Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name: heterofatalism

Doobie Doo

Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
61,334
Reputation
24,265
Daps
397,292
Reppin
Raleigh, NC
\



The Trouble With Wanting Men​

Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name: heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?
Credit...Illustration by Kristina Tzekova

By Jean Garnett
  • July 21, 2025
Leer en español
The stranger arrived at the bar before I did, as I intended him to, and was waiting for me at a table in back. He had the kind of face I like, and he had been a little difficult to pin down, delayed in his responses, which I also like. The place was loud with the “having fun” sounds people make when they expect to have fun any minute now, so we were leaning in to hear each other. His hair, I thought, would be good to put my hands in.

Listen to this article, read by Kirsten Potter​



Listen · 35:39 min

There comes a time, usually, when a few extra beats of eye contact are enough. We passed through these beats, took each other’s wrists and met across the table, which was wide enough to frustrate kissing in the right way, keeping the rest of us well apart. Back at my place he was a little shy, I thought, or a little out of practice, but I felt he wanted me, which was what I wanted — to be organized and oriented by his desire, as though it were a point on the dark horizon, strobing.
“I was really looking forward to seeing you again,” he texted me the following week, around lunchtime, “but I’m going through some intense anxiety today and need to lay low :(.”

“Totally understand,” I replied, but I didn’t. Feeble, fallible “looking forward” is not longing; a man should want me urgently or not at all. I was about to collapse into a ritual of frustrated horniness (fantasy, masturbation, snacks) when a friend urged me to join her and two other women for dinner.
“Of course he has anxiety,” said one of them, a therapist, who sat across from me at the restaurant. “That’s life. That’s being alive and going to meet someone you don’t know well.”
“Yeah,” said the woman beside her, a historian. “It’s called ‘sexual tension.’ Stay with it for a minute and you might get some.”
“They can’t,” said my friend with triumphant disgust. She told us about a woman she knew who was dating a man from another city. After weeks of saying “I can’t wait to see you,” the man ghosted her during his actual visit. His explanation later? He’d been “too anxious.”
“Aww, poor baby!” cried the historian, and we all cooed and moaned for the poor wittle fraidy-cat boo-boo, working ourselves into a frenzy of laughter over men’s inability to “man up and [expletive] us.” We were four women at a vegan restaurant in downtown Manhattan; we knew what show we were in, and we couldn’t help but wonder, in a smug, chauvinistic way: Where were the men who could handle hard stuff? Like leaving the house for sex?

The therapist mused about the anxiety of needing to “justify the phallus.” “You know,” she said, “from the child’s point of view, it’s like, ‘I get what Mom is for, but what are you for? What’s the point of your thing?’” This sent us miming confrontations with imaginary members — “Who invited you?” “What’s your deal?” “Are you lost?” — which led to wisecracks about the not-so-precision scalpel of the surgeon the therapist was seeing. Privately, jokes aside, I am quite susceptible to penis — like, I worry that in some Hobbesian state of nature I might just automatically kneel to the prettiest one — but lately I have been bruised by the ambivalence of men, how they can first want me and then become confused about what they want, and this bawdy, diminishing humor soothed me, made me feel more powerful, more in control.
“When did the men get so anxious about desire?” asked the therapist, and I said I didn’t know. “Yes, you do,” my friend said. “It was when they were put on notice that they can’t just get drunk and grope us.”
I haven’t been dating long (just the other day my ex-husband and I received our Judgment of Divorce as an email attachment), but long enough to discover that I have a type. He is gentle, goofy, self-deprecating, rather deferential, a passionate humanist, a sweet guy, a “good guy.” He tends to signal, in various ways, his exemption from the tainted category of “men,” and it is perfectly understandable that he would wish to do so. It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him.
One of the reasons my marriage ended was that I fell in love with another man — whom I’ll refer to by his first initial, J. Spontaneously graceful, with a soft voice and an inordinate, sad-eyed smile, J. made me laugh, stopping my breath. Being a “good guy,” he intimated from the jump that he did not know how to “do” relationships, giving me to understand that if I expected one with him (or, as he may have conceptualized it, from him), I did so at my peril (which was his peril, too, since he would hate to hurt me). Still, he pursued me; we seemed to be “doing” something together.

