Why Men don’t write about Sex and Dating

Mar 31

Earlier this year I read an article in The Guardian with the headline ‘Why do hardly any straight men write about sex and dating?’ I was intrigued. For a newspaper known for its uncompromising perspective on sex and gender, in a media landscape where balance on this subject is rare, this appeared to be a welcome enquiry into the unpopular half of gender equality.

“…are men being discouraged from showing sensitivity and awareness about their experiences because it implies insensitivity and a lack of awareness towards women?”

My intrigue faded as I read on. The author consults her unnamed straight male friends to show she has researched the perspectives of men. One of these anonymous contributors says: “Paradoxically, the sort of men who have the insight and sensitivity to write well about that experience preclude themselves from doing it exactly because of the sensitivity and awareness that would make their writing insightful.”

If sensitivity and awareness are the qualities required to make writing on sex and dating insightful, are these attributes most male writers are lacking? Or are men being discouraged from showing sensitivity and awareness about their experiences because it implies insensitivity and a lack of awareness towards women? This begs a further question. Are the women who fill pages of publications with writing on sex and dating showing the same sensitivity and awareness? Do female authors have to negotiate the same catch-22? Or is this evidence of a clear double standard? If so, is it taboo to point out this double standard?

Another unidentified male friend offers this: “If it’s going well, it comes off as braggy and vulgar, and if it’s going poorly, stop whinging in print.” Another catch-22 for the male writer to contend with. The anonymity of the contributors illustrates a fear of engagement with the subject, even when they carefully avoid offending The Guardian’s readership. Accusations of toxic masculinity, the threat of ostracism and the shaming of cancel culture are potential consequences for causing offence.

“There is a reason why men who speak up on these issues tend to be retired or unemployed.”

By unpacking that statement, a sense of the obstacles the male author must navigate are revealed. If a man writes about a date that has gone well, he is showing off, and he must be “braggy and vulgar”. This narrow view encourages strict self-censorship. And “If it’s going poorly, stop whinging.” This is more disturbing. It taps into the presumption that men have nothing to complain about, that they are always privileged and entitled, that they need to man up and suck it up. It would be far healthier if men were able to express themselves without self-censorship or fear of cancellation. Women would also surely benefit from an environment that fostered greater honesty and authenticity.

William Collins, real name Rick Bradford, is the author of the book The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of their Neglect. He was interviewed for this magazine, where he explains his choice of pseudonym from the novel Pride and Prejudice. William Collins was a “socially inept vicar whom all the ladies despised.” When asked why he chose to use a pseudonym, Rick chose one word: “fear. It’s not a good look, a pseudonym, is it? But it says something about where the power lies.” He continues: “There is a reason why men who speak up on these issues tend to be retired or unemployed.”

There are two further statements in The Guardian article which struck me. The first is “It may be that, for a number of fair reasons, women are allowed to denigrate men in print, but not the other way around.” This is a valid point. Until fairly recently, sexism, objectification and the commodification of women were normalised in the media and wider culture. That has changed, the opposite is now normalised, and men have become the 'outgroup'. You only have to look at the language used in the mainstream media and how different that language is when applied to one gender or the other. Tellingly, the author does not elaborate on what these numerous fair reasons are that allow women to denigrate men.

I suspect that if asked, I would be directed to the intersectional, identity politics driven assertion that everyone must locate themselves in a hierarchy of oppression, and then defer to those whose intersectional disadvantages supersede theirs. This is a fatally flawed argument that crudely places people into groups and rejects individual circumstances. It can lead to purity spirals, where solidarity is built by shunning and condemning those in the outgroup, in this case the male half of the straight dating world. It also ignores the disadvantages faced by men and detailed in many books such as The Empathy Gap.

“I struggle to see this imbalance of power [against women] in my daily life, and often observe the opposite.”

The problem with building solidarity based on identifying and excluding members of the outgroup is that solidarity is only achieved by not being in the outgroup. This creates a purity spiral where those in the ingroup are at constant risk of being denounced and banished to the outgroup, because their intersectional purity is no longer pure or worthy enough in the ever-shifting sands of identity politics. In this climate, straight men often disengage completely rather than express themselves for fear of ridicule, cancellation and accusations of misogyny. Which returns us to the author’s question and the answer becomes increasingly clear.

There is a revealing quote in the article from Annie Lord, British Vogue's dating columnist. "I think some of the things I get away with saying about men would seem a bit gross from guys, because of the obvious power imbalance." There is a thread of truth in this as well, when viewed within the context of the last 60 years or so. However, I struggle to see this imbalance of power in my daily life, and often observe the opposite. The choice of the words "I get away with” is interesting and demands scrutiny. It points to a disregard for objectivity and an agenda built on biased assumptions. Why would a female journalist want to get away with saying things about men that a male journalist wouldn’t “get away” with saying about women? What is the motivation and the thought process? To draw attention to this imbalance is unacceptable. It is taboo.

“On the one hand there is agreement that men need to talk more about their feelings, and to be able to show vulnerability. On the other hand […] Showing vulnerability brings accusations of “whinging” and self-pity”.

That Annie Lord can express this view without fear of censure is troubling. What are the things women can “get away with saying that would seem a bit gross” if a man was saying it? Why is it controversial to point out this lazy double standard that ultimately serves no one? It is a relief to know there are people finding the courage to counter this pernicious narrative. Pushing back is not without risk. Accusations abound, whether it be of misogyny, sexism, being an incel or MGTOW, or any link to the manosphere. The double standards can be breath-taking, and pointing this out is a brave and necessary resistance to the dominant narrative.

Mixed messages in the media are certainly not helping to expose the hypocrisy. On the one hand there is agreement that men need to talk more about their feelings, and to be able to show vulnerability. On the other hand, the fact that hardly any men are writing or talking about sex and dating shows there is little appetite to listen when men do talk about sensitive issues. Showing vulnerability brings accusations of “whinging” and self-pity. Pointing out prejudices against men incites outrage that privileged, entitled men dare to question the fairness of family law courts, educational outcomes and the criminal justice system.

“Many women still expect men to observe rigid, outdated gender roles. Roles they often no longer wish to apply to themselves”.

On a first date the straight man customarily does the asking out, the organising of the date, and the financing of it. When looked at objectively, these rigid, gendered expectations may no longer be fit for purpose and potentially don’t serve either gender well. This is especially relevant during the current cost-of-living crisis. The cost of lunch or a cup of coffee is always going up, yet the archaic rules of chivalry dictate that the man foots the bill every time. For many men, the cost is unsustainable, especially when replicated over multiple first dates, as is the norm when searching for a mate. It is another reason why men are opting out of the dating market altogether.

Five and a half years after the necessary reckoning of the #MeToo movement, the debate has not progressed. The male half of the conversation has been excluded. Women are right to call out the unacceptable behaviour of some men. They are right to point the finger at elements of the wider culture for creating an environment where this kind of behaviour has been tolerated or approved. But it has left men in an untenable position. Many women still expect men to observe rigid, outdated gender roles. Roles they often no longer wish to apply to themselves. The social bribe of the heroic male may make for an exciting dating prospect in the short term but is often a recipe for failure in long-term relationships. When men are excluded from the conversation, progress is impossible, and it is damaging for everyone.

Scroll down to join the discussion

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.