House of Eratosthenes

Some fifteen years ago there was this book put out by a couple of bitter women called The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right. Men all over the civilized world, within the tenth of a second they took to analyze the phenomenon, had exactly the same thought: This shit would send me running away screaming, so if “The Rules” really do work then these millions of excited women must be looking for someone different from me. You see, there is an unstated, unifying principle behind each and every one of The Rules, and the unifying principle is this — actually, it’s a small double-handful of principles: The man should do more work, the woman should decide more things, the man should know less about what’s going on, and the whole experience should cost him a good amount of money.

This, I think, feels mighty good to you if you’re an available female and you’ve been through some unsatisfying dating experiences, particularly if you’re the one that got dumped. It doesn’t follow from that that these are rules that will work in your future dating endeavors. But the women got excited about the book anyway, by the millions. And this puts the big reveal on the kind of women who like this stuff: If you put them in the right emotional frame of mind, and then tell them some things that aren’t true, you can get whatever you want out of them. Hmmm. I think I know why their dating lives might not have been fulfilling.

Most prominently displayed quote at The Rules home page: Oprah Winfrey. “The Rules isn’t just a book, it’s a movement, honey.” Yes, that Oprah Winfrey. I rest my case.

Well, I don’t know why Vox Populi waited this long to critique The Rules (hat tip to The Ness in Darkness), but I’m glad he did. Wonder if the people who need to read it, will ever see it.

Rule 1: Be a “Creature Unlike Any Other”

Given that Playboy has spent five decades proving the near-universal male predilection for a slender, pretty, large-breasted, blue-eyed blonde, this rule is obviously insane. In fact, most men have distinct preferences that anyone who knows them well can easily identify…Women are naturally attracted to outliers for the sheer sake of their novelty. Men aren’t.

Rule 2: Show Up to Parties, Dances, and Social Events Even if You Do Not Feel Like It.

This makes sense, but you probably shouldn’t bother if you’re just going to be a tiresome bitch. Unless it’s a Goth party, then feel free to mope and whine all you like, Lady Dolorous.
:
Rule 5: Don’t Call Him & Rarely Return His Calls

That’s fine. He’ll be busy having sex with the woman who calls him at 11 PM to see if he happens to be free at the moment and you’re just another haughty bitch who can’t be bothered to call him back anyway. This is easily the worst Rule, as it is designed to ensure that the only men who will continue to call you are terminally obsessed stalkers.

Rule 6: Always End Phone Calls First

This Rule is fine, because there isn’t a single man on the planet who keeps track of who hung up first. Besides, he’s either reading his emails, surfing the Internet, or playing video games while you’re rambling on and on about who said what to whom anyhow.

There are, in my opinion, quite a few women who sunk some money into this book and still have it on their shelves to this very day even though they’re still single and miserable. There is an unhappy phenomenon taking place here…and it is not exclusively female, although it is perhaps predominantly female. The phenomenon is an enjoyment of the adrenaline rush that goes with the feeling of solving a problem, coupled with sustained ignorance and apathy regarding whether the problem is really being solved. The Rules were given the ol’ college try; they didn’t work, for the reasons Vox Populi states, along with some others; but the whole experience felt so damn good. Especially those above-mentioned principles according to which men shouldn’t decide anything and they shouldn’t be in control of anything.

Of the millions of old copies of The Rules that were snatched up all those years ago, I speculate further that more than half of them reek of cat urine.

Your resonse to # 1: Speak for your self Morgan,preference for Playboy/barbie doll
shape is not at all universal,lotsa guys see that slightly worse than average.Don’t you see couples madly in love with the woman short or plump or tiny tits?Human
variety is a wonderful thing,enjoy it.
- kermitt | 01/05/2010 @ 07:59
And you can’t build a social revolution that deals with what men find attractive.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2010 @ 08:24
Given that Playboy…

There is just SO much wrong with this statement I don’t know where to begin… but kermitt gave us a danged good start. God can’t/won’t save us from the anorexic, plastic-boobed, liposuctioned, overly made-up and “forever young” Barbie Dolls the brain-dead among us find attractive. But I’m gratified to know people like kermitt exist. Hope, and all that.
- bpenni | 01/05/2010 @ 10:41
anorexic, plastic-boobed, liposuctioned, overly made-up and “forever young” Barbie Dolls

Or as a former girlfriend put it, “Airbrushed from birth.” And yes, she was convinced that having a beautiful face, brilliant intelligence, practically no tits and a bouncy bottom made her sadly unattractive – despite the unavoidable evidence that this combination drove me nuts.

Not surprisingly, she was the first woman I ever knew who had read The Rules…
- rob | 01/05/2010 @ 11:34
I’m reasonably sure, ‘tho I can’t swear to it, that kermitt is a chick.

That would make two gentlemen and one lady who’ve allowed the point to sail over their heads. We can certainly disagree about what makes a lady’s form and personality appealing, or intoxicating; I’m no big fan of the plastic-titty fad myself. (In fact, I think, most guys aren’t.) The point is about an individual man’s palette, and VP expounds on this with some examples in the parts of the paragraph I whittled down. So if you go clicking on the link to the article I think this will help clear it up for you.

