On point 2. Though I haven’t read the book, based on your summary... and experience raising 8 daughters:
The argument that feminism reduces promiscuity if flawed IMHO for several reasons.
The first one being that, I attribute the reduction in sex, frequency more to video games and the Internet and social media then I do to feminism. It just so happens that feminism was amplified by the Internet and social media.
I think a better evaluation would be looking at what sort of sex the fewer people that are having. I just watched the final episode of the excellent Netflix series Beef, and in the final episode, there was a conversation about how choking during sex has become main stream because of the Internet, yet it wasn’t something that kids raised in the 80s or 90s even thought about. The same could be said about the prevalence of anal sex, and a wide variety of other sexual behaviors.
Ultimately, I think we have a two pronged problem here. On one hand, a certain flavor of feminism has encourage young women to be more promiscuous than they would’ve otherwise been. The other issue is with young men basically taking them cells off the market because they’re spending all the time watching porn or playing video games.
The combination of the two means there is fewer young men than women out there who are on the market, so the young men who are having sex, are willing to push the limits and expect less monogamous type relationships. And the young women out there who are trying to find a mate, and with the influence of the certain brand of feminism, I’m more willing to acquiesce to these male desires.
My antidotal perception based on working with a lot of young, single 20 and 30 something years old guys and having raised eight girls is basically that the men with charm/looks/balls get laid often and easily. Way more than their peers from earlier generations. Meanwhile, women in their teens and 20s have a lot less selection of men who are worth dating.
If there are any grammatical errors, I apologize… I dictated this while sitting in my car in a parking lot.
This article performs a valuable service. Your critique of Perry's book is so thorough, I can now move on, confident I don't have to read it myself. Thanks!
I see a lot of comments discussing how social media, videogames, porn etc. has affected relations between the sexes. I think there might be a kind of selection bias there. For some individuals (let's say ages 12-22) these are serious issues comparable to substance addiction but I don't think that accounts for most of what the stats reveal.
From a young age children are constantly surrounded by screens showing them people, places and lifestyles that appear much better than anything they experience in real life. This oversaturation of seemingly real life discourages them from seeking out fulfilling people, places and lifestyles because they intuitively know it will never measure up to what they're constantly exposed to. It's easy to point to videogames and porn as a starting point but it's more nuanced than that.
I haven't read the book, though I think I once read about it on a blog summary. Given it probably uses a lot of data I've found elsewhere I'll shoot from the hip.
1) Most sex happens in committed relationships. If feminism reduces committed relationships it's going to reduce sex. However, even if the amount of sex is down, you could still have promiscuous sex happening. They aren't mutually exclusive. Someone in a long term relationship may be having sex every week for a long time, while someone whose perpetually "dating" maybe have one night stands or short bouts of sex with a pattern interspersed by dry periods.
That's what I observed in my 20s. People weren't in relationships, but sometimes they would hook up (usually with alcohol). Some of those hook ups would last a few months or whatever. Nobody was trying to get married. There was a lot of distrust and nihilism, and sometimes that distrust and nihilism manifested itself in sexual acts.
2) I don't think you really understand consent here. We aren't talking about "what do I need to not be considered a rapist." We are talking about "even if someone agrees to something, is it still the wrong choice." I don't mean this in a legal sense, but a moral sense. If a woman gives me consent, but she's wrong to do so, it's still bad.
I understand this is "paternalistic". Oh well. I thought we all understood people make bad choices and that this is especially common involving young people and sex (I will throw in alcohol too, as that is a big part of the sexual market).
3) "Because free markets are a social mechanism for giving people who have something to offer whatever they want."
This was Houellebecq's critique in "the expansion of the domain of struggle." That is the mechanisms that allow disinterested bakers and candlestick markers to delver good outcomes even with selfish desires doesn't apply when applied to romance.
Our preferred mechanism for social organization, monogamy, marriage, and family, are at least to some degree "not what people want." They all involve sacrifices and commitments people would like to figure a way out of making or cheat on. It takes vigilance of both people and society to make it work, and having it not work leads to bad outcomes.
I think part of this is that the sexual market is very different from the market market. For one, it's INHERENTLY a rival goods market. There is only ever one man and one woman. We can't use assembly lines to make more mates. And to the extent you think the context is even worse than one to one the greater the rivalry.
