Britain's loveless Bridgets may be taxing its housing stock (a mere 72.6% of thirtysomething British ladies are shacked up with a partner), but you can be married with eight children by Christmas. You just have to follow the right dating advice. But how to find it? Dating tips have been around forever, as these examples from 1938 attest. And everybody's getting in on the act, including the authors of Principles 101: Feminism, Manhood, and You, an online book that purportedly "exposes Feminism, the 'Seduction Community' scam, the failure of cliched dating advice and why men find women increasingly difficult to deal with in this Feminist dating climate." Principles 101 seeks to teach men how to reclaim their "male authority" — starting with a cover featuring the words "cunts," "pussification," and "mangina." Below, we compare the dating wisdom of 1938 with the observations of the Principles — and add a few (unisex) tips of our own.

On driving
1938: Don't use the car mirror to fix your make-up. Man needs it in driving, and it annoys him very much to have to turn around to see what's behind him.
Principles 101: Women lack foresight for the same reason children lack it; they focus on themselves to a dysfunctional degree. Without male guidance, women neglect to consider the viewpoint of others. As a result, women, in relation to men, lack the capacity to bear heavy responsibilities. Yet, because of Feminism's reckless encouragement, they happily volunteer to "steer" the lives of others, oblivious to the dangerous situation this creates for everyone; our Feminist society lowers academic, professional, and civil service standards to accommodate women's irresponsible desire to accept duties they were never designed to fulfill. Consequently, our schools, our economy, and our lives must all sit in the passenger seat, waiting for the inevitable crash.

On neatness
1938: If you need a brassiere, wear one. Don't tug at your girdle, and be careful your stockings are not wrinkled.
Principles 101: Right now, whether you realize it or not, you are disorderly.

On conversation
1938: Don't talk about clothes, or try to describe your new gown to a man. Please and flatter your date by talking about the things he wants to talk about.
Principles 101: [W]hen men try to initiate or lead social interactions, instead of respecting this chore, "bitches" will attempt to subvert male authority by degrading the social status of men. Condescending remarks about social desperation, lack of friendships, lack of social competence or inadequate appearance are not uncommon. If these women haven't already refused to acknowledge their existence with lack of eye contact or verbal response, an uphill battle of dysfunctional conversation can be expected. Men will find themselves being interrupted or talked over as dominating the interaction becomes these women's focus.

On what men want
1938: Careless women never appeal to gentlemen. Don't talk while dancing, for when a man dances he wants to dance.
Principles 101: Your Manhood is expressed in the form of authority. Its function is to discipline and bring into submission those who should rightly be under your authority. Your authority is necessary to enforce your expectations. By training others to recognize and apply the principles governing their respective gender, you bring them into a functional state where they become useful, thus valuable.

On dissipation
1938: The last straw is to pass out from too much liquor. Chances are your date will never call you again!
Principles 101: Consider the punk rocker lifestyle. Its dysfunctional nature advocates the dismantling of social order. Only dysfunctional people are drawn to such a chaotic lifestyle. Their houses, cars, personal appearance and relationships are all one big disorderly mess. If you were to stop taking care of your house and personal appearance, they would gradually and spontaneously start resembling this lifestyle.

While Principles 101 may offer helpful hints on becoming a punk rocker (just quit mowing your lawn!), it's probably too absurd to help men actually get a date (readers might want to keep under their hats, for instance, the author's opinion that women shouldn't get to vote). But it does reveal some similarities between women's dating tips and total misogyny. Yes, the tips above are from 1938, but the idea that men's desires need to control every aspect of dating, from what you talk about to what you wear, persists today. And "experts" are still lining up to tell women that being deferential is the key to lasting love. Not so into submission? Luckily, there's an easier way. Behold, the Jezebel Dating Guide.

Step 1: Don't be an asshole.
Step 2: Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't violate Step 1.

I lied above — this dating guide may not get you an entire family in the next two weeks. It will, however, allow you to maintain self-respect without belittling other people, something the 111-page Principles 101 can't claim. So this holiday season, instead of worrying about whether you're "flattering your date" or engaging in "dysfunctional conversation" just ask yourself whether you're being an asshole and adjust accordingly. Or, just read everything Principles 101 says and do the exact opposite. Warning: you may become disorderly.

Tips For Single Ladies (1938) [Sad and Useless]
Principles 101 [Scribd]
‘Bridget Jones' Singletons Threaten Housing Crisis, Figures Suggest [Telegraph]

Young takes aim at Kathryn Joyce's Double X article about men's rights groups, which we wrote about a couple of weeks ago. Young argues that these groups are not misogynistic, but that they are merely challenging "the conventional feminist view of domestic violence-as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers." She argues in favor of sociologist Murray Straus's research into female-initiated violence — though she does acknowledge that women are twice as likely as men to get hurt in a domestic dispute, and three times as likely to fear their partners — and argues that feminists exaggerate the impact of abuse. Young writes,

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women-for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings, and cancer combined.

