Active and Passive Male Characters

[NoTalentHack]

So I was talking specifically about stories that model behaviour that gives useful answers to "how do I get a girlfriend"? My not-too-well-informed impression is that a lot of the LW stories with a romantic happy ending don't fit that bill. Of those I've read, there was a lot of "and then I met a hot and loyal woman who recognised the injustices I'd faced and took my side" without talking much about how the guy made himself worth having.

Is that accurate, or am I misjudging the category? You know LW much better than I do.

It kind of depends.

As pink_silk_glove pointed out, it's possible to write the "boring guy gets jumped by sexually aggressive woman" story well or poorly, BUT the vast majority of the stories like that on the site (and elsewhere) that follow that basic plot mostly don't. However, there are some good ones out there where they do attempt to write an actual story, where the characters do have some reason to act the way they do besides "lol porn."

LW is not immune to the "99% of everything is shit" rule, of course.

There are certainly plenty of ones like you described, where the guy basically doesn't change at all after his divorce, because there was never anything wrong with him in the first place, dammit! If we're honest, though, there are a lot of female-POV romance that's basically the same thing, though. "You were always a queen, you did nothing wrong, and the fact that a billionaire vampire is pursuing you is proof of that" is kind of the flipside to the dude romance version.

bruce1971 talks about this a lot in his essay LW Notes: The Redemption Arc, which I consider a must-read for anyone wanting to dip their toes into the marital drama subgenre.

The problem with the BTB/RAAC divide is that they're usually about the wife, not the main character. In the case of BTB, the main character spends hours trying to find a way to make his ex wife's life a living hell. In the case of RAAC, he spends hours trying to find a way to dig deep for forgiveness while making her love him again. In both cases, though, it's about her.

Seriously, think about it: A BTB revenge requires hours thinking about her needs and desires. What would hurt her the worst? What would destroy her world? What bizarre Mission Impossible scheme can he come up with to bring everything crashing around her ears?

And most RAAC stories aren't much better. In those, the main character is trying to figure out how he can change his personality in order to find forgiveness--while, at the same time, making his cheating spouse aware of how much she stands to lose. In both cases, he's thinking about her--her psychology, her needs, her failures, and how to adjust himself to remain married to her.

In both RAAC and BTB, the main character isn't thinking about himself. But what if he did?

In a few stories, the main character starts down this path. What can he do to heal? How can he rebuild himself to be stronger and more complete? What will the rest of his life look like--and is it something he can be happy with? How can he become the kind of person who can't be destroyed by a cheating spouse?

And that's the real story. Because, at the end of the day, the question isn't about whether you destroy the person who hurt you or learn to live with her. The question is how do you make yourself whole again. And the answer doesn't lie with a cheating spouse--in fact, the answer lies with everything BUT the cheating spouse.

He lists several great stories in the essay that are basically about this, and I can think of quite a few more, almost all of them highly rated. And I don't mean just by LW standards, but in general. Several are hall of fame stories over there. I will say that a lot of the stories in this vein are... the protagonists' actions are often not "learn how to date" (although there are some) but more "reconnect with yourself and who you were before you let yourself go." Again, another parallel with a lot of female-POV romances.

However, those type of stories require more effort on the part of the writer, which some writers either aren't able or don't want to put forth. And, just like the women reading "Harlequin Romance Mad Libs #374," the readers are more than willing to ignore the lacklustre quality of the stories to get what they wanted, i.e., "protagonist I can identify with gets what they want in a way I find comforting."

 

[TheRedChamber]

No doubt. But many women don't find that an appealing prospect, and that particular version of "free" often comes with significant strings attached.

I think part of where these thought experiments tend to fail is that the MRA versions are very often predicated on the assumption that any attention is better than no attention, and that's just not a universally accepted axiom.

Or as somebody or other put it: "how can you complain about being hungry when there's a stale hot dog bun in that dumpster?"

[Marvin the Paranoid Android voice]
"You think you've got problems. What do you do if you *are* a stale hot dog bun in a dumpster?"

Betty turned down Norbert, Dwayne and Horace this week. That's completely her right. If she feels 'no boyfriend' is better than any of the choices on offer that's the right decision. She still moans daily to her friends that she can't find a 'good' man.

Meamwhile when Norbert, Dwayne and Horace complain about not being able to find a girlfriend, the response is 'have you tried not being a stale hot dog bun in a dumpster? I feel that might help.'

