Men, Masculinity and Contemporary

Dating Chris Haywood

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/men-masculinity-and-contemporary-dating-chris-hayw
ood/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Are Men Animals How Modern Masculinity Sells Men Short

Matthew Gutmann

https://textbookfull.com/product/are-men-animals-how-modern-
masculinity-sells-men-short-matthew-gutmann/

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Men in Women's Worlds: Constructions of Masculinity in

Women's Magazines Laura Coffey-Glover

https://textbookfull.com/product/men-in-womens-worlds-
constructions-of-masculinity-in-womens-magazines-laura-coffey-
glover/

Are we not men unstable masculinity in the Hebrew

prophets 1st Edition Rhiannon Graybill

https://textbookfull.com/product/are-we-not-men-unstable-
masculinity-in-the-hebrew-prophets-1st-edition-rhiannon-graybill/
Food and Masculinity in Contemporary Autobiographies:
Cast-Iron Man 1st Edition Nieves Pascual Soler (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/food-and-masculinity-in-
contemporary-autobiographies-cast-iron-man-1st-edition-nieves-
pascual-soler-auth/

Dating Advice For Men A Dating Guide On How To Be A

Better Man Attract The Women You Want Have A
Spectacular Relationship And Get More From Life dating
playbook confidence self confidence Levi King
https://textbookfull.com/product/dating-advice-for-men-a-dating-
guide-on-how-to-be-a-better-man-attract-the-women-you-want-have-
a-spectacular-relationship-and-get-more-from-life-dating-
playbook-confidence-self-confidence-levi-king/

SEDUCING WOMEN MANUAL DATING BOOK FOR MEN SEDUCTION

ATTRACTION DAYGAME HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS Owen Sparks

https://textbookfull.com/product/seducing-women-manual-dating-
book-for-men-seduction-attraction-daygame-how-to-talk-to-girls-
owen-sparks/

Life Span Motor Development 7th Edition Kathleen M

Haywood Nancy Getchell

https://textbookfull.com/product/life-span-motor-development-7th-
edition-kathleen-m-haywood-nancy-getchell/

The Palgrave Handbook of Masculinity and Sport Rory

Magrath

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
masculinity-and-sport-rory-magrath/
 Men, Masculinity &
Contemporary Dating
Chris Haywood
Men, Masculinity and Contemporary Dating
 Chris Haywood

Men, Masculinity and

Contemporary
Dating
Chris Haywood
Media, Culture and Heritage
Newcastle University
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

ISBN 978-1-137-50682-5    ISBN 978-1-137-50683-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50683-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018937513

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © GoodMood Photo / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Macmillan Publishers Ltd. part
of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
To Sandra Haywood, Jade Haywood, Elycia Haywood and Victoria
Haywood
 Acknowledgements

I have been so lucky to have a number of friends and colleagues who have
helped think through many of the areas when putting this book together.
This includes, Mairtin Mac an Ghaill, Thomas Johansson, Liviu Popoviciu,
Jeepers Andersson, Andreas Ottemo, Marcus Herz, Ylva Odenbring,
Anne Dorte; Niels Ulrik Sørensen, Michael Keheler, Ali Javaid, Jhitsayarat
Siripai, Chao Yang, Andrea Waling, Kelly Murphey, Lucas Gotzen,
Margareta Bohlin, Peter Hakansson, Per Norden, Jeniie Sivenberg, Nils
Hammaren, Annette Helman, Ardis Kristen and Xiaodong Lin. A very
special thank you to Jonathan Allan, Frank Karioris and Andrea Waling
for their intellectual warmth, kindness and hangover cures.
A number of conferences over the last years have proved invaluable to
the development of the book: the NYRIS conference with fantastic input
from my Nordic friends, the Men and Power conference in South Africa,
the Men Doing Sex conference at Newcastle University, and also my stay
with Todd Reeser and the staff and students of Pittsburgh University. A
special shout out to the American Men’s Studies Association conferences
over the past few years—one of the few places that is safe to share ideas
with critical friends and is not a forum for academic entrepreneurs.
Colleagues at Newcastle including Gareth Longstaff, Steve Walls,
David Baines, Florian Zollman, Karen Ross, Clifton Evers, Darren
Kelsey, Gerard Corsane, Peter Hopkins, Pauline Dixon, Steve Humble,

vii
viii Acknowledgements

Bill Roberts, Kerry Dodds, Sarah Greenhalgh, Jane Hughes and Christine
Foster deserve special praise.
This book would not have been at all possible without those who
helped carry out the interviews. Jessica Pass, Josephine Ayre, Megan Law
and Zoe Bright, your time, help and discussions have been invaluable.
Thank you to my family, who at different times have helped and sup-
ported me in different ways: John Haywood, Paul Denny, Lelah
McDermott, Tony McDermott, Poppy Haywood and David Hillaby. A
special shout out to James Matheson.
Finally, I have been privileged to teach the Sex, Sexuality and Desire
module at Newcastle University for a number of years, and I sincerely
thank all of the students over those years who taught me things that I
never knew was possible. Doing ‘Sex’ with you was such good fun and I
look forward to doing more of it in future years!
 Contents

