11/26-12/2: Are "The Rules" Made to be Broken?

Two women are getting very rich telling women to play by "The Rules." (That is, "Time Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right.") This book advises women to take advantage of man's hunting instinct and play hard-to-get, just like grandmother always said. (The idea being that he'll want her so bad he'll marry her just to get her.) Is the book's success due to our craving for tradition? Or is it a '90s version of "The Stepford Wives," where women are turned into man-pleasing robots?

Do "The Rules" work? Do you have any better advice?

Here's what Tripod members had to say:

Marshella: I think it's an individual decision. It certainly won't work for me. I am happily married to the man I practically chased around! I would think its success would be both based on an individual's craving for tradition, as well as being a 90's version of "The Stepford Wives."

I am a wee worried, though, that this will promote the divorce rate, as women play this role, instead of determing the one true to themselves, no matter what society says. I think the women who are independant, but lie about it and act just as the book tells them to are not only not likely to get married, but if they do, it would not last, as they'd: 1) Got what they wanted (a man at any cost), and 2) Get sick of acting and figure that she's got him and he will stay around no matter what, and finally, 3) This change from acting to being themselves will drive the man away who wanted and thought he was getting a "Stepford" Wife.

LMN: I agree with Marshella. This book is somewhat amusing if you consider it a guide to getting a man into your bed. (Although the rule about not accepting a Saturday date after Wednesday would certainly find me in the video store come Saturday night!). But the book is disturbing because it really is about getting the ring on your finger. And then it stops there. I can't wait for Volume 2 -- "Time Tested Secrets for getting the most out of a divorce settlement."

demsoc1: The "rules" may work, but it's probably safe to say that those women who find the whole concept repugnant wouldn't be able to have a satisfying relationship with any man who would be suckered by those "rules."

JennieK: I find this whole notion utterly bizarre. I've never seen the point in marriage anyway, especially when the law discriminates so as to glorify a commitment I have to my male partner whilst dismissing my commitment to women I have been in love with as inferior. Does anyone really give a shit about hooking a man this way? I can only imagine that, if the authors of this book are not solely concerned with exploiting conservative pseudo-feminists for cash (and if they are, good luck to them), then they lack the intelligence to understand that exploiting men for money or whatever can be easily enough done without all this marriage crap; and, more productively, it can be done in the plural.

Kimmy: I have to agree with JennieK. If we are still at a point where women are this desperate to get married, then feminism really hasn't done us much good, has it? The idea that a marriage, committed relationship, or person is something you can "get" doesn't make any sense.

96skb: I think "The Rules" are a crock. What an interesting way to re-purpose post-war era sexual politics to sell books. The authors make it very clear that the entire point is to get married and women and men should regard each other But what happens when she "wins" and gets the coveted ring? Is not her prize some sap who fell for the ruse and is presumably there for the same superficial reasons?

Victoria16: Just a load of crap. Insofar as the "rules" help define boundaries of behavior that enable some women to assert their individuality and self-importance, I suppose they've got something -- but that something's pretty washed out by the enormous chunk of salt you have to take with it. For instance, by telling my S.O. that I'd appreciate advance planning for dates so I can resolve my own schedule, I've asserted the value I place on my time at least as effectively as mysteriously refusing Saturday dates after Wednesday prior. I'm not "playing" "hard-to-get," though -- I've got a tricky schedule, no matter how much I want to be "gotten."

If "The Rules" were a guide for couples to discuss courtship in terms of respecting each other, instead of a road map to snagging a diamond, I'd have far fewer objections. Reframe, rephrase, and resubmit.

Sossity: "The Rules" disturb me partly because of their complete focus on superficiality and mind games. That doesn't bother me overmuch, though, because I feel that if anyone is shallow enough to actually use them as a way to "catch" a man (and to believe that a lasting relationship can be built that way) she deserves whatever she gets...and what she will get is most likely a divorce or annulment when her trophy discovers she is nothing like the way she presented herself, or when she herself tires of the charade.

