I’ve been reading a great little book on ‘Sex and Dating: the politically correct guide’.
It’s been tremendously informative and helpful, and I am now aware that women might not like to be called ‘dogs’ or ‘coerced into holding your hand’. While I believe firmly in everyone’s right to be addressed as they wish (a former nanny, who looked after me from the ages of 9-11 years, insisted on being known as ‘Empress Caroline’), I am less convinced by the idea of ‘coercion’ when it comes to holding someone’s hand.
Let me clarify. I am against coercion. It’s just I’m not quite sure (not that I would want to, obviously, especially after reading this book) how one would use coercion to force someone to hold your hand. Apart from brute strength, obviously. But I feel that crushing someone’s unwilling hand in your own is rather at odds with the whole romantic premise of holding someone’s hand. It seems to be far more suited to the holding of childrens’ hands- as an act of containment, to stop them from running into oncoming traffic.
I’m not sure we’re meant to be preventing the people we are dating from running into oncoming traffic. I mean, we shouldn’t be pushing them into oncoming traffic, but I feel as though by the time we’re dating them, they should know how to cross the road.
Anyway, the ‘Sex and Dating: the politically correct guide’ is pretty firm in its stance both on dating children and the use of brute force during a date, so I’ve been thinking of other options. And while I’ve been thinking (in the abstract- I’m not actively seeking to coerce someone into holding my hand, more mulling over a semantic problem) I’ve been singing ‘I want to hold your hand’, by The Beatles. Until my little sister pointed out that my singing, in and of itself, was a form of coercion. Which has made me realise that I must write my own book on ‘Sex and Dating’- and possibly take singing lessons.
unfashionablylost 