1 First Encounters   1

2 (Post) Dating Masculinities: From Courtship to a Post-­

dating World  25

3 Speed Dating: The Making of ‘Three-­Minute Masculinities’  55

4 Holiday Romances: Liquid Lust and the ‘Package Holiday’  93

5 Mobile Romance: Tinder and the Navigation

of Masculinity 131

6 Online Sex Seeking: Beyond Digital Encounters 167

7 ‘Dogging Men’: Car Parks, Masculinity and Anonymous

Sex 199

ix
x Contents

8 Conclusion 231

Index 243
 1
First Encounters

Introduction
Dating is changing. Alongside the more established ways of meeting
people, such as introductions by family and friends, meetings in bars
and clubs and encounters in everyday work and social life, new forms
of dating are emerging. Speed dating, mobile romance, online dating,
holiday romances and hooking-up provide ways of meeting people
that move away from the taken-for-granted scripts and rituals, to a
moment of uncertainty where the ‘rules of the dating game’ have
become less clear and less predictable. We are developing a new emo-
tional literacy to make sense of the changes in dating, such as the
emergence of ‘thirtysomethings’, ‘placeholder relationships’, ‘stream-
ing infidelity’ and ‘Commitmentphobes’ (of which there are numerous
kinds). Some have suggested that we are now in an era of Post-dating
where the benchmarks of traditional dating cultures are irrelevant
(Massa 2012, p. 7). Within the shifting landscape of dating, there is no
clear guide to understand how such changes should be navigated. And
this book is not going to give you one. However, this book will provide
a reflection on how heterosexual men are navigating them. Although
research is beginning to identify the transformational potential of

© The Author(s) 2018 1

C. Haywood, Men, Masculinity and Contemporary Dating,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50683-2_1
2 C. Haywood

these emerging dating practices for women, the lesbian and gay com-
munities and young people (e.g. see Harcourt 2004; Gomez 2010;
Bauermeister et al. 2012), there is relatively less work examining how
straight men are negotiating such changes. Instead, we remain highly
dependent upon media narratives that offer contradictory accounts of
men’s responses to contemporary dating practices. On the one hand,
such narratives are claiming that new forms of dating are providing
men with the opportunity to be more caring and sensitive (Hilton
2011; Burke 2012). On the other hand, such accounts are suggesting
that there is a ‘menaissance’—a cultural moment where ‘post-sensitive’
men are responding to the change by drawing upon traditional mascu-
line tropes such as emotional stoicism and toughness (Haddow 2010;
Fitzgerald 2012). Thus, traditional ways of being a man, often charac-
terized by ‘anti-femininity, homophobia, emotional restrictiveness,
competitiveness, toughness, and aggressiveness’ (Coughlin and Wade
2012, p. 326), are being re-made in this new dating context.
Existing work on men and masculinity has indicated that social, cul-
tural and economic changes do not necessarily produce socially progres-
sive masculinities (Jamieson 1998). More specifically, Eaton and Rose
(2011, p. 862) suggest that despite the changes in dating, traditional pat-
terns of gendered behaviour persist: ‘Men were expected to initiate, plan,
and pay for dates and to initiate sexual contact, whereas women were
supposed to be alluring, facilitate the conversation, and limit sexual activ-
ity’ (see also Bartoli and Clark 2006). Furthermore, it is argued that this
symmetrical model of proactive and reactive dating behaviours continues
to be used by men in dating contexts. It is suggested that such traditional
gendered scripts of dating enable men to live up to and negotiate cultural
expectations. More specifically, as men’s dating success is often culturally
coded as being a ‘real man’, when men meet women they often aspire to
meet such expectations. However, according to Seal and Ehrhardt (2003),
the result of this stereotypical positioning of men and women is that it
continues to enable men to control women, and as Bouffard and Bouffard
(2011, p. 4) suggest: ‘These gendered expectations include male control
and female dependence, obedience, and sexual access.’ In effect, it is sug-
gested that contemporary dating mirrors a broader organization of social
relations that depends upon a dyadic ‘complementary’ and unequal gen-
der positioning in dating encounters (Tolman et al. 2003).
 First Encounters 3

