God, so much this. Can confirm that the first question any rational woman asks about a man she's considering dating is 'is he nice?' not 'what's his status?'.
Nice doesn’t magically create lust or love. I’m male (so automatically wrong, right?) but I have asked many female friends now, their preferences and their specific reasons for their past choices. It’s different for all of em. And who they’d “date” for fun is different to who they continue on to marry. Many women ARE attracted to utter douchebags, especially criminals bizarrely from my “research”. Some women are attracted by power, some women are attracted by connections, some by style, many women are attracted by wealth, a few are attracted by vulnerability, they may like success they may prefer a project and so on and yes some women are going to be attracted by nice probably but it’s not one that’s came up much when “what specifically attracted you to that man?” was the question actually. I did hear quite a few “he was really super nice but” answers for “so he was keen, what was wrong with that man?” question.
If that were true, highly educated and well off women would be dating men without an education who are much poorer than them. You won’t see female doctors dating male grocery store clerks. Women do care about status.
Andrew Tate, Trump, and many other wealthy men who are not nice guys have no problem with women.
No, women care about shared values. There probably are some doctors dating grocery clerks, but statistically few of them because mostly they will have very different backgrounds and world views. A shared sense of humour goes a long way to bridge other differences. But some gaps like mismatched aspirations, or conversational differences (he talks football, she talks astro-physics), or (frequently) attitudes to money, are harder to bridge. You might get away with it in the short term, but long term, your odds are slim. If you want to be understood, first seek to understand - a very wise saying.
Trump and co have no problem with some women. You are making a huge mistake if you think all women react to money and status the way some women do. Look around you. Look at your colleagues at work, look around you when you are out and about where you live. Are all the couples you see high status men with trophy wives? I highly doubt it. Trump and co are exceptions, not the rule.
“Watch Groundhog Day and figure out why Bill Murray is more attractive to her at the end than the beginning” has always been my advice to boys. (It’s not just because he can play the piano.)
Because he secured enough knowledge about her about her to feign having the same dumb liberal preferences, interests and “morals”. I can attest that this indeed works and will get you the girl.
That's not why she found him attractive. He had previously feigned preferences such as wanting world peace, etc: didn't work. You need to watch the film again.
I get what Hollywood wanted us to learn but as usual with Hollywood , it’s an impossible standard that nobody in their right mind would try to live up to. The more realistic lesson to learn was a good sense of humour and finding out and pretending to care about whatever nonsense “cause” she cares about this week will get you laid with most liberal ladies. It’s true, it will.
If you get practiced enough at presenting yourself in a certain way, you may indeed fool people regardless of their politics. It says more about the person running the con than the people who (initially at least) are taken in.
You might not want to but I’m pretty sure nodding in agreement and saying “you’re right dear” is pretty manageable over the longer term and that’s only if she doesn’t change her opinions, which she will.
Almost all young women seem to be libtarded now. It’s gonna be hard for any man to date that without “fooling” isn’t it? If I were advising Bill Murray back then I’d say avoid Mcdowel in the first place and that simpin for some intellectual, liberal snob was a bad idea but in 2025 I’m not sure the lads have many other options, they are just going to have to pretend to hate themselves and get that girl, hell maybe it’s better than signing up to die overseas like back in the day anyway.
Ah yes, the classic progressive cliche. "We should apply lessons from movies written by liberals who create a world they want to be true instead of the one that exists."
I appreciate you naming basic, everyday competence, Ian. Being good (or even okay at) handling the quiet stuff that makes life work - it's so important and yet so underrated. Many of the women I know feel like we are on our own with it a lot of the time. Sharing the burden is very appealing.
I have lost count now of how many times my girlfriends and I say, we just want someone who is competent at life, that’s the turn on. I look at some of my friends’ relationships and she even has to buy *his* parents birthday cards because he forgets and seems unable to use a diary. I can’t bear it! Just do half the boring shit so we have equal time for the fun shit
I got a lot out of reading this article - it really made me think that men are being told to project one thing, and in response women feel they need to hollow themselves out, have no views or opinions, to meet what that man wants. When at root, don’t we just want to be our real selves (hopefully our real self isn’t a total cunt) and be seen and wanted for that? And if it’s not that person, that’s ok?