According to Young, men's groups exist in response to real bias against men — she says, "federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy)." And she winds up her piece by quoting philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards: "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Leaving aside domestic violence for a moment, this statement is actually a complicated one. On the one hand, no real feminist wants to be like the straw feminists Young and others set up — hateful harridans who use lies to further their own selfish ends. But on the other, shouldn't feminism be at least mostly about women's rights? Don't men have their own movement — that is, all of Western history?

It's easy to answer yes to these questions, and some of the time, I believe that answer. But I also think that feminism should set out to change all damaging gender stereotypes, including stereotypes about men. The patriarchy — obviously the only thing my simplistic feminist ass cares about — affects everybody, and though it often benefits men, it also fucks them up. And what's more, it fucks them up in ways that are bad for women. It tells them they need to be sexual aggressors, contributing to rape culture. It tells them they suck at child-rearing and emotional connection in general, which damages their relationships and sticks women with disproportionate familial burdens. And it tells them they need to be big and strong and ready to fight, which makes them both more likely to commit domestic violence and less likely to report it if it happens to them.

All these problems are worth fixing, and feminists — who are experienced at fighting gender stereotyping, and who care about many of the ills created by a rigid social view of masculinity — are well-equipped to help fix them. But we're not going to feel like it if people cast us as the enemy. I'm unlikely to reconsider my view of men's rights groups if writers like Young use them as a peg to insult the supposedly sorry "state of feminism" or to posit some powerful anti-male gynocracy that's promulgating lies about abuse. In fact, Young does such a crappy job of negotiating disputes between the sexes that I'd like to go around her and speak to dudes directly: Hi guys. I am a feminist. I am not an evil bitch who wants to beat you up and take your money. I am your sister, your daughter, your neighbor, your co-worker, and your friend. I support your right to have emotions, to be an involved dad, to feel physically and emotionally safe in your relationships, to hold any job you want regardless of whether it's "masculine," and, if you want, to marry another man. I get that life is hard for you too sometimes, and I want to help you. But only if you meet me halfway.

Note: The image above is a group of male college students marching in high heels to protest violence against women — a "men's group" we can get behind.

Men's Rights [Reason]

Related: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective [Double X]

Earlier: The Misguided Message Of Men's Rights Groups

Here's the horror story that begins Jon Hochschartner's recent "Sex in the SUNY" column:

I woke up slowly, pushing the naked girl beside me for more covers. Eventually it was time to get up, so I reluctantly rubbed the sleep out of my eyes.

That's when I realized I was wet. I threw the sheets off myself and saw I was covered in blood - from my chest to my dick. I started looking for some kind of mortal wound but couldn't find anything.

So finally, I looked down at her and she was covered in it too. Then it dawned on me: menstrual blood.

I don't remember if we were drunk the night before, but clearly there was some serious miscommunication. I mean, damn, scarred for life.

Obviously we can't expect opinion columns in college newspapers to be models of enlightened views — if memory serves, my college paper once ran a screed on why no one should ever have to take English classes, and another on how gross it was to have to stand next to poor people at Wal-Mart. Still, Hochschartner does deserve a wake-up call: the "naked girl" taking up space in his bed was actually a living, breathing — and yes, bleeding — human being. I'll admit that stained sheets are an annoyance, but getting menstrual blood on oneself is a monthly occurrence for women, and yet we somehow manage to avoid PTSD. Understanding this, and accepting that the vagina is part of the female reproductive system and not just a sterile hole for your dick, is an important step toward becoming a man worthy of fucking. Hochschartner did talk to some women for his column — their recommendations include towels, shower sex, and, Dr. Ruth's favorite, diaphragms. I'd advocate that these ladyfriends involve him in regular discussions of menstruation, at least until he's desensitized. Because there's really no excuse for a guy to be afraid of a little blood.

Yesterday I recommended that women quit treating periods as a female-only topic, and I'd like to reiterate that recommendation now. Last year I had to teach a 25-year-old man — who had previously lived with a long-term girlfriend — that women do in fact need to use more than one tampon per period, and I think it's high time that guys started getting this information early. Comprehensive sex ed can help — while the girls in my fifth grade class were getting our first "changing bodies" lecture, the boys were watching The Mighty Ducks or something, and there's no reason boys shouldn't get the opportunity to hear the gym teacher say "uterine lining" too. But more than that, if boys and girls and men and women would all stop treating menstruation like some ultra-private phenomenon, the world — and the vagina — would be a happier place.

It's true that not every woman likes period sex (especially on heavy days, there can be cramping issues). And guys' tastes do deserve respect — if they really prefer to abstain until a woman is ritually pure, that's up to them. But I'd argue that learning to like period sex is worth some initial discomfort, both because it adds three to seven days per month when you can bone, and because it represents a level of comfort and familiarity with the actual female body, not the sanitized version pushed by "lad mags." And while I wouldn't advocate kicking a guy to the curb just because period sex isn't his favorite, I would wager that someone for whom menstrual blood triggers "post-trauma flashbacks" may not be a keeper.