Despite recent developments in Critical Masculinity Studies, Feminism

and Queer Theory, men continue to remain an invisible category in pop-
ular discourses. Discussions about gender are often conflated with discus-
sions about women; as a result, gender is usually understood as something
to do with women. As Johnson (1997, p. 12) pointed out, ‘it is precisely
men’s status as “ungendered representatives of humanity” that is the key
to patriarchy’. When gender and men are paired together, it is usually to
explain an issue, problem or ‘crisis’ of masculinity: where men are not
being able to meet their natural ubiquitous state or are having that state
distorted, as in the popular under-theorized phrase ‘Toxic Masculinity’.
In some cases, men don’t have genders; they simply have biologies, and
changes in the ways that we initiate relationships can be seen as impact-
ing on or impeding such men’s ‘true selves’. A recent study on men, mas-
culinity and attraction suggested that masculinity can be measured by
examining different parts of the body. For example, cheekbones are
known to be receptors of testosterone; the more prominent a man’s
cheekbones, the more testosterone has been absorbed. Thus different face
height/width ratios are indicative of facial dominance. For example,
Valentine et al. (2014, p. 807) suggest that:

Men’s facial dominance may be an honest signal not only of good health,
but also of formidability as an intrasexual competitor, which could be help-
ful in gaining access to mates (intrasexual selection) and attracting women.
(intersexual selection; Puts et al. 2012)

Such approaches carry an evolutionary residue, where men’s dating

behaviour is reducible to how men are deemed to have behaved prehis-
torically. For example, Puts (2010, p. 158) argues that human mating is
not determined by sexual selection, but rather is a consequence of men
excluding other men:

But has mate choice been the primary mechanism of human sexual selec-
tion, as the literature might suggest? I argue here that it has not. Rather,
contest competition—in which force or threats of force are used to exclude
same-sex rivals from mating opportunities—has been the main form of
mating competition in men, whereas male mate choice has predominated
as a mechanism of sexual selection operating on women.
4 C. Haywood

Thus much of the literature on men and dating is concerned with men
adapting to change, resulting in a ‘crisis of masculinity’ as men struggle to
maintain what is perceived to be the correct (read ‘natural’) way of being
a man.
However, a different approach can be seen in the world of relationship
guidance. Men have to learn how to be a better lover, a better husband or
father, with the implicit assumption that men being men is not enough.
An example of this is the problem of sexual ‘eagerness’. Castleman (2017)
captures this with his discussion in Attention Men: Three Keys to Becoming
a Better Lover:

According to the conventional wisdom, women are very emotionally com-

plicated, and therefore, sex with them is too. But with all due respect to
women’s complexities, men can become much better lovers by implement-
ing just three simple guidelines: …

These guidelines include spending ‘at least’ 30 minutes before moving

between a woman’s legs, doing the opposite of what happens in porn, and
to ‘every time provide her with gentle, extended oral sex (cunnilingus)’.
Castleman goes on to argue that men ‘rush into intercourse before women
feel ready for genital play’. All men, it appears, are too eager: either wor-
rying that women will change their minds or that they will lose their
erections. There are two aspects of this approach that stand out. First, and
by default, men are not compatible with women and thus have to re-learn
their approach to women in order to ensure relationship success in the
contemporary world. Women’s independence from the pressure of repro-
duction, alongside a cultural emphasis on gender equality, is argued to be
leaving men behind. As such, men, it is suggested, have to adapt. Second,
men and women now have to reflexively navigate how to be particular
kinds of men and women, who correspond with predominant cultural
ideals of femininity and masculinity. Thus, men have to reflect on their
identities and their practices in order to approximate a culturally valued
kind of man. Although these two aspects are anchored in popular
­psychology, they do help capture a shift in the way that men are negotiat-
ing their masculinities where the cultural scripts of dating are changing.
This is especially the case since masculinity has traditionally been achieved
 First Encounters 5

