Introduction
Dating is changing. Alongside the more established ways of meeting people, such as introductions by family and friends, meetings in bars and clubs and encounters in everyday work and social life, new forms of dating are emerging. Speed dating , mobile romance , online dating , holiday romances and hooking-up provide ways of meeting people that move away from the taken-for-granted scripts and rituals, to a moment of uncertainty where the ârules of the dating gameâ have become less clear and less predictable. We are developing a new emotional literacy to make sense of the changes in dating, such as the emergence of âthirtysomethingsâ, âplaceholder relationshipsâ, âstreaming infidelityâ and âCommitmentphobesâ (of which there are numerous kinds). Some have suggested that we are now in an era of Post-dating where the benchmarks of traditional dating cultures are irrelevant (Massa 2012, p. 7). Within the shifting landscape of dating, there is no clear guide to understand how such changes should be navigated. And this book is not going to give you one. However, this book will provide a reflection on how heterosexual men are navigating them. Although research is beginning to identify the transformational potential of these emerging dating practices for women, the lesbian and gay communities and young people (e.g. see Harcourt 2004; Gomez 2010; Bauermeister et al. 2012), there is relatively less work examining how straight men are negotiating such changes. Instead, we remain highly dependent upon media narratives that offer contradictory accounts of menâs responses to contemporary dating practices. On the one hand, such narratives are claiming that new forms of dating are providing men with the opportunity to be more caring and sensitive (Hilton 2011; Burke 2012). On the other hand, such accounts are suggesting that there is a âmenaissance ââa cultural moment where âpost-sensitiveâ men are responding to the change by drawing upon traditional masculine tropes such as emotional stoicism and toughness (Haddow 2010; Fitzgerald 2012). Thus, traditional ways of being a man, often characterized by âanti-femininity, homophobia, emotional restrictiveness, competitiveness , toughness , and aggressiveness â (Coughlin and Wade 2012, p. 326), are being re-made in this new dating context.
Existing work on men and masculinity has indicated that social, cultural and economic changes do not necessarily produce socially progressive masculinities (Jamieson 1998). More specifically, Eaton and Rose (2011, p. 862) suggest that despite the changes in dating, traditional patterns of gendered behaviour persist: âMen were expected to initiate, plan, and pay for dates and to initiate sexual contact, whereas women were supposed to be alluring, facilitate the conversation, and limit sexual activityâ (see also Bartoli and Clark 2006). Furthermore, it is argued that this symmetrical model of proactive and reactive dating behaviours continues to be used by men in dating contexts. It is suggested that such traditional gendered scripts of dating enable men to live up to and negotiate cultural expectations. More specifically, as menâs dating success is often culturally coded as being a âreal manâ, when men meet women they often aspire to meet such expectations. However, according to Seal and Ehrhardt (2003), the result of this stereotypical positioning of men and women is that it continues to enable men to control women, and as Bouffard and Bouffard (2011, p. 4) suggest: âThese gendered expectations include male control and female dependence, obedience, and sexual access.â In effect, it is suggested that contemporary dating mirrors a broader organization of social relations that depends upon a dyadic âcomplementaryâ and unequal gender positioning in dating encounters (Tolman et al. 2003).
Despite recent developments in Critical Masculinity Studies , Feminism and Queer Theory , men continue to remain an invisible category in popular discourses. Discussions about gender are often conflated with discussions about women; as a result, gender is usually understood as something to do with women. As Johnson (1997, p. 12) pointed out, âit is precisely menâs status as âungendered representatives of humanityâ that is the key to patriarchyâ. When gender and men are paired together, it is usually to explain an issue, problem or âcrisisâ of masculinity : where men are not being able to meet their natural ubiquitous state or are having that state distorted, as in the popular under-theorized phrase âToxic Masculinity â. In some cases, men donât have genders; they simply have biologies, and changes in the ways that we initiate relationships can be seen as impacting on or impeding such menâs âtrue selvesâ. A recent study on men, masculinity and attraction suggested that masculinity can be measured by examining different parts of the body. For example, cheekbones are known to be receptors of testosterone; the more prominent a manâs cheekbones, the more testosterone has been absorbed. Thus different face height/width ratios are indicative of facial dominance. For example, Valentine et al. (2014, p. 807) suggest that:
Menâs facial dominance may be an honest signal not only of good health, but also of formidability as an intrasexual competitor, which could be helpful in gaining access to mates (intrasexual selection) and attracting women. (intersexual selection; Puts et al. 2012)
Such approaches carry an evolutionary residue, where menâs dating behaviour is reducible to how men are deemed to have behaved prehistorically. For example, Puts (2010, p. 158) argues that human mating is not determined by sexual selection, but rather is a consequence of men excluding other men:
But has mate choice been the primary mechanism of human sexual selection, as the literature might suggest? I argue here that it has not. Rather, contest competitionâin which force or threats of force are used to exclude same-sex rivals from mating opportunitiesâhas been the main form of mating competition in men, whereas male mate choice has predominated as a mechanism of sexual selection operating on women.