If It's That Time Of The Month, Go On Vacation [Cardinal Points]

Earlier: Dr. Ruth Personally Advises Us On Period Sex

In a way, Martin's article is optimistic — she writes about young men getting together not to slam feminists or domestic violence victims, but rather to "share strategies for getting college men involved in gender-based activism" and say "no to toxic masculinity." But what does nontoxic masculinity look like? For young, feminist men — and yes, there are some — this is a difficult question. Martin writes that "we've certainly got plenty of pictures of men who are stubbornly clinging to the old paradigm of maleness," but relatively few examples of any new paradigm (the closest, she says, is Stephen Colbert). As a result, Martin explains,

Many young men, it seems, are stuck in stage one of gender consciousness. They want to prove that they are one of the "good ones" and separate themselves from all the gendered behaviors and beliefs that they now see as oppressive. That, or they wallow in guilt. (This is not unlike the stage many white kids get stuck in upon fully realizing their role in perpetuating racism.) At worst, this point of view is paralyzing. At best, it leads to burnout.

It's tempting to say that there are so many misogynist men in the world that we don't need to worry about the feminist ones. But men can be incredibly useful allies — a young Tucker Max fan might be more inclined to listen to a couple of right-thinking buddies than the women he's been conditioned not to respect. And men themselves could benefit from the removal of calcified standards of old masculinity. Martin writes:

Guys who reject traditional masculinity, for starters, have a greater chance of finding fulfilling work that isn't just a symbol of their provider status. They might explore the joy of relationships — being nurturing with their kids, real with their friends, open with their partners. They have the opportunity to shed their socialized skin and all the anxiety that comes with trying to be a "tough guy" and make a happy life defined, not by their paycheck or their size, but by their humanity.

If men weren't constricted by the expectation that they behave like emotionless dick-bots, they'd be a lot happier — and so would women, children, families, and society. But it's true that men currently have little to put in place of this expectation. I know several young men for whom feminism manifests itself as guilt, and this doesn't really help them or the feminist cause. As Martin says, men need to acknowledge their privilege and work around it, rather than being obsessed with it. Women can help by accepting men as allies and friends, and by not censoring ourselves in front of them — men can handle discussions of feminism, relationships, vaginas, and periods, and we can help them realize this by not treating these as women-only topics. Men can help by listening, and by offering women the same openness, rather than reserving some types of conversation for dudes.

But do men need, in addition, "a positive, masculine gender identity?" It's something of a strange concept — few feminists would ever say that women needed "a positive, feminine gender identity." While plenty of women take pride in being female, "femininity" is so loaded with patriarchal expectation that, for feminists, it's kind of a dirty word. This may not be a bad thing — in fact, I'd argue that "masculine" should go the same way.

Gender is incredibly complicated, and the ways in which we construct it for ourselves are myriad, fascinating, and worthy of celebration. As the "Men At Their Most Masculine" project shows, both cis- and trans-men have built identities that they see as "masculine," and these identities are satisfying for them. But the idea of a top-down "masculinity" for men to aspire to, of "models," as Martin puts it, just seems restrictive. Yes, young men need to see thoughtful, feminist men, especially if they're not yet truly comfortable with women. But said thoughtful, feminist men don't necessarily have to offer a new masculinity — rather, they can simply teach that how men understand their gender is up to them, and that they shouldn't feel the need to fit themselves into any particular mold. This might be difficult — young people, despite their protestations of rebellion, kind of like molds — but it would move us one step closer to a world in which gender was an opportunity for self-expression, not a cage of expectations. The lack of a new paradigm for masculinity may look like emptiness, but it's also freedom.

Image via Beard Revue.

What's The Alternative To Tucker Max? [The American Prospect]

"Why are Charlie's pants so small?" he would ask me, confused. The transformation had occurred, as it so often does, at college. Charlie had left in no-nonsense khakis and a serviceable close-cropped haircut. When he returned for Thanksgiving break, it was in microscopic Levis, vintage chelsea boots and hair that had been carefully hacked by a Brooklyn razor and disarrayed with the aid of a wax produced by none other than Jonathan Antin.

I for one was thrilled, and we quickly bonded over trips to the Salvation Army and earnest discussions of whether his new sartorial direction should be more Antoine Doinel or early Chris Squire. Sometimes we shared pants. His girlfriend, no incidental player in the transformation, looked on benevolently in cowboy boots and a vintage chubby.

