A Discussion About "Nice Guys(TM)" And The Mating Market Shortage Of Valuable Mates
by Ann Lust
Right before the Christmas break, I stumbled across a surprisingly interesting discussion elsewhere online as I was checking my email accounts and keeping a watchful eye over the shop here at J4G; the discussion, followed a post that was clearly designed to generate much more heat than light. I don't usually discuss discussions taking place elsewhere online because, one, I often have too much to say myself about things I'm interested in, and, two, because I have found that much of what passes for "discussion" on the Internet these days is woefully bereft of anything thoughtful or compelling -- and, to be frank, had it not been for the following comment I saw, I would have written off the discussion to which I am referring. As it is however, it stood out as a notable exception.
The ostensible topic, a supposedly erudite "takedown" of Game on the basis that a number of "Nice Guys(TM)" apparently have attempted to make use of certain of its methods in failed bids to woo Women in online dating venues -- most notably OKCupid -- offered little in the way of insight or illumination. Indeed, it merely came off to this reader at least, as little more than yet another Mean Girls-style harangue -- proof, if there ever was any, that "meaness" is most certainly NOT the sole preserve of the Menfolk. I was immediately reminded of yet another incident that made quite a splash on the Internet roughly a year or so ago, and was named interestingly enough, "The Nice Guys of OKCupid" fiasco -- something that, I would be seriously remiss not to point out, that the Good Men Project's Johanna Schroeder spoke directly and poignantly to, calling her fellow sisters out on the carpet for what she rightly saw as their meanspiritedness and foul play.
Sadly, it seems, that she remains among the relative few "Good Women" outchea on these Internets-streets.
A Gentleman Commenter Proposes A Solution To Nice Guys
At any rate, the discussion nevertheless yielded a diamond in buried in the dung heap -- a Gentleman Commenter, who offered a provocative proposition as to how and why we are seeing such a plethora of "Nice Guys(TM)" in our time; I paraphrase:
The reason why we are seeing this entire Nice Guy phenomenon is due to irregularities in the modern day American mating market place; and that a possible corrective to such a state of affairs, is to fully legalize, decriminalize and destigmatize prostitution and related sex worker services.
Of the nearly dozen or so commenters who "responded" to this gentleman's argument, only ONE even tried to actually respond to what was presented; this lone commenter -- perhaps not surprisingly, one of the male ones -- made a reference to the book SuperFreakonomics, which discusses at some length the economics of Harlotry. Since another commenter mentioned a blog that is an apparent "hit" with many in the Manosphere, and since its author just so happens to have reviewed SuperFreakonomics herself, I have decided to contact Ms. Maggie McNeill, who runs the blog The Honest Courtesan, and have invited her to participate in the current discussion so that she may offer her commentary and insights.
Advertisement
https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Massachusetts/city-of-Boston.html?page=86
https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Nevada/city-of-Las-Vegas.html?page=86
https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Florida/city-of-Orlando.html?page=86
Rhetorical Fallacies Dominate The Discussion
It should come as no surprise that virtually none of the comments in response to the gentleman's dealt with what he said, and indeed if there ever a textbook course in rhetorical fallacies, this thread was it:
"Are you jealous of these attractive men or something? You come across as so butt-hurt over the fact that some men are very attractive to women and capitalize on it." (Ad Hominem)
"I'm pretty sure that most nice guys want more than to stick their penis in vagina. They usually want a relationship too." (Red Herring)
"Wrong correlation. Getting your balls empty in a human doll doesn't solve the problem of not being attractive to other women. Check in countries were prostitution is legal and see if men opt out of dating for real." (Red Herring)
"Ah, quantity! That's the problem, is it? Can't help you there, this blog is about monogamous relationships." (Straw Man)
"Men compete for women and always have. That is your business, not ours!" (Straw Man)
"Complaining, aka whining, is always unattractive. A man who is a complainer can expect zero female interest. Women want men who are do-ers." (Ad Hominem)
"Ya know, the phrase "increase the quality of prostitutes" bothers me. Prostitution strikes me a job that only the most troubled, poorest or least able would do. I find it difficult to promote the idea of funneling more women into what I'm sure is a horrid life. I understand that you want to have sex, but I think you should consider how that affects the life of another person." (Appeal to Fear)
You get the idea.