It turns out that you can give mates "what they want" in a way that isn't really good for their life outcomes. Promiscuity is like becoming a smoker, the cigarette company gives you want you want but you get cancer.
4)" If she understands and appreciates how markets work, she has two options."
Have you considered "self deception" as an option. This is actually pretty easy to do if the men she can't get to commit will fake it to sleep with her. If women aren't even looking to marry until around 30, it only takes a couple of string along relationships to squander what's left of ones youth.
5) "Men in relationships should avoid spending time alone with attractive women - and women should prefer to be with men who avoid such temptations. Women in relationships should avoid spending time alone with successful men - and men should prefer to be with with women who avoid such temptations."
Mike Pence was right!
BTW, you eviscerated this view when talking about workplaces. Maybe work just shouldn't be a place where people are trying to get in each others pants.
Interestingly, as a creationist, I find this critique both very true, but also perhaps missing the point of Perry's book. I do think that her neuroticism and dark view of reality are problems, but I've been listening to her podcast, and I think she is trying to seek out other perspectives to offer alternatives and expansions.
I also think that you point out that she's writing for young feminist audiences, particularly women, not for cranky conservatives and libertarians who already believe that men and women should get married and have kids.
Now, the question is - can she defeat the sterilizing memes that have taken over (and maybe are inherent in?) feminist culture? I don't know. But I think her book should be widely read and hopefully combat those sterilizing memes quickly.
Also, I think treating feminism as a monolith both in intent/argument and in effect is a bit of a mistake, as I think feminism is perhaps most noteable for being very fractious and incoherent.
In many cases, I think the general thrust of the book is correct - casual sex is bad, the more casual the more true this is. On the most actionable paths to limiting sexual harm, I think this book makes an excellent case for the complete destruction of Pornhub and similar sites. The horrifying section about Pornhub is probably the most vile thing in the book. It seems like a great cause for a politician on either side of the aisle - simply point out the rampant abuse. Perry, seeming to be a feminist without ideological friends, points out that much of the sexual liberation movement is tied to abusive left-leaning scholars.
On a baseline level, I agree with Bryan re: grading on a curve. Throughout the whole book, I keep thinking that much of this stuff would have been absolutely trivial to point out to anyone in a religious tradition, or anyone who has been to a bar. "Women are in danger while drinking alone at bars" is indeed common sense, and if we are praising common sense, we should praise the under-praised religious and traditional folks here and point out that "red pill" stuff might be worth reading as a guideline of what to avoid.
And that's why I think Tyler has the better sense of this book- because I think he sees Perry as someone who is successfully presenting common sense in a method framed as radical.
Throughout the book the harms of porn and sloth are hammered home for men. The burden of this book is not to make the case that casual sex is bad, something that anyone could do. The point of the book is to make the case that we have previously underestimated these harms for women, and thus we need to re-evaluate. THIS is why Perry is influential - because she is using maximally successful memes for distribution as part of the message. It's a Straussian masterpiece, using the "woke" tone and frame to come around to a damn-near religious view of sexuality. She does all of this without making the case for marriage/children/etc. although these are the most obvious reasons to not have casual sex, porn addictions, and to generally try to improve.
The book is written to point out the massive divide between sex in committed relationships and casual sex/hookups, in a language that undergrad feminism courses will use and want to discuss. It succeeds. The text as written is "Women are the primary losers of hookup culture." The question the book tries to pose is, "Given that casual sex is in fact bad, dangerous, and humiliating, why have it?" There are answers to this question, but they are not answers that fit neatly into a political platform or any sort of cause. On the other hand, you have building a relationship of which sex is a part and working together on goals, possibly (likely) family.
The readers of MR/BetOnIt/etc. have a choice here. We can either read this book and think "This is factually incorrect" or "Ah, in the age of feminization we must frame all arguments in women's tears!" Or we can say "Oh this book is controversially feminist" and let college feminism profs do the work for us. Choosing option 1 might mean we score internet points. Option 2 might mean fewer people getting into UFC fights by mistake after a nice dinner, and potentially a widespread movement to destroy the internet pornography industry. I vote Option 2.
Absolutely fantastic review. I'm glad Bryan has taken up the mantle and started arguing against the excesses of modern feminism despite the significant potential for negative career or at least reputational impacts. It would have been all to easy for Bryan to keep his thoughts to himself and only argue less inflammatory topics like open borders (I'm serious). He's doing a valuable service making the arguments he is, and in reviewing books like these.
