relationships - it's delusional to claim otherwise. They may not appeal to everyone but it's not like they've been driven underground by a horde of twitter feminists.
Very good piece, James. Cogent, inclusive, and thought-provoking. The plaudits were deserved, I think.
Sex, shame, desire, and morality, are a huge and messy portion of the 'human comedy' and it is the role of artists, writers and performers to describe that comedy. Unfortunately, morality (whether derived from tradition or progressive politics) can inhibit and obstruct that enterprise. It pushes things to the side, sometimes with good reason. I'm guessing this is what you meant by 'cultural safe space': the (re-)acceptance of a discourse about male desire in art and literature and newspaper columns, because there are plenty of safe spaces to be found on-line, or so I'm told, should you need to indulge yourself.