Why Are Men Less Picky About Dating Than Women?

Hey, Doc. What I want to ask can be best summed up as “Why are men so easy?”

Alright, let me back up. First off, I should clarify that I am a man. A straight man, in particular. Second, I’m referring to the dating dynamic of men being a lot less particular with who they want to date or hook up with than women. Don’t worry, I’m not doing the incel thing of complaining about women being too picky. I don’t believe anyone’s standards are a problem. But I am interested in why those standards differ so sharply between the sexes.

Like, the obvious answer seems to be that women have to be more skeptical of men due to many of them being possible threats. Therefore, being easy is a male privilege, like walking outside alone at night or not putting effort into how you dress. But unlike other privileges, it’s not one that women are interested in. I’ve heard many women say they wish they could walk home alone at night, but none that wish they could let more guys hit (Also none that want to put less effort into dressing, but that’s a question for a different columnist, I think). Having a refined taste in men is a point of pride for women that the reverse just isn’t. It’s why the word “slut” doesn’t hurt men.

So being an easy lay isn’t just something men can do, it’s something we want to do. And that I think makes it suspect, right? Because behavior exclusive to men is understandably placed under scrutiny in my circles. There’s a famous tweet that once said that anything only men like isn’t cool. If only men like being an easy lay, does that not mean it isn’t cool? (Granted, that tweet was a joke about Joe Rogan and not a serious social analysis, but still…)

So I want to defend the dynamic a little. At least through one of the most prominent examples that is something that I participated in, which is swiping right a lot in dating apps. Back when I was on the apps, I would very rarely swipe left on anybody. If they didn’t either look like a bot or had a really concerning profile, it was a right for me. The reason I did this was mainly practical. More swipes right mean more chances for matches. I wanted to get matches because to me, any real and decent woman willing to match with me was worth a conversation. Maybe it’s egotistical, but I find being desired, well, desirable. And so, without knowing much else, being interested in me made me more interested in them. I could just be justifying my desperation since I didn’t have any luck and still haven’t, but I don’t think this was the worst approach to dating. After all, it’s about finding a connection, and someone who likes you is a pretty good indicator of a connection. And even if they were just doing the same to me (Which as we’ve established, is a rare event for women), well, that’s also a connection.

As for their appearance, well, I just find most women, at least the ones I saw on the apps, to be attractive. I think the perception of men is they would fuck any woman regardless of attraction just for the power trip. Maybe there are a lot of guys who are like that, but I personally just think most women look like someone I’d enjoy being with. I’m not saying I don’t care about appearances; I just rarely find women so unattractive that I don’t see myself at least giving them the time of day.

So that’s why I did that, and why I think a lot of men do as well. I know I spoke in a lot of generalities and assumptions, but anything I’m wrong about, I’d be glad to be corrected. What I want to know is: is this refined palette that women have something we men can acquire and if so, should we? And if not, how do we reconcile with this barrier of relatability that causes so much tension in hetero dating and makes it hard to understand each other’s problems?

I’m Not A Player, I Just Swipe A Lot

A lot of the answer to your question comes from not necessarily getting the actual issues, INPIJSL.

Let’s start with the whole Earth Men Are Easy thing. To start with, women do talk about how they would like to get laid more. The issue here is one of privilege, but not necessarily the way that you think. They don’t often talk about it in public spaces or around a lot of men, but women are people and they like sex in the same proportions that men do.

In fact, until the early 19^th century, women in Western and Middle Eastern societies tended to be seen as the lustier of the sexes. Maenads – hordes of wild women in service to the Greek god Dionysius, were said to work themselves into drunken frenzies and rampage through the woods and fields, chasing down men and forcing them into sex, tearing them to shreds if they refused (or often even if they didn’t). In The Metamorphosis, Ovid wrote about how Tiresias was transformed into a woman the gods in order to determine who got more pleasure from sex, men or women. After several years, Tiresias reported back that women’s pleasure from sex was nearly nine times more intense than men’s, thus laying the groundwork for both a famous 4chan meme and various force-femme kinks.

Medieval European writings about gender saw women as being far more interested in sex than men were, often to their own detriment. In fact, medical practice at the time placed great emphasis on how a woman’s orgasm was required for conception – a matter that was often brought up when trying to determine whether a woman was barren or not. Official Catholic lore of the Early Modern era held that witches not only held orgies in their sabbats, but would steal the semen (and often, the genitals) of sleeping men in order to satisfy themselves.

It wasn’t until the proto-feminist movement in the Victorian era that women were portrayed as the less lustful sex; instead, they were seen as being purer and less inclined to base or bestial desires and lusts, compared to men. In fact, the idea – eagerly adopted and spread by Protestant denominations – was that women’s role was to restrain men’s animalistic natures and encourage their more elevated pursuits instead. This was part of what played into things like the growing Temperance movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th century, and it’s still felt today, even in this post-Sex in the City, post-Euphoria era we live in today.