"Well, I’m not just a father of four; I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement. I handled every nightshift for every baby. Solo. That includes a pair of twins. I’ve been homeschooling - again, solo - for almost ten years. During Covid, I homeschooled all four of our kids. And through all of this, I never thought my kids “limited my freedom” in the slightest."
Dude, what!? I have never read a Caplan sentence that left me more gobsmacked. As a fellow father of four, and also as someone who would dare to put himself past the (slightly more modest) 98th percentile of paternal involvement, I cannot make this make sense to me. I mean, OF COURSE, kids limit your freedom in a thousand different ways. Every day. All the time.
I've long been puzzled over your general attitude of "ehh, kids are easy!" I read Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, taking it to heart (you're welcome kids #3 and 4!) I even switched to plastic cutlery like you recommended! But it is unfathomably time-consuming. And I won't touch homeschooling with a ten foot pole. So how are you doing this?? Are your kids also in a few 99th percentiles? For agreeableness? Studiousness? Docility? Mental focus? Independence? Politeness? Compulsion to please parents? What is it?
I know you've mentioned nannies a few times. Is it the nannies?! Should you be mentioning the nannies every time your write on this topic??
Bryan literally argues that men should suppress their sexual needs for variety and women should suppress their sexual needs for the top men. He's basically an open misogynist and misandrist. Just like Perry.
Apart from the fact that evolutionary psychology is extremely wrong, it doesn't describe male and female strategies well (men are not any less "hypergamous" and women are not any less polygamous).
“I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement
Did you mean to write "percentile"?
No I think Bryan means “99th personality of paternal involvement.” He’s pretty full of himself as the ULTIMATE FATHER, and homeschooler. I suspect his kids are well academic-schooled, but I’d like to interview them to see if their CAPLAN-schooling has rendered them autistic offshoots of their father.
"True, most young, well-educated women won’t be able to marry handsome, charming investment bankers. But if they set their sights a little lower, they can find a good husband fairly easily."
I guess many women are simply not ok with setting their sight "a little lower"
still laughing. No, I do not believe for one second that you gave up a career as a college professor to be a FULL TIME homeschooling (!) stay at home dad. No way, no how.
Also: speaking as a graphic designer... what bargain basement did you dredge this book design out of? it is the most amateurish thing I ever saw, and if I found it in a Little FREE Library, I would assume it is self published junk.
Man, you have so missed the point here. I think in general women are FAR more flexible about what they demand in men (very very few women demand a handsome investment banker) while men have long laundry lists of what they insist on.... women who must be thin, even wear a certain dress size... be very pretty.... younger and shorter than the man (!)... successful yes, but NOT MORE THAN HE IS... some men have extremely specific hair and eye colors. I have NEVER known women like this, but know MANY men like this and see zillions on the internet.
Your graph here implies men will date ANY woman, when we KNOW that is not remotely true. Do you ever even TALK to women? most online dating for most ordinary women is a festival of rejection by men. I could tell you stories that would burn your ears off.
In reality, men reject women for not being good enough (good enough as defined by beauty, weight, height, etc.) than women reject men.
I always find books like Perry's, and pretty much all writing on the "dating market," to be incredibly strange. It feels like the Vasharans from D&D have somehow made it to our world and cornered the market on relationship writing.
When I was young, like most people, I was bombarded with all the schmaltzy, social-desirability bias-laden relationship advice you hear in the media. Be yourself. Fall in love with your best friend. Find things in common to connect with people over. Focus on personality rather than looks. Be emotionally vulnerable. Do not be ashamed of your feelings. Communicate your feelings. So I did all that stuff.
It worked. It worked fantastically well. I found a wonderful partner I loved, and I also encountered a good many other people who I think things would have worked out with if I hadn't met her.
This makes me suspect that most of this cynical relationship market stuff is just fragile, neurotic people projecting. They think the dating milieu is a terrible place because schmaltzy relationship advice has been tried and found wanting. But actually, it has been found difficult, and hence been left untried. For some reason a lot of people have trouble doing these basic things that are really effective.
On point 2. Though I haven’t read the book, based on your summary... and experience raising 8 daughters:
The argument that feminism reduces promiscuity if flawed IMHO for several reasons.