through what men did with their bodies, such as their occupations.
However, more recently, men have been increasingly reflexive about what
they do on their bodies (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2011). It is argued
here that masculine status is increasingly judged by men’s reflexive quali-
ties. More specifically, as reflexivity becomes central to the making of
men’s identities, the quality of men’s reflexiveness becomes an increas-
ingly salient element in the performance of masculinity. Rather than this
being a consequence of an individual psychology, it is suggested in this
book that the increasing need for men to demonstrate a ‘quality reflexiv-
ity’ is a consequence of broader changes in the social, cultural and eco-
nomic configuration of men’s and women’s lives.
One of the few empirically grounded studies that examine older men’s
experiences of intimacy in Late Modernity is Duncan and Dowsett’s
(2010) set of interviews with heterosexual and gay men. They suggest
that men were demonstrating ‘greater levels of reflexivity on the part of
individuals with regard to questions of intimacy and sex’ (ibid., p. 58)
though they do not claim that traditional forms of masculinity have dis-
appeared. Instead, they argue that traditional masculinities are being
negotiated, as men attempt to develop meaningful intimate relationships
with their partners. However, it is also argued that the material, cultural
and symbolic structures that have been the basis for men to assert author-
ity, legitimacy, control and dominance in relationships have broken
down. More specifically, in Late Modern society, traditional manufactur-
ing labour or patriarchal family formations appear to be no longer sus-
tainable. Thus, men no longer draw upon traditional masculinities when
searching, initiating and going on dates. Furthermore, Siibak’s (2010)
research on men’s profiles on dating sites indicates that young men are
presenting a range of ways of being a man. Further, recent work on inclu-
sive masculinity has suggested that men are no longer dependant on
homophobia to demonstrate their masculinities (Anderson 2014). Whilst
recent work by Doull et al. (2013) suggests that young men are now
changing identities when they date, there is little information on what is
happening in relation to new dating contexts. Cocks’s (2009) discussion
of the history of dating in newspapers has suggested that one of the main
differences between personal columns in the past, and more recent
changes in dating, has been the shift from elaborate coding of identity to
6 C. Haywood

self-revelation. Cocks argues that changes such as the internet impel us to

reveal ourselves (or particular edited aspects of us) more explicitly. It is
suggested that the rise of the internet has simply reinforced the existing
social transformations that relied on the dispersal of social communities
and has intensified individually centred interactions. Rather than the
internet enabling its users to move away from themselves, the trend
according to Cocks has been to valorize the self, to make it more explicit
and accessible.

What Is Dating?
This book makes two distinctions about dating. First, dating is often used
as a shorthand for a range of ways to initiate relationships. From ‘hook-­
ups’ to long-term relationships, dating is often used flexibly to capture a
range of interpersonal encounters. This suggests a more flexible set of
practices associated with dating. More recently, Chorney and Morris
(2008) draw upon Pirog-Good and Stet’s (1989) definition of dating as ‘a
dyadic interaction that focuses on participation in mutually rewarding
activities that may increase the likelihood of future interaction, emotional
commitment and/or sexual intimacy’ (p. 226). As we will see later in the
context of Online Sex Seeking, although dating is predominantly under-
stood as being between two people, dating practices can often involve
more than two people. Poitrois and Lavoie (1995, p. 300) capture such
range, suggesting that ‘dating relationships cover the spectrum of experi-
ences ranging from one-night stands and short-term encounters to rela-
tionships that are long-lasting and stable over time, excluding cohabitation’.
Alongside this, researchers have noted the range of individual definitions
of dating that people employ (e.g. see Watson 2001; Howard et al. 2015).
It is important, however, to see dating as part of a broader way of
thinking about relationship initiation. Therefore, this book suggests that
we also need a second approach to dating that positions it as part of an
episteme.

By episteme we mean … the total set of relations that unite, at a given

period, the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures,
 First Encounters 7

sciences, and possibly formalised systems … the episteme is not a form of

knowledge or type of rationality which, crossing the boundaries of the
most varied sciences, manifests the sovereign unity of a subject, a spirit, or
a period; it is the totality of relations which can be discovered, for a given
period, between the sciences when one analyses them at the level of discur-
sive regularities. (Foucault 1969/2002, p. 211)

The episteme is the temporally located ordering of things where under-

standings comply with particular knowledges. Beth Bailey (1989) talks
about dating as a specific historically located set of relationships practices.
This book does the same, suggesting a range of historically located prac-
tices, where dating can be understood alongside instrumentalism, court-
ship and calling. Building upon this, the book argues that at present we
are part of an episteme that has witnessed the fragmentation of dating or
‘Post-dating’. This historical reading of the constitution of thinking pos-
its that the rules of knowing are historically situated and thus impact
upon the possibilities of social and cultural thinking and practices. Thus,
relationship initiation is constituted by specific regulations that are
informed by epistemes. In this way, the episteme provides the template
that informs the possibilities of relationship initiation. As a result, the
episteme designates and deploys the possible semiologies and possible
semantic relationships between men, women and relationship initiation.
At the same time, the dominant regularities of thinking are subject to
epistemic transformations, as Foucault has suggested in The Order of
Things. However, these transformations do not take shape in a logical
progression following what Habermas (2003) names as an ‘inner logic’.
Rather, epistemic change is non-linear, accidental and fortuitous. This is
especially the case as epistemes work across different geospatial locations.
At the same time, the focus in this chapter is not to explain epistemic
change, but rather to identify how we might begin to make sense of the
contemporary way of dating.
With a wide range of social, cultural, economic and technological
changes, the process of meeting and having relationships is becoming
increasingly diversified, and we are still in the process of documenting the
impact on gender relations. It is evident that we are entering a socio-­
cultural moment where the rules and rituals surrounding traditional
8 C. Haywood

