sigelphoenix

I think a lot of women who were raised on a diet of fairy tales and Disney movies are prone to, as Meggie put it, 'bouts of princess'; and I think that, like most kinds of junk food, it's really only bad for you in large doses. And if you want to be more healthy you can try to give it up (as one might try and give up chocolate or potato chips or soda with high fructose corn syrup) but that doesn't mean you won't still get cravings.

Maybe it's just a sign of the fact that I've been studying for my philosophy final (which I should probably go and take), but I'm reminded of what Beauvoir says, about subject/object relations. In the majority of our interactions with each other, someone is going to be the subject who's doing the doing, and someone is going to be the object that's being done to. The problem, she argues, is that we as women are disproportionately in the object position. No one should be in the object position all the time, but I think the reverse is also true: no one should (or perhaps can) be in the subject position all the time, either.

You don't seem the kind to me who wants to be pampered and taken care of all the time and have everything done for you by others. You are independent, hard-working, strong and smart. So I wouldn't worry too much about what these 'bouts of princess' mean. Yeah, they're at least partly socially conditioned -- so what? Everything is, to some degree or other. If it makes you happy (and why wouldn't it make you happy, to feel beautiful and special and cherished?) and it's not hurting anyone, then I don't really see a problem with it.

In some situations you want to be the one in charge, the one taking action, the one sweeping your partner off his or her feet -- and in other situations, you want to be swept off your feet. Which I suppose is just another way of saying that sometimes you're the fly, and sometimes you're the windshield, but... more romantical?