Reading all the Valentine blogs yesterday left me thinking about relationships and expectations. I confess I fall into the events-create-expectations camp, and actually like that there are holidays to celebrate this and that. Sometimes the "meaning" of the holiday can get lost in the heavy advertising and crass marketing that attempt to establish implicit or explicit standards of behavior, but I do not feel that my holiday has to be defined by DeBeers or Ghirardelli.

In other words, he doesn't have to give me diamonds, but if he doesn't show at least some recognition of our love on the day that ostensibly celebrates it, then he's in the dog house as far as I'm concerned. It could me something as simple as coffee in bed or wanting to go out to dinner or renting an interesting movie or anything where we're making a point of being together on this day, the day that, for whatever reasons, we've set aside to honor love and romance.

It's one of the nice things about our culture, I feel. Yes, at times I want to be angry at the whole mass-merchandizing phenomenon St. Valentine's Day has become. But really, compared to other holidays that honor and/or celebrate births and deaths and historical moments, it's some kind of wonderful that we can pause and celebrate one of the things that make life worth living.

Love.

Let's talk about dating.

In the past day there's been a little call and response between Amanda and Hugo, and some commenters, too, over the ever-hot topic of who should approach whom and when and how and what does it all mean and what does that say about our culture and the role of women ... and all that tripe that feeds the self-help book industry and many a women's studies academic career. Okay, I'm sounding off a bit strident. But this is a blog. I'm allowed, aren't I?

Why would I not approach a man in whom I have interest? To me, it's a matter that goes to the root of the common expectations that the man is to be the pursuer, the woman the pursued. To me, it seems that these expectations arise out of (what I see as) the reality that most men want to be the pursuers, they want to be in charge. Not only that, they are more likely to appreciate and value whatever may come of an encouter if they've worked at it. In my experience, men aren't all that interested in having unexpected things pop into their lives. They like to go after their lives with purpose. (Well, of course I'm not speaking for the slackers and losers and schlubs.)

I confess that a lot of my attitude comes from romantic notions of courtship. I'm most charmed by stories of how a man sees a woman and says, "I'm going to marry her," and then months or years later, he does. Is she a trophy to be had, like a moose head to be put up on the wall, fodder for gloating anecdotes shared with fellow hunters over Scotch and cigars? No. Marriage today is her choice, too, and if she agrees to marry him, it tells me that he made a real effort to make clear to hear that she is important to him and that sharing their lives could be quite wonderful. One would hope there's love involved, and I'm not one to say that, because they've fallen into historically traditional roles of the seeker and the sought, she has somehow been rendered senseless and unable to determine the value, or lack thereof, in a proposal of marriage.

Are we defined by our expectations?

There's an old saying: A man chases a woman until she catches him. I think it could work the other way around, too, but I'm not sure I could trust a man who would manipulate me against social expectations in order to catch me. Maybe that's why I'm reluctant to chase a man. What happens if I succeed? Could I really believe that he really wants me? Could I be sure I haven't ended up being his convenient fuck buddy while he continues to hold out for the damsel he finds attractive and appealing enough to chase?

Amanda says:

It's a weird sort of feminist guilt to look back and realize that I let men initiate pretty much all dates, relationships, whatever. I mean, on an individual level, each one is not really a big deal. My current boyfriend and I met because I bitched out some dick who was hassling some random girls I was standing beside and myself at a show. Those girls turned out to be friends of my boyfriend's and so they pushed him into asking me out. As shit just sort of happens like that, it's hard to really frame it terms of 50/50 or anything like that. But looking at my whole romantic history, it becomes clear that I never really directly approached a man pretty much ever.

Are we so far gone -- have we so defined ourselves as defying tradition and embracing masculine values and behaviors -- that we must feel guilty over not having been a hunter on the romance grounds?

Men are trained to take the risk, so if a man doesn't take the risk, you can assume that he doesn't like you. (On the other side of it, if a woman glares at you and looks away, men know to give up. Or they should.) It's pretty frustrating, because this little trick of logic has created this odd pattern where men and women become more and more equal all the time in negotiating their relationships, dicussing their sexual needs, the whole bit. And yet getting the ball rolling is still pretty much left up to men.

The thing is, when we're single, unattached, un-hooked-up, there's a different paradigm at work. In a relationship, with mutual trust and respect and honor and even love, there can be egality. But in the jungle that is life for the single woman, demands for mutual anything run smack up against the very real risks of violence, harrassment and other behaviors. What happens if you approach a man, and it turns out he's a total dick? A man can pretty much safely withdraw from an unreceptive (or, upon closer encounter, unappealing) woman and not have to worry about dire consequences. But what happens when a woman tries to withdraw after engaging a man in flirtations repartee? Can she back away safely? What happens if the man pursues? In this screwed up culture that finds seven ways to Sunday to apologize and excuse a rapist's behavior while finding any excuse at all to trash the integrity, or at the very least reputation, of the rape victim, can a woman safely even appear to open the door of possibility to a man without, in our culture's terms, having (to a degree) implicitly ceded her right to say "no"?

And so, in this culture of violence towards women -- something that seems to be denied by liberal and conservative men alike -- we also pay the little prices and pass on the little privileges like approaching an attractive man, and suffer the little consequences, as Amanda puts so well:

You can't teach guys to be more reticient--that's not fair to them. But teaching girls to be forward has only limited use, and efforts in that direction will be dashed on the first guy that strings them along and they take solace in books with obnoxiously long titles about how guys are just not going to be into a sort like you, and everything goes to shit.

