Prelude: This is not a pro-feminist post and nor is there a giant chemical plant near my flat which discharges estrogen in huge amounts as a by product. And yes i am insecure of losing my Dude membership.
When we were children we were read Knight in shining armor, Cinderella and other fables which showed guys as the quintessential macho folks and women as demure young things with a thing for braid hair and poetry. When we grew up there were these romantic comedies targeted at the teens and we pretty much wanted to be a part of the enigma called Love.
Enter modern age, metro –sexuality and women liberation. I would like to paint a hypothetical chain of events.
Consider a situation, where a guy who is not a complete colon comes to the rescue of a girl in a corporate environment. Say the girl is having a hard time getting into the system and is being pushed out of the loop due to her gender [also directly proportional to her looks]. The guy helps the girl out and brings her into the team and slowly she starts to feel better.
Now the guy asks the girl out and they go around. The girl has a platonic relationship with the guy as it would be unwise to let him go as it would be blow back to her current position. A few weeks of fooling around and enter scene, a coffee shop.
Guy: After mutual exchange of intelligentsia, the guy tries to hit on her. He does it this way because, girls find guys who shoot from the hip to be crass and crude [No judgment here]. He says “I think i like you”
Girl : Sure, i like you too.
Guy: Exasperated as the girl did not get the innuendo blatantly blurts out “I mean i kind of have hots for you”
Girl: I don’t think so, i am sorry.
Guy : Distraught asks the ubiquitous question “But Why? “ .
Now the girl is forced into a corner where she has to come up with a really lame reason like “It is not you, it is me” etc… . And guys who lack a certain chromosome start to hurl invectives against the girl and accuse her behaving like a mercenary.The guy [and some prudes] would reason that the girl should not have gone around if she had no intention of saying yes. Well isn’t the guy equally asinine to assume the girl as a commodity?Especially if he thinks that; if he spends some he should get some.
The situation post this conversation might branch out into two ways, one he is mature enough to understand that the girl is allowed to form her own opinion [This is rare and is not considered masculine].
Two the guy assumes that he has to try harder to show his Lauu for her. Then the guy brings on a tirade of emotional hijacking by buying expensive gifts, being super lame and proving to her that he can be a jackass for her. At the same time he has to maintain that he is not physically interested in her.It like the age old adage “To get a loan, you have to prove that you don’t need one”.
Very rarely does the choice of the girl matters and i find it to be unfair. It was depicted to an extent in a movie [Vinnaithandi Varuvaya]. The routine of guy- does-everything-to-prove-his-love has been done to death in industry that even karan johar finds it cliched. I think that Love is a two way street . I also believe that there are no equals in a relationship; there is always a person who puts the other on a pedestal. The former tends to be a lesser equal in one of the following factors
3. Emotional quotient [A term invented by the ladies]
And if some losers say that true love never dies and they will continue to love despite the other not reciprocating it, it is called obsession and the person is a masochist.There is no such thing as unrequited love, it is just bad luck. The depth of your affection is not directly proportional to how much you screw your life over a girl, it is just pathetic. As far as devdas goes anurag kashyap pawned the megalomaniac in sanjay leela bhansali big time.
A small note to ladies, please don’t abuse chivalry it is not a prerogative :).