GOTN Avatar

My brand new system on how to be the best at dating

Did you know that men have evolved to have slightly louder voices than women? Well, it’s true. As a general rule, men will speak at a higher volume than women do, and will tend to dominate more conversations. This is because, in our evolutionary past, it was necessary for men to put in most of the hard work to find mates. Alongside the usual: standing around looking rugged, they also used their mating megaphones (a primitive feature which eventually evolved into the mouth) to shout for female attention. ‘Ugg!’, or what have you – I don’t know, I don’t speak neanderthal, but it was basically a primitive version of ‘hey darling, I am ready to impregnate you in order to further the species! Check out my spaff-packets and make your choice!’ The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, before you start writing me angry letters about how actually neanderthal men communicated by dropping a dead mammoth at the feet of their lover, please understand that I made all of the above up. I mean, obviously.

The initial fact may or may not be true, I don’t know. It sounds maybe a bit plausible, doesn’t it? That men have evolved louder voices? I’ve not checked it, of course, that would take ages. But what I have done is constructed a vaguely plausible story as to why people might have evolved that way, then carefully ignored any facts or examples that might not fit.

Do I win £5?

Crappy evolutionary dating theories

Believe it or not, I get sent quite a few emails from people who have found The Answer when it comes to dating – ‘how to be an alpha male by killing the metaphorical 21st century mammoth’ or what have you. Normally I delete and ignore.

Yesterday’s captured my imagination, though, because it was funnier than the others.

The theory is called ‘Nymphs and Satyrs’ and is based on the idea that there are essentially ‘masculine’ qualities and ‘feminine’ qualities and we are all a combination of some of these things, and the people you will likely match with (for breeding) will be of a complementary type. There are four types because reasons, and those four types are:

  • Female (nymph)
  • Female (muse)
  • Male (satyr) and
  • Male (centaur)

It’s sneakily designed to appeal to one of my best fantasies: to be fucked by a man who is also a horse.

Unfortunately, it’s also fully bullshit. Which is a shame, because I quite fancied being a ‘Hot Dancing Nymph’ (as the author of the website said I probably was). What’s a ‘hot dancing nymph’, I hear you cry? I have looked and I can tell you it means I am romantically intense, and that my ‘creative centre of gravity’ is ‘dancing’ which means that next time I am throwing drunk shapes you are not allowed to laugh.

The Nymphs and Satyrs theory is based on some cobbled-together evolutionary theory muddied by some fairly basic cosmology. Once you’ve got your ‘type’ sorted then it will tell you what you’re best suited to, via a combination of Barnum statements and wild generalisations. For example, my ‘hot dancing nymph’ type is described as:

“typically disorganized, messy, and habitually late. They’re terrible with money. Their weight tends to fluctuate, and they’re prone to emotional outbursts. Men often refer to this type of woman as “crazy.”

“When seen in an N&S light, however, the Hot Dancing Nymph’s behavior makes sense. She channels a lot of Feminine energy, and the Feminine is about flow. So, she eschews organization because it impedes flow. In her house, items flow into available space. Her time and money flow freely, without regimentation. Also, she channels so much Feminine energy that its flow can easily become chaotic, which gets expressed as crying, yelling, melting down, etc.”

Most of that’s quite specific, but there are plenty of broad things thrown in to other descriptions which could easily apply to anyone. The feminine ‘warm painting nymph’, for example, ‘feels things deeply’ and also has a figure that ‘will vary from gamine to plump.’

If you’ve heard all the gendered stuff above and wondered ‘is this Complex Theory Of Love only applicable to straight cis couples?’ then you are not alone. I wondered the same thing, and asked the author, to which he replied:

“My gay friends asked me the same thing, but I didn’t feel qualified to comment on LGBT people.”

I’ve paraphrased because I offered him the chance to do a right of reply/direct quote and he declined. When I pushed him, and said that the theory seemed to actively erase/ignore LGBT people, he said:

“It’s about breeding pairs. But also I have mentioned gay people, and they can also be described by one of the 17 erotic types too.”

So he is simultaneously not qualified to offer thoughts on LGBT people, and also offering some thoughts on LGBT people. This, combined with a delightfully reductive view of sex and gender (feminine energy is ‘relationship-oriented’ and ‘flowing’ while masculine energy is ‘independent’ and ‘structured’) naturally raised all of my hackles.

I sent him a link to a neat overview of why the whole ‘male brain versus female brain’ thing isn’t as simple as sexists like to think. He then asked me to disprove his arguments one by one in order for him to take my criticism seriously. I don’t want to do this, because if I did it for every bullshit science thing that lands in my inbox, I would be here until December dissecting Viagra claims. But if you would like to have a look at them, here are a couple of his links (via donotlink).

I should probably stop now because it’s unfair of me to pick too much on him when there are plenty of other people peddling similarly awful ideas on how to be the best at dating and relationships – if it were just one person I wouldn’t bother writing about it, but there is a LOT of this stuff out there.

Is any given dating theory bullshit?

Maybe it would be nice to have a neat scientific system which told us exactly how to live life in order to achieve the greatest success. A set of ‘Rules’ we could follow, for instance, or a ‘Game’ we could play where the outcome was guaranteed as long as you follow the steps correctly. Getting laid is hard, being in love is hard. Deciding whether you want to do those things, and if so how and with whom – it’s all REALLY REALLY HARD.

