Desires

After an all-too-long break, I'm here, writing again. I do have a lot of things to write about, but somehow I've gotten out of the habit of writing. Got to get back in there again!

Anyway, recently, I've thought a lot of about desires in the sense of "I want X". Two specific cues got me thinking about this:

1. While visiting a friend, he asked me: "Would you like to have something? Tea, coffee, juice...?" Usually, I don't have strong desires and I would go something like "Yeah, um-h, sure, I don't know, whatever." Some argue that an offer like that is literally an offer and a sign of the hospitality of the host. Therefore I can and should choose whatever I feel like, without consideration of the cost or practicality for the host.
   Personally, I would prefer more a dialog, with an answer like "Sure. What do you recommend?" or "Sure. I'll have what the other's are having." Such answers give the host more room to serve what is practical or especially good.
2. Another friend, a female, stated that she wants that the man takes the initiative, that the man should "make the move" so to speak. In that particular moment, I have to admit that I had no idea whether she implied that I should make a move (which was a tempting thought), or that men in general should make the move. This confusion originates from the fact that she did not give any indication whether she was interested in me or not. While this puts a lot of pressure on the man (me), it is also in contradiction with well-researched facts about human courtship. It is true that it is generally the men who "make the move", but generally "the move" is successful only if the female has first given a sign that she is interested, that she would like the man to make a move.
   

In my mind, these two examples demonstrate problems with stereotypical concepts of desire. I would argue that trying to force out statements of preference (or desire) squeezes out flexibility. When a host asks "Tea, coffee, beer or champagne, perhaps?" merely answering "Champagne", might be impractical if you are the only one drinking and the host has to open a bottle just for you. Or perhaps all the other guests are driving and cannot drink alcohol. "I would feel like champagne, but only if others join me", would state the preference, but gives the host as well as the other guests the option of nudging you to a more practical choice when needed. In this sense, in my opinion, forcing choices, or forcing statements of preference, makes the situation too black and white.

A second argument is that the "I want" attitude is an egoistic one. It excludes social interaction. "I want champagne." Period. Personally I feel that drinking champagne with a friend, let along a female friend, is doubly as pleasant as drinking it alone. Although I really, really like champagne, sometimes I would rather not drink champagne, then drink it alone. In the courtship context, I feel that it is perfectly ok that a man makes the moves in a context where the man and the female do not know each other from before, such as a bar. I would even see that as the preferred way of action. However, if the man and female know each other from before, if they are even friends, then the stakes are higher. To interpret the situation wrong, to make moves when the female is not interested, can incur serious damage to a friendship. An interaction will then probably lead to a more "mutually fulfilling" (pardon the pun) sequence of events. Thus the social interaction often gives a better result than just blurting out your own preference.

The other side of the coin is that persons without definite opinions are often perceived as weak, as if they were incapable of making a choice. Paradoxically, I do agree with this argument as well. Inability to choose is lame. It is a serious handicap. Paralysis before a menu in a restaurant is really annoying for the others in a group. To this problem I would offer a simple trick. Instead of the two opposite alternatives 1. "I choose X" and 2. "I'm unable to choose", I would suggest a third alternative 3. "I do not have a preference". In the original host/guest scenario we could then proceed with

• (Host) "Would you like some tea, coffee or juice?"
• (You) "I don't know", meaning, "I don't have a preference", and then continue "What are the others having?"
• (Host) "We're all drinking tea."
• (You) "I'll have one, too."

Note that, in addition to being practical for the host, this kind of conformity to the group standard will unify the group and build sense of community, instead of "He's the (different) one who drinks coffee."

In a situation where we really do have to make a choice, such as when eating in a restaurant, I would offer the no-preference case two different solutions.

1. Again, interact. For example, ask the waiter "What would you recommend?" if he did not already offer his opinion (they often have something ready). Say, the specials of the day are often something that the restaurant bought in a big quantity, whereby you'd get better quality for a cheaper price. Perfect.
   
2. The advanced technique: If you don't know what you prefer, then all the available options must be more or less of equal preference to you. Therefore, pick one at random. Number 3 is as good a choice as any. I've tried that a lot of times. In all parts of the world, it always works. Easy.