But obviously Betty has it worse because as she had to deal with 'unwanted approaches' as well as an absense of 'wanted approaches'

Somehow though no-one ever compares Betty to low quality waste food.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Read @TheRedChamber's Double Fault. For sure the characters are driving the plot. I was very impressed.

Double Fault has a terrific plot.

Also, Double Fault was really good.

If nothing else, this thread is very good for my ego (after publishing on LW which was, ahem, less good for my ego)

My impression is that a lot of that certain type of story in LW count as therapy for men, rather than romance exactly - which is why the category is so popular despite having so little sex in a lot of the stories. Whether the answer to cheating and divorce is revenge or moving on, it kind of addresses problems that men face that aren't always dealt with in mainstream fiction - at least, not always from the male point of view.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

My impression is that a lot of that certain type of story in LW count as therapy for men, rather than romance exactly - which is why the category is so popular despite having so little sex in a lot of the stories. Whether the answer to cheating and divorce is revenge or moving on, it kind of addresses problems that men face that aren't always dealt with in mainstream fiction - at least, not always from the male point of view.

I just read all of the comments on Double Fault and about three-quarters of them mention 'cuck' or 'cuck shit'.

It wasn't a cuck story!

It was a couple-sharing story - a willing couple-sharing story. The one comment said that it didn't belong in the tag space. What tag space? You only used five tags and two of them were 'yay team' for the event! The only kink tag was 'couple-sharing'! How did it not belong?

This just shows how warped the minds of these readers are. They are so bent on shaming cuckold stories that they will find them even where they aren't. Some folks could use some professional help.

 

[Voboy]

I don't play in LW as a rule, but I did post an early story there and the engagement surprised me (it was before I'd read all that much in the AH).

It amazes me, as virulent as the readership seems to be, that they don't seem to spread to other categories. Or, not much seemingly.

 

[AG31]

It amazes me, as virulent as the readership seems to be, that they don't seem to spread to other categories. Or, not much seemingly.

Yes, that is a puzzle.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't play in LW as a rule, but I did post an early story there and the engagement surprised me (it was before I'd read all that much in the AH).

It amazes me, as virulent as the readership seems to be, that they don't seem to spread to other categories. Or, not much seemingly.

Don't encourage them. There's a chasm across Lit for a reason.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Don't encourage them. There's a chasm across Lit for a reason.

Yes, please, don't poke the bear.

 

[Voboy]

So... I shouldn't have submitted my latest story, "Hey LW Trolls! Come Kiss My Ass Over In Erotic Couplings!" then?

Wonder if it's too late to pull it.

 

[MillieDynamite]

LOL

So... I shouldn't have submitted my latest story, "Hey LW Trolls! Come Kiss My Ass Over In Erotic Couplings!" then?

Wonder if it's too late to pull it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But obviously Betty has it worse because as she had to deal with 'unwanted approaches' as well as an absense of 'wanted approaches'

Somehow though no-one ever compares Betty to low quality waste food.

Not to "um actually", but I assure you guys have plenty of awful ways of talking about women.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Not to "um actually", but I assure you guys have plenty of awful ways of talking about women.

Okay, let me rephrase that...

Somehow, no usually thoughtful and respectful posters on erotic literature forums compare them to low quality waste food.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Okay, let me rephrase that...

Somehow, no usually thoughtful and respectful posters on erotic literature forums compare them to low quality waste food.

If we're going to dissect the parallel, what I was comparing to waste food was not those men but specifically their attention. Putting a negative value on somebody's amorous attentions does not equate to putting a negative value on their existence; the conflation of those two things is a big part of the problem.

 

[TheRedChamber]

If we're going to dissect the parallel, what I was comparing to waste food was not those men but specifically their attention. Putting a negative value on somebody's amorous attentions does not equate to putting a negative value on their existence; the conflation of those two things is a big part of the problem.

It depends on how you define negative attention. We can probably agree that rude, persistant or unreasonably optimistic passes are all types of negative attention. My (MRA-approved) thought experiment earlier dealt with the first two (no rudeness due to a fixed script, and repeated requests not allowed.) I could probably build in a 'unreasonably optimistic' rule somehow. The point is that there are still a lot of men who aren't even getting to the first drink. And as someone who once, twenty years ago, went 0 for 12 at a speed dating event, I'm on their side. Those men are aware that nearly anything they do, however well intentioned, can be counted as negative attention and are desperate to do something for some lady somewhere that counts as positive.

