I haven't read Ace's posting, and I don't think I want to, since he aroused such negative feelings from you. But, I think that in the furor over *his* definition of courtship, you are overlooking some other possibilities
( ... )
Context is everything. In Ace's model, there's no reason to indicate any sort of interest in a woman if she's already messed around with your friends. It's the whole "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" question.
Except that women aren't cows, and relationships aren't about milk.
Larger and more frequent gifts indicate growing interest. Not mounting debt.
But why wouldn't simply spending more time, having better conversations, dancing together more often, outright saying "I think you're awesome!" indicate more interest? Why dress up communication as a transaction?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in saying that I don't think presents or tokens are the problem. I think the problem is a model that presumes that courtship is about "conquest," about one party waging a campaign, and another resisting. That's silly, because it presumes that the courted party exists in a vaccuum, to be courted, and can't possibly actually have any desires of his/her own
( ... )
Comments 2
Reply
Except that women aren't cows, and relationships aren't about milk.
Larger and more frequent gifts indicate growing interest. Not mounting debt.
But why wouldn't simply spending more time, having better conversations, dancing together more often, outright saying "I think you're awesome!" indicate more interest? Why dress up communication as a transaction?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in saying that I don't think presents or tokens are the problem. I think the problem is a model that presumes that courtship is about "conquest," about one party waging a campaign, and another resisting. That's silly, because it presumes that the courted party exists in a vaccuum, to be courted, and can't possibly actually have any desires of his/her own ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment