on the megaphone. pleeeeze.

i’m struggling whether i like/agree with this - what this means in terms of how men see women/women’s roles.

so, as a man, do you think it goes both ways? if so, why, and if not, why not? what’s the difference?

yeah, thx for the clarifications, but still, i think it’s more the word “Must” that throws me off.

why?

because the word “must” used here implies to me that matters to women most in relationships are sex and romance, and that is what all women are secretly demanding, otherwise they’ll walk away and/or the man isn’t good enough.

the “must” also sort of makes me think of always needing to prove your love and make it be exciting. if you’re in a good relationship, you don’t need to prove your love every day, or have it be exciting.

maybe the more romantic people out there would disagree with me, but i think this idea sets up very unrealistic expectations of what love and romance really are.

is it a good and nice idea to try to (and want to) reseduce your partner every day through flirtation and romance? yes! but MUST you? the “must” leaves the unsaid end to that thought - “otherwise…..”, and i think the “otherwise” in this case is sort of sexist, given the “girl”.

i’m realizing this is all about linguistics. if this said
“You must reseduce your lover everyday you are together”, i probably wouldn’t have winced so much, but the use of the word “girl” in your quote makes it seem sort of condescending and patronizing, as if all “girls” (not women, girls), want are flowers and perfume. i guess the word “date” also makes it seems like sort of a immature thought.

/end overdeconstruction. carry on with your wooing.

“because the word “must†used here implies to me that matters to women most in relationships are sex and romance”

I also adore rhetoric and the interplay of wording, as such I must strongly disagree. The implication of must is only that “sex and romance” (as you define seduction) are necessary but not sufficient conditions. Must does not assign a place to sex and romance in a hierarchy of desire, only that s&r have to be in the hierarchy somewhere.

“and that is what all women are secretly demanding, otherwise they’ll walk away and/or the man isn’t good enough.”

If one partner in a relationship does not deliver strongly on sex and romance, the other partner will surely walk out or cheat but I digress. Again, ‘must’ doesn’t imply that women (or men) *only* want the conditions of sex and romance but simply that those conditions have to be present.

Or what if we stipulatively defined seduction to mean any act of passion? A successful relationship needs much much more than passion but without it the relationship likely won’t be satisfying to either party. (although I hear passionless marriages were all the rage in the 50s)

“the “must†also sort of makes me think of always needing to prove your love and make it be exciting. if you’re in a good relationship, you don’t need to prove your love every day, or have it be exciting.”

Very good point.

“maybe the more romantic people out there would disagree with me, but i think this idea sets up very unrealistic expectations of what love and romance really are.”

Agree, good point. In my experience expressions of love take on different dimensions over time. They become more subtle but more meaningful.

In my opinion, overdeconstruction is a necessary condition. I have long complained that you don’t post to politics enough and if all you’re willing to do is write insightful comments on my blog, i suppose I shall just have to settle ;)

“You must reseduce your lover everyday you are togetherâ€, i probably wouldn’t have winced so much, but the use of the word “girl†in your quote makes it seem sort of condescending and patronizing, as if all “girls†(not women, girls), want are flowers and perfume. i guess the word “date†also makes it seems like sort of a immature thought.”

I find the appropriate use of girl-woman/boy-man difficult as they seem to differentiate not just physical development but some level of social standing and maturity that is itself mired in antiquated gender roles. Where possible I prefer to use guy as the general case rather than man or boy. Noticing now that I use girl for a general female case which is clearly inconsistent and perhaps sexist. am at this moment considering implementing “gurl” from now on, as I believe is the standard form in some circles.

I certainly see how girl instead of woman could be viewed as condescending
but inclusion of perfume and flowers seems to overstep. even in the classical case of seduction, it’s more than just perfume and flowers.

I suppose the statement should be amended to

“You really ought to make sure you are passionate with your lover somewhat frequently”

the original is brittle in it’s simplicity, but so snappy.

or responding to another point you made, what about

You must reseduce your lover about once a week.