From the man's perspective, Hugo (who does not seem to be at all one of those aforementioned deniers) offers his own take:

Making the "first move" made sense to me, but that may have more to do with my personality than my gender. I am perfectly aware that many of my brothers are intensely frustrated by the "rules" that place all of the burden for initiating contact on their shoulders. For a shy man, the expectation that he must "make the first move" must seem genuinely unfair and, at times, overwhelming.

And I do feel for those shy guys. Some are very sweet. But, as Hugo notes, they live in a culture that frames that sweetness in an overall environment containing dangers for women.

In a world where women are far more likely to be raped and harassed than men are, teaching women to be more forward is to expose them to considerable risk. While forward men risk rejection (which hurts), forward women risk far more. Most women have abundant experience with having their friendly, non-sexual overtures misinterpreted. For some men, even a simple smile from a woman can mean sexual interest. We have to do much more to make public space safe for women before we can expect greater willingness to make the first move!

Where I think Hugo strays into potential quicksand, however, is in asserting that the traditional roles have a sort of in-bred appeal to the respective sexes:

Overcoming fear is difficult (perhaps all the more so for my more introverted brothers), but it is empowering and exciting to do so. Making the first move does, I think, make some guys feel more like men.

And, at the risk of getting flamed, I think most women very much want to be wanted. Of course, we all want to be desirable -- but whether rooted in biology or culture, women's longing to be longed for is powerful stuff indeed. Though feminist theory emphasizes the importance of women's agency, of making women into the subjects of desire, I think it's important not to forget that every once in a while, being an object of someone else's longing can feel pretty damn good. [Emphasis in original]

Yes, being an object of desire can be appealing -- but only when it's welcome. I can pretty safely say that it's not welcome when I am out jogging or grocery shopping or spending a lazy sweats day at the bookstore. It's not appealing to have to dress down so as to not draw any untoward attentions. It's not appealing to be ogled by men (and sometimes women) because I wore something sexy for my guy. It's not appealing to have my ass pinched on the subway. And it's damn well not appealing to be effectively invisible to all men unless I wrap myself up as an object of desire.

In comments to Hugo's post, some men speak up for the pains of rejection. One even treads into pollyanna-ish views that quiet men are not dangerous so women should feel free to approach them, which to me ignores the realities of men in general -- a man doesn't have to be a "player" to be dangerous -- and the risks that women face -- from some unwanted pawing to much much worse. I really wish that shy men could understand that women tend to hold back from approaching them for a reason. So much of courtship is a matter of the man's demonstrating to the woman that he can be trusted. Break those courtship rules, and the woman is potentially left foundering in the deep end, having opened herself up to courtship without any indications at all whether there is the trustworthiness to justify it.

Of course, things could be different in situations where the people know each other a bit -- like at work or at the "co-ed" softball game or in the cooking class. But if we're talking about strangers, I really feel like I can go only so far in indicating any interest in a man, lest I be seen as inviting too much of the wrong kind of attention, and perhaps get myself into real trouble. (How many men have spent three extra hours in a bookstore because they were afraid that creepy girl buying the book on taxidermy might assault them in the parking lot?)

Amanda then responds in comments to Hugo:

Men so rarely get to experience being openly wanted that it can often have a startling effect on them when a woman is forward. Sometimes it's downright cute to see it. But if women crave it more, it's because it's an identity issue for us. An unwanted woman in our society is still considered less than a full woman, and that weighs rather heavily on us.

And that speaks volumes about the object of desire thing. We can't win for losing.

Back on Amanda's post, more male commenters took issue with the notion that men are trained to appoach women -- and reading some of these comments, I realized I should revisit my assumptions about sex roles and romance upon which I rambled at the top of this post.

Chris comments:

I'm sure some guys much prefer to initiate. I'm also sure some guys don't. But even those like me who aren't comfortable with initiating dates et al. have to suck it up and try anyway. Because we want dates, and many of the women we want dates with are just sitting there, wanting us too, waiting for us to work up the courage.

...and a couple of women told of their rewarding experiences from having been the initial approachers in their various relationships. Omar adds:

People have said this before, but it bears repeating: if a guy looks down on you for making his fucking life easier, you may not want to date him.

Yet, in the end, none of this idealizing of the egality of romance or compassion for shy men or trumpeting the rewards of being a romantically aggressive woman gets past the real-world context in which all of this takes place. Among classmates on campus or coworkers on the job, yes, women can and should feel more free to approach men of romantic interest.

But out there in the jungle, where I don't know mister cute guy from Adam, where my mode of dress can make for a day of life-lived-on-display-for-all-men-to-ogle-and-judge, I just do not feel safe inviting contact with men I do not know. Perhaps I've just lived in big cities too much. Perhaps my cad of a last boyfriend left me a bit more scarred than I'd like to admit. Perhaps I'm missing out on the Great Romance that will never happen because I don't bridge the gap Mister Right-But-Shy won't cross.

Yet in the end I won't put my life in danger for the possibility of romance. Until and unless I find the love that completes me, I am complete in myself, and find joys in life in other ways. It's all I can do. It would be nice if the world were a safer place. Meanwhile, we all make our compromises and make do as best we can.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.