The Mart of Seduction
by Marc H. RudovShe’s Mad About Money
Do you remember the term mad money? More common in the vernacular of 50 years ago, mad money is cash a woman carries on a date so that, if she and her escort quarrel and separate, she has the means to return home. Ask any woman about this, and she’ll reminisce about her formative years and her mother’s insistence that, while with a man, she must have enough money for an emergency—not for generosity.
Consider the impact on male-female relationships of mothers teaching their impressionable daughters to equate money with mad: it has socialized women to spend money, in the context of men, only in times of anger and self-preservation—and only on themselves. Evidence abounds that this value remains deeply embedded in our culture.
A woman’s expectation that a man would be her primary provider was logical in the days when she was mainly a babymaker and had no chance to become a self-made billionaire (Oprah Winfrey), CEO of Xerox (Anne Mulcahy), president of MIT (Susan Hockfield), or speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi). So, in those times, it was widely accepted that a woman’s sole duty on a date was to be ready on time.
When you think about traditional dating customs, they instruct women in how to be takers. Women always worked as secretaries, nurses, teachers, librarians, and receptionists. So, for them to have felt entitled to fully paid nights on the town, with no obligations to reciprocate—in proportion to their incomes—with treats to movies or softdrinks or hotdogs, is total nonsense. But, reciprocation was taboo. The thinking was: if a woman ever opened her wallet in public, with a man present, she was considered a loser, he a cad.
Men Are the Enablers
Fast-forward to 2007. Women, according to Allianz Group, now control the lion’s share of American wealth (Allianz projects 60% control by 2010). Also, 33% more women than men graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and 50% of shareholders are women.
In addition to professional earnings, women boost their portfolios by becoming widowed, divorced, and unwed mothers—especially when the fathers of their out-of-wedlock babies are star athletes. Finally, add the free meals, jewelry, and vacations women enjoy during dating—wow, do they have a solid path to wealth.
So, in our era of unprecedented female power and wealth, mad money seems obsolete, doesn’t it? The phrase may be passé, but not the concept: most women still expect the man to pay for dinner. Even Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist and pseudo-feminist who questions the necessity of men, expects it. This double standard, this hypocrisy, this female nonsense should outrage all men. It doesn’t. With resignation, these men are the enablers.
Why do most men still choose to be voluntary default financiers of dating, marriage, and divorce? Three reasons. One, they are largely unaware of female-wealth statistics. Two, they find “the female as peer” to be very threatening. Three, they are ignorant about and/or uncomfortable with the lustful female libido. Reason one is easily cured through education. Overcoming reasons two and three, however, require both education and complete attitudinal changes.
Cash Kills Arousal
Last weekend, I made a repeat guest appearance on The Deborah Rowe Radio Program, broadcast from ABC Radio’s WLS in Chicago. Ms. Rowe is a well-known luminary in the City of Big Shoulders and an engaging host who attracts a loyal audience. I enjoy the hunger Deborah’s listeners have for my way of thinking, as evidenced by the e-mails they send me.
The show’s callers, however, are a different story. Most of them seem to feel conflicted about the emancipated woman. To wit: Here is the comment of caller Vicky, a Chicago wife whose attitude about sex and money underscores the chief reason for relationship dysfunction:
“Where I think Marc takes it too far is where you get to the intimacy between a man and a woman. I think that, to respect the capability of women, to be equal, is perfectly fine. But, he’ll be great buddies with whoever he pairs up with. But, when you get to intimacy, women need to be encouraged or enticed into sexual intimacy, and a man always wants it. So, it’s a man’s job to woo the woman.”
Wow! So much useful information packed into her words. First, Vicky claims to like equality for women—until the dinner check arrives. That’s nonsense, not equality. Second, Vicky is not attracted to her husband. If she were, she wouldn’t need him to encourage, entice, or woo her into sex, and she wouldn’t abdicate to him sole responsibility for the mating ritual.
Finally, Vicky equates a reciprocal relationship with friendship, bereft of intimacy. In other words, Vicky provides “intimacy” in exchange for meals—a transaction known as legal prostitution. To Vicky, intimacy is a service, deliverable within the “mart of seduction.” One problem: in the mart of seduction, there is no seduction—only solicitation.
As I’ve written extensively in The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women and Under the Clitoral Hood, seduction has nothing to do with money. In fact, money behind the wining & dining inhibits seduction and sexual arousal. This is why Vicky isn’t attracted to her husband, and she doesn’t even realize it!
