Playing 'Hard to Get' and other relationship theories.

Theory #1 - Playing hard to get

The last time I spoke with Cassandra, she described what she calls a 'blanket policy' - whereby, upon giving her number to somebody, she will never instigate the first form of communication.

'I just never do it. If they want me they can text or call me. It's playing hard to get and works a lot of the time'.

Katerina nodded away in total agreement at this policy. She too has never 'called a guy first'.

Now, the more I speak to people about dating and such like, the more I come to realise that this 'playing hard to get' policy is slowly becoming an unwritten law.

If somebody wants you they can bloody well make the first move.

Fair enough; unless you happen to be two people who both adopt the blanket policy, in which case either you'd never meet OR one of you would have to, godforbid, cave in.

Alright, so I can understand that everybody wants to be wanted more than they want to want themselves (yep, you may have to re-read that last sentence for purposes of clarity), but really...why must we be so stubborn so as to kill the flower before it's even sprouted?

I'm of the belief that life is too short and that if we like somebody, it's our prerogative to make some sort of move in their direction. If it's not returned you can move on, if they text back - Hoorah, if they put you down for being 'too clingy and keen' - fuckem.

After all, when everything is said and done, who really cares who it was that sent the initial text message or made the initial telephone call?

What worries me is the number of people who may have simply drifted apart from each other just because neither of them 'could be bothered' to make the first move.

What also worries me is that none of the Speed Dating 'yess' have returned my messages. I always imagined men who would go to these sorts of events might be a little more ...organised. A little more, willing to send a message back to the guy who you said yes to. You gets me? - but this is another blog entry in it's own right.

I still find myself believing that there is nothing wrong in making the first move. If we don't go out there and take what we want (or at least try to), what will we be left with? Nothing but our stubbornness.

Having said this, there are certainly far more heterosexual females who adopt this policy than men. Back to the middle ages on this one it would be appear.

I'm sure some gay men are just the same however. Waiting for the world and his wife to declare unconditional love before they type the first message.

Big Sigh.

Theory #2 - Sex is plaster

So, Katerina and The Boy, after the latest attempted break up, rekindled the romance with sex, yet again.

I know it's not uncommon, this sort of behaviour, but surely it really slows down process.

Lots of people indulge in Ex-Sex (Juno being a prime example - the last time we spoke he said that he'd had sex with his Ex and that now he'd had his 'fix' he wouldn't need him until mid to late December), and this probably because it cuts all the initial fumbling and awkwardness of a new found lover.

But really, does it have to be this way?

So the sex, once the relationship is over, is always friggin good. But you broke up with him/her FOR A REASON.

Using sex to plaster over the cracks of your relationship doesn't mean that those cracks will disappear. All it means is that nobody will be able to see them for a while. Until, through the passage of time they begin to reappear.

So, Katerina and The Boy, break up, have sex and it's all back on, until a few days later they break up again, have sex and fall back into the mould.

I wonder - how long before the sex isn't enough? How many guts will it take to break it off one and for all. To never look back?

I suppose the answer is simply too many to deal with.