Really good article. I do think though that the idea of progressives shunning masculinity or dismissing all masculinity as toxic is largely an invention of the right rather than something matching the reality on the ground. It just doesn’t jibe with my experience of spending time in progressive spaces where there are many, many men doing great work developing and demonstrating positive forms of masculinity.
I totally buy that. I guess my point, badly phrased, is that these guys are out there telling men they will get them laid and surrepticiously introducing a political narrative. But I, and I'm guessing most progressives, squirm when talking about the subject.
Ok I see the entirety of the online left has turned up on social media to prove your point. I genuinely think they’re better than that in person, not sure why they seem so determined to ensure the wider perception of them is as endless fun sponges
Well, I daresay there are women who are turned on by completely useless losers, but personally I've always found that someone who is good at doing things (basic competence) is pretty attractive.
I think you're right - it seems consistent with both the populist 'just asking questions' schtick (even though they're not asking questions) and the progressive/left's aversion to engagement with topics they haven't introduced because of the 'never wrestle with a pig' principle that apparently guides their comms strategy at the moment?
I was very much reminded of the horrible industries that have grown up to prey on women’s insecurities (dieting, anti-aging creams etc) when reading this. The various BS artists in the manosphere are basically charging men to tell them they’re shit, but that they have the answer, at a price. Same as these industries with women, you’re shit but if you buy our snake oil, you’ll be less shit…
It's also, like their close cousin the Get Rich Quick scam (the Venn diagram of manfluencers and crypto bros isn't quite a circle, but it's close), predicated on setting men up for unrealistic outcomes, and pointing them at role models who are, if not outright fake, at least highly contrived. Then when they fail to reach those unlikely goals, blaming their anger and disappointment on the Other.
There are a few cognitive bias bugs in typical male wiring which leave guys vulnerable to this stuff, and progressives need to be able to talk about that, starting with something like: "Most men are somewhat like men, and most women are somewhat like women, but also you are equally good, valid and worthy of love if you aren't."
The correct response to the Right's bigoted, ham-fisted and scientifically illiterate embrace of biological essentialism is not to deny that biology exists at all (though I surely sympathise with those who'd like to do so) but to recognise that central to a civilised society is learning to work around and accommodate the limits of biology, mitigate its flaws and ultimately transcend it where that's possible.
Thankyou, Thankyou, this is timely and useful. My son has just turned 12 and I am frankly terrified on how to navigate all this with him and his male friends. They being digital natives on top of centuries of misogyny. I will keep this article in my back pocket.
Ian - if you (or someone reading this) could invent time travel and send this back 40-ish years and make sure I read it, that would avoid an awful lot of the exact same heartache and pain you describe! Slightly uncomfortable reading for me, as a result, but enlightening and entertaining as usual!
Bloody hell Ian…..such a great piece…👏🏻👏🏻 This should be used as a lecture in schools. I don’t have a son but have said to the young men in my life….just be kind! My entire life, the most attractive men have always been funny, and absolutely nothing to do with the way they’ve looked! It’s not rocket science….🤷🏼♀️
Great piece! Especially liked the bit of advice about asking to see a woman's inbox on a dating site. To a certain extent, you can say that about every social media platform. Like many women, I have the words No DMs, please in my bio that is often ignored by accounts claiming to be men (romance scammers are common on these things too), with the unimaginative hi, how are you, hi, gorgeous, hi whatever...
I cannot being to fathom how terrible those inboxes are. One of my gym trainers showed me his instagram inbox, and I was surprised by the message he got from both men and women.
I agree with the person above who suggested there's a book in this. You are articulating really important things that could be such a help to lads trying to navigate the increasing complexity of their lives as they go through their teens.
The good news is there is a book about this, called "The Lost Boys" by journalist James Bloodworth. Ian's read it, as James has highlighted the quotes Ian lifted from it without acknowledgement. After reading Ian's work for almost a decade, I really didn't expect this pretty poor form from Ian.
Great article, and an important point: vacating a space because it *might* be uncomfortable for progressives (I'm thinking grooming gangs, immigration, as well as pick-up artists) leaves the worst of humanity to fill the gap. Progressive, liberal voices should be able to discuss their views. Liberalism can be hard. Interests collide.