Recently, Woman’s Day magazine and AOL surveyed 3,000 married women. According to this survey, more than half of these women were unsure they would marry their husbands again—with more than a third saying they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses. Also, more than 75 percent of them fantasize about other men, and 39 percent constantly flirt with other men.
This survey has Vicky’s name all over it. Even though women are the libido champs, a lot of men don’t want to believe it—frequently grousing that women are uninterested in sex. To each disbeliever, I say: Women aren’t uninterested in sex; they’re uninterested in sex with you—because you pay to bed them. They disrespect you for your lack of game and feel obligated to share your bed. How exciting and erotic can that be?
NoNonsense Bottom Line
In Under the Clitoral Hood, I assert that women go to bed with men for two reasons: raw attraction and wining/dining obligation. Because most women demand to be wined & dined, they will continue to be sexually unfulfilled, fake their orgasms, and flirt with and fantasize about other men. Therein lies the paradox: wining & dining, traditionally tantamount to romance, predetermines that women will end up with men to whom they are not wildly attracted. And, consequently, men will lose two-fold: in the wallet and in the bed.
Yet, as fundamentally flawed as this dynamic is, as emotionally and financially destructive as it is, men and women are not rushing to alter it. Any man who believes that dating is all about entertaining her, about buying her like a hooker, is begging to be taken and will, obviously, attract takers.
Men always have believed that money gives them power, because it helps them attract the hottest women. Big deal. For the right price, anyone can buy a woman—most of them are for sale.
Why, then, does a man feel proud and virile when a woman just wants his money, not him? Because he’s unaware that money, ironically, doesn’t give him power. In fact, the more he flaunts his money, the more women will view him, disdainfully, as an unskilled and easily manipulated target.
If you’d prefer to engage in the art of seduction, rather than the mart of seduction, remove the M (hint: M is for money). If you don’t take away the M, she’ll take it away for you.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 45+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 am and is filed under Vox Populi.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
| 
Print This Post
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Most men don’t exercise, or dress well, and were brought up believing that it doesn’t matter what men look like or act like – as long as they have money they will get women. Many of the overweight guys I know who dress like boys, or old men – don’t read, don’t travel, and many seem to know little more about life than what’s on the news or what’s going on at work. Yet they are still horny and “driven” to mate which puts women, girl friends or wives in an awkard place.
For many wives such men become a bore and a chore. I am not saying that women are better, or worse, but more do dress well, stay slimmer, and read more – and on a few levels many women are more interesting. (I know, men know more about politics, are more fun in some ways, but from men to women it’s not always as interesting) Men discussing the war, or governments usually find that it’s not conversation that leads to romance.
I too get tired of many women writing as if women don’t like sex, the guy wants it, he asked her out so he should pay while they never plan on asking a woman out. I know several younger women who completely look at guys as horny people who can provide amusement, in many ways. Yesterday’s New York Times had a book review of Laura Sessions Stepp’s booy “unhooked” advising women to restrain themselves sexually, somewhat.
She is chided as old school and she has also shared the feelings that women are the “gate keepers” when it comes to sex. Generally speaking she is correct. I think her advice to woman should be extended to men, learn to control your lust, your body, … A man who can’t do that is vulnerable to being used.
As long as most men don’t have much pride when it comes to “getting laid” as long as most men don’t take care of their bodies while they want slim wives, as long as most men let women run the show sexually and dating too, you and I are going to hear women speaking as if when it comes to sex, it’s only up to women, and if men want the women and sex, they are not paying for the woman or sex, they are paying to have the “audition” for a woman and for sex.
There is a small group of men, what is it, two percent, that the sexually active women track down – Those men don’t understand how so many women can act as if all women control all the sex all the time, and there is a percentage of men who just don’t get it – The men who find sex easily don’t see women the way men do who have to get sex the old fashioned way (As a heading in Cosmo mag once suggested) they have to “earn it”
Most men don’t seem to get it, that if a woman doesn’t respect you, doesn’t find you attractive,the idea of having sex seems – bland at best. Those men must pay and pay… The woman and man won’t talk about it because he feels pathetic and she feels slightly whorish, but custom allows little guilt.
I enjoy your comments, articles and so on, Marc, but until boys are taught to take pride in their bodies, and in their lives, and with dating too, they are so often flying into the web thinking they are the pursuer, only to be eaten by a spider.