I keep encountering and hearing about men who ‘can’t.’ Have these men not heard of ‘don’t want to?’​

My husband and I had an open relationship at the time that J. and I met, so the terms of our involvement were, at first, limited, and although J. exerted a pleasant pressure against these limitations, ultimately they suited him. I was the one who violated the terms by finding it intolerable, after a while, to care that much, in that way, for one person while being married to another. I could not disambiguate sex from love nor love from devotion, futurity, family integration, things I wanted with (from?) J., even as, throughout the year and a half or so that we saw each other, he continued to gesture to his incapacity to commit as if it were a separate being, an unfortunate child who followed and relied upon him, maybe, or a physical constraint. I stood there reaching for him while he sad-faced back at me like a boxed mime: He couldn’t talk about it; he wished things were different; maybe someday the child would mature, the glass would break, but for now, there was really nothing to be done.
It seems to me, surveying the field as a dating novice, that this kind of studiously irreproachable male helplessness abounds. I keep encountering and hearing about men who “can’t.” Have these men not heard of “don’t want to?”
Maybe my friend was right about male anxiety at this moment. Maybe the men are taking a beat, “laying low,” unsure of how to want, how to talk, how to woo. Maybe they are punishing us for the confusion.




 

8WON6

The Great Negro
Supporter
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
67,934
Reputation
14,543
Daps
274,326
Reppin
Kansas City, MO.
this lady wrote a response opinion article:


author-image

POPPY SOWERBY

Women’s latest dating trend couldn’t be more sexist​


My fellow female daters claim their ‘straightness’ dooms them — and blame all men for their unhappiness. Welcome to heterofatalism​

Poppy Sowerby

ALAMY
‘Iwish I could just date women,” one of my best pals sighed to me, at a London pub, four years ago. “It would be amazing to be with another empath.”
Her lament is a variation on an ancient theme: men are dogs and straight women like us are doomed to be disappointed by them. I remember this particular quip because of how theatrical it sounded. It was gallows humour, a dark jibe grumbled over wine.
Of course, it was a joke. It tickled us to consider ourselves “empaths” amid a dating pool of priapic zombies. But it wasn’t how we really felt. We both like men. We both want to be with men. And we know that all men aren’t “sociopaths”. Only an incel would think like that. Right?

But it turns out some women think like that, too. Take Jean Garnett, the author of a recent 5,000-word wail in The New York Times, who writes that young straight women believe their desire is a curse and all straight men are a disaster.
Garnett, who chronicles her personal experience with “heterofatalism”, is the tortured heroine of the piece. She explains that heterofatalism — a term coined by Asa Seresin, an Ivy League “sexuality scholar” — goes beyond “heteropessimism”, where women are simply sick of their shytty boyfriends and flaky Hinge dates. Heterofatalism, apparently, is a much darker concept. It claims that all women have been let down by a class of selfish, feckless, feminised men. It ennobles romantic disappointment with the gravity of destiny.

Garnett’s piece contains depressing and at times queasy vignettes of divorce, as well as a foursome-loving “sex nerd” who fails to seduce her and an imaginary “good guy” who is “gentle, goofy, self-deprecating, rather deferential, a passionate humanist” — in other words, a mythical beast. Almost nobody is having sex in this article — instead, they spend most of their time agonising about it. Men cancel drinks over “intense anxiety”, while women brace for “something humiliating and nightmarish” after a perfectly successful date. Everybody is paranoid. Nobody is happy.
In the article, women are made into needy, begging caricatures by men who are quite clearly using them for sex. It’s a portrait of progressive males who claim to subvert sexual mores — embracing polyamory, fetish and kink — while reinforcing the biggest gender stereotype of all: that the women they recruit for these escapades are whiny, conventional hangers-on. In a dating pool like this one, who could blame women for feeling doomed?
But it is foolish to paint thwarted romance as an original sin of heterosexual men. The sting of rejection, the ickiness of sexual incompatibility, the loneliness of not being liked back — these are all normal and formative experiences familiar to both sexes.