I liked the article so much I'm going to send it to my very caring and engaged but somewhat nerdy (like me! his dad) and consequently anxious 20 year old son.
However, I would caution against entirely ignoring social norms and evolutionary imperatives. As a man in his 50s, I can completely understand the key points - be kind, be nice, be competent, talk to women as you would to any other human. But young women, like young men, are also insecure, status-driven, irrational, seeking a tribe or identity that is acceptable to both peers and potential partners.
A girl who says "no thank you" might not fancy you, or she might be thinking "what would my mates says?". She also might not be comfortable with her body (given the messaging pumped at young women, this isn't exactly a surprise) and just not be able to take the risk of rejection herself.
And finally, despite the social revolutions of the 60s, current research still indicates that the threshold for engaging in sexual activity is significantly lower for men than it is for women. Men are just not likely to say "no thank you" than your average young woman, who statistically has fewer sexual partners (although there is a wide margin of error in these studies due to their self-reported nature, and averages of course don't represent everyone's personal experience or attitudes).
"Great article, and an important point: vacating a space because it *might* be uncomfortable for progressives (I'm thinking grooming gangs, immigration, as well as pick-up artists) leaves the worst of humanity to fill the gap."
Absolutely true, the problem is that we are afraid of our small but loud radical wing. How to put it. There are huge numbers of reasonable liberals who live normal lives and consider social media not the center of their lives and even there, mostly want to discuss matters, not fight. And there is the small terminally online radical wing, who likes to gang up on people 50 to 1 and scream that they should kill themselves.
Your examples are excellent, of course we need to talk about immigration from cultures which are very non-liberal, if we are generally critical of even Western-level patriarchy, we have to ask just how many Pakistani-level patriarchs we want to let in and then how to make them see things similar as how we do? Then fifty radicals scream "kill yourself, Nazi scum" and then we lose the mood to discuss it.
Good piece, Ian. As a child of the 60s and 70s, who married and raised a family in the 80s, many of the confusions you describe were part of my life, albeit without the horrific polarisation and exploitation facing young men today.
Now in my 70s, and very much at peace with life and in love with a wonderful woman, I give enormous credit for my being able to do so to an organisation that does the precise opposite of the ghastly outfits you describe. It's called The Mankind Project (MKP) and its mission is very simple: to save the world, one man at a time. It's not a club, you can't join, but you can experience men helping men confront their fears and demons, and learn how to protect, nurture, honour and hopefully heal the wounded child we call carry within us.
I was introduced to the MKP 28 years ago while living in America. The men I met then are my friends today. There is an MKP in the UK and it does wonderful work.
So if you are minded to do a follow up on this excellent piece, to demonstrate there is another end to the spectrum, where men really are trying to help men, may I suggest you have a look at what they do.
This poem, very much embraced by the MKP, captures what can happen to men, and the strength it can demand to come through it:
Good grooming, empathy and humour are attractive to women. I apologise to all those males I said 'no' to when young, not thinlking about their feelings. By the way, I can 'open beer bottles by slamming them on the side of a table'.
God, so much this. Can confirm that the first question any rational woman asks about a man she's considering dating is 'is he nice?' not 'what's his status?'.
Shit that's a great line, much better than anything in the piece
Thanks - it's a great piece. I hope it gets the readers it deserves.
Also, top of my list, is he kind? To me. To others. To animals. If the answer is no to any of those he’s getting rejected.
Nice doesn’t magically create lust or love. I’m male (so automatically wrong, right?) but I have asked many female friends now, their preferences and their specific reasons for their past choices. It’s different for all of em. And who they’d “date” for fun is different to who they continue on to marry. Many women ARE attracted to utter douchebags, especially criminals bizarrely from my “research”. Some women are attracted by power, some women are attracted by connections, some by style, many women are attracted by wealth, a few are attracted by vulnerability, they may like success they may prefer a project and so on and yes some women are going to be attracted by nice probably but it’s not one that’s came up much when “what specifically attracted you to that man?” was the question actually. I did hear quite a few “he was really super nice but” answers for “so he was keen, what was wrong with that man?” question.