Hope that doesn’t sound to cynical. I agree with you, men need to stop putting up with it, and most won’t. And as long as they won’t, it’s mostly women who will call the shots about dating,sex, and sometimes marriage (although so many men see how men lose in marriage that on that end women are also starting to lose.)
I think you have balls for going on shows where you know many women are going to resent you. I remember Hookers in a foriegn country threatening women who had sex too easily or for free or low prices because it hurt their own bargaining power. It’s the same here. Convince men that they have little to offer in bed compared to a woman, keep the advertising going with a man’s hand handing a present from outside the frame to a sexy looking women, teach women to “exect” payment, and a guy refusing to do so is insulted and said to not be romantic. It’s a nice system for many women, but not a good system for couples.
I have found the women I have dated over the years, and married (more than once) to be fair, sexy, and willing to share whatever they have. But too many of my friends have not found that. Many of my female friends had to “settle” for less than they wanted too. Life isn’t easy for anyone. Life must be particularly hard for you, standing up to the women’s union and expecting more men to “wake up” … smile
Later, SD
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Mr. Deluca,
You’ve made some thoughtful points, but to suggest that most women keep themselves slim — when clothing-industry statistics show that women are fatter than ever (average size is 14) — while men let themselves go is preposterous.
Finally, life is not particularly hard for me, as you hypothesize. I’m having fun writing about nonsense and being society’s alarm clock.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“You’ve made some thoughtful points, but to suggest that most women keep themselves slim — when clothing-industry statistics show that women are fatter than ever (average size is 14) — while men let themselves go is preposterous.”
Wow! No kidding! I’m in my mid-40’s and the number of women eligible for dating, just from a physical attractiveness vuewpoint, are very few. Yes, women do focus on their appearance very effectively when they are younger – and some maintain this as they age, but the majority want to blame the man when he is unattracted to the blob they have before them. We men are expected to just take a Viagra pill when presented with a woman no human could possibly have a sexual interest in! No thanks, I just focus on those who want me to be physically interested by taking care of themselves!
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
MR
I appreciate your inputs, finally some others get it, I’ve tired somewhat of doing this on my own, one person at a time. I’d like to offer the works of Mr. John Ross in his “Ross in Range” Website as well as the Ladder Theory Website. Useful information there for men of tender years or those just crawling out from under the oppressive rock of American Feminism.
RS: I concur with you observation about the current fattitudes, and have to smile in recollection of having to undergo blue chemical courage and turn the lights off to get er done, proving to me once and for all that it has to be more than just an engaging personality the fills the bill, so to speak(Somewhat similar to the old story about the differences between American and Jap motorcycles, but I digress).
Finally, with some degree of apology to Marc, I submit that everything costs something, it’s just that as one ages the costs become more obvious and more currency based. Youth has its own economy but us older types have to relegate ourselves to being able to spend it or go without.
Enjoy your youth while you may and do what you must to keep it Polyslip rather than Poligrip if you get my drift…
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Red Pill,
If you believe you must “spend it or go without it,” you are correct. Attitude is everything.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
MR
Attitude is everything? Just how old are you? Do you date age-appropriately or do you reap the fields of the naive and hopeful woman-child? As is always the case there is a point between extremes where the truth is usually represented but I don’t anymore linger in the middle of much, thereby not selling any implicit promise of bliss to some girl willing to be swept away for a shot at the big time and big money.
Time was intended to show on a body of both men and women, for more reasons than I’d care to explain at this time. As a favorite line from a song goes “love is always over in the morning” I’ve come to expect that in a world with too few genetically thin and relatively non-psychotic gals at my age bracket. It may well be that men are breaking out of the mold made for them by the gals, but unless you plan on hopping from flower to flower in an ever diminishing garden it’s gonna get at least somewhat commercial even among friends because the gals are staying put with their fantasies until the fatalism or menopause kicks in, whereby the hatred gels and dog and cat collecting takes over. It boils down to a matter of value with respect to finding a reasonably permanant partner. Find whatever works for you.
I’ll be in Negril, west end of the beach…
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Marc:
I keep trying to make your philosophy, or just some of your expressed desires fit with the perceived needs (and wants…sometimes even misguided ones) so often expressed here. What I mean to say is that there is a palpable distrust of women here, and it is not unfounded paranoia. The women have earned the lack of trust by exerting themselves legally and in other ways into the destruction of families and some would say even of society.