In blaming all men for women’s romantic hopelessness, heterofatalism feels dangerously close to the noxious worldview of the incel. Incels believe that society favours women who can sleep with any guy they like but who only date “high-status” men. This is a self-confirming conspiracy theory that repels all women and, as a result, scuppers men’s romantic hopes.
How is heterofatalism — the idea that straight women’s desire is “embarrassing, hopeless and imprisoning”, according to the Sexual Health Alliance — any better? Heterofatalism and incel culture are mirror images. In the first, women feel men are “winning”. In the second, men feel the opposite. Both simply cannot be true.

Relations between the sexes are at an all-time nadir. Tumbling birth rates, the much-vaunted “male loneliness epidemic”, self-imposed celibacy (4B, anyone?) — the picture is bleak. But thinking only about the macro is always going to be depressing. In the real world, happy couples and fun trysts abound; we snog in nightclubs, write silly love letters and squeal to friends when he texts.
Think-pieces are in the business of diagnosing societal ills. But it’s sometimes easy to forget that life goes on, people are not evil and sometimes relationships just don’t work. When a man is hurt by one woman and blames them all, his response is rightly seen as juvenile and sexist. But when women blame all men, a new field of “sexual studies” is born. It shouldn’t escape reasonable people that this is hypocrisy.
What’s the antidote? I propose a new theory: hetero-optimism.
Let’s heed that favourite internet saying and “touch grass”. Remember that the real world, not the fraught, anxiety-ridden inner life of the dating column, is full of quite normal men, some of whom at least could make us happy. And if he turns out to be a pervert or a cheater or your passion dies? Well then, never mind. When it comes to dating, never the rose without the prick.
 
Last edited:

KidJSoul

Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
19,283
Reputation
3,950
Daps
83,999
this lady wrote response opinion article:

Praise be that lady.

This part:

When a man is hurt by one woman and blames them all, his response is rightly seen as juvenile and sexist. But when women blame all men, a new field of “sexual studies” is born. It shouldn’t escape reasonable people that this is hypocrisy.
:wow:


Look, women have their right to air out their grievances for the BAD things men do. :manny:

But thus current wave of terminally online women are doing more damage than good. Its not constructive at all. And "punching up" only flies for so long before it becomes annoying. Especially when its hypocritical.

They shyt on men for things they are partly responsible for.

Theyll date a dude who literally says he's not interested in committing, but then try to get him to commit and get mad when she gets burned. And then blame men

Theyll date dudes that are walking red flags.

They'll be all for breaking down gender roles when its convenient and removing all incentive to

Theyll complain about having to do all the one-sided "emotional labor" but then ignore when it's the other way around.

Basically 90% of the stuff they complain about men doing, they do to. Including lacking self awareness.

And drag it into mainstream discussions.

Women in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc. Didn't have this attitude. Were the men back then less sexist?
 
Last edited:

O.T.I.S.

Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
79,994
Reputation
17,364
Daps
308,745
Reppin
The Truth
Wait until some of these women find out that other women ain’t shyt either.
And wait until they get emotional and start “throwing hands” too


They definitely do at a higher clip, according to the stats.


Americanized hoes need to make up their minds though. Either you want men or you don’t.. stfu and keep it pushing.
 
Last edited:

SNG

Superstar
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
13,586
Reputation
2,471
Daps
48,602
Reppin
NULL
And wait until they get emotional and start “throwing hands” too


They definitely do at a higher clip, according to the stars.


Americanized hoes need to make up their minds though. Either you want men or you don’t.. stfu and keep it pushing.
Exactly to much complaining going on and a lot of these women complaining don’t have any other redeeming qualities besides coochie. I bet the woman that made this post is a trash cook any does uber eats and take out all the time. Especially since she’s a cac which cac women are known to be trash cooks if they ain’t Italian or Portuguese.
 
Top