The first one being that, I attribute the reduction in sex, frequency more to video games and the Internet and social media then I do to feminism. It just so happens that feminism was amplified by the Internet and social media.
I think a better evaluation would be looking at what sort of sex the fewer people that are having. I just watched the final episode of the excellent Netflix series Beef, and in the final episode, there was a conversation about how choking during sex has become main stream because of the Internet, yet it wasn’t something that kids raised in the 80s or 90s even thought about. The same could be said about the prevalence of anal sex, and a wide variety of other sexual behaviors.
Ultimately, I think we have a two pronged problem here. On one hand, a certain flavor of feminism has encourage young women to be more promiscuous than they would’ve otherwise been. The other issue is with young men basically taking them cells off the market because they’re spending all the time watching porn or playing video games.
The combination of the two means there is fewer young men than women out there who are on the market, so the young men who are having sex, are willing to push the limits and expect less monogamous type relationships. And the young women out there who are trying to find a mate, and with the influence of the certain brand of feminism, I’m more willing to acquiesce to these male desires.
My antidotal perception based on working with a lot of young, single 20 and 30 something years old guys and having raised eight girls is basically that the men with charm/looks/balls get laid often and easily. Way more than their peers from earlier generations. Meanwhile, women in their teens and 20s have a lot less selection of men who are worth dating.
If there are any grammatical errors, I apologize… I dictated this while sitting in my car in a parking lot.
This article performs a valuable service. Your critique of Perry's book is so thorough, I can now move on, confident I don't have to read it myself. Thanks!
I see a lot of comments discussing how social media, videogames, porn etc. has affected relations between the sexes. I think there might be a kind of selection bias there. For some individuals (let's say ages 12-22) these are serious issues comparable to substance addiction but I don't think that accounts for most of what the stats reveal.
From a young age children are constantly surrounded by screens showing them people, places and lifestyles that appear much better than anything they experience in real life. This oversaturation of seemingly real life discourages them from seeking out fulfilling people, places and lifestyles because they intuitively know it will never measure up to what they're constantly exposed to. It's easy to point to videogames and porn as a starting point but it's more nuanced than that.
I haven't read the book, though I think I once read about it on a blog summary. Given it probably uses a lot of data I've found elsewhere I'll shoot from the hip.
1) Most sex happens in committed relationships. If feminism reduces committed relationships it's going to reduce sex. However, even if the amount of sex is down, you could still have promiscuous sex happening. They aren't mutually exclusive. Someone in a long term relationship may be having sex every week for a long time, while someone whose perpetually "dating" maybe have one night stands or short bouts of sex with a pattern interspersed by dry periods.
That's what I observed in my 20s. People weren't in relationships, but sometimes they would hook up (usually with alcohol). Some of those hook ups would last a few months or whatever. Nobody was trying to get married. There was a lot of distrust and nihilism, and sometimes that distrust and nihilism manifested itself in sexual acts.
2) I don't think you really understand consent here. We aren't talking about "what do I need to not be considered a rapist." We are talking about "even if someone agrees to something, is it still the wrong choice." I don't mean this in a legal sense, but a moral sense. If a woman gives me consent, but she's wrong to do so, it's still bad.
I understand this is "paternalistic". Oh well. I thought we all understood people make bad choices and that this is especially common involving young people and sex (I will throw in alcohol too, as that is a big part of the sexual market).
3) "Because free markets are a social mechanism for giving people who have something to offer whatever they want."
This was Houellebecq's critique in "the expansion of the domain of struggle." That is the mechanisms that allow disinterested bakers and candlestick markers to delver good outcomes even with selfish desires doesn't apply when applied to romance.
Our preferred mechanism for social organization, monogamy, marriage, and family, are at least to some degree "not what people want." They all involve sacrifices and commitments people would like to figure a way out of making or cheat on. It takes vigilance of both people and society to make it work, and having it not work leads to bad outcomes.
I think part of this is that the sexual market is very different from the market market. For one, it's INHERENTLY a rival goods market. There is only ever one man and one woman. We can't use assembly lines to make more mates. And to the extent you think the context is even worse than one to one the greater the rivalry.
It turns out that you can give mates "what they want" in a way that isn't really good for their life outcomes. Promiscuity is like becoming a smoker, the cigarette company gives you want you want but you get cancer.