Your comments can, for me, ring very true in the dating world, and if we are going to just date our whole life, fine, equality, her place, may place, she pays, I pay, fine, but it blurs in marriage and I don’t think many of the men here really do want this equality the way you describe it for fear of how it would be handled.
If I must trade equality, and my wife have her job and bank account, and we split the bills etc., and THEN she is attracted to me and we have tons of sex (Im over simplifying I know), it seems like a pretty bad relationship to me to be honest. Describe for me how it works in marriage Marc, not in dating…there is a bit more at stake then who buys the popcorn.
Im finding these pieces more and more a pop culture fluff diversion, not much more.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
conservativation,
I keep a clock next to my desk. With this clock, I count the minutes until I will receive your predictable, illogical responses to my articles.
If you find my articles such fluff diversions, why do you stop here? Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Yet, you keep returning. The reason is clear: My articles hit uncomfortably close to your home, and you resent it.
What you sew in dating, you reap in marriage. If you think the rules for marriage are a lot different than those in dating, you are mistaken. Just because you subordinate yourself to women isn’t a reason to criticize those of us who don’t.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
C-man:
My take:
Marc is outwardly upwardly mobile and chick dig it and are willing to try anything for a while to rope this dude.
Fast forward 15 yrs(without extensive cosmetic surgery or abnormally youthful appearance 2 SD from the norm): Bald, wrinkles, liver spots, bad eyesight, slight limp, tired at the end of a busy day. Got some health issues now, cant be kikkin it all night long anymore, not even that interested in it actually, too much hassle.
Then what?
Hot young babes still gonna want to do you anyway and then go home to their studio apartment?
Awww, why not?
Does that attitude still work with lactose intolerance and prostatic enlargment?
Will emotional love and pure financial equality without the bling keep us together?
Stay tuned …
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
MR:
Tick tock tick tock…
You plans do not serve as a to men guide for living, only as a guide to porking, which is ok only for a while.
You refuse to state the obvious, that relationships are a financial deal, always have been, always will be. The big and fairly only problem is that gals institutionally are allowed to bail without much consequence.
Kodos on your bedding hot babes for free, but I remain unimpressed…
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Glad to provide a service Marc, that being keeping your clock set correctly. Marc, in case you missed it, people here constantly disagree and debate and refine opinions, and well, iron sharpens iron. You’ve taken exception to my disagreements numerous times by using the time worn tactic of telling me if I don’t like whats on your TV, just to change the channel. Since I’m male and not a counterparty to you in your gender dynamic, lets assume for the sake of argument then that I’m your “equal”. Stay with me here Marc. You long for the gals to be your equal, not putting up with you nor you them out of need, a mutual respect thing. So what the hell do you say to her if she disagrees with you on a relatively important topic? Do you just get up and leave the date? Do you send her away? Do you ask her why, if she knew you were of a certain mind on something, did she bother to go on the date in the first place? Do you tell her you can set a watch to her taking exception to your opinion on whatever it is you are discussing? Because you aren’t giving off a very fuzzy vibe here my man, and if that tact is taken w/ the gals they gonna not put up with your ass.
You (as usual) avoided specificity, even the most superficial kind, in addressing my question of extrapolating dating behavior into marital behaviors…you just state that there is a logical extrapolation, yep, yessir, Marc says so, thats it, now agree, offer alms, offer homage, praise, join the groupies, or figgin stop reading the stuff man. Can’t you see that you are ruled over by women and a loser sexually? Whereas I, Marc the omniscient (being on FM call in shows can tend to lubricate a shallow gal or two…but thats all in the name of equality)have permanent, er, grease under my nails I spend so much time under the hood…wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean eh wot, a wet hedgehog wot? Sticky wicket wot?
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
C-man:
Taking your thoughts into consideration but I a derivitive question:
Does irony sharpen irony?….
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Projection…its what people do to rid themselves of an uncomfortable realization regarding personal shortcomings. You always tell me Im subordinated to women and how your comments hit home for me and make me squirm. It occured to me that your openly irritated, even angry reaction to my questioning of the MR doctrine reveals an insecurity in that on which you’ve built your house of (short term) cards.
I enjoy what you write, even vicariously take some enjoyment in the notions, but Red Pill is right, …I am right, and in the grown up settled down real world your practices get dashed against the rocks by the waves of reality.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Red Pill, you betcha! Daily I see the accumulation of “irony dust” from the sharpening that occurs when two keen sarcastic minds meet and do battle.