Maybe even ‘what’s he like’?
If that were true, highly educated and well off women would be dating men without an education who are much poorer than them. You won’t see female doctors dating male grocery store clerks. Women do care about status.
Andrew Tate, Trump, and many other wealthy men who are not nice guys have no problem with women.
No, women care about shared values. There probably are some doctors dating grocery clerks, but statistically few of them because mostly they will have very different backgrounds and world views. A shared sense of humour goes a long way to bridge other differences. But some gaps like mismatched aspirations, or conversational differences (he talks football, she talks astro-physics), or (frequently) attitudes to money, are harder to bridge. You might get away with it in the short term, but long term, your odds are slim. If you want to be understood, first seek to understand - a very wise saying.
Are you a boomer?
Are you a child?
Yes, a child of God🤭
Trump and co have no problem with some women. You are making a huge mistake if you think all women react to money and status the way some women do. Look around you. Look at your colleagues at work, look around you when you are out and about where you live. Are all the couples you see high status men with trophy wives? I highly doubt it. Trump and co are exceptions, not the rule.
Trump & co would have a problem with me!
"you're in insurance, you haven't become a hunter gatherer because you turned a sausage with a pair of tongs" - brilliant!
“Watch Groundhog Day and figure out why Bill Murray is more attractive to her at the end than the beginning” has always been my advice to boys. (It’s not just because he can play the piano.)
Fantastic advice. Plus, even if it doesn't hit home, they get to watch groundhog day
Again and again. And again. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve watched that movie
RIGHT? I have oft commented on how INSANELY rewatchable it is
Same here. It’s never grows old. It’s a lovely film. If only more men watched and understood rather than hand over money to creepy influencers.
You mean watching Groundhog Day is just like Groundhog Day? 😳 🤔
Because he secured enough knowledge about her about her to feign having the same dumb liberal preferences, interests and “morals”. I can attest that this indeed works and will get you the girl.
That's not why she found him attractive. He had previously feigned preferences such as wanting world peace, etc: didn't work. You need to watch the film again.
I get what Hollywood wanted us to learn but as usual with Hollywood , it’s an impossible standard that nobody in their right mind would try to live up to. The more realistic lesson to learn was a good sense of humour and finding out and pretending to care about whatever nonsense “cause” she cares about this week will get you laid with most liberal ladies. It’s true, it will.
If you get practiced enough at presenting yourself in a certain way, you may indeed fool people regardless of their politics. It says more about the person running the con than the people who (initially at least) are taken in.
But it won’t keep you the girl.
That was his second to last run through the day, if you remember. That one didn't work.
You might not want to but I’m pretty sure nodding in agreement and saying “you’re right dear” is pretty manageable over the longer term and that’s only if she doesn’t change her opinions, which she will.
Almost all young women seem to be libtarded now. It’s gonna be hard for any man to date that without “fooling” isn’t it? If I were advising Bill Murray back then I’d say avoid Mcdowel in the first place and that simpin for some intellectual, liberal snob was a bad idea but in 2025 I’m not sure the lads have many other options, they are just going to have to pretend to hate themselves and get that girl, hell maybe it’s better than signing up to die overseas like back in the day anyway.
Ah yes, the classic progressive cliche. "We should apply lessons from movies written by liberals who create a world they want to be true instead of the one that exists."
That is spectacular and I'm stealing it.
Yes!!! What great advice.
This is the best and most relevant article I've read in some time. The world needs viewpoints like this
I appreciate you naming basic, everyday competence, Ian. Being good (or even okay at) handling the quiet stuff that makes life work - it's so important and yet so underrated. Many of the women I know feel like we are on our own with it a lot of the time. Sharing the burden is very appealing.
I have lost count now of how many times my girlfriends and I say, we just want someone who is competent at life, that’s the turn on. I look at some of my friends’ relationships and she even has to buy *his* parents birthday cards because he forgets and seems unable to use a diary. I can’t bear it! Just do half the boring shit so we have equal time for the fun shit
I got a lot out of reading this article - it really made me think that men are being told to project one thing, and in response women feel they need to hollow themselves out, have no views or opinions, to meet what that man wants. When at root, don’t we just want to be our real selves (hopefully our real self isn’t a total cunt) and be seen and wanted for that? And if it’s not that person, that’s ok?
