Women’s tough love rules dating

The Female Dating Strategy, an all-women forum, boasts principles such as ‘We Have the Responsibility to Be Ruthless in Our Evaluation of Men’.

Apps such as Tinder, Bumble and Hinge have changed the rules of dating.

Valentine’s Day can be a fraught occasion for couples, but if you’re single, the pressure is even worse.

Back in 1995, single women looking for help in navigating the dating landscape could turn to the book The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr Right, which issued straightforward instructions such as “Let him take the lead” and “Don’t rush into sex”. It was mocked by some women for its antiquated, anti-feminist messages, but it clearly spoke to the many readers who turned it into a surprise bestseller.

Today, apps such as Tinder, Bumble and Hinge have utterly transformed dating, raising questions about authenticity and honesty that didn’t exist before the internet. But social norms haven’t caught up to the challenge. Instead, an entirely new vocabulary has emerged to describe the often bewildering experience of finding a romantic partner, from catfishing (creating a false online identity) to breadcrumbing (sending flirtatious, noncommittal messages) to ghosting (going silent to end a relationship).

Yet people still crave rules and norms. Without them, we end up with unsatisfying solutions such as Tinder’s recently announced plan to add a “panic button” to its dating app so people can alert friends if their date is going poorly or if they feel they’re at risk of being physically (rather than merely emotionally) harmed.

Enter Reddit, the self-described “front page of the internet”, which hosts more than a million discussion forums, including Female Dating Strategy.

With about 50,000 members, FDS is billed as “the first and only all-women dating subreddit”, where participants anonymously “discuss effective dating strategies for women who want to take control of their dating lives”.

MORE ON RELATIONSHIPS: The woman celebrities hire to fix their relationships | Live part, stay together: older couples lead new relationships frontier | Strategies to ease pressure on relationships when job stress spills into family life

Judging by their personal disclosures, FDSers are a diverse lot. Women from around the world, and from different racial, socio-economic and educational backgrounds, take part in the discussions. Contributors talk frankly about their sex lives, their breakups, their divorces and their dates — and some of the conversations are not for the prudish.

Newcomers are encouraged to read the extensive FDS Handbook, which includes principles such as “Be a High-Value Woman”, “Don’t Have Sex Before Commitment” and “We Have the Responsibility to Be Ruthless in Our Evaluation of Men”.

Although the last principle sounds harsh, it’s actually practical advice in the age of dating apps. Today’s Tinderella must swipe through a lot of ugly profiles to find her prince.

“We do ourselves and humanity no favours allowing men to exhibit subpar behaviour and be rewarded with our attention. Thus, be ruthless in cutting off men who add no value to your life,” the FDS Handbook states.

Men in other Reddit forums are often highly critical of FDS women, describing them as man-hating or gold-diggers. It’s true that some of the FDS conversations about men can be severe. The site distinguishes between “low-value men” and “high-value men”. LVMs do things like lie about wanting a serious relationship when they only want sex (“future-faking”), refuse to make an effort to plan proper dates or are simply not financially independent, responsible adults.

But most of the tough love is directed by women at one another. There may be a lot of LVMs, according to Female Dating Strategy, but there are also far too many women willing to tolerate bad behaviour from them. Regular contributors are adept at shutting down newcomers who spend more time complaining about the men in their lives than exploring why they chose them in the first place.

In other words, these women have high expectations for men, but they also set high standards for themselves. As one contributor noted recently, “Part of being a bad bitch is levelling up: professionally, emotionally, physically, spiritually. We don’t ask anything of our potential partners that we haven’t already asked of ourselves 10 times over.”

The strategies that FDSers endorse, particularly for online dating, are backed by scientific research. In a 2010 study in the journal Computer Science by data scientist Andrew Fiore and colleagues, women were found to be more selective than men when it comes to assessing potential suitors and more distrustful of men who didn’t respect the preferences that women stated for a match.

But choosing wisely based on what someone’s profile says about them isn’t easy. Everyone lies; the Cornell University communications researchers Catalina Toma and Jeffrey Hancock found that men tend to lie about their height and women about their weight. Everyone is offering only selective disclosures about themselves.

That turns out to be a rational strategy. A 2007 study by Michael Norton, Jeana Frost and Dan Ariely in the Journal of Personal and Social Psychology found that when it comes to online dating, “although people believe that learning more about others leads to greater liking, more information about others leads, on average, to less liking”. In other words, the more ambiguous a person’s profile is, the more likely it is that interested potential matches will have to fill in the blanks with their best guesses.

Questioning, debating and sometimes rewriting the rules of dating in real time, as the women on FDS are doing, may seem like a romance-killer. In fact, by questioning the expectations that many men bring to online dating — such as the idea that it’s acceptable to send a woman unsolicited pictures of their genitalia — FDS is exerting a traditional, civilising influence on a non-traditional and largely uncivilised landscape. If love is a battlefield, communities such as Female Dating Strategy are trying to better arm some of the combatants.

The Wall Street Journal