My dad, however, was saddened. Charlie was his baseball buddy, his lunch companion, his pal - who was this nascent fop scouring eBay for belt buckles? Not one to look free clothes in the mouth, he inherited Charlie's castaways, and was soon walking the dog in carpenter jeans and an Abercrombie jacket while Charlie lounged and minced in pants that could just barely contain a wallet and soon showed the hipster's telltale back-pocket rectangle, the inevitable result of skin-tight denim and ever-present Camels. My dad, with the exception of a brief period in the 70s when a girlfriend accented his jew-fro with flares, is the sort of man who's never been in step with fashion and went blithely from mom to girlfriend to wife without ever having to worry too much about what he wore. Since my mother shopped exclusively at discount outlets, this was largely a good thing.

What was at play between the men of 10 Euclid Avenue was a conflict as old as time: serious men don't care about clothes, goes the traditional, while the effete, the affected, the decadent, do. Writes Jasper Gerard in the Daily Telegraph, <blockquote<Women have long been trained to understand clothes, whatever one makes of Cheryl Cole's extraordinary wardrobe on The X Factor. Because they have no obvious uniform, they actually have to think about what to wear every morning: how formal should I appear? How much personality should I display? Legs – yes or no? Ditto cleavage. Men just grab the first suit to hand and whatever shirt looks vaguely ironed, or failing that, clean. The only sartorial decision we have faced in a decade has been "tie or no tie?" and we're still trying to get over that trauma. Plant us under a palm tree and it goes hideously wrong, literally. Tabloids take cruel delight in highlighting celebrity cellulite on women, but it is the male tight Speedo/beer belly combo that has readers spitting out skinny lattes in disgust...Men are forgiven for looking boring off duty as long as they have clearly made absolutely no effort. But it is men who have tried that are ridiculed; particularly those who have almost certainly thought not only about their wardrobe but – ugh – about something more generalised, namely their "image".

Meanwhile, the new series "Puts This On" is predicated on the assumption that men don't know how to dress like grownups - and shows them how. This is as we've always understood the world should be. Men - and by this, people always mean straight men - shouldn't care. They can look fine, as long as a girlfriend or wife or gay man has taken them in hand and made them over, Drive Me Crazy-style. (When straight men make each other over, the effect is, instead, The Pick-Up Artist.)

What my dad saw as frippery and frivolity I understood to be something else: the knowledge that you can change the way you are seen and perceived, and express exactly what you want at any time. Charlie's makeover was not in a vacuum, but of a piece with new interests in books and music, and there was nothing wrong with this. Those men I know who are sharpest (and yes, there are goofy exceptions) are not empty-headed Brummels. I have one friend whose love of tailoring mirrors his passion for history. Another, the boyfriend of one of the site's editors and the sharpest dresser in existence, projects a cool confidence at all times that's of a piece with his music and his sense of place in the world. And we're not even touching Arlo Weiner.

My brother, meanwhile, has both grown (physically; he now wears men's pants) and evolved somewhat since those first heady days of New England Liberal Arts nirvana. He is, without question, a dandy: he gets all his thrift store trousers pegged and his hair still bears the hallmark of Williamsburg. But he's also an interesting and well-rounded guy who doesn't see liking outfits as at odds with anything else and is wholly without self-consciousness. He might wear an unfortunate tweed cap where my dad trumpets dog food on live TV. But at the end of the day, it's all a self-confidence that's good - or, at least, is what it is.

Why Men Are Disasters At Off-Duty Dressing [Telegraph]
Put This On: Web Video Series For Dudes On "Dressing Like A Grownup" [BoingBoing]

According to the Times of London, Japan is in the midst of a veritable explosion of such "girly men," men who don't live up to traditional Japanese standards of masculinity. Of this group, also called "herbivorous males," Richard Lloyd Parry writes,

Definitions vary, but the new herbivores could be described as metrosexuals without the testosterone. Although most of them are not homosexual they have in common a disdain for the traditional accoutrements of Japanese manhood, and a taste for things formerly regarded as exclusively female. Girly men have no interest in fast cars, career success, designer labels and trophy women. Instead, they hold down humble jobs, cultivate women as friends rather than conquests and spend their free time shopping at small boutiques and pursuing in Japan what is regarded as a profoundly feminine pastime: eating cakes.

And supposedly they're a Big Deal. A Japanese designer is marketing a line of skirts and "lacy tops" for men. Another company is selling a line of men's bras, although apparently some gender divisions persist — Parry describes the bras as "designed with manly simplicity, free of lace and frills." And Megumi Ushikubo, author of Herbivorous Girly Men Are Changing Japan thinks two thirds of Japanese men between 20 and 34 have "herbivorous tendencies."

Of course, half the point of a trend piece is to record and perhaps stir up terror at the trend's inevitable destruction of society, and Japan's girly men are no exception. Parry quotes sociologist Masahiro Yamada, who says, "I worry that herbivorous boys are the future of Japan. As young Japanese men become more timid and more averse to taking risks, it will affect the energy and vitality of the society." But the epidemic of girly men, if epidemic it is, may have more specific and more interesting consequences than a loss of "vitality." Slate's Alexandra Harney was actually on the case back in June, and she writes that "grass-eating men are alarming because they are the nexus between two of the biggest challenges facing Japanese society: the declining birth rate and anemic consumption."