Or just don’t do the boring shit at all?
Jill Conner Brown of the Sweet Potato Queens says the sexiest thing a man can say is "Here, let me do that."
Really good article. I do think though that the idea of progressives shunning masculinity or dismissing all masculinity as toxic is largely an invention of the right rather than something matching the reality on the ground. It just doesn’t jibe with my experience of spending time in progressive spaces where there are many, many men doing great work developing and demonstrating positive forms of masculinity.
I totally buy that. I guess my point, badly phrased, is that these guys are out there telling men they will get them laid and surrepticiously introducing a political narrative. But I, and I'm guessing most progressives, squirm when talking about the subject.
Ok I see the entirety of the online left has turned up on social media to prove your point. I genuinely think they’re better than that in person, not sure why they seem so determined to ensure the wider perception of them is as endless fun sponges
Because you guys are genuinely and unironically holding up competence as a important sexual attraction. How the fuck are you not fun sponges.
Well, I daresay there are women who are turned on by completely useless losers, but personally I've always found that someone who is good at doing things (basic competence) is pretty attractive.
I think you're right - it seems consistent with both the populist 'just asking questions' schtick (even though they're not asking questions) and the progressive/left's aversion to engagement with topics they haven't introduced because of the 'never wrestle with a pig' principle that apparently guides their comms strategy at the moment?
We do tend to be attracted to the quality’s we lack the most eh.
I was very much reminded of the horrible industries that have grown up to prey on women’s insecurities (dieting, anti-aging creams etc) when reading this. The various BS artists in the manosphere are basically charging men to tell them they’re shit, but that they have the answer, at a price. Same as these industries with women, you’re shit but if you buy our snake oil, you’ll be less shit…
It's also, like their close cousin the Get Rich Quick scam (the Venn diagram of manfluencers and crypto bros isn't quite a circle, but it's close), predicated on setting men up for unrealistic outcomes, and pointing them at role models who are, if not outright fake, at least highly contrived. Then when they fail to reach those unlikely goals, blaming their anger and disappointment on the Other.
There are a few cognitive bias bugs in typical male wiring which leave guys vulnerable to this stuff, and progressives need to be able to talk about that, starting with something like: "Most men are somewhat like men, and most women are somewhat like women, but also you are equally good, valid and worthy of love if you aren't."
The correct response to the Right's bigoted, ham-fisted and scientifically illiterate embrace of biological essentialism is not to deny that biology exists at all (though I surely sympathise with those who'd like to do so) but to recognise that central to a civilised society is learning to work around and accommodate the limits of biology, mitigate its flaws and ultimately transcend it where that's possible.
Thankyou, Thankyou, this is timely and useful. My son has just turned 12 and I am frankly terrified on how to navigate all this with him and his male friends. They being digital natives on top of centuries of misogyny. I will keep this article in my back pocket.
Ian - if you (or someone reading this) could invent time travel and send this back 40-ish years and make sure I read it, that would avoid an awful lot of the exact same heartache and pain you describe! Slightly uncomfortable reading for me, as a result, but enlightening and entertaining as usual!
Bloody hell Ian…..such a great piece…👏🏻👏🏻 This should be used as a lecture in schools. I don’t have a son but have said to the young men in my life….just be kind! My entire life, the most attractive men have always been funny, and absolutely nothing to do with the way they’ve looked! It’s not rocket science….🤷🏼♀️
Great piece! Especially liked the bit of advice about asking to see a woman's inbox on a dating site. To a certain extent, you can say that about every social media platform. Like many women, I have the words No DMs, please in my bio that is often ignored by accounts claiming to be men (romance scammers are common on these things too), with the unimaginative hi, how are you, hi, gorgeous, hi whatever...
I cannot being to fathom how terrible those inboxes are. One of my gym trainers showed me his instagram inbox, and I was surprised by the message he got from both men and women.
This is great, so much to think about. Thank you.
I agree with the person above who suggested there's a book in this. You are articulating really important things that could be such a help to lads trying to navigate the increasing complexity of their lives as they go through their teens.