stereotypes that project ideal male and female behaviours are becoming
much looser and less defined by tradition. As the parameters of what
dating looks like become increasingly blurred, we begin to reconfigure
what we mean by ‘dating’ and the function of dating. We are witnessing
the unravelling of themes of commitment and exclusivity, and meanings
of being in a relationship are undergoing constant revision. This book
responds to this lack of knowledge and provides empirically driven
insights into how men are navigating a Post-dating world. It is a collec-
tion of snapshots designed to unpack how men are responding to such
changes.

Men, Masculinity and Heterosexuality

This book specifically focuses on those men who publicly identify as het-
erosexual and, in doing so, responds to Monaghan and Robertson’s
(2012, p. 147) call for more research on heterosexual men ‘on issues rang-
ing from transformations of intimacy, gendered identity constructions,
the social aspects of the body, the emotions, rationalisation and the
impact of abstract knowledge systems in an age of new (postfeminist)
media’. This is important because, as Richardson (1996) identified in
earlier work, heterosexuality is a naturalized category; meaning that it is
a silent category. The naturalization of heterosexuality means that it
requires no justification or explanation and that masculinity becomes
part of its (in)visibility. One way of explaining this is to position sexual
identities as ‘live’ and ‘dead’. Live sexual identities ‘situate themselves in
the materiality of both histories and bodies, and hence are open not just
to the contingencies of past and present … but also to the radical possi-
bility of the future’ (Storr 2001, p. 115). The public nature of the live sex
identities is counterposed by the dead sexual identities that occupy the
private zone. As Berlant (1997, pp. 59–60) suggests, ‘in the fantasy world
of national culture, citizens aspire to dead identities—constitutional per-
sonhood in its public-sphere abstraction and suprahistoricity, reproduc-
tive heterosexuality in the zone of privacy. Identities not live, or in play,
but dead, frozen, fixed and at rest’. For example, in sex education, gov-
ernment policy has attempted to erase the sexuality of the family by
 First Encounters 9

removing its sexual semantics and replacing it with an emphasis on rela-

tionships and love, interspersed with a (warm) eroticism of (rational)
intimacy. This means that the family becomes repositioned as private
married lifestyle. In contrast, (cold) sexual practice and sexualities are
contested, negotiable and plastic. They carry social threat and risk and in
turn reinstate the non-risk, safe, and thus non-sexual province of the
family. By refocusing on heterosexual men, the aim is to expose them to
critical scrutiny, make them visible and understand the dynamics of men’s
subjectivities in a Post-dating world.
Masculinity scholars have outlined how heterosexuality is an impor-
tant resource that men use to consolidate and reinforce their masculine
status in relation to other men and women. One of the most pervasive
approaches to understanding men and sex has been Raewyn Connell’s
(1987, 1995) framework of hegemonic masculinity. For Connell, hege-
monic masculinities become cohered and reinforced through their rela-
tionship to other masculinities; ‘the dependence of hegemonic forms of
masculinity on the derogated other for self-definition’ (Gough 2002,
p. 234). Michael Kimmel’s work on men and masculinity suggests that
masculine subjectivities are constituted through the rejection of that
which is culturally deemed as feminine. As a result, masculine identities
are structured through a heterosexuality that creates its stability through
the rejection of that which is feminine (read as homosexual), so ‘that the
reigning definition of masculinity is a defensive effort to prevent being
emasculated’ (2007, p. 80). In the context of dating, the navigation of
new forms of dating will then be in relation to those practices that are
ascribed as ‘feminine’. In contrast, Anderson (2009) has usefully argued
that we can now begin to understand masculinities that are not dependant
on homophobia to claim masculine status. Instead, current heterosexual
masculinities are not dependent upon homosexuality as a resource through
which to make men’s identities. Thus, because of decreasing levels of
homohysteria, men feel much more comfortable with practices that are
seen as feminine. Yet, Ward (2015) suggests that this is not the adoption
of newer forms of masculinity; rather it is the re-articulation of a tradi-
tional masculinity. For example, Ward suggests that hetero-­masculinity
can also reinforce itself through men’s participation in homosexual acts,
and explores the idea of straight men having same-sex relations. She
10 C. Haywood