 

[AG31]

It depends on how you define negative attention. We can probably agree that rude, persistant or unreasonably optimistic passes are all types of negative attention. My (MRA-approved) thought experiment earlier dealt with the first two (no rudeness due to a fixed script, and repeated requests not allowed.) I could probably build in a 'unreasonably optimistic' rule somehow. The point is that there are still a lot of men who aren't even getting to the first drink. And as someone who once, twenty years ago, went 0 for 12 at a speed dating event, I'm on their side. Those men are aware that nearly anything they do, however well intentioned, can be counted as negative attention and are desperate to do something for some lady somewhere that counts as positive.

If they are so constructed that an initial pure physical attraction is unlikely, then maybe they should arrange to get into group situations where there is some reason to get to know a person other than a romantic/sexual appeal.

An interesting study was conducted a while ago (years? decades?) where strangers of the opposite sex were asked to share private information about themselves. I don't remember the structure and I don't remember what kind of info. This was to last for 30 minutes. In a huge proportion of the situations the couple found themselves romantically attracted to one another at the end.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

An interesting study was conducted a while ago (years? decades?) where strangers of the opposite sex were asked to share private information about themselves. I don't remember the structure and I don't remember what kind of info. This was to last for 30 minutes. In a huge proportion of the situations the couple found themselves romantically attracted to one another at the end.

You don't by any chance remember more about that study? Because that sounds like it could be a story. I mean, not just the idea that sharing personal info can lead to an attraction, but the idea of being a subject of that experiment.

-Billie

 

[AG31]

You don't by any chance remember more about that study? Because that sounds like it could be a story. I mean, not just the idea that sharing personal info can lead to an attraction, but the idea of being a subject of that experiment.

-Billie

I wish I could remember enough to find it! It rang true to me.

 

[StillStunned]

You don't by any chance remember more about that study? Because that sounds like it could be a story. I mean, not just the idea that sharing personal info can lead to an attraction, but the idea of being a subject of that experiment.

-Billie

Didn't they try the experiment on an episode of The Big Bang Theory? With Penny and Sheldon.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The point is that there are still a lot of men who aren't even getting to the first drink. And as someone who once, twenty years ago, went 0 for 12 at a speed dating event, I'm on their side. Those men are aware that nearly anything they do, however well intentioned, can be counted as negative attention and are desperate to do something for some lady somewhere that counts as positive.

This is hard for me to answer because I just don't get how speed dating or that whole "hi can I buy you a drink?" bit works for anybody. I guess it must do for some folk, seeing as it's still a thing, but it's just such a foreign concept to me. I can't fathom how one's supposed to learn anything significant about another person in just a few minutes in an artificial situation where people are focussing on selling themselves.

(Or at least, anything good-significant; there are some fast ways to establish oneself as M. Wrong.)

I've never picked up or been picked up by a stranger; most of the people I've slept with/dated have been people I knew as friends for months beforehand, often years. That way we have time to learn about one another in a lower-pressure situation where we're not trying to impress.

If they are so constructed that an initial pure physical attraction is unlikely, then maybe they should arrange to get into group situations where there is some reason to get to know a person other than a romantic/sexual appeal.

This. I was part of a writing group, pre-Literotica, and it was a pretty efficient matchmaker.

 

[Bramblethorn]

LW is not immune to the "99% of everything is shit" rule, of course.

Fair, and likewise romance.

There are certainly plenty of ones like you described, where the guy basically doesn't change at all after his divorce, because there was never anything wrong with him in the first place, dammit! If we're honest, though, there are a lot of female-POV romance that's basically the same thing, though. "You were always a queen, you did nothing wrong, and the fact that a billionaire vampire is pursuing you is proof of that" is kind of the flipside to the dude romance version.

Yep, "99% of everything" applies there too.

The ones I've been enjoying, both straight and queer, are generally written with two protagonists who get roughly even POV time. It's not the only way to write a good story, but it does help to make sure both characters get fleshed out and have their own motives beyond being the external validation/sex that the other party needs.

 

[TheRedChamber]

This is hard for me to answer because I just don't get how speed dating or that whole "hi can I buy you a drink?" bit works for anybody. I guess it must do for some folk, seeing as it's still a thing, but it's just such a foreign concept to me. I can't fathom how one's supposed to learn anything significant about another person in just a few minutes in an artificial situation where people are focussing on selling themselves.