Girly men are supposedly uninterested in sex, though some speculate that they simply have bad "communication skills" caused by too many video games and not enough family interaction. Whatever the cause, no sex means no babies, and Japan is suffering because of its shrinking population. Girly men also don't buy a lot of expensive things. It's interesting that a love for "designer labels" is seen in Japan as traditionally male — Harney says herbivores are "more likely to buy little luxuries than big-ticket items." Much like America's vaunted post-recession frugality craze, girly men are scary for Japan's economy — if they won't buy expensive shit, who will?

When you look at it this way, being a girly man seems like a kind of rebellion. Self-identified herbivore Yoto Hosho tells Harney, "We don't care at all what people think about how we live," and his lifestyle does seem like a reaction against certain social pressures. Make money, buy cars, have a kid — it's a pretty familiar prescription for a mainstream existence, whether here or in Japan, but its steps may be geared more toward a particular idea of a healthy society than toward actual personal fulfillment. After all, shoring up a declining birthrate doesn't sound like the most compelling reason to have a family. And now that making money has become more difficult for Japanese men, it's no wonder they're not as enthusiastic about spending it. Maki Fukasawa, an editor and writer who coined the term "herbivorous male," says,

When the economy was good, Japanese men had only one lifestyle choice: They joined a company after they graduated from college, got married, bought a car, and regularly replaced it with a new one. Men today simply can't live that stereotypical 'happy' life.

Sound a lot like what's happening in America. The recession and dwindling job security have made certain male roles — provider, consumer, progenitor — more difficult to step into. In Japan, men are responding by rejecting those roles. Maybe rather than trying to return to a bygone era of buying and babies, Japan and America should accept a more frugal, perhaps smaller population and new definitions of success. The girly men, it seems, already have.

Girly Men Of Japan Just Want To Have Fun [TimesOnline]

Related: The Herbivore's Dilemma [Slate]

We've been talking a lot lately about the delegation of household tasks. And while the conversation is obviously rooted in history, society, a traditional gap and the burden of context, one question inevitably comes up: if women want things done right, do they have to do them themselves? As the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus puts it today, "I could delegate more to my husband, but then I'd also have to accept that pasta with store-bought pesto equals dinner. If you want someone else to step up to the plate, you have to live with what he puts on it." And she puts it even more strongly: "In fact, to some extent women are reluctant to yield dominion over the home front even as they become the majority of the paid workforce."

Of course, this doesn't really address why she's not satisfied with the same sketchy domesticity. Gail Collins touched on the same issue in her interview with Doree Shafrir yesterday when she said,

Half of the world believes it's because guys genuinely do not have as high a standard about making sure you get invited to dinner every once in awhile, or having matching socks. It's possible that guys, if they don't care, then it's very hard to impose those standards. Others argue that this is all a plot and the guys are just waiting out the women. I would go for 50-50. Clearly guys enjoy the higher standards-they just don't want to be in charge of them.

I'm not the one to ask; my boyfriend and I both come from the 'wait-as-long-as-is-humanly-possible-before-tackling-squalor' school of housekeeping, whose equality, it could be argued, is certainly a harbinger of some kind of progress - or of our generation's general lack of responsibility. Growing up, my father was indifferent - and to my mother's chagrin, would ask friends over with impunity when the house was in a state she found humiliating. Maybe that was more the core issue: she saw the state of the home as some reflection on herself; my dad did not. Of course there are Felix Ungers who are defined by house-pride and a love of domestic routine. But that's why they're a comic stock character: the trait was regarded as effete, effeminate, humorous.

Discussing the report "A Woman's Nation Changes Everything," by Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress, Marcus observes,

Both sexes agree that women continue to bear a disproportionate burden in taking care of children and elderly parents, even when both partners in a relationship have jobs," John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira write in one chapter of the report. Here's the interesting subtext, though: Fifty-five percent of women strongly agreed (and 85 percent overall agreed) that "in households where both partners have jobs, women take on more responsibilities for the home and family than their male partners." Just 28 percent of men strongly agreed, and 67 percent agreed. That's a pretty big perception gap.

Marcus suggests that part of this disconnect is rooted in, not just self-congratulation for doing the minimum, but a sort of martyrdom. As she would have it, women want help, but also control. There is, she says, "something comforting in keeping a connection to mundane household tasks even when you're running a major-league research lab. Perhaps younger women don't feel this tug toward domesticity. But for women of my generation, there remains an impulse to live up to the standards of our stay-at-home mothers even as we race out the door each morning." I'd say younger women do, indeed, feel the tug of domesticity - but largely because it's a choice. Canning, knitting, home decor - these have become reflections of who we are rather than the other way around. And the quotidian rites of household maintenance, more than servitude, imply adulthood - which is a whole 'nother kettle of ambivalence.