introduces a concept of the ‘heteroflexible’ in the way that homosexual

practices are accommodated and reinforced through heterosexual identi-
ties. Her main claim is that ‘homosexual encounters are not in fact discor-
dant with heterosexual masculinity when they are approached through the
most recognizable circuits of hetero-masculinity’ (ibid., p. 189). However,
central to this work is the underlying assumption of the symbiotic nature
of masculinity with sexuality. In other words, men’s sexual experiences and
behaviours can only be understood through the intelligibility provided by
the concept of heterosexual masculinity (see also Haywood et al. 2017).
In both the accounts, it appears that men’s subjectivities are only
understood through a template of masculinity; men’s diverse identifica-
tions have to be through a concept of masculinity. What appears to be a
loosening of the masculinity is really a reconfiguration of how that mas-
culinity is being made. Frank’s discussion of swinging couples highlights
how men make their masculinities through conventional heterosexual
identifications and practices. However, Frank also noticed that the con-
text of swinging loosens the implicit imbrication of masculinity and
heterosexuality:

Even short of double penetration, in swinging encounters men are still

naked in the presence of other men, watching those men engaging in sex-
ual activity with women, perhaps watching them ejaculate or comment on
penis sizes or sexual skills … spectatorship and sexual fantasy is complex in
terms of identifications (e.g. Clover 1993; Williams 1989) and this is no
less true in terms of live spectator/participant situations. (Frank 2008,
p. 446)

The suggestion here is that the parameters of heterosexual masculinity

have become widened to include practices that would trouble a conven-
tional heterosexuality. Also relevant is Cover’s (2015) research on the
­website Chaturbate, which involves straight-identified men garnering
gay men’s attention and involves such men engaging in acts that are asso-
ciated with gay men, such as self-penetration. Cover suggests that
although we are unable to disconnect heterosexuality from practices,
there is scope for heterosexual masculinity to be unhinged from the nor-
mative discourses that surround the identification. The practice of anal
self-­penetration, for example, removes the association of self-penetration
 First Encounters 11

as a gay identity activity and re-situates it within a variation of hetero-

sexual masculinity. Cover argues that rather than reinforce hetero-mascu-
linities and the notions of dominance and power through patriarchy, the
site deconstructs ‘innate heterosexualities and homosexualities as distinct
sexual orientations, allowing identity to remain but in non-monolithic,
heterodoxical forms’ (2015, pp. 14–15). Thus, rather than reinforce
hetero-­masculinities, Cover argues that new forms of sexual practice
enable hetero–homo binaries to be ‘challengeable’. It is not, Cover
argues, the emergence of newer forms of heterosexual masculinity, but
rather the reduction of a normativity of masculinity. Therefore, online
acts of self-­penetration have the potential to produce different struc-
tures of masculinity that are not dependent on strict hetero–homo
binaries.
The implication of this work is that masculinity and its relationship to
heterosexuality are undergoing renewal, and that as masculinity becomes
reconfigured, then how heterosexuality becomes a resource is also trans-
formed. At the same time, this book recognizes that not all male experi-
ences, feelings and affects may be cohered through masculinity. Whilst
we need to review models of masculinity and modify them accordingly,
the approach in this book takes up a more queer-theory approach to
masculinity. What this means is that masculinity is a useful model to
understand men’s meanings, practices and behaviours. However, it is
important to recognize that the model of masculinity may not be able to
cohere and contain the diversity of men’s subjectivities. This gender bina-
rism presupposes the nature of male and female through an appeal to
‘biology as ideology’. As Floyd (2011, p. 45) remarks:

Is gender a ‘destination’? Is this a useful way of putting it? Is gender a loca-

tion? A place? A space? Is the line separating masculinity from femininity a
border one can cross like a wall or a fence? What about the region between
these two territories, which transgender and intersex studies have begun to
map for us? The metaphors brought to bear in the effort to identify differ-
ently gendered bodies, in the struggle to find language that can push the
limits of available vocabularies, can themselves be revealing.

One of the ways in which we might begin to understand men’s subjec-

tivities is to think about them in post-masculinity terms (Mac an Ghaill
12 C. Haywood

and Haywood 2013). The post-masculinity position aligns itself with

queer or trans theory by thinking about models of gender that are not
dependent upon models of masculinity and femininity. For example,
Butler (2004) explains how gender can be understood as a regulatory con-
cept that works to create links between ascribed masculine and feminine
attributes to those of culturally designated bodies. For Butler, masculinity
and femininity do not necessarily have to be reducible to gender, and gen-
der does not have to be reducible to masculinity or femininity. The implica-
tion of this is that we begin to understand men’s behaviours in a conceptual
space where the notion of gender is separated from masculinity and femi-
ninity. In other words, ‘to keep the term gender apart from both masculin-
ity and femininity is to safeguard a theoretical perspective by which one
might offer an account of how the binary of masculine and feminine comes
to exhaust the semantic field of gender’ (ibid., p. 42). According to Butler,
we need to think through how gender is proliferated and how gender iden-
tities might operate beyond the binaries embedded in culturally ascribed
notions of feminine and masculine. In short, it is important to consider the
simplistic nature of considering all male subjectivities through masculinity;
rather they can be understood outside of contemporary models of gender.