Which brings me to the issue about whether women have more refined tastes in men or why the term “slut” doesn’t hurt men the way it hurts women, and the answer is: practicalities and sexism. On the practical side of things, women face a disproportionate amount of risk from sex compared to men. Not just the risk of sexual violence, but the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Cisgendered men can’t get pregnant, and the anatomy of the vagina means that cis women have a higher chance of contracting an STI from a man than a man does from a woman.

But on the social side of things, women who show too much interest in sex are still seen as damaged, defective, masculine or otherwise bad, especially when their sexuality isn’t in service to a man’s pleasure. There’s a reason why the vast majority of attempts to criminalize reproductive rights focus on abortion, IUDs and hormonal birth control; far less attention and vitriol is directed towards men who get vasectomies. You may also notice that women have to fight to get various forms of long-term or permanent fertility control from their doctors, while erectile dysfunction medication gets handed out like candy.

Similarly, you may notice how often men will castigate women for being sluts, while also noting how a man’s worth and status is tied to how much sex he has. You may also have noticed the push of “tradwife” accounts on social media, “modest is hottest” messaging and yelling at women for posting sexy selfies on Instagram, while nobody gives a damn about the number of shirtless pics men share.

It’s also worth noting that women only got the right to their own bank accounts, credit cards and general control over their finances within our lifetimes. Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, women could be denied credit or bank accounts without the approval of their father or husband. Much as how Griswold V. Connecticut gave unmarried people access to birth control, the ECOA put the stake in the heart of needing women needing to marry for their own financial security, which changed the dynamic of who women were choosing to date and have relationships with and why… something that many men have not stopped complaining about ever since.

It’s not about having a more “refined” taste being a matter of pride, as much as men having far fewer consequences for fucking as much as they want. As I’ve said before: women are told that their worth is contingent on the sex they don’t have, while men are celebrated for the sex they do.

Now, when we’re talking about dating apps… you’re hardly the only person who swipes right on most people. This is, in fact, something that many, many men do, for the same reason: to maximize the number of matches. However, this actually works against you – both with the women you hope to match with and within the app itself. Under the best of circumstances, this behavior means that women get an overwhelming number of matches, which actually makes them less likely to match with people or go on many dates. This is known as the Paradox of Choice: too many options makes it harder to make a choice or to be happy when you domake one. At the same time, most of the men who engage in this behavior attempt to match with as many women as possible and then decide who they actually want to try to see; as a result, you get a lot of women who are matching in good faith, only to find out that the guy they thought was interested in them really just wanted to have as many options as possible and didn’t actually like them at all. If the men do message them, it tends to be incredibly low-effort affairs, with the average message being less than twelve characters.

Not words. Characters. Including punctuation and spaces.

This tends to annoy and frustrate women, who abandon the apps, and it frustrates the owners of the apps because this behavior costs them subscribers. So swiping right on everyone tends to get your account deprioritized in the algorithm, if it doesn’t get suspended or canceled for bot-like behavior.

Now another factor that you didn’t bring up in your letter, but is very present, is that men do have more “refined” palates, like women do. The difference is that they often reserve those for women who “count”, rather than when they just want to fuck. There’re are a lot of men who will happily have sex with a wide variety of women, but who get incredibly picky when they want someone to have a relationship with. You may notice how men will differentiate between people who’re good enough to fuck and who are good enough to date – a dichotomy involving the “pure” and the “debased”. A Madonna/whore complex, if you will, that affects how they behave with these women.

In fact, one of the biggest factors that affects why women don’t have as much sex as they might want is that, quite frankly, a lot of the sex on offer isn’t worth it. The guys who want those casual hook-ups are very pointedly not bringing their a-game because why should they? Men are all but guaranteed to enjoy sexual encounters they have, with 98% of them achieving orgasm during sex. Women, on the other hand, tend to only achieve orgasm around 60% of the time with hetero men. The men are more than happy to hit it and quit it, and don’t feel the need to give more than a token effort because why should they? They’re not planning on a repeat engagement. So, for many women, casual sex is a losing proposition; the sex isn’t enjoyable, they’re at risk of pregnancy and infection and the guys offering it are just as likely to turn around and call them sluts and whores before the afterglow’s started to dim. However, when presented with an option who’s discrete, safe and skilled? Women are far more likely to go for it.