The Nobel For Brisket Goes To . . .[Washington Post]

Earlier: Gail Collins: "The Revolution Will Be Achieved When No One Has To Do The Ironing"

Deceptive, baby-hungry women have always been a staple of male-mythology; punching a hole in a condom is the sort of thing we like to do between maxing out guys' credit cards on shoes and sleeping with their best friends. So it's not shocking that this particular urban horror story should make the lad-mag rounds just in time for Halloween.

What is shocking and depressing is the number of women who the author brings in to bolster the story, making it seem as though it's totally common practice and that deception is part of women's acknowledged code of conduct.

"It's not about trapping the guy," Jody says. "That's kind of old-fashioned. Yeah, you want him to be into it, but there are other ways to get a guy to commit. If you're smart and in a good relationship, it's just about the fact that you want a kid." Even in her circle of young, urban, and gainfully employed friends, Jody says, this particular brand of subterfuge isn't exactly condemned the way one might expect. In fact, it's sort of, well, normal. "I see and hear people talk about it, and I understand. I get it," she says, "and I don't even think it's that manipulative. It's more like, 'Hey, the timing is right for me. I got pregnant-oops! Well, it's here, let's have it.' I think that's more the way it is now than it was back in the day when you had to marry someone before you got pregnant. Marriage doesn't matter now."

Then there's alleged feminine "logic" like this:

"A lot of us feel like it's not even really fair that men should get to vote, considering they could be 72 and, with a little Viagra, have another baby," says Vicki Iovine, author of The Girlfriends' Guide to Pregnancy. "For us women, it's really a limited window. We know that boys who grow up to become men don't necessarily want to be men. They like to be boys. And so women say, 'You know what? He's gonna just have to snap out of it-and my pregnancy will be the thing to do it.'" The end, says Iovine, sometimes justifies the means. "Any guy with a heart and soul, and preferably with a job, once he sees the baby on the sonogram or hears the heartbeat, will melt," she says.

Wait - what? Don't rope me in with these women who want to disenfranchise men because they're...fertile for longer? For every Cosmo-wielding nutter this guy dredged up (and I'd really like to see the email he sent out requesting quotes from "friends") he could have found ten thousand who found the idea not merely abhorrent, but insulting and frankly incomprehensible.

Of course, to the author it makes total sense:

The average cost of in vitro fertilization in the United States is $100,000 per baby-and insurance generally won't pay a cent. Combine that with the shifting social mores about single motherhood and having kids outside of marriage, and you've got a pretty good explanation for why some women, particularly ones in stable relationships, don't see this as trickery at all-it's more like a nudge.

What these "shifting social mores" are, he neglects to say. Nor can he get a real read on the number of wily tricksters are out there, stealing men's sperm and then gouging them for money, because of the women who get preggers while on birth control, "there's no way of knowing how much of that disparity can be explained away by "intentional" oversight, but that's a big gap to chalk up to carelessness." Okay, first of all, there's a reason the Ring has taken off, and it's not because a plastic disc in one's vagina is so incredibly erotic. The pill is an enormous pain in the ass, an expensive, distorting, side-effect-inducing millstone with no regard for travel schedules, the availability of doctor's appointments, sleep, jet lag, pharmaceutical and insurance vagaries. That's 365 chances a year to screw things up. And while, yes, theoretically, it works, the reality is never, ever that straightforward. So save your insinuations, please.

Are there women who do this? I guess there are. If you believe Glee, the world is full of deceitful women. There are a lot of dishonest, desperate, screwed-up people out there who do all kinds of things. But this is not, I repeat not, common or acceptable amongst women. If anything, I think we'd judge it more, not merely because it's awful, but because we've fought hard for birth control and reproductive rights and that wasn't to entrap men into marriage.

I can understand that it must be hard for a man to surrender all control of this issue - believe us, it's not so fun assuming the total responsibility, the chemical consequences, or the expense. But there are such things as condoms. A guy who claims he was tricked into impregnating his girlfriend (he has no contact with the child, but does pay child support) has sued his ex. The case has been taken up by the National Center for Men, which calls it "Roe vs. Wade . . . for Men." No, see, that would be if men were legally denied the right to wear condoms. But while I am, in fact, willing to believe this occasionally happens (apparently, judging from the psychos quoted above) it's also, as the judge ruled, simply impossible to prove - and more to the point, a very slippery slope indeed in a world where many men are all too ready to duck their responsibilities.

And it's irresponsible stories like this that perpetuate dangerous, offensive stereotypes and misconceptions. For the vast, vast majority of us, having a baby is quite a big enough deal without adding deception and ruses to the mix. Guys, wanna avoid this? Don't sleep with someone crazy, because literally no one rational is pulling this. Your DNA is not that appealing. Oh, and wear a condom. The needle thing is too obvious for most of us crazy baby-grubbers, anyway.

