I think queer feminist culture could do with a little more wooing. And I think also, that a radical conception of consent is right to problematise pursuit and persuasion, and to reject utterly “working out a yes” as coercion. The word “seduction” already implies some form of deceit, and etymologically “seduce” comes from the Latin for “to lead away”, and it’s an easy slide from “away” to “astray”.
But there’s no contradiction between consent and pitching the woo — if anything, the idea of the “pitch” assumes a right of refusal, and incorporates the intentionality of desire that sets my breath on fire, even if I succumb as much as anyone to accident, demurral, and the inculpability and opacity of being easy, lazy and vague (cf. trashbag; light grey, right). Keeping your desires unvoiced, unspecified or even unknown may protect you, and you might well get just as much play, but that style is tepid. There’s something way hot about compelling a direct response, and opening yourself to explicit rejection. I like that flagging can help start that question — but there’s a lot hankies can’t say for you.
I love Queerfatfemme’s podcast on courtship for taking romance as a verb and making it a skill to perfect. I’m not sure about “nobody ever died of awkward” (the phrase “mortification of the flesh” comes to mind) but I’m looking forward to being a little more fearless. You can’t always get what you want, no matter how killer your game. But if you try sometimes …
We’ve had a flag for this for a while, but I didn’t get around to adding it.
|___w Flower Pattern||pitching the woo (romance top)||getting wooed (romance bottom)|