Case in point, the irony of Marcs lack of skin thickness when a minor disagreement manifests, yet his concurrent contention that he wants equal women. I guess he means exactly equal, like they agree with everything he says…hell I’d like those ones too…maybe Ive got him wrong, ya think?
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I agree that Marc has a simplistic view of relationships. Mutual lust = perfect bliss, and equality.
The only problem is, when it’s 10, 20 years later. Now, you’ve seen the person not only buff, but sick, and in the loo. Your significant other never really valued family, misses the flirty nightlife. And those 2 incomes aren’t as great as they appeared. She loves Hillary, you’re Reagan reincarnate.
Lust dies easily. Love doesn’t. Emotional connectedness makes happiness. Although, for most men, sex is essential to happiness and a good relationship. And as has been stated elsewhere, men need to demand that thier needs be met. Not derided.
And much of what Marc prints reminds me of feminism: all equal, no leader. That, my friends, is not life. Feminism preaches that, while insidiuosly gathering power for women.
In real life, someone is more dominate than the other person in any relationship. Things are NEVER equal.
Marc seems to be giving advice more fit for a pick up king, not a husband and father.
He still never the less wants many of the same goals that others here want, true equality, but can’t distinguish between legal equality and “personal” equality, whatever that is.
So far as picking up women, attitude isn’t everything, but it’s the most necessary thing. Quasimoto could have been real smooth, but the girls weren’t falling all over him…
With all that said, the thing I do take from Marc is: don’t be pushed around. Don’t be a doormat. Demand respect. And don’t get taken to the cleaners trying to please a woman. Attitude matters.
Those are very good messages.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Everything one needs to know of romantic love is in the “Temple of Love” by the Sisters of Mercy.
“til stone is dust and only air remains….”
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Gentlemen:
I have stated my case, clearly so. I have too many followers, from countries all over the world, to worry about your incessant whining. And, I have yet to see any media luminaries ask for your opinions or invite you onto their programs.
What I have learned from vitriolic responders to my articles is this: men who have no game with women attack me with great and unyielding frequency and intensity. They gather like seagulls on a rock to complain to each other.
Whine all you want. Life is short.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
So it’s a “game”, then? Macho Man, most of your egotistical ramblings remind me of a 16 year old. I got plenty of “game”.
But is that all there is to you? Or do you want family?
Divorced? Kids? Deeper meaning?
The No-Nonsense Bottom Line: you have some good stuff there, but your emphasis is on sex. Not relationships. Do you disagree?
And remember, I think we could agree about most of the legal equality issues. And I agree with the “don’t be a doormat” attitude.
So really, as I’ve seen here all the time, once again, brothers squabble over the differences, instead of working toward commonality and real purpose.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
There is no problem with Marc’s “all equal. no leader.” philosophy — so long as there is reciprocity.
Yes, reciprocity, that’s it. That is where both people get to treat each other the same. Sure, one person can still dominate on special occasion, especially if they are better than you at some task. However, if it is her way more than 4 days out of every 7 (or else your way more than 4 out of 7), it is maybe time to pack it up.
I don’t know what your experiences are, but mine have been waiting too long to get out. When you start out equal, and then discover things have shifted on an emotional basis (maybe even of course a perfectly valid short-term exception because she asks), and then you are now asking for things to “go back like they were” and she stays plays the card that works day after day, that plainly a scam. If it happens twice, do not ever look back, and do not ever think she was oblivious as to the consequences.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
RestoringGuy,
You are on-target. There are three kinds — and only three kinds — of relationships:
You begin the dynamic of your entire relationship (including marriage) on the first telephone call and reinforce it ON THE FIRST DATE. If you go into the second date not liking the way it feels, but you go anyway, you lose.
Most men and women don’t talk to each other frankly and directly enough. Too many unspoken desires and objections.
I have written two books and 45 articles that cover every facet of a relationship with a woman. I hope you will explore them.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Methinks that some guys here can’t think wholistically very well, and want you, Marc, to be their counselor…
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Well, I think Steve nailed it. But let’s take it a step further. It beneficial for some men to believe that it’s all about money and that women really don’t need sex. How else can one justify their perceived shortcomings in this area? The idea that you’re just not attractive enough or charming enough or whatever is a tough pill to swallow.