But, as with science, so with relationships: just because something’s hard doesn’t mean you get to make up a system based on What You Reckon and then tell everyone that’s how it works. Even great evolutionary biologists will scratch their heads if you ask them (which I have, many times, probably to their annoyance) if there’s any truth in evolutionary theories of dating: most likely their answer will be “it’s far more complicated than that.” Because, while evolution naturally has a place in how we behave, human interaction is far more complex than ‘Ugg make baby.’

  • Why did this person do X or Y, while another person did Z?
  • What gives this person a higher sex drive than that person, in this specific scenario?
  • Why are some people monogamous and others polyamorous?

These are all interesting questions, and it’s likely that – when applied to individuals – the answer will involve a far more interesting story than just ‘well she’s a Hot Nymph and he’s a Horseman and naturally their chemistry means that they were destined to end up building IKEA furniture together,’ because alongside evolutionary drivers we also have society and culture and individual features and all that stuff. Like the brilliant parodies Dean Burnett writes in the Guardian, in which he gives men and women ‘scientific tips’ on how to attract a mate, most of these dating theories rely on taking one piece of information (or a single isolated study), and applying it willy-nilly regardless of other factors.

Bottom line – dating ‘theories’ like this one are similar (in substance as well as method of argument) to those of almost any pseudoscience. They sound plausible, and they tell a fun story, but the truth is far more complicated, and a hell of a lot more interesting. While it might seem nice if we had all the answers, I think the individual challenge is actually a pretty good thing: after all if I’m going to fuck a centaur, I want to feel like I’ve really worked for it.


  • RB says:

    ‘Breeding couples’. Mmm, sexy.

  • Russell says:

    “He then asked me to disprove his arguments one by one…”

  • Oddtwang says:

    Back in the seventies I was in a very famous porno book
    I’m Bojoy of Sexman, don’t you want to fuck?

  • Roee says:

    You can tell the fella or gal they might want look into BAHfest – Festival of Bad ad Hoc Hypotheses.

  • Drunken Centaur says:

    I’m a drunken centaur. I have an enormous horse penis, however thanks to years of alcohol abuse I have a perennially flaccid enormous horse penis and am thus, sadly, an evolutionary dead end (and on soooo many levels :P).

  • Dawn says:

    According to every piece of information I’ve ever read my ex should have been the perfect match for me. Long story short, he wasn’t. It’s all centaur crap!

  • Fuck being a nymph (or muse). I’m a bedamned Satyr, don’t you know? *waggles hairy bollocks and long cock in the general direction of the world*

    xx Dee

  • Azkyroth says:

    Is any given dating theory bullshit?

    Any dating theory that can be reduced to the facetious description of “Twatobots and Erecticons” can safely be assumed to be bullshit.

  • Azkyroth says:

    after all if I’m going to fuck a centaur, I want to feel like I’ve really worked for it.

    So you’re going back to school for genetics, is what you’re saying? :D

  • On a more serious note, aren’t we lucky we don’t have to go through all the stress of asking the other sex out. We can make it clear to them that we fancy them, but it is still them who have to pop the question.

    So, how to be the best at dating is simply to be the one who can best attract the opposite sex to the point where they will risk their credibility by asking you out. Then you can totally stuff them by saying ‘no’.

    I didn’t girls are never cruel, did I?

    Anyway, this is far too serious for your discussion, by far. Is Centaur-style the new doggy, I wonder?

    • Girl on the net says:

      Not too serious – I think you raise an interesting point, but I disagree with your first premise. I don’t think that men should always do the asking and women should wait to be asked. I think it’s a bit outdated, and it creates a dodgy power imbalance and also encourages us to think in terms of gendered behaviour rather than individual behaviour. In short: if I fancy someone I’ll ask him, and if he fancies me I’d hope he’d make a move – if both of us fancy each other it’s just a question of who’s quickest off the mark!

  • Scott says:

    Making men and only men shoulder the task of ‘popping’ the question is a huge reason why all these skewed dating advice pages exist in the first place. Men can’t all be go-getters. Some are quiet, introverted, shy, and even anxious. I personally had to take a social anxiety workshop just to learn how to approach strangers in public and interact with them because all my life it terrified me, and it’s been hardest for me to approach women around my age. There’s an equal number of men and women in the group learning new skills. Besides myself I’ve had plenty of male friends who were too shy to make any moves, even with women who clearly showed they liked them. I don’t think many of them would have found it unfeminine for the woman to ask them out. They probably would have felt very relieved and less afraid if this was equalled out.
    Another reason I think this should evolve is because not only does it uphold old stereotypical ‘rules’, but it also contributes somewhat to this misogynistic culture. You get guys like Eliot Rodger who were too afraid to learn how to approach and talk to women, and they grow angry and bitter because they’re not allowed by society to feel and express what they truly feel inside. Which is often shame, embarrassment, vulnerability, or a mix of the three. Their bitterness leads them to stuff like “Red Pill” and “The Rational Male” that teaches them about ‘alpha males’, ‘cock carousels’, and other forms of hate. That’s the far end of the spectrum of course, some just get very depressed. But events like the Isla Vista shooting will unfortunately keep happening until society stops requiring all men to be strong, confident, and extroverted, and punishing the men that don’t fit the narrow mold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.