In this book, the author claims all men view woman as sex objects. Therefore, any displays of warmth and sensitivity are just tricks to bed a woman as quickly as possible. If women think otherwise, they are dupes.
However, after making these claims, I think it must've dawned on the author that if he kept portraying men as total scumbags, then women won't want to have sex with one again. Therefore, every now and then, he'll inject a redeeming quality about men...but in so doing, ends up contradicting himself.
For example, earlier in the book, he says the only reason men write poetry is because women love that mushy stuff and this makes them easier prey to lure into bed....but then later says the fact that men write poetry proves how deeply sensitive they really are.
So which is it -- are they using poetry as a ploy to lure women into bed or as a means to describe sincere emotions?
Another example is when he says men are simple, honest creatures and, therefore, what they say to a woman should be believed....except, of course, when they're trying to get a woman into bed because then they'll lie through their teeth. And except when they say "I'll call you" because they're just saying that to not hurt your feelings...but other than that, men are as honest as honest can be.
There is "hope", according to the author, that a man can really love a woman. That hope comes in the form of sex.
You see, before a man has sex with a woman, he objectifies her and has no interest in relating to her as a human being with feelings...however, once he has sex with her -- through the magic of sex -- he somehow grows a conscience and decides from now on, he's going to relate to her on a human level.
Well, actually, first he scores how well she performed during sex and if she got a high score, THEN he wants to have a meaningful relationship with her. So to help women achieve this type of meaningful relationship, the author advises women to (1) dress as slutty as possible so a man knows she's eager for sex and to (2) put out as early as possible. The author also gives tips on how women can get a good grade in bed. After all, the higher the grade, the higher his ability to love her.
So does this mean that when a man has sex with a prostitute (hey, that's sex right away) and she's really good at it, he falls madly in love with her?
So the movie Pretty Woman was based on reality?
This advice would be hilarious if it weren't meant to be taken seriously. In reality, if you dress like a hooker, you will be treated like a hooker. If you have sex with a man too soon, then he won't have the emotional investment necessary to fall in love with you. If you're good in bed (have a high sex score), then yes, he will return to you, but not because he's overcome with love, but simply because you're great in bed.
The author says he's helping women, but sometimes I get the feeling he hates women. For example, he says when men have sex with you, the whole time they're imagining having sex with someone else.
Even if this were true, how does a woman benefit from knowing this? Would you benefit if your lover said to you, "Hey, honey, wasn't last night great? I was quite the animal, wasn't I? You want to know why? Because the whole time I was imagining your best friend. Yep, that's the only way I could get it up for you. How do you like them apples?" Doesn't this sound just a tad bit mean-spirited?
And the book abounds with double-standards, too. For example, he thinks the character Lucy in the t.v. show I Love Lucy is a despicable character because she lies and exploits people in order to get what she wants...yet when men lie and exploit women in order to get what they want (sex), he sees this as perfectly normal and understandable.
Another example is when he says it's a turnoff for a woman to be a workaholic because her job takes her away from paying attention to her man...yet when a man is a workaholic and his job takes him away from paying attention to his woman, again he sees this as perfectly normal and understandable.
I'm not really sure why the author wrote this book. Is he trying to convince women that men are just too shallow to have a meaningful relationship with? Should we stop looking at men as long-term investments because men are only capable of valuing a woman for what she does or what he can get from her (sex,comfort) rather than value her for who she is? Or since men treat women like sex toys, should women treat them the same and simply spit them out like a piece of gum when they've lost their flavor? If that's the case, then not only does this author enjoy objectifying women...but he enjoys objectifying men as well.