Then there’s the Somebody, Anybody, Everybody issue: when you’re not that discriminating in your tastes, people that you’re showing interest in often don’t feel special or unique. While yes, folks like feeling desired, there’s being desired because you’re uniquely you and then there’s “well, you’re warm and available”, which tends to make people feel like ambulatory Fleshlights. When someone feels like they’re just a number instead of a person, even someone who’s down to clown is more likely to hope the Nope Train to Fuck That Shitville.

Don’t get me wrong, the desire to feel desired or being turned on by reciprocal desire is all well and good. So is wanting to have a large number of partners; having a desire or need for variety or novelty isn’t a bad thing, whatever your gender. Nor, for that matter, does having a broad taste in partners mean something negative. Part of the appeal of a character like Jack Harkness is his omnisexuality; if they’re sentient, consenting and physically compatible, he’s willing to hit it. However, the important part of that equation is that he’s attracted to the individualperson, specifically, not just “any hole is a goal”. His concept of “hotness” may encompass the known universe, and he may have put up numbers that Wolfram Alpha would be hard-pressed to calculate, but every time it was about that specific person and making sure they knew that.

Quantity does not have a quality of its own, and women tend to not appreciate feeling like one potential option in a batch of dozens.

So, it’s not a case of whether men can have more refined tastes, it’s just a matter of when those tastes come into play. Being more discerning is a good thing, because it increases the odds of not just finding someone you like, but someone you like also returning your interest. It’s a lot easier to win someone over when they know that you want them because they’re them and you’re willing to show it, rather than taking a shotgun approach and hoping that throwing enough lead in the air will net you something.

Good luck.

***

Hey Doc,

I’m 28, male, and don’t need dating advice. I need life advice.

Since I was a child, I’ve felt perpetual depressive sadness for what seemed to be no apparent reason. I’ve been on my healing journey for a long time and had a breakthrough earlier in the month with a combo of meds and therapy. I really don’t feel sadness as my baseline feeling anymore, I feel neutral now. I’ve broken free from the lifelong prison in my mind, but now I don’t know what to do with this freedom. For the past few weeks, I’ve been feeling like a blank slate as my entire identity, which was centered around emotional pain avoidance, is dead.

I formerly drowned myself in video games replaying single-player campaigns ad nauseum for comfort, I daydreamed maladaptively, I binge rewatched TV and movies, all so I could escape the pain. I did cringey stuff like writing and trying to draw but they were hollow pursuits, I would just end up back online. The last 5 years have been work, distract, sleep, repeat on autopilot. But now, video games bore me senseless, I find no comfort in rewatching the same episodes of Always Sunny, and even my “creativity” is stifled since I’m not daydreaming. So, what now?

Now when I finish work, I don’t immediately boot up Steam when I get home, I do more home exercise, study for career certifications, and go to bed earlier. I thought that video games, TV/Film, and all that junk were my passions, but they weren’t, they were self-medications. I have no idea what my passions are. I have no clue what I actually want to do with my free time now. Shit, I don’t know what to do with my life now. Even the thought of having a family and kids (something I deeply wanted) is just kind of meh. I’ve browsed meetups and things happening in my area and none of them interest me in the slightest. Religion, volunteering, classes; no interest. It’s like I’m institutionalized from the prison within.

Maybe I need more time to process all of this and get used to not feeling sad all of the time. While I hope this newfound state of being lasts, I know things can change. My psychiatrist has discussed titration from my meds which could change how I feel (I still felt sad while on them just way less than usual).

My therapist hasn’t offered any helpful advice other than “get out there” which seems odd to me; would I just be a happy wanderer drifting into whatever I happen onto? Should I make myself sample everything there is to offer and see what I like? Is my lack of interest a residual effect of my avoidant personality? I have no actual cogent strategy and was hoping you could help with that and just give your input overall into what’s happening. Perhaps I do need dating advice, but not for dating women, for effectively dating myself so I can get to know who I actually am.

Thanks,

-Lost Freeman

First of all, LF, I’m glad that your journey towards healing has been so helpful. I do think your psychiatrist is correct: you should look into adjusting your meds. The “meh” feeling you describe, where everything is gray, dull, lifeless and uninteresting is just as much of a symptom of depression as always being sad or feeling constant despair and doom. While your current course of meds may have eased the misery, that doesn’t mean that you’re not still dealing with depression.

I also think your therapist is right: you should put yourself out there and see what strikes your fancy. Part of the problem you’re having is that I think you aren’t seeing how the inherent nature of your condition is affecting you. You say that none of the choices you sought out interested you, but nothing is interesting you right now – including the things you used to be into. Of course everything is going to seem uninteresting. Which means that you shouldn’t be relying on inspiration to decide what to try; you’re just going to be stuck in the same cycle.

