'Man Lead! Woman Follow!'

What do you think of when you hear the word “leader?”

In the context of heterosexual romantic relationships, many will agree that the notion of the man being the “leader” is outdated and backwards. Social scientist Elle Beau recently wrote an excellent piece (linked at the bottom) that broke down why my use of the term “leader” in romantic relationships might do more harm than good.

Will it, though?

While I am a progressive who understands the harm of patriarchal oppression, I also understand the realities of modern dating and how they require us men to adapt to some established norms.

I hold open doors for my dates, walk on the dangerous side of the sidewalk, and have the overall attitude that I must protect them. That’s American society’s definition of gentlemanly behavior. Science has shown that having this kind of attitude is more attractive to women than not having it (comment if you want a source).

The problem? That’s called “benevolent sexism,” and it potentially relegates women to a position of lesser agency. It could be bad for equality in the long run.

The fact that not being benevolent sexists puts men at a disadvantage, though, prompts me — as a men’s dating coach — to advise men to behave like such gentlemen.

What’s that got to do with leadership?

It’s another established social norm that screws us if we don’t follow it in certain contexts.

When we’re talking about established relationships, it’s much better to focus on an equal partnership where both people share the proactive role.

You can’t expect a relationship to be completely healthy and fulfilling if only one person is taking on the burden of leadership, picking all the meals to have together, planning all of the trips unilaterally, and overall laying out the entire path for the couple to follow together.

There is certainly a case to be made that focusing on words like “leader” in relationships could make some men overlook the importance of the kind of partnership necessary to make a relationship thrive.

Things are usually different in the earlier stages, though.

As a man, have you ever wanted to be “swept off your feet?”

Have you ever wanted the universe, your astrological chart, or other mysterious force to guide you into romantic “meet cutes” that just happen to naturally occur without your proactive involvement?

Have you ever wanted a confident stranger to feel so inspired by your beauty that they wanted to take you on a magic carpet ride across the continents while singing impromptu duets that definitely don’t feel like they were painstakingly rehearsed even if they sound flawless?

(I also wanted to write something about 50 Shades of Grey here but I also don’t want to break the rule of 3s. You get it, right?)

These are the kinds of fantasies and expectations that women have been socialized to hold on a massive scale. Don’t blame them; that’s just how patriarchy conditioned everyone. Or that’s “just their nature,” if you’re some redpiller who refuses to acknowledge any of the nurture side of things. Whatever. It doesn’t matter where it comes from. What matters is that it’s there and that we need to adapt from a position of love and compassion. Don’t be bitter about it.

If you don’t step up to a leadership position in courtship, seduction, or whatever you want to call the stuff before the establishment of a relationship, your chances of getting into a relationship — or even just the bedroom — with her will plummet.

Just as your chances will decrease if you don’t behave in a way that aligns with benevolent sexism, your chances will also decrease if you don’t take on the burden of leadership in seduction.

You need to be the one sweeping her off her feet, the one taking the proactive steps to make her feel like it’s a naturally-flowing meet cute, the one making the preparations for the musical magic carpet ride.

Even if she’s more aware of patriarchal influences that shove men and women into these tired old tropes, she’s still going to swoon if you do that for her.

She’s unlikely to be the one who does that for you in those initial stages. Women just haven’t been given the script for that. You’re the one who needs to make it happen. You’re the one who needs to lead in this dance.

Yes, women who make the first move exist. If you’re just waiting for that to happen, though, you’re going to be waiting a long time. Most of those women will be preoccupied with men who approached them, anyway.

This isn’t the first time

Elle Beau ❇︎

and I have disagreed about intersexual dynamics.

She’s a brilliant writer with whom I agree on many points, and I encourage all the men here to check out her articles. There is one pattern of disagreement I’m noticing, though.

Another well-written piece she wrote was about how polarity in relationships is a myth (also linked at the bottom). She makes the point that couples who share more similarities have better relationships than couples who are diametrically opposed to each other.

“Birds of a feather” over “Opposites attract,” basically.

That makes sense. If one person is an introvert who hates going out and the other is an extrovert who hates staying in, that relationship probably won’t work as well as one where both people like doing the same things together on date nights.

However, the disagreement once again fundamentally comes from a matter of looking at established relationships vs. initial attraction before a relationship is established (seduction). My comment on her piece:

When it comes to many aspects of personality, social class, and other identifiers, it’s undeniable that like attracts like. Bird[s] of a feather flock together, as they say.

When it comes to sexual attraction, though, I believe there’s more nuance and justification for understanding polarity. BDSM is an interesting context to look at when it comes to attraction. In that context, doms will generally not be sexually attracted to other doms, and subs will generally not be sexually attracted to other subs. As a male dom, if a woman is being super confident and assertive, I totally respect that, but it doesn’t do anything for me sexually. On the flip side, women and subs have reported feeling turned on by confidence and certain types of dominant behavior. It’s a feeling that I’ll never get to experience, but I suppose many subs could say the same about my attraction to them.

I recognize that we are all affected by societal messaging that we grew up with. I am attracted to socially-defined femininity like when women wear pink (and I know that pink was associated with masculinity at another point in history) and pretty makeup, and not so much when they wear “masculine” clothing. Though much of the polarity in sexual attraction could be from nurture rather than nature, it nonetheless has a significant effect.

The problem comes when men start defining masculinity with oppressive or toxic behavior. Good doms in BDSM know that subs are the ones who are really in control; they will make sure to always work within the boundaries set by the sub, but manosphere men often fail to consider all those kinds of dynamics because they tend to define things through a lens of overcompensation and insecurity.

And here’s a part of Elle’s reply to my comment that I think everyone can agree with:

I guess that’s the real point here — that there is no one formula that applies equally to everybody all the time. Polarity may sometimes be in play but it is not a relationship rule the way that it’s so often presented.

“Relationship rule?” Probably not. Part of human courtship? Yes.

Men and women have far more similarities than differences.

Focusing on more of the similarities leads to healthier relationships and a happier life overall. However, if you don’t highlight some key differences when you’re in the single’s market, you’re likely to be passed over for someone who does.

When it comes to relationships, women want equal partners who are similar to them. The way to get there, though, often requires a dance where we take on different roles.

Think of “leader” like your role in a dance rather than a hierarchal indicator of superiority or anything like that.

I’m an opportunist when it comes to vocabulary.

Should I stop using the word “leader” in dating contexts because a significant portion of men equate it to misogynistic notions? Why don’t I just say “facilitator” or “being proactive” since that essentially encapsulates the same thing I’m trying to say?

Should we all stop using the words “toxic masculinity” and “rape culture” because a significant portion of men react violently to it without understanding what it means?

Should I stop using the words “feminism” and “patriarchy” because a significant portion of my male readers will think I’m condoning misandry?

Should I never say the words “pickup artist” or “seduction” ever again because a bunch of people equate those things with sexual harassment?

I believe framing these words in the way I actually intend to use them creates an opportunity to build bridges. I believe allowing bad-faith groups (misogynists) to terrorize us into abandoning parts of our language is a losing strategy that only enables further oppression. I believe it’s more important for all of us to look at meaning and not just labels.

Yes, words matter because they are the vehicle which allows us to convey meaning. But maybe we should give each other some more benefit of the doubt sometimes. More doors can open if we do.

In the end, leadership is a burden that should be shared by all participants in a relationship.

When things are just getting started, though, one person must take the lead, or nothing’s going to happen. Might as well be you.

Elle Beau ❇︎

’s articles mentioned:

How comfortable are you with the idea of taking the lead in the dance of seduction? How about the follower role? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.

***