We do not seek a return to times past, where women were forced into subservience. Neither do we seek a reversal of that, where women are in charge and men leap to their bidding. We observe that both forms of relationship can create feelings of unfulfillment. We would want an open and honest discussion about what really feels right for both parties, and establish the mutual understanding that forms the bedrock of a happy relationship.

In reflecting upon 'what really feels right', we may critically examine gender dynamics and find that many of the things we have been led to believe do not hold true within our lived experience.

The problem we are trying to untangle can be illustrated by the phenomenon of pick-up artistry.

Pick-up artistry (PUA) is a set of behaviours a man can employ in order to seduce/convince/coerce a woman into bed (depending on one's point of view..!)

Most famously elucidated in Neil Strauss' 2005 book 'The Game', PUA techniques have spawned countless theories and tropes, many of which have escaped from the manosphere and found notoriety within the modern dating scene, for example negging, peacocking and plate-spinning, along with the characterisation of 'Chad' and 'Tyrone' as embodiments of the 'true alpha male'.

However, the most fascinating thing about PUA is not that it exists, but that it works.

Even before PUA was formalised, it was no secret that 'women like bad boys' and 'nice guys don't get the girl'...

Why is that?

A feminist critique of PUA focuses on how it is not fair to manipulate women into bed, but they cannot explain why it works.

Why do women so often respond positively to feeling that they're not being taken seriously; made to feel that they are lucky to have been picked by a man with other options, that they are perhaps not quite worthy of the man they have the opportunity to sleep with?

A feminist has to denigrate her sister by pinning 'lack of self-respect' on her which, by denying her agency and enjoyment, cannot be a valid feminist position.

Alternatively, a sex-positive feminist would say the women are voluntarily agreeing to sex because they want to enjoy themselves, no-strings. Well that is all very well, but it doesn't explain why the approach worked, and why the same men were less successful before they started using PUA techniques.

Is it more plausible that the game works because it plays on elements of women's innate nature? That there is an aspect of female nature that does not seek an equal partner, but craves someone to look up to? That women are inherently inclined to seek an 'alpha male', if only for mating, and not necessarily for relationship?

This is the argument that would be made from the PUA corner, articulated with support of evolutionary biology through the 'redpill' manosphere forums.

The feminist viewpoint has no space for this evolutionary explanation that women are hypergamous, seeking to 'date up', making her response a reflection of her biology.

Feminists are required to deny nature, if nature means that men and women are not equal.

The feminist viewpoint also has no space for a spiritual or religious belief in the divine complementarity of male and female, because gender differences are denied.

The mainstream ideology of feminism ultimately seeks to erase women's femininity, and deny the mechanism of their attraction to men, as well as erasing God. This is, as they say, 'problematic'.

A theory has to be able to accurately predict future events in order for it to be valid. Redpill/PUA theory is far more accurate than feminism when predicting female mating patterns. The open secret flies in the face of feminist rhetoric.

Furthermore, we can see that, presently, men and women are not equal. If they were equal, there would be no further need for feminism. So it is important to remember that feminism is not the position that men and women are equal but rather that we ought to be, that things would be better that way, and that we ought to act as if we are. So, feminism calls us to deny reality and strive for an alternative.

In contrast, we say 'accept reality', embrace nature, and encourage conscious acknowledgement of female motivations and desires, to create healthier, happier relationships.

We can also separate women's liberation from gender equality, and give thanks to our forebears for freeing us from structures that oppressed and controlled us involuntarily. We are not obliged to support a restriction of women's freedoms or rights simply due to them not being equal to men. Women are people, after all, and capable ones at that. We have been granted the liberty to decide what level of control, if any, we truly desire.

When dealing with sex, we are encountering our rawest, most natural urges. Unexamined subconscious motivations may lead us into situations that may not be in our best interest. Allowing ourselves space to examine the impact and relevance of gender inequality allows us to understand ourselves in a very different way.

Self-knowledge is always a valuable pursuit. And with that knowledge comes the power to make better choices.

Whether that choice is to seek a structured male-led relationship dynamic is a very personal question. But being more honest with ourselves and with each other is always a good thing, and a certain path to a brighter future.