But if nothing is interesting, then everything has the potential to be interesting. You’re stuck in the loop from Groundhog’s Day… but I’d point out that nothing in Groundhog’s Day changed until Phil Conners starts making things change.

That is what you need to do: exert your will to make changes and see what happens because of it.

Here’s the thing: if we assume that your lack of interest isn’t a symptom of depression (it is, but work with me here), then the issue isn’t really one of a lack of interest so much as ignorance. You said it yourself: you’ve been living your life on repeat for decades now. The only difference has been whether you’ve been trying to distract yourself from your feelings or not. You hadn’t been living a life full of novelty and discovery or being exposed to new and different opportunities or paths to explore; you basically played the same games and watched the same shows. And since those don’t seem to be things you were actually enjoying, you don’t have much of a baseline to decide what to try next.

Functionally speaking, that short of finding someone who’s suffered complete retrograde amnesia, you’re as close to a blank slate as one can be. The world is your oyster, brimming with potential and options to try and experience and explore.

Of course, this has its drawbacks. The Paradox of Choice is a very real thing; when you have too many options, it can be harder to actually pick something or feel good with your choice. But the answer to that, in your case, anyway, is to take a more methodical approach to figuring out what you might like.

I would suggest using your previous distractions (I hesitate to use the word “interests”) as a starting point and work outwards from there. You mentioned writing and drawing; it may be worth your time to take a class or two and see if having a more structured approach sparks something in you. Don’t worry about not feeling inspired or not having your daydreams to work from; instead, focus on learning the technical aspects of creating. Learning the ins and outs of perspective and proportion, of pacing and narrative structure, color theory and anatomy and stylistic choices may help you reconnect with the expressive side of creating. I’ve often found that having walls to bounce off of inspires far more creativity than boundless possibility. In fact, there’re often few things quite as terrifying as a blank page or an empty canvas. Having to color within a particular set of lines often forces you to make choices that you wouldn’t otherwise, which then leads to other choices and other ideas.

Similarly, you might use gaming as another starting point. Before, you were playing games with a single-player narrative. Now it may be time to try one with multiple players… such as a tabletop RPG. It’d be easiest to find groups who play D&D, seeing as that’s the proverbial 500lb gorilla of the TTRPG scene, but you might find more interest in a system like Shadowrun, Starfinder, Blades in the Dark, Warhammer, MechWarrior or Cyberpunk. Or you might want to get even a little further afield and see if you can find a group who’s playing a system like Kids on Bikes/Brooms or even Never Stop Blowing Up.

But the other option really is: try literally anything and see what sticks. If you have no inherent interest or pre-existing preferences, you may as well try anything that has even the slightest potential to be diverting. But to keep yourself from getting caught up in the paradox of choice, what I would recommend is to add some structure to your exploration.

Here’s what I think you should try: next Friday, choose to devote your weekend to researching what’s coming up in the following week – classes, musical performances, shows, exhibitions, all of it. Divide it up by categories: movies and plays, bars and restaurants, classes and lectures, musical performances, etc. If you want to get extra fancy, mark which ones are recurring (bi-weekly cooking classes, weekly book clubs, etc.). Then, by Sunday, pick two options from the list, in two different categories. If you, say, choose a miniature painting class at your local game shop, then the other activity you pick might be seeing a band play. If you decide to go to a movie or a play, then your other activity might be a one-day volunteer opportunity. If you absolutely can’tdecide, pick two options at random; assign numbers and roll a d20, throw darts, even just close your eyes and point.

The point is to give yourself as wide a range of experiences and possibilities and see what works and what doesn’t work. If nothing is inherently interesting, then all of them have potential to be something that sparks your passion, so you may as well give them a try.

Does this seem like a lot of work? Sure… but then again, you’re not exactly doing anything else, so it’s not like you don’t have the time. You certainly don’t have anything to lose by trying.

I will say that some of the options may require that you give it more than one opportunity to hook you. Sometimes it can take repeated exposure for the full spectrum of potential to really open up, like the way that a little water can open up the flavor profile of good whiskey.

But like I said: the lack of interest in anything is a symptom of depression and you and your psychiatrist should continue to talk about adjusting your medication. You may even need to look into options like ketamine infusion or ECT, which are incredibly effective for treatment-resistant depression. I think that should be a priority for you, even more than exploring potential options for new hobbies and passions. Get that under control, and I suspect that you’ll find that your interests and desires return… just in a much healthier and more fulfilling manner.

Good luck.

—

This post was previously published on Doctornerdlove.com and is republished on Medium.

***

You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project

Compliments Men Want to Hear More Often

Relationships Aren’t Easy, But They’re Worth It

The One Thing Men Want More Than Sex

..A Man’s Kiss Tells You Everything

—

Photo credit: iStock