If you spend your entire single life preferring brunettes, you aren’t likely to lay your eyes on a blond and say to yourself “Oh, wow, now that I see her I prefer that now.” This, in my own opinion, is where western society has really come off the rails in the last forty years or so…this drive to dictate to men that they should be attracted to women in pant suits, women with bowl-cuts, Andie MacDowell, Jane Seymour, Julia Roberts, women who are smart-alecky, women who are six feet tall and less than a hundred pounds, etc.

We like what we like. It’s like the moon and the tides. Let it be.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2010 @ 11:44
We like what we like. It’s like the moon and the tides. Let it be.
– mkfreeberg | 01/05/2010 @ 11:44

You’re right of course – I got sidetracked by my agreement with Buck about the charms of Callipygaea…

The point, with which I think you’ll agree, is that the greatest believers in, and victims of, the relentless propaganda that men “should” be attracted to “women in pant suits, women with bowl-cuts, Andie MacDowell, Jane Seymour, Julia Roberts, women who are smart-alecky, women who are six feet tall and less than a hundred pounds, etc.” are otherwise normal women.

Chicks buy it; guys don’t.
- rob | 01/05/2010 @ 12:11
I’m thinking that “kermitt” spends a lot of time letting his/her purse dog do him.
- vanderleun | 01/05/2010 @ 12:12
That would make two gentlemen and one lady who’ve allowed the point to sail over their heads.

and…

You’re right of course – I got sidetracked by my agreement with Buck …

Jeezus. Wrong, on both counts. First: Your hubris doth amaze and confound, Morgan. I got the larger point, and didn’t dispute it in any sense… which is: “The Rules” are frickin’ WRONG, as are the women who accept “The Rules” as true fact. I tire of being told I’ve missed this, that, or the other when I take issue with some or one of your statements… this particular case being that I don’t quite agree with Hefner’s take on pulchritude. There are other points of view… or chacun a son goût… as you’ve otherwise put it. But to take me to task and insinuate I’ve missed the larger point is both insulting and belittling, in the final accounting. I simply disagree with Hefner… and you, by association… when you maintain “slender, pretty, large-breasted, blue-eyed blonde(s)” are the paradigm we should ALL believe in. Give us some credit, if only ever so often. And while you’re at it… take a deep long gulp from the cup o’ humility. That will do us all good.

And rob… stand by your gut, my man. It’ll do ya good. 😉
- bpenni | 01/05/2010 @ 15:52
Thank you. 🙂
- DarcsFalcon | 01/05/2010 @ 16:42
Thanks. I needed that.
- rob | 01/05/2010 @ 18:00
Thank you, Darcs. Pure blogger gold, and I would have missed it if it wasn’t for you. I really need to put Vox on my Google Reader. You probably belong there, too. You have a wonderful blog.

Buck — whiskey tango? Everyone’s in agreement on just about everything, yourself and Vox included, and there’s still an argument to be had somewhere? I was trying to dive on the grenade, take responsibility for my perhaps-overly-exuberant editing of VP’s words. The piece that I decided (perhaps wrongly) to filter out, more than adequately addresses what you’re bringing up…

One of my college roommates always tended to date short, hippy women with long, dark, naturally curly hair named Mary. Unsurprisingly, he ended up marrying a tall, hippy woman with long, dark, naturally curly hair named Mary. Women are naturally attracted to outliers for the sheer sake of their novelty. Men aren’t.

This is the tricky thing about editing. Perhaps it comes naturally to you, you seem to have confidence when you do it at your place. Me, I”m constantly second-guessing myself. In this case I meant no slight toward the three of you by saying the point went over your heads, I really meant to say we had a large number of readers who missed out on VP’s point, because I showed it to them through a dirty lens. Sorry if it came off some other way.
- mkfreeberg | 01/05/2010 @ 18:31
[…] Read it. Of the millions of old copies of The Rules that were snatched up all those years ago, I speculate further that more than half of them reek of cat urine. […]
- DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Why “The Rules” Don’t Work | 01/05/2010 @ 18:46
The phenomenon is an enjoyment of the adrenaline rush that goes with the feeling of solving a problem, coupled with sustained ignorance and apathy regarding whether the problem is really being solved. The Rules were given the ol’ college try; they didn’t work, for the reasons Vox Populi states, along with some others; but the whole experience felt so damn good.

Sounds to me like a pretty good summation of socialism in general and Keyensian economics in particular, doesn’t it?
- cylarz | 01/06/2010 @ 00:30
[…] 6, 2010 by Daphne My bodacious blog brother, Morgan, has a piece up on The Rules, a silly self-help book aimed at exceptionally dumb women seeking a wedding ring. I haven’t […]
- Pitching The Rules « Jaded Haven | 01/06/2010 @ 18:04
(Off topic: I love your closing sentence)
- pdwalker | 01/06/2010 @ 20:46
This is the tricky thing about editing. Perhaps it comes naturally to you…

Well, in a previous professional incarnation I was one, albeit not necessarily a good one. But good enough to get paid for doing it. 🙂

And I was heavy-handed in my response to the “sailing over your head” thing. Forgive me?
- bpenni | 01/06/2010 @ 22:06

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Why “The Rules” Don’t WorkTuesday, January 5th, 2010

Why “The Rules” Don’t Work
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010