No
matter how you dress it up, *any* interactions based on attraction are
only significantly differentiable when relative subtlety or bluntness is
considered - and neither one of those concepts is any more objectively
sincere—or less coercive—than the other. The only other significant
variables beyond that are each party's comprehension—or not—of their own
susceptibility to one approach or the other (and, of course, what each
party either chooses to do or not do to moderate the inherent cognitive
dissonance of such a situation).
Cat calls, small talk, indirect and direct flattery both sincere and dishonest, body language, arbitrary social rituals... all are explicit and conscious manipulations, all are objectification, and the success of any of them relies on both parties' pre-acceptance of a universal social contract stipulating that *some* measure of these behavioral compromises are acceptable. Only intellectual standards are absolute; anything less fundamental is always going to be either subjective or arbitrary or both.
Condemning one extreme of an inherently exploitative behavioral range is both moot and hypocritical - considering every one of us subscribes to one part or another of that same range, (or else only has sexual encounters of a purely derivative and incidental nature... very, very rare). In fact, an adverse reaction to an extreme behavior in this context simply reflects one's own attitude toward attraction and sexual rituals. A primary reason some—not many, but some—women react negatively to overly-overt displays of attraction from men is because it crushes their socially-inherited fantasies of control; when a woman accustomed to the prevailing social rituals of our era—in which men first present themselves as objects to women, to either be engaged or dismissed according to the females' own subjective preferences—can no longer completely and arbitrarily control the terms and circumstances of the interaction, the ego-satisfaction element of the interaction is removed - and with it the main incentive for which most people, (male or female), pursue trivial relationships: ego affirmation. Likewise, the tendency for males to over-display for females is a socially-precipitated reaction to males'—most often justified—preconceptions of being sexually trivialized in this manner before the encounter even occurs. If the female responds positively, the initial trivialization—the female of the male—is reversed, and the ego responds approvingly.
Simply put, some women derive more ego satisfaction from knowing that they can consciously manipulate the terms of a potential sexual encounter on their own, than other women derive from seeing a man theatrically display his sexual attraction to them. Intellectually speaking, the difference is trivial - but behaviorally, it means the former group of women find brash sexual assertiveness in men offensive, while the latter require it, and most women fall somewhere in between the two extremes... and so on and so on.
It doesn't really matter which is the chicken or the egg, when each guarantees that the other will almost always fail to live up to more conscientious standards of behavior. ("Even the most careful analysis of the shadows on the wall...")
Cat calls, small talk, indirect and direct flattery both sincere and dishonest, body language, arbitrary social rituals... all are explicit and conscious manipulations, all are objectification, and the success of any of them relies on both parties' pre-acceptance of a universal social contract stipulating that *some* measure of these behavioral compromises are acceptable. Only intellectual standards are absolute; anything less fundamental is always going to be either subjective or arbitrary or both.
Condemning one extreme of an inherently exploitative behavioral range is both moot and hypocritical - considering every one of us subscribes to one part or another of that same range, (or else only has sexual encounters of a purely derivative and incidental nature... very, very rare). In fact, an adverse reaction to an extreme behavior in this context simply reflects one's own attitude toward attraction and sexual rituals. A primary reason some—not many, but some—women react negatively to overly-overt displays of attraction from men is because it crushes their socially-inherited fantasies of control; when a woman accustomed to the prevailing social rituals of our era—in which men first present themselves as objects to women, to either be engaged or dismissed according to the females' own subjective preferences—can no longer completely and arbitrarily control the terms and circumstances of the interaction, the ego-satisfaction element of the interaction is removed - and with it the main incentive for which most people, (male or female), pursue trivial relationships: ego affirmation. Likewise, the tendency for males to over-display for females is a socially-precipitated reaction to males'—most often justified—preconceptions of being sexually trivialized in this manner before the encounter even occurs. If the female responds positively, the initial trivialization—the female of the male—is reversed, and the ego responds approvingly.
Simply put, some women derive more ego satisfaction from knowing that they can consciously manipulate the terms of a potential sexual encounter on their own, than other women derive from seeing a man theatrically display his sexual attraction to them. Intellectually speaking, the difference is trivial - but behaviorally, it means the former group of women find brash sexual assertiveness in men offensive, while the latter require it, and most women fall somewhere in between the two extremes... and so on and so on.
It doesn't really matter which is the chicken or the egg, when each guarantees that the other will almost always fail to live up to more conscientious standards of behavior. ("Even the most careful analysis of the shadows on the wall...")