That Was No "Accident" [Details]

Bustles, corsets, Wonderbras, that padded-booty underwear from Frederick's Of Hollywood — women have been dealing with figure-enhancing apparel for centuries. But the codpiece has come (heh) and gone. So it's interesting that Calvin Klein is trying to appeal to a man's vanity — or insecurity — when that's usually territory marketers use on women.

Sometimes stuff like this is like alcoholism: The first step is admitting you have a problem. You have to be willing to be labeled as "that" kind of person. It's easier with drugstore items like conditioner for "dry and damaged" hair or cleanser for "oily" skin. You can march up to the counter owning your issues, like, yeah, I'm dry and damaged and oily, so what?

But some men place so much importance on their junk, you've got to wonder if this is enabling, in a way. Or telling: Wouldn't you automatically assume there's a problem in that area?

Miller spoke with Ray Lopez, a Macy's sales guy. "When I first tried them on, it was like, ‘Whoa! Do other people notice this?'" Ray says. "You feel more confident. You have people who wear the skinny jean, and the only thing you see is the bulge. These work with the whole body." Miller, of course, tried the jeans on:

They were a breakthrough! Such comfort, such support! And yes, my confidence was bigger! It looked bigger, at least.

Ah, yes: The illusion of change. Something push-up bra, Spanx and makeup-wearing women are quite familiar with. Welcome to our world.

Something Is Getting Between Him and His Calvins [NY Observer]

Like just about every Megan Fox interview, her comments veer from annoying to awesome... sometimes in the same paragraph. We're tired of hearing about how she's "completely, hysterically insecure" about her appearance and hates people looking at her (well, that goes for all starlets). But then she admits to Cosmo that she lies in interviews because she's bored. Whether quotes like, "male actors drop lines about their private jets, trying to seem powerful, but I don't give a shit. I don't need someone else's power. I'm obtaining my own" are true or not, they're certainly entertaining. Sadly, the rest of the magazine doesn't promote Megan's view of female power. In the article "Why He Calls You a Nag When You're Not," writer Matt Titus informs us that, "No matter how much we love you, we're only capable of listening to about 20 percent of what you have to say." According to his armchair psychoanalysis:

"In guys' minds we already did everything a woman (i.e. Mom) asked for 18 years, and it almost killed us. But now that we are, ahem, all grown up, we don't want to be told what to do. If we do everything our girlfriends and wives say, we will actually lose our manly status and turn into children again. Yes, we really think that."

Titus offers a tip for ladies who want to get their man to do what they want without nagging: simply walk out of the room when he's doing something that bothers you. In Cosmo's world playing games is always preferable to having a civilized conversation or treating guys like fellow human beings. But, that goes both ways. Our favorite sex tip from this issue involves your boyfriend treating you like a piece of meat... literally:

Have him tie your hands with a scarf and hang them on a hook on his door (the kind you would hang your coat or towel on) before he tantalizes you with oral. Since you'll feel totally like his sex toy, you can add to the arousal of being restrained by begging him to "release" you and let you orgasm."

What could be hotter than having sex while hanging from a meat hook? Oh right, using your dirty thong as a hair tie.

(Click on the image below to enlarge.)

Earlier: Cosmo: Wear Your Dirty Panties Around Your Ponytail

When Troy Patterson wrote a light-hearted piece about "girl-watching" in DoubleX last month, it provoked a predictable controversy in comments. Some women brought up serious larger issues of objectification, sexualization and the fact that the male gaze is by no means always innocuous and should not be trivialized. Others said they were flattered by respectful glances. Some men wrote in to say that their looks were natural and expressed nothing but admiration of a far wider range of characteristics than women might assume. Objectification, predatory behavior, sexualization - these are all things we've discussed, and bear discussing more, although it's not what I want to talk about now, to the extent they can be separated. My own feeling, frankly, was that anyone worrying about keeping his gaze respectful isn't the one making my walk home from the subway a daily ordeal. And contrary to what guys may believe, we can generally tell the difference between an insolent, visually-stripping leer and an admiring glance.

And then there are those guys who make such intense eye-contact that it becomes almost weirder than if he'd just looked down and gotten it out of the way. I get wanting to look, and for me it's not even sexual. People look at each other. And women's bodies are beautiful. They draw the eye, and sometimes you just want to look, stare even. It's like Isaac Mizrahi once said, "I mean, breasts! They're beautiful! All breasts!" Now, he's a habitual gay boob-grabber, which is a whole other thing and Not Okay, but I feel him: maybe it's because we all had moms, but what's not to love about female curves? Sometimes there are days (granted, usually when I'm in an emotional frame of mind) where everyone is so stunning and in such wholly different ways that I get tears in my eyes. (These tend to be the same days the bounty of produce at the greenmarket makes me sob.)