However, I *am* disturbed by the unspoken assumption that "getting" a man is the goal of every woman's life. Do the authors really think this is the top priority for '90s women? Do they really think that you have to have 1. a man, and 2. marriage, before you can feel fulfilled? And if not, what are they trying to say with this book? The apparent acceptance of marriage as the holy grail by so many women -- even if the book is meant to be ironic, some people are clearly taking it seriously -- is far more worrisome to me than the bad advice. I thought we had moved beyond that.

As for better advice, to quote your mother and mine, "Be yourself." After all, do you really want to spend your life with someone if (s)he doesn't appreciate the real you? You have to show him or her the real you before (s)he can love it.

grok: When I was a dating single, I frequently "dropped" women that played the kind of "head games" that the authors of this book seem to be promoting. Perhaps some men are stupid enough to fall for this junk, but I expect that those are also the ones that pull the old-fashioned routine right back on the woman, and drop her after the first time she "puts out."

Deception, dishonesty, and just generally being a jerk shouldn't work for anyone -- male or female. I would hope that more women would be disappointed by the results than successful, but one thing I HAVE learned in this life is to never underestimate human stupidity!

Beacon: The Rules are about as useful as a stick in the eye. I'm incredibly alarmed, and even offended that the women who authored this book would believe that love and marriage are so simple, reductionary, and necessary. Last time I checked, the rules that worked for almost anyone were communication, honesty, and straight-forwardness. Frankly, I (and probably most everyone else on the plantet) have neither the time nor the inclination to lolly around after some man (or woman). Bottom-line, The Rules should be required reading for how NOT to conduct a relationship.

RoRi: I don't play hard to get, or anything. If I really want a guy, I become friends with him first, to make sure I like his personality. I think playing little mind games like that take something away from the relationship. Just be honest. If you have trouble getting the guy, that probably means that he wasn't "the one" in the first place.

dkscully: I agree with Beacon and Marshella. "Getting" the man or vice versa is *not* the challenge in a relationship and/or married life. The challenge is in making the relationship work out so married life will. I'd hate to think that everything ends once the man marries the woman and both consider themselves a success.

Tradition doesn't always work out. That's one thing I've learnt from life, living in the '90s. While tradition dictates that marriage is the culmination of courtship and a relationship between a man and a woman, high divorce rates these days prove otherwise.

If the answer to "The Rules" is "He'll want her so bad he'll marry her just to get her." Then I would pose a question, "What comes after he marries her?" Playing to the man's hunting instinct is fine over a short period of time, but one should never forget, metaphorically speaking, what the hunter does after he has caught the prey: He hangs it up as a trophy on the wall.

Now, do women of the '90s really want that?

Skeeters: I've seen the Stepford wives.. some of it was funny as He** some not! But about a book telling or teaching women how to fake themselves into a relationship.. I think that suucks! You shouldn't play with people's emotions, for love.. or MONEY And you should be yourself... Then you can find someone that you're really in sinc with with...I really hate plastic people. I think all those women who bought the book or that are thinking about buying the book should go to MY Homepage and write.. me! quick.. before they muck up their lives.. only go with a Man.. for LOVE.! NOt money not position or what kind of car they drive. or dont drive.. but for How they feel about that person... I think body lanugage... and Attraction or... Mind should be what you consider.. if trying to have a relationship... Hummm did I say that all right..

Encounter: It's sad, but it works

Dave7: All right. Lemme get a man's point of view in here. The last thing we need in the age of "sexual harrassment" during pre-pubescence, is a bunch of women who need to be told how to land a man reading a book about playing hard-to-get. This book basically advises women to send all the signals which usually mean "no thanks, pal--I'm not even a little bit interested."

We don't want a new thing to worry about--whether Stacey in Purchasing gave us that Look because she's a "Rules" woman (and we in fact, have a chance), or because she's a naturally independent American woman (which is a much better way to be).

And I just want to restate what's already been said about honesty in relationships. I for one don't want to meet my wife the night of the honeymoon.