Men, Masculinity and the Research Process

The research for this book involved interviewing a wide range of different
men; each of the chapters provides a short summary of the participant
demographics. However, there were a number of key themes that emerged
from the research. In many ways the different dating practices tended to
align with different age groups, and the chapters of the book could have
been organized to reflect the dating practices of different ages. It also
became evident that reducing dating practices to specific generations was
perhaps too simplistic, as men across different generations increasingly
drew upon a range of dating practices. In many ways this echoes the way
in which dating has become fragmented, with different generations hav-
ing access to multiple ways of initiating relationships. Therefore, the dif-
ferent kinds of dating practices have become the epistemological entry
point for understanding men and masculinity. Analysis of each dating
 First Encounters 13

practice drew upon particular means of sampling; these are discussed in

each of the chapters. Often men were accessed through online forums; at
other times snowball sampling was used; at other times there was an
opportunistic conversation that became reconfigured as an interview.
Importantly, the book does not seek inductive validity by suggesting that
the participants represent the experiences of the broader male popula-
tion. Instead, as Crouch and McKenzie (2006, p. 493) argue:

Rather than being systematically selected instances of specific categories of

attitudes and responses, here respondents embody and represent meaning-
ful experience-structure links. Put differently, our respondents are ‘cases’,
or instances of states, rather than (just) individuals who are bearers of cer-
tain designated properties (or ‘variables’).

The men therefore in this research provided insights into the different
kinds of dating practices. It should be added that the sample was over-
whelmingly White English with ages ranging from 18 to 54. All of the
men were provided with information about the project, informed con-
sent being a prerequisite of ethical clearance by Newcastle University.
Participants were given the opportunity to determine how and where
they wanted to be interviewed but also if they were happy to sign consent
forms. Unsurprisingly, given the nature of the subject area, many of the
participants were reluctant to sign forms. In order to avoid embarrass-
ment for the participants, a verbal informed consent protocol was used
similar to those used in telephone interviews. On a number of occasions
such as interviews in online chat platforms, written consent was provided
as part of the online correspondence. In other scenarios, such as face-to-­
face interviews, consent was recorded via a Dictaphone. In some cases
where participants felt uneasy with being recorded, notes were taken of
the interviews and subsequently typed up. All of the participants’ names
are pseudonyms, and some details such as locations have been substituted
to further ensure anonymity.
There is something highly contextual about researching men. Like all
research processes, they are embedded in circuits of power. As such, the
interview situation does not stand outside of identity politics; rather it is
imbricated within the research process (Haywood 2008). The very pro-
14 C. Haywood

cess of asking or enquiring about men’s gender in itself can be seen as a

questioning of masculinity. Importantly, as Noble (2006, pp. 32–33)
suggests: ‘It means for a man to speak about his gender in a critical self-­
conscious manner already means that somehow he has failed to live up to
the patriarchal ideal and imperative that he not think and know masculin-
ity but that he be the man, which means to be the universal subject.’
Furthermore, given that masculinities are often premised on competence
and control, an agreement to an interview can be read as a gendered deci-
sion, sometimes indicative of a ‘problem’ masculinity. In previous work,
I experienced difficulty recruiting men because the desire to talk to them
was read as a desire for men (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill 1997), rein-
forcing what Oliffe and Mro’z (2005, p. 257) suggested: ‘Men don’t vol-
unteer—they are recruited.’
Most of the interviews were undertaken by the author; however, at
times these interviews were supplemented by other male and female
researchers. It became evident that when the researchers were female, par-
ticipants appeared to draw upon the protocols of the dating scene and
built them into the interview context (see also Bright et al. 2013). It was
found that with the participants in this book, the dating protocols
enabled men to talk about their thoughts, feelings and practices. In other
words, in most cases, displays of heterosexual masculinity facilitated the
navigation of the interview encounter by the participants. Sometimes,
the interview became a space of transference where men’s interpretations
of dating protocols became a mechanism to manage the interview situa-
tion. In contrast, when the research was undertaken by men, there was a
sense of men trying to make connections with the male interviewer by
objectifying women or drawing upon themes of homophobia. Thurnell-­
Read (2016) has recently discussed the difficulties of researching bachelor
parties and beer drinking, and talks about the difficulty of fitting in.
There is at times the suggestion that there is a need to replicate traditional
masculinities and reinforce traditional gender identities in order to be
accepted. As such, there is the potential for the interview to be a homo-
social space that reinforces traditional inequalities. However, in order to
avoid this, it was important for interviewers to question, to critique and
to challenge assumptions. This was never done in an aggressive manner,
but often would involve expressions of incredulity, disbelief or just stat-
 First Encounters 15