Of course, women have other reasons to look. Sometimes it's about comparisons. Not so much qualitative, for me, as "she's about my size - could I get away with that length?" or, "she looks like my friend," which I suspect isn't something men do, because I know men in my life have been less than scintillated when I've made such looks-like-friend-whom-you-may-not-know observations. And then of course there's clothes. I love looking at outfits, getting ideas, admiring creativity and proportion, seeing "runway-to-reality," guessing what people do. Do I check out men? Sometimes, I guess - but like men's clothing, it's so much less interesting! I might think a guy's cute, sure, or dressed like an ass, but by and large I find it a lot less engaging. Men, at least in America, tend to be less expressive with their bodies and faces and certainly with their clothing, and for the most part make for dull viewing.

I don't mean to suggest I sit around like some peeping Tom with binoculars. But if I'm eating on a bench, it's the ladies I'll watch. And sometimes, yes, it's awkward. You simply can't stare at a woman's body for a long time without it being inappropriate, and you simply can't look down women's dresses, even if it's totally asexual and she's wearing a really low-cut dress and it's just like an arrow pointing down and, like shouting in church, you just want to do it because it's bad and it's there and you could and it's forbidden. Or nipples. If there are visible nipples it's really hard, both because you empathize and because, well, there they are! I can only imagine what it would be like if there were also a sexual imperative at work. Similarly, sometimes you catch women staring at your breasts. And even if it doesn't feel sexual or predatory, it's a little weird. Because you've caught her doing something, and you both know it, and you don't have necessarily the visceral sense of violation you would if it were a man, and you wonder if maybe the weirdness is just conditioned because, what? They're just breasts - but it's weird nonetheless. The difference is, when it's a woman, I probably won't reflexively cross my arms. Something Bayley wouldn't really get.

Taking Pleasure In The Female Form [Telegraph]

Related: A Dandy's Guide To Girl-Watching [DoubleX]

The "secret signs" turn out to be mostly cute anecdotes from women in committed relationships. Anecdotes like, "my husband walks two blocks to Starbucks for my coffee every morning." Number one sign "he's into you:" you're married. And I'm not sure if they count as part of the "73 must-know man-facts," but the "15 Guys We Love to Look At" constitute their very own Photoshop of Horrors, given that their arms have been bizarrely manipulated to look like they're holding hands with each other (Terrell Owens, p. 302, looks especially upsetting). Also, my issue did not contain a $500 sticker. Or a kitten, which seems about equally likely.

The essay, by Cathleen Calbert, starts out cute.

John Wayne was a man. The young Marlon Brando was a guy - didn't you see the hurt and indecision in his eyes in "On the Waterfront"? Rock Hudson was a man. James Dean was a guy...On the other hand, I want the E.M.T.'s who show up when I've collapsed to be men, not guys. I don't want someone responsible for saving my life to be torn up about the death of his dog or how some chick hurt his feelings.

You get the idea: "men" are competent and 1950s-repressed. "Guys" are arrested and boyish, but in touch with their feelings. She likes guys.

And then:

After I was molested in a deserted schoolyard, my father explained to me the difference between boys and men. "If it's a man," he told me, "you don't scream. With a boy, you scream." The logic being, I suppose, that a man would do whatever it took to make you stop screaming whereas boys still have fear in them; a boy would run away.

Her dad goes after the teenage molestors and scares them. "That's what a man does. He takes revenge...My father didn't speak to me again about that day. That's also what a man does." Then it becomes all about her dad, distant and mid-century-repressed and unable to give the author more than this harsh guardianship. He dies when she's young, and she thinks that's okay because "I suspect we would not be on speaking terms had he lived."

It's a good, personal essay. But what I found kind of ironic about it is that she's let her dad's harshness color her perception of the world as starkly as he did. "Men" and "guys." "Her dad" and "people she likes." Of course, everyone does this to a degree, but I think the binary she outlines isn't uncommon: we've got the repressed masculinity of a Don Draper and modern guys, and as a culture we've never reconciled the two at all. Even now, the dudes we see on ads or TV tend to be goobers or douches, with not much in-between. Men have to be harmless or they're...not, just as her dad viewed every boy the author dated as a potential molester. We cut "guys" slack. We hold them to a lower standard. Even growing up with a loving, sensitive dad, I fall into this: I've talked about dating "grownups," the men in suits who take you on real dates - as opposed to the vaguely-careered sensitive types who don't seem to have earned the "man" appellation. Time was, this limbo didn't exist.

And that can't be easy. It's easy to blame the Boomers here, but hell, we're adults in a post-existentialist world, with a degree of buck-stopping autonomy nowadays. We know well that stark gendered expectations are constricting, and surely "guy" and "man" is as damaging as "girl" and "woman?" And the truth is, we can like both, because people can be both - but only if we let them, right?

Forget The Men. Pick a Guy. [NYT]