Robert Webb's "How not to be a boy" is good on this theme. (It didn't occur to me when I was reading it, but now that I think about it...)
The good news is there is a book about this, called "The Lost Boys" by journalist James Bloodworth. Ian's read it, as James has highlighted the quotes Ian lifted from it without acknowledgement. After reading Ian's work for almost a decade, I really didn't expect this pretty poor form from Ian.
https://www.forthedeskdrawer.com/p/how-to-screw-chicks-like-ian-dunt?r=333r8&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Great article, and an important point: vacating a space because it *might* be uncomfortable for progressives (I'm thinking grooming gangs, immigration, as well as pick-up artists) leaves the worst of humanity to fill the gap. Progressive, liberal voices should be able to discuss their views. Liberalism can be hard. Interests collide.
I liked the article so much I'm going to send it to my very caring and engaged but somewhat nerdy (like me! his dad) and consequently anxious 20 year old son.
However, I would caution against entirely ignoring social norms and evolutionary imperatives. As a man in his 50s, I can completely understand the key points - be kind, be nice, be competent, talk to women as you would to any other human. But young women, like young men, are also insecure, status-driven, irrational, seeking a tribe or identity that is acceptable to both peers and potential partners.
A girl who says "no thank you" might not fancy you, or she might be thinking "what would my mates says?". She also might not be comfortable with her body (given the messaging pumped at young women, this isn't exactly a surprise) and just not be able to take the risk of rejection herself.
And finally, despite the social revolutions of the 60s, current research still indicates that the threshold for engaging in sexual activity is significantly lower for men than it is for women. Men are just not likely to say "no thank you" than your average young woman, who statistically has fewer sexual partners (although there is a wide margin of error in these studies due to their self-reported nature, and averages of course don't represent everyone's personal experience or attitudes).
It's hard being human, but exquisite as well
"Great article, and an important point: vacating a space because it *might* be uncomfortable for progressives (I'm thinking grooming gangs, immigration, as well as pick-up artists) leaves the worst of humanity to fill the gap."
Absolutely true, the problem is that we are afraid of our small but loud radical wing. How to put it. There are huge numbers of reasonable liberals who live normal lives and consider social media not the center of their lives and even there, mostly want to discuss matters, not fight. And there is the small terminally online radical wing, who likes to gang up on people 50 to 1 and scream that they should kill themselves.
Your examples are excellent, of course we need to talk about immigration from cultures which are very non-liberal, if we are generally critical of even Western-level patriarchy, we have to ask just how many Pakistani-level patriarchs we want to let in and then how to make them see things similar as how we do? Then fifty radicals scream "kill yourself, Nazi scum" and then we lose the mood to discuss it.
Good piece, Ian. As a child of the 60s and 70s, who married and raised a family in the 80s, many of the confusions you describe were part of my life, albeit without the horrific polarisation and exploitation facing young men today.
Now in my 70s, and very much at peace with life and in love with a wonderful woman, I give enormous credit for my being able to do so to an organisation that does the precise opposite of the ghastly outfits you describe. It's called The Mankind Project (MKP) and its mission is very simple: to save the world, one man at a time. It's not a club, you can't join, but you can experience men helping men confront their fears and demons, and learn how to protect, nurture, honour and hopefully heal the wounded child we call carry within us.
I was introduced to the MKP 28 years ago while living in America. The men I met then are my friends today. There is an MKP in the UK and it does wonderful work.
So if you are minded to do a follow up on this excellent piece, to demonstrate there is another end to the spectrum, where men really are trying to help men, may I suggest you have a look at what they do.
This poem, very much embraced by the MKP, captures what can happen to men, and the strength it can demand to come through it:
https://www.shayri.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75281
Happy to chat.
Nick
That's fascinating, thanks Nick
Good grooming, empathy and humour are attractive to women. I apologise to all those males I said 'no' to when young, not thinlking about their feelings. By the way, I can 'open beer bottles by slamming them on the side of a table'.
TEACH ME
Beer should never be treated roughly, this machismo beer-bottle-banging must end
Much of the "beer" opened that way is barely worthy of the name.