Monday, 8 June 2009

Too forward

Apparently, I'm too forward. Apparently, I should play hard to get. Seems a bit pointless to me. Why would I want to expend effort on playing hard to get? Unless I'm actually not interested, then it comes to me quite naturally.

I wonder whether society is still very much in the stronghold of a male desire to rescue helpless princesses from their singledom. This worries me.

I have no desire to stand, wait and smile demurely at male passersby. I will not internally pray for them to notice me. If I'm interested, then I'll indicate it and if I'm not, then you get my version of hard to get.

I'm quite happy to be revered as a goddess but I also expect to be appreciated as an equal - and the hard to get scenario does not speak of equality, it speaks of patriarchy.

Just in case anyone wonders, I do not have a large ego, on the contrary my ego is quite small and occasionally very fragile. I am, however, proud of my character and am pleased to say that I never wait for men that I like to ask me out - unless he's quick, I've already asked him.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, actually no I'm not, if it offends you - you probably think you're a handsome prince and like women to be just a little bit helpless.



  1. Your pre-emptive ad hominem approach is interesting i.e. what you are saying is if someone doesn't agree with you there must be something wrong with them? A better approach may be to stick to the argument?

    Another hypothesis for this behaviour is the value, in evolutionary term, of displays of fidelity in a woman's tactics of attration. Our human minds have been evolving The 'coyness' tactic or playing hard to get signals desirability, tests a man's willingness to invest resources and communicates fidelity to the man. So what is the value of displaying fidelity? Before modern contraception chaste behaviour was a cue for certainty of parentage. If the Paleolithic man was away obtaining resources and did not have a chaste mate then he ran the risk that the woman would cuckold him.

    For context of how our minds have deleloped if the history of our species were written as the proportion of time that we have lived at each stage of our development 200 pages would be devoted to the lives of hunter gatherers. One page would cover agregarian societies, the world of the last two centeries, the modern world, would get one short paragraph at the end. Our brains are not simply shaped by the world we live in as we know it now, or even the agrarian world that proceeded it. They are exclusively the Old Stone Age.

  2. Hi,

    Thanks for your comment and following my blog. Send me a link to yours, assuming you have one.

    I guess from your words that you are a student of Anthropology. I’m more interested in Sociology. I find your argument very interesting and well-informed but disagree with it. You’re obviously a very articulate and educated person.

    Clearly, if I take your final paragraph as fact then I’d have to accept the former. Yet, I believe that we are evolving continually to our environment and as we have moved well beyond the hunter gatherer phase of existence, the requirement for women to appear chaste is irrelevant (assuming of course that I accept that it ever was relevant). I believe that the doctrine of patriarchy has its tentacles firmly clasped around many aspects of the modern world, yet I do not feel this has it roots in a deep historical existence but rather a more recent history. In fact, I believe that our ancestral social world is often used to substantiate patriarchal mindsets and practices - not only dating etiquette but other more significant aspects of social life.

    Although, whatever reasons you attribute to the coyness tactic, I still don’t like playing hard to get! ;-)



Highlighted post

Your transient

~ Give me lines on glass The dawn tides And walking past Bring me feathery flashes The midnight moments And backward glances ...

Popular content