Examining The Gentleman's Argument On Mating Irregularities
So, with all of the bread and circuses out of the way, let us examine this gentleman's actual argument, because it does indeed merit the careful consideration it deserves.
The gentleman has argued that the prevalence of "Nice Guys" in our time is a manifestation of irregularities in the mating marketplace, and, that he further suggests that a legalization of sex worker services would at least in theory, address this irregularity. Is there something to be said for this gentleman's argument?
The answer, of course, is YES -- in just about every study or survey conducted, where porn and prostitution were both freely available, affordable and legal, all manner of "problems" -- starting most notably with rape and sexual assaults of varying stripe on/against Women -- goes down. Way, way down.
Moreover, per the gentleman's argument above, his proposed solution to the irregularities of the mating marketplace, would at least in theory come as a welcome relief to Women, like the founder of the Nice Guy Feast above, because it would be Assortative Mating to the Max - those Men using sex worker services, would be more likely to use them anyway, thereby freeing up all the Women who don't want to be bothered by aforementioned "Nice Guys" and the like, and clearing the lane only for those kinds of suitors said ladies prefer. It's a win-win all the way around -- right? I mean, what's not to like -- especially if you're of the bent that Humanity is largely composed of two distinct types of folk -- those who seek monogamous relationships only, and those who seek short term mating only -- right?
Right?
The problem here, should be obvious. If prostitution and related sex worker services were indeed fully legalized/decriminalized/destigmatized in American life, it would pose a problem of serious strategic interference to those Women who would rather mate in the preferred manner of most Women -- longterm, monogamous, and where the Man commits himself emotionally, and by extension, in terms of long term provisioning of resources. Putting into place a de jure US Dept. of Tricks & Hos seriously threatens to upset the apple cart upon which mating takes place in American life -- which has always been, that Men court, and Women either accept, or reject -- a decided and radical departure from Old World Europe, where marriages were frequently arranged.
As it currently stands in the United States, such sex worker services do not have the legal force of protection, oversight and legitimacy that, say, Abortion, or IVF treatments do -- and as a result, since there are many Men who not want to risk possible embarrassment, imprisonment or worse, none of the ladies who were raining down shoals of scorn on our gentleman commenter can say, with any degree of certainty, that the Men they were interested in, might not avail themselves of said fully legally and socially sanctioned services, rather than to hope against hope that their old time courting would do the proverbial trick - just as any Woman in our time would go get an abortion or an IVF treatment to have a baby on her own.
And Women, by and large, want to keep it that way.
This explains, if one were able to actually read the comments thread to which I refer, one will see all manner of diversions onto discourse about "Men making themselves attractive" and so forth -- something that the gentleman commenter never even brought up in his initial and even subsequent statements(!). Moreover, if one could see this discussion thread for themselves, the sheer ferocity of their responses really do speak for themselves -- all this, to a simple statement that attempted to shed light on a phenomenon that the owner of this forum herself introduced(!) -- which again, only raises suspicion as to said owner's own motivations in doing all this in the first place; was it to enlighten; or to mock; and what does it have to do with said owner's own mission to foster monogamy?
The current "conversation" along Sexual Politics lines would have everyone believe that, for Millennia, Men have controlled Women's sexuality. The thing about this line of argument is that there is a goodly bit of truth in it -- however, it is incomplete. As the gentleman commenter's statements to which I refer clearly shows, the door swings both ways, and Women have just as much a vested interested in attempting to control and/or influence Male Sexuality, as the other way around. Given the centrality of Marriage in American life -- which, even at this late date in the life of our Republic, far outstrips any other country in the European Union -- is it really any surprise that the USA is arguably the last holdout on fully, legally and socially sanctioning prostitution?
Hmm?
Please feel free to discuss all of this in the comments.
