In another forum, I have raised the thesis that:
In the mate-finding process, it is important that the man should present himself truthfully instead of focusing totally on winning the woman.
The woman should make a conscious and informed choice, considering which man will be good for her, rather than merely which one wins a competition for her.
As is easily predictable, the very idea managed to offend many people.
Anyway, however, it is certainly important that people should put effort in any acquintance or friendship or family relation or any other relationship they care for. And sure, can’t jump into a relationship without some wooing. After all, common history builds and strengthens relationships. History is what builds people. The aspect of care, attention, making effort, is not to be neglected. Therefore, one may defend that it’s ultimately the “act of conquest” which makes the whole difference. What I have beef with is the idea that we necessarily have to fight and compete with others to get anything meaningful in life. Personally, I’d rather no one ever had to fight or compete with anyone and I disagree with the very concept of making internal fights within the human race into a noble thing. Plus, I believe in making the right choice rather than creating superfluities which should fall to Occam’s razor.
The way presented above, both positions are respectable within certain limits and each can be extrapolated into something bad - #1 being a male wallflower and somewhat slothful, #2 being non-rational and unnecessarily combative. Also, #1 tends towards complicating matters and sinking into formalities, while #2 tends to neglect the importance of reasonable decision-making. On the positive side, #1 focuses on complementing each other well, while #2 seems to play along with tradition and traditional male/female roles.
The choice is yours.