Thus much of the literature on men and dating is concerned with men adapting to change, resulting in a âcrisis of masculinityâ as men struggle to maintain what is perceived to be the correct (read ânaturalâ) way of being a man.
However, a different approach can be seen in the world of relationship guidance. Men have to learn how to be a better lover, a better husband or father, with the implicit assumption that men being men is not enough. An example of this is the problem of sexual âeagernessâ. Castleman (2017) captures this with his discussion in Attention Men: Three Keys to Becoming a Better Lover:
According to the conventional wisdom, women are very emotionally complicated, and therefore, sex with them is too. But with all due respect to womenâs complexities, men can become much better lovers by implementing just three simple guidelines: âŠ
These guidelines include spending âat leastâ 30 minutes before moving between a womanâs legs, doing the opposite of what happens in porn, and to âevery time provide her with gentle, extended oral sex (cunnilingus)â. Castleman goes on to argue that men ârush into intercourse before women feel ready for genital playâ. All men, it appears, are too eager: either worrying that women will change their minds or that they will lose their erections. There are two aspects of this approach that stand out. First, and by default, men are not compatible with women and thus have to re-learn their approach to women in order to ensure relationship success in the contemporary world. Womenâs independence from the pressure of reproduction, alongside a cultural emphasis on gender equality, is argued to be leaving men behind. As such, men, it is suggested, have to adapt. Second, men and women now have to reflexively navigate how to be particular kinds of men and women, who correspond with predominant cultural ideals of femininity and masculinity. Thus, men have to reflect on their identities and their practices in order to approximate a culturally valued kind of man. Although these two aspects are anchored in popular psychology, they do help capture a shift in the way that men are negotiating their masculinities where the cultural scripts of dating are changing. This is especially the case since masculinity has traditionally been achieved through what men did with their bodies, such as their occupations. However, more recently, men have been increasingly reflexive about what they do on their bodies (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2011). It is argued here that masculine status is increasingly judged by menâs reflexive qualities. More specifically, as reflexivity becomes central to the making of menâs identities, the quality of menâs reflexiveness becomes an increasingly salient element in the performance of masculinity. Rather than this being a consequence of an individual psychology, it is suggested in this book that the increasing need for men to demonstrate a âquality reflexivityâ is a consequence of broader changes in the social, cultural and economic configuration of menâs and womenâs lives.
One of the few empirically grounded studies that examine older menâs experiences of intimacy in Late Modernity is Duncan and Dowsettâs (2010) set of interviews with heterosexual and gay men . They suggest that men were demonstrating âgreater levels of reflexivity on the part of individuals with regard to questions of intimacy and sexâ (ibid., p. 58) though they do not claim that traditional forms of masculinity have disappeared. Instead, they argue that traditional masculinities are being negotiated, as men attempt to develop meaningful intimate relationships with their partners. However, it is also argued that the material, cultural and symbolic structures that have been the basis for men to assert authority, legitimacy, control and dominance in relationships have broken down. More specifically, in Late Modern society, traditional manufacturing labour or patriarchal family formations appear to be no longer sustainable. Thus, men no longer draw upon traditional masculinities when searching, initiating and going on dates. Furthermore, Siibakâs (2010) research on menâs profiles on dating sites indicates that young men are presenting a range of ways of being a man. Further, recent work on inclusive masculinity has suggested that men are no longer dependant on homophobia to demonstrate their masculinities (Anderson 2014). Whilst recent work by Doull et al. (2013) suggests that young men are now changing identities when they date, there is little information on what is happening in relation to new dating contexts. Cocksâs (2009) discussion of the history of dating in newspapers has suggested that one of the main differences between personal columns in the past, and more recent changes in dating, has been the shift from elaborate coding of identity to self-revelation. Cocks argues that changes such as the internet impel us to reveal ourselves (or particular edited aspects of us) more explicitly. It is suggested that the rise of the internet has simply reinforced the existing social transformations that relied on the dispersal of social communities and has intensified individually centred interactions. Rather than the internet enabling its users to move awa...