Men and Women

[free]

I like to read novels about love. I have read an enormous number of them and they still are not boring to me. I have noticed that one thing most of them have in common - most authors insist on the design: he is the hunter, she is the hunted. Design which, I suppose, is a natural one. This I don't like, seems a bit primitive to me.

What do you think?

[Ecurb]

Men, of course, are expected to do the proposing, if a proposal there is to be. Still, I can't quite agree with the "hunting" metaphor. Here are the famous opening lines of Pride and Prejudice:


It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

Who is doing the "hunting" here?

If we think about the famous, archetypical love stories -- Lancelot and Guinevere, Tristram and Isolde, Eros and Psyche -- it doesn't seem to me that the men are the "hunters". What are some famous examples supporting your theory? When I think of the most famous romantic novels, in only a few of them do the men "hunt". Vronsky tracks down Anna -- but Rochester and Jane's love grows organically. and in the end, it is Jane who tracks Rochester down. What famous novels are YOU thinking of?

[NikolaiI]

I like to read novels about love. I have read an enormous number of them and they still are not boring to me. I have noticed that one thing most of them have in common - most authors insist on the design: he is the hunter, she is the hunted. Design which, I suppose, is a natural one. This I don't like, seems a bit primitive to me.

What do you think?

I agree, and have felt this way almost my whole life. The modern equivalent would seem to be charm, and seduction. A few months ago I realized something about it when my brother was trying to tell me about a book called "The Art of Seduction." He was telling me, the author had studied Plato and others, and had learned from them. . I shared with him my view that it's better to learn from them oneself. . .

Then I thought about it and realized - what's the ultimate goal of persuasions? I mean - if you could take it to its logical conclusion, that would be mind control. . Very little could be less desirable. I realize some of my thoughts may have been influenced by the book Persuasion. .

In any case, the other day I realized something else. . . and it's a pretty big thing - people who are exceptionally good at charming, at seducing - they seem to have less developed other personality traits -

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize, the last kind of person you'd want to meet is a charmer.

There is something inherently enjoyable about spy games. . and that sort of thing. It's a part of our nature. But as for choosing someone to build a friendship with, or a relationship with, I would have to say the art of seduction - of charm, of persuasion - is one of the least desirable traits. . .

However I would also say that it's sort of like the Miyamoto Musashi the Samurai put it; the greatest goal of martial arts is to never have to use them. . . much like the philosophy of Aikido. Perhaps it is best to be very skilled at persuasion, but to never use it is the best thing - In fact, learning some of the methods helps you to be able to be protected from deception. . . You'd probably never be able to fool Richard Turner, for example.

But most simply; yes you are right, the whole thing about activity and passivity is deeply ingrained in our culture, I mean the whole world really. . It's never seemed right to me - there's always seemed to be a better way, and idealist that I am, I've never given up on that..

It's also related to several things; deception, grasping for power, accumulating power. . . My view has always been that the struggle for power is generally a problem. . And yet - how else to affect the world but to gain power, and then use it for good? Again, I've always been most intrigued by the ancient ways, the path of the shamans and the ronen and the Taoists and the rest. . .

But most simply - the issue of activity vs. passivity, and on a smaller scale, that is, purely the relationship one, has never made sense ot me. To me, the only relationship I would be interested in is one where both are powerful hunters, both are active, creating in the relationship, not just where on is creating and one is passive. . One other point I would like to make is, a false view that we have of the genders. . For instance, traits such as caring, nurturing, strength, wisdom, peacefulness, accuracy, skill, and the rest. . . all of these things, they are not, any of them, solely or even primarily masculine or feminine - they are merely powers of a fully endowed human, and a woman who has developed into her full potential will have all these qualities, the same as when a man does.

The ability to banish fear, to hunt for the tribe, to achieve the highest mastery of any human quality, is latent as potential within every human.