Is Straight Dating Dead?

Heterofatalism is defined as a resignation from straight dating; an admission that patriarchal dynamics will inevitably be part of a heterosexual relationship, and that the only solution to this problem is dejected faux-lesbianism. In this view, a bad date with a man is not just that, but a reflection of patriarchal dynamics that are embodied in all men.

Lampoon Magazine defines heterofatalism as:

“A fatalistic acceptance that heterosexuality produces emotional exhaustion.”

They argue that heterofatalism is “the emotional symptom of a society built around instant gratification, overload, and perpetual disposability. Micro-attention spans, algorithmic intimacy, and the constant hum of performance.” With internet porn, social media, and dating apps, “everything looks appealing from a distance, but nothing is built to last.”

Various pessimisms constitute heterofatalism: Violence pessimism (94% of recorded domestic abuse perpetrators are male), sexual pessimism (95% of men always orgasm during sex, while only 65% of women said the same), porn pessimism (mainstream porn is deeply dehumanising towards women and most men use porn regularly), domestic, emotional, and heuristic pessimism, among others.

Heterofatalism is rooted in real, systemic issues. One example is pornography, of which most men are avid consumers and use as their primary source of sex education.

As Zitzman and Butler (2009) explain:

“Pornography scripts expectations and behavior that place it on a collision course with the requisite dynamics for secure attachment and authentic intimacy in the pair-bond relationship … the detached, objectifying, exploitive sexuality of pornography directly impacts attachment trust, eroding any safe expectation of one’s partner being faithfully for the other.”

A man learns through pornography to approach sex as a self-centred, rather than other-centred, activity. He learns that sex is something done to a woman, for a man. 1 in 6 married couples report that pornography use has been a source of conflict in their marriage.

Because porn is hyper-optimised to be maximally addictive to male consumers, female partners are left with an anxiety of never being enough for their partners, and their sense of security diminishes as a result. Women report depression, poor self-esteem, and anxiety upon finding out that their partners hide, or at least minimise, their use of pornography.

The type of pornography also matters: Women are more accepting of their male partners consuming soft-core content compared to content involving female humiliation and dehumanisation. However, this is contradicted by the fact that “barely legal” (teenage), “step-family” (incest), “anal” (painful and humiliating), “Japanese” (Asian fetishisation), and “rough” (male aggression) consistently rank as the top porn categories among men.

As Jean Garnett succinctly described:

“One thing heterofatalism reflects is a persistent lack of faith that those we desire will be able to recognise us as commensurately human.”

Underneath the disappointments over failed relationships, lies an existential horror: Women fear that men do not even regard them as human.

Indeed, if male attraction to female humiliation is simply arousal due to transgression of societal norms, then why is female humiliation the norm but male humiliation a niche category? The asymmetry isn’t random; it reflects real-world power.

Historically and currently, men hold the dominant economic, cultural, and narrative power, while women’s bodies and sexuality have been consumed by, packaged, and sold to men. Porn largely developed within, and reflects, that existing hierarchy. It is clear who has historically been positioned as an object versus who has the power to gaze at, judge, and consume.

It is perfectly reasonable then to feel existential horror being a woman in a culture where that is the dominant pattern. Imagine being born knowing your destiny is humiliation!

Renewing faith in heterosexuality

Not all hope is lost, however. I do not think that men are born misogynists or that they are biologically hardwired to take pleasure in women’s pain or humiliation.

What success feminism has achieved thus far is still in its infancy. For example, the Equal Pay Act — which prohibits sex-based wage discrimination in the United States — was only ratified in 1963, and even so, there is still presently a wage gap between men and women doing equally productive labour, despite it being less significant than in the 60s.

We are at a critical moment in history, where education is democratised more than ever, with the mass adoption of mobile phones and internet access in developing countries. Women who were previously unable to access feminist education due to censorship or patriarchal customs in their country can now do so — with the unfortunate exception of theocratic or totalitarian regimes such as Afghanistan and many others.

However, I am assuming that by reading this article, you live somewhere with internet access and where women are permitted to be literate. That means that there are men in your country who are inoffensive enough to be considered a dating prospect. Never mind the quantity. Even if a significant majority of men adopt patriarchal attitudes and worldviews, the minority of men who don’t congregate around certain spaces.

For example, men with artistic pursuits tend to lean left-wing, so you are more likely to find them in a writer’s meetup versus a golf club. Men in academia, particularly in health and liberal arts fields, tend to be more interested in humanitarian pursuits than those in finance or business.

The medium by which you encounter potential partners also matters. Dating apps promote detachment as efficiency and ambiguity as an intentional strategy. There is a “profit-motive” to become inconsistent in communication. On the apps, you are disincentivised to be vulnerable, regardless of gender; the LinkedIn-esque interface makes it feel like you are selling yourself to potential “employers”.

When you meet people in real life, especially for a friendship instead of a hook-up, people let their guard down and show their more vulnerable sides. I met the kindest men through slam poetry events, writers meetups, and sewing workshops.

I made friends with men without the expectation of sex. Sex happens when we have established a friendship, and we both feel enthusiastic about it, but friendship forms the foundation of our relationship.

A common response to heterofatalism is to advocate a return to commitment-only sex, lamenting a past where men married women because otherwise they could not get consistent sex without paying a working girl.

Now, I don’t think the correct answer to a problem is necessarily its extreme opposite. I think we can have pleasurable and respectful sex without a romantic attachment, but doing this with friends, not strangers.

Sex has become so available under capitalist-imbued sexual liberalism — with the accessibility of internet porn and sex work — that women feel the need to offer guys they have just met sex to make him desire her. “Man fucks woman; subject verb object,” wrote Catherine MacKinnon. Under patriarchal capitalism, men are the consumers, and women, the products.

I find it unusual that due to this extreme sexual liberality, people are more discerning with whom they pick to work with on a project than they are with whom they have sex with. On a project—whether personal or professional—they consider whether the partner is collaborative, competent, and would add value. Shouldn’t the same apply to sex?

It is not enough that the stranger on Hinge is good-looking, but shouldn’t we discern their character to gauge whether they are of a generous or selfish disposition? If you know nothing about someone and get disappointed when they are incompetent or add no value to the interaction, isn’t the solution to be more discerning about someone’s character before trusting them with the project of intimacy?

Even within a committed relationship, egalitarianism — realistically — isn’t a fixed state you arrive at and maintain perfectly. It takes work from both parties to notice imbalances, name them, and adjust, rather than defending the status quo because it happens to benefit them.

The antidote to heterofatalism isn’t finding someone who is already perfectly egalitarian. It’s finding someone willing to keep examining themselves alongside you when you name a problem. That willingness, not perfection, is the actual thing to look for.

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.