Being tagged

I went out for lunch the other day with two of my female colleagues as well as two male colleagues. While we were waiting for our food to arrive (and the service was exceptionally slow that day. It was either the waiters were in their 'not-listening' mode or the cooks simply not bothered enough), the guys started chatting about a certain girl whom one of them found to be attractive. Well, that's what guys talk about anyway (no surprises there) so the rest of us, being the feminine gender, were just listening passively as they went on and on about this girl in question. However, the chat soon spiralled into some sort of argument.

What basically happened was this.

Guy A argued that he doesn't understand why a girl needs to say that "she's single but unavailable" when the whole status would have simply been explained as "unavailable". Guy B then replied (and I must admit, he could have been a champion for the feminine movement) that by choosing 'single but unavailable', the girl is merely trying to brush off the boy's attention in a polite manner. Guy B further stressed his point by saying that girls are usually sensitive and they take extra caution for the guys not to 'lose face' over the unrequited affections.

At this point, one of my female colleagues sided with Guy A and her argument was that the girl should just have said that she's unavailable and that would be the end of the chapter. I wanted to stay silent but I couldn't resist. I found myself torn between the two sides of the argument, each with compelling reasons.

I agree with Guy A's point as calling a spade, a spade. What is the effect of calling oneself as 'single but unavailable'? Is it saying no in a gentler manner so as not to offend the interested party? Or is it the girl's attempt to create a mysterious aura around her and getting the guys to wonder that the catch has just gotten more tempting? Bottom line is that if a girl doesn't like the guy who caused her to think of ways to reject him, then say that she's unavailable. Taken. There's no point in settling for a beating-around-the-bush alternative when a simple no would suffice. Isn't that the beauty of freedom in speech? To say what you want without thinking how it may offend the listener. But then again, we shouldn't discount the fact that quite a number of men are not able to handle rejection. Although literature often refers to 'hell hath no fury as a woman scorned' (and this itself is a form of gender discrimination ignored by many), I am sure the same would apply to men as well.

On the other hand, I could not help but concur with a greater force over Guy B's position. There could be many instances whereby the girl in questioned is indeed single and looking for her Mr. Right. So what is she supposed to do when a guy approaches and she doesn't feel that he's the one? So it would be in all honesty, her position remains that she's single but not available for that particular person's attention and/or affection.

I'm stating as a personal opinion that yes, the feminine gender is sensitive and at the same time (and I expect brickbats thrown by my own sisterhood), we are more manipulative than the men. We always want to have the cake, eat it and don't gain weight. We could easily say that we're unavailable when that particular man does not command our attention and affection. However, the word on our supposed 'unavailability' may spread thanks to the scorned man and where would that leave us? In short, we could be ruining our chances with other fishes in the sea. So yes, saying that the girl is 'single but unavailable' is just enough to thwart off the unwanted attention and at the same time, keeping our options open for the right person that comes along.

I tried to discuss the above with my Dad later in the evening. My Dad then asked with a deadpan expression, the following.

"What about married and available?"

Well, that's another story.