I've never picked up or been picked up by a stranger; most of the people I've slept with/dated have been people I knew as friends for months beforehand, often years. That way we have time to learn about one another in a lower-pressure situation where we're not trying to impress.

If they are so constructed that an initial pure physical attraction is unlikely, then maybe they should arrange to get into group situations where there is some reason to get to know a person other than a romantic/sexual appeal.

It all boils down to how much you think overall attraction is made up of instantaneous physical attraction and longer-term appreciation of their character. (for different people in different measures).

It's like the running joke in Friends where Joey's pick-up line is always 'Hey, how you doing?' because he's so attractive he literally doesn't need anything else. Presumably two stunningly attractive people spend ten minutes eyeing each other up on the dancefloor (or wherever), recognize the mutual attraction and he doesn't need a 'move', he just goes over and asks a question he's already pretty sure of the answer to.

Speed-dating on the other hand is for those who are aggresively dating. If you've already burnt through all your available acquantances, blind dates might be one of the few options, but blind dates can also been incredibly painful if you have to spend a whole meal (movie, whatever) with someone who it's obvious is wrong in the first five minutes. So give 12 people (as may be) as little time as possible and only go out for a proper date where there's a possibility that there might be something there. (Of course, this does Norbert no favours - he may need time to warm up and bring her round to his particular brand of off-center charm). It's pretty obvious thatspeed dating is not going to work 12 times better than ordinary dating - whether it's even 1 to 1 a good as a well chosen blind date is also doubtful.

Group situations are a good idea - although firstly men who struggle to find girlfriends often don't have many general friends either. Isolation is very real. (It is for women as well, I'm just doing the male side today). The best thing of course is to naturally have a hobby which gets you out and into a social group (if it's an ever rotating social group rather than the same five or six people, all the better).

There's a lovely story by the physicist Richard Fenyman. I may get some of the details wrong, but basically, he described queing up in his freshman week to sign up for an introductory Spanish course. As he's waiting, he sees the most beautiful tall blonde girl join the queue for Portugease next to him. He considers switching queues to talk to her, but then decides it's silly. He's chosen Spanish for logical reasons and he should stick to it. Ten years later he gets a professorship in Brazil. Life lesson - always just follow the girl.

I did a lot of things I didn't really want to do as a student. I went Salsa dancing. I went ballroom dancing - In fact, I got locked into ballroom dancing because my friend was making progress with his dance partner. I spent week after week trying to clumsily maneuver someone (her friend) around the room who clearly didn't feel any physical attraction to me. I went to the French Society events on the basis that even if there weren't women there, there would at least be good cheese and wine. (No, I don't speak French). Another friend took this concept to its logical conclusion and decided that the best bang-for-your-buck could be found at the knitting society. He had, of course, to sell with absolute conviction that he was genuinely interested in cross-stitch, but it worked - he married a group member.

This, of course, leads onto the great problem for the man possessed of negative attraction. He can't 'hey, how you doing?' his target. He has to wait week after week, slowly revealing his hidden depths and caring character to her. In Norbert's case his depths may be so hidden that it would be foolish to make any kind of move until at least six months have passed. By which time he has fallen completely in love with her, but when he reveals his intentions, finds he is still, in her eyes, considered very much negative attention - worse now because they're in a settled friend group which he's just made awkward. It's the dreaded Friendzone which women claim doesn't exist, and is highly sexist to even bring up, but men know better. Instead of sympathy he is told that he should have made his intentions clear from the start - maybe, by having offered to buy her a drink the first five minutes after he met her. Which she would have said no to, but at least it would have been quick and relatively painless. Somewhere, in the two extremes, there was, perhaps that moment, where he could have asked and she might have entertained the idea. If it was there at all, Norbert is still no wiser. He leaves the French society dejected by Collette's rejection and joins the German society determined to make a move on Heidi within at least the first month, but then finds himself thinking 'maybe next week' because, until he asks her, he might not have a girlfriend, but at least he has hope.

Okay, I've probably taken this as far as it's going to go now...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Group situations are a good idea - although firstly men who struggle to find girlfriends often don't have many general friends either. Isolation is very real. (It is for women as well, I'm just doing the male side today).

Absolutely, and having a restricted group of friends makes romance harder too.