4)" If she understands and appreciates how markets work, she has two options."
Have you considered "self deception" as an option. This is actually pretty easy to do if the men she can't get to commit will fake it to sleep with her. If women aren't even looking to marry until around 30, it only takes a couple of string along relationships to squander what's left of ones youth.
5) "Men in relationships should avoid spending time alone with attractive women - and women should prefer to be with men who avoid such temptations. Women in relationships should avoid spending time alone with successful men - and men should prefer to be with with women who avoid such temptations."
Mike Pence was right!
BTW, you eviscerated this view when talking about workplaces. Maybe work just shouldn't be a place where people are trying to get in each others pants.
Interestingly, as a creationist, I find this critique both very true, but also perhaps missing the point of Perry's book. I do think that her neuroticism and dark view of reality are problems, but I've been listening to her podcast, and I think she is trying to seek out other perspectives to offer alternatives and expansions.
I also think that you point out that she's writing for young feminist audiences, particularly women, not for cranky conservatives and libertarians who already believe that men and women should get married and have kids.
Now, the question is - can she defeat the sterilizing memes that have taken over (and maybe are inherent in?) feminist culture? I don't know. But I think her book should be widely read and hopefully combat those sterilizing memes quickly.
Also, I think treating feminism as a monolith both in intent/argument and in effect is a bit of a mistake, as I think feminism is perhaps most noteable for being very fractious and incoherent.
In many cases, I think the general thrust of the book is correct - casual sex is bad, the more casual the more true this is. On the most actionable paths to limiting sexual harm, I think this book makes an excellent case for the complete destruction of Pornhub and similar sites. The horrifying section about Pornhub is probably the most vile thing in the book. It seems like a great cause for a politician on either side of the aisle - simply point out the rampant abuse. Perry, seeming to be a feminist without ideological friends, points out that much of the sexual liberation movement is tied to abusive left-leaning scholars.
On a baseline level, I agree with Bryan re: grading on a curve. Throughout the whole book, I keep thinking that much of this stuff would have been absolutely trivial to point out to anyone in a religious tradition, or anyone who has been to a bar. "Women are in danger while drinking alone at bars" is indeed common sense, and if we are praising common sense, we should praise the under-praised religious and traditional folks here and point out that "red pill" stuff might be worth reading as a guideline of what to avoid.
And that's why I think Tyler has the better sense of this book- because I think he sees Perry as someone who is successfully presenting common sense in a method framed as radical.
Throughout the book the harms of porn and sloth are hammered home for men. The burden of this book is not to make the case that casual sex is bad, something that anyone could do. The point of the book is to make the case that we have previously underestimated these harms for women, and thus we need to re-evaluate. THIS is why Perry is influential - because she is using maximally successful memes for distribution as part of the message. It's a Straussian masterpiece, using the "woke" tone and frame to come around to a damn-near religious view of sexuality. She does all of this without making the case for marriage/children/etc. although these are the most obvious reasons to not have casual sex, porn addictions, and to generally try to improve.
The book is written to point out the massive divide between sex in committed relationships and casual sex/hookups, in a language that undergrad feminism courses will use and want to discuss. It succeeds. The text as written is "Women are the primary losers of hookup culture." The question the book tries to pose is, "Given that casual sex is in fact bad, dangerous, and humiliating, why have it?" There are answers to this question, but they are not answers that fit neatly into a political platform or any sort of cause. On the other hand, you have building a relationship of which sex is a part and working together on goals, possibly (likely) family.
The readers of MR/BetOnIt/etc. have a choice here. We can either read this book and think "This is factually incorrect" or "Ah, in the age of feminization we must frame all arguments in women's tears!" Or we can say "Oh this book is controversially feminist" and let college feminism profs do the work for us. Choosing option 1 might mean we score internet points. Option 2 might mean fewer people getting into UFC fights by mistake after a nice dinner, and potentially a widespread movement to destroy the internet pornography industry. I vote Option 2.
Absolutely fantastic review. I'm glad Bryan has taken up the mantle and started arguing against the excesses of modern feminism despite the significant potential for negative career or at least reputational impacts. It would have been all to easy for Bryan to keep his thoughts to himself and only argue less inflammatory topics like open borders (I'm serious). He's doing a valuable service making the arguments he is, and in reviewing books like these.