I did a lot of things I didn't really want to do as a student. I went Salsa dancing. I went ballroom dancing - In fact, I got locked into ballroom dancing because my friend was making progress with his dance partner. I spent week after week trying to clumsily maneuver someone (her friend) around the room who clearly didn't feel any physical attraction to me. I went to the French Society events on the basis that even if there weren't women there, there would at least be good cheese and wine. (No, I don't speak French). Another friend took this concept to its logical conclusion and decided that the best bang-for-your-buck could be found at the knitting society. He had, of course, to sell with absolute conviction that he was genuinely interested in cross-stitch, but it worked - he married a group member.

...wait, cross-stitch? For a knitting society?

But yes, part of the idea here is to join in activities that one enjoys, or which are at least useful, so that even if they don't lead to a partner the time's not wasted.

This, of course, leads onto the great problem for the man possessed of negative attraction. He can't 'hey, how you doing?' his target. He has to wait week after week, slowly revealing his hidden depths and caring character to her. In Norbert's case his depths may be so hidden that it would be foolish to make any kind of move until at least six months have passed. By which time he has fallen completely in love with her, but when he reveals his intentions, finds he is still, in her eyes, considered very much negative attention - worse now because they're in a settled friend group which he's just made awkward. It's the dreaded Friendzone which women claim doesn't exist, and is highly sexist to even bring up, but men know better. Instead of sympathy he is told that he should have made his intentions clear from the start - maybe, by having offered to buy her a drink the first five minutes after he met her. Which she would have said no to, but at least it would have been quick and relatively painless. Somewhere, in the two extremes, there was, perhaps that moment, where he could have asked and she might have entertained the idea.

Aside: my job includes occasional recruiting, which has led to people asking me for advice on doing job interviews. I always warn that advice on this topic can never be foolproof, because every interviewer has their own ideas about what a good employee looks like and some are in love with weird gimmicks like "the way somebody responds when you offer them a glass of water tells you whether you should hire them".

So it is with dating: there's no guaranteed success strategy, because women are not video games with cheat codes. And among all that diversity, there are women out there who genuinely have a policy of not dating friends. But in most cases, I don't think that's what the "friendzone" is about.

Many women are socialised into the idea that male egos need to be handled with care. Most men might be able to take a rejection with good grace, but unfortunately they don't come with signs on to distinguish from the ones who might react...badly*. So women will often look for gentle, non-ego-threatening ways to let a guy down: "sorry but I have a boyfriend", "I don't date friends", and other white lies that feel less confrontational than "sorry but I don't find you attractive". As somebody who mostly dates women, I find those conciliatory lies exasperating, but I understand where they're coming from.

There's also the problem that some people will fake an interest in friendship merely as a way to get their foot in the door for a relationship, which is obviously a shitty thing to do. Those people get really mad when they're told "I only think of you as a friend", which says a lot about how much they value friendship.

(I knew one lady who met up with a guy after having a flirtatious online friendship and told him apologetically that she wasn't planning on sleeping with him. When he took that in stride and told her he was still happy to hang out, she was so surprised that she ended up changing her mind.)

TLDR, in probably 99% of cases the guy who gets "friendzoned" would not have gotten a better result if he'd pressed his suit earlier. But he does at least get a friend, if that's something he values.

*Say what you like about hot dog buns, but they always respond to rejection with equanimity.

 

[AG31]

Didn't they try the experiment on an episode of The Big Bang Theory? With Penny and Sheldon.

They might have, but what I encountered was real life.

 

[StillStunned]

They might have, but what I encountered was real life.

I mentioned TBBT because it gives an easy point of reference for doing a search. It brought me here: https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/02/12/love-in-the-lab/

 

[TheRedChamber]

But he does at least get a friend, if that's something he values.

Don't give me that My Little Pony shit, it's too early in the morning...

It sounds noble, but, ask yourself, would you really want to spend every Friday night down the pub in a social group consisting of every girl who has ever rejected you, either implicitly or explicitly?

I mean, imagine if they all brought the guys they did choose to date!

There was a great quote I heard recently, I don't remember, it might have even been on this board or in someone's story. It went...

"The good thing about dating a nerd is that you always know where they are...at home, dreading their next social interaction."

Norbert has already given up his WarHammer 4K night to go clog dancing and he's not doing it because he enjoys it! Besides, Norbert is going to catch feelings for his dance partner and great mate whether it makes logical sense or not.

I could go on, but won't.