"Well, I’m not just a father of four; I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement. I handled every nightshift for every baby. Solo. That includes a pair of twins. I’ve been homeschooling - again, solo - for almost ten years. During Covid, I homeschooled all four of our kids. And through all of this, I never thought my kids “limited my freedom” in the slightest."
Dude, what!? I have never read a Caplan sentence that left me more gobsmacked. As a fellow father of four, and also as someone who would dare to put himself past the (slightly more modest) 98th percentile of paternal involvement, I cannot make this make sense to me. I mean, OF COURSE, kids limit your freedom in a thousand different ways. Every day. All the time.
I've long been puzzled over your general attitude of "ehh, kids are easy!" I read Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, taking it to heart (you're welcome kids #3 and 4!) I even switched to plastic cutlery like you recommended! But it is unfathomably time-consuming. And I won't touch homeschooling with a ten foot pole. So how are you doing this?? Are your kids also in a few 99th percentiles? For agreeableness? Studiousness? Docility? Mental focus? Independence? Politeness? Compulsion to please parents? What is it?
I know you've mentioned nannies a few times. Is it the nannies?! Should you be mentioning the nannies every time your write on this topic??
Bryan literally argues that men should suppress their sexual needs for variety and women should suppress their sexual needs for the top men. He's basically an open misogynist and misandrist. Just like Perry.
Apart from the fact that evolutionary psychology is extremely wrong, it doesn't describe male and female strategies well (men are not any less "hypergamous" and women are not any less polygamous).
“I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement
Did you mean to write "percentile"?
No I think Bryan means “99th personality of paternal involvement.” He’s pretty full of himself as the ULTIMATE FATHER, and homeschooler. I suspect his kids are well academic-schooled, but I’d like to interview them to see if their CAPLAN-schooling has rendered them autistic offshoots of their father.
"True, most young, well-educated women won’t be able to marry handsome, charming investment bankers. But if they set their sights a little lower, they can find a good husband fairly easily."
I guess many women are simply not ok with setting their sight "a little lower"
still laughing. No, I do not believe for one second that you gave up a career as a college professor to be a FULL TIME homeschooling (!) stay at home dad. No way, no how.
Also: speaking as a graphic designer... what bargain basement did you dredge this book design out of? it is the most amateurish thing I ever saw, and if I found it in a Little FREE Library, I would assume it is self published junk.
Man, you have so missed the point here. I think in general women are FAR more flexible about what they demand in men (very very few women demand a handsome investment banker) while men have long laundry lists of what they insist on.... women who must be thin, even wear a certain dress size... be very pretty.... younger and shorter than the man (!)... successful yes, but NOT MORE THAN HE IS... some men have extremely specific hair and eye colors. I have NEVER known women like this, but know MANY men like this and see zillions on the internet.
Your graph here implies men will date ANY woman, when we KNOW that is not remotely true. Do you ever even TALK to women? most online dating for most ordinary women is a festival of rejection by men. I could tell you stories that would burn your ears off.
In reality, men reject women for not being good enough (good enough as defined by beauty, weight, height, etc.) than women reject men.
Very good. But link to your book at end does not work.
Fine review! + Caplan and Scott Alexander on Hypergamy on the same day (well, read tsd). tl;dr: Scott does not find much evidence for H. to be a BIG issue. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/hypergamy-much-more-than-you-wanted
I always find books like Perry's, and pretty much all writing on the "dating market," to be incredibly strange. It feels like the Vasharans from D&D have somehow made it to our world and cornered the market on relationship writing.
When I was young, like most people, I was bombarded with all the schmaltzy, social-desirability bias-laden relationship advice you hear in the media. Be yourself. Fall in love with your best friend. Find things in common to connect with people over. Focus on personality rather than looks. Be emotionally vulnerable. Do not be ashamed of your feelings. Communicate your feelings. So I did all that stuff.
It worked. It worked fantastically well. I found a wonderful partner I loved, and I also encountered a good many other people who I think things would have worked out with if I hadn't met her.
This makes me suspect that most of this cynical relationship market stuff is just fragile, neurotic people projecting. They think the dating milieu is a terrible place because schmaltzy relationship advice has been tried and found wanting. But actually, it has been found difficult, and hence been left untried. For some reason a lot of people have trouble doing these basic things that are really effective.