ing ‘I don’t believe you’. Such a position would provide men with a space
to explain, justify or re-question their position.
Gubrium and Holstein (2003) also remind us that the interview is a
relatively modern phenomenon. They argue that although question-and-­
answer scenarios have previously existed (police, family, courts, employ-
ment), the idea of consulting strangers is relatively new. Although they
argue that individuals have become ‘modern tempers’ (ibid., p. 22), it is
important to recognize that it is not self-evident what the roles of inter-
viewer/interviewee mean. This means that the interview is often a space
of learning how to be interviewed (Haywood et al. 2006); something that
had to be continually reflected upon. During the interviews, subtle ten-
sions and convergences between and within identifications took place
between the interviewer and the interviewee. One of the strategies of the
interviews was to explore, question and problematize participants’
responses; as a result, the questioning of men’s assumptions invited much
analytical dissonance. The troubling and destabilizing therefore often
involved (con) fusing of men’s seemingly distinct and incompatible view-
points. In light of the ‘troubling’ nature of the research approach, impor-
tant ethical issues need to be considered, raising questions about whether
it is appropriate or acceptable to be undertaking this potentially uncom-
fortable style of interviewing. In response, all interviews were conducted
with respect and dignity and with a constant recognition that the partici-
pants were valued. It was also recognized that challenging men’s view-
points in research can only go so far; participants control what can or
cannot be known.

Aims
A key element of the book is that it aims to contribute to existing debates
on men and masculinity, gender and sexuality. It does this by using origi-
nal empirical research to explore men’s experiences across a range of con-
temporary dating contexts. Using primarily interviews as a tool to get at
‘what is going on’, this book has a number of aims.
First, the book contributes to existing knowledge about men, mascu-
linity and dating, and in some instances provides new empirical data on
16 C. Haywood

men and their negotiation of contemporary dating practices, including

the interplay between social expectations about what men should be
doing and how men are responding to these expectations. The book pro-
vides information in a number of areas where men and masculinity
remain underexplored, including the history of speed dating, mobile
technologies and dogging. Alongside this, the book provides new and
controversial findings, for instance on debates around the nature of mas-
culinity and tourism. Alongside this, the book is committed to connect-
ing men’s individual experiences of dating with broader social, cultural
and economic contexts. For example, it is suggested that men’s social and
economic status is changing and that the traditional reference points to
make masculinities are becoming increasingly unavailable. In other
words, the material, cultural and symbolic structures through which men
assert authority, legitimacy, control and dominance within traditional
dating contexts located around family and friendship networks are
becoming less self-evident. Each chapter in the book examines this in
more detail to explore how new dating practices are connected to and
inform broader configurations of masculinity, sexuality and intimacy.
Second, the book asks the question of whether changing dating prac-
tices are producing new ways of being a man heuristically. Is masculinity
changing? Are there new masculinities emerging? The book does this by
examining the different ways that men’s identities and identifications are
constituted within different dating contexts. It seeks to discuss how men
constitute their own sense of selves through an assemblage of similarities
and differences. It is the nature of that assemblage—of how masculinities
are configured—that is of key interest. This book will highlight and
explore the meanings that underpin masculinity, especially in relation to
the vocabularies that currently underpin approaches to the study of mas-
culinity. By exploring different approaches to theorizing masculinity, it
holds in critical focus Raewyn Connell’s (1995) influential concept of
hegemonic masculinity. Whilst recognizing the importance of the con-
cept to explain the nature of social relations, it will also reflect upon the
range of criticisms that have been made about the approach (Sielder
2007; Moller 2007; Bartholomaeus 2012, Johansen and Ottemo 2015;
Christensen and Jensen 2014). Through its engagement with contempo-
rary dating practices, the book suggests a synthesis of the main approaches
to men and masculinity.
 First Encounters 17

 ow Does This Book Explore Men, Masculinity

H
and Contemporary Dating?
Building upon the flexible ways in which dating has been interpreted, this
book draws upon a range of practices that involve relationship initiation.
These are certainly not exhaustive, and they certainly aren’t the only prac-
tices that men and women are drawing upon. One noticeable absence, for
example, is online dating. However, given that mobile romance and online
sex seeking cover some of the key themes of online dating, that topic has
not been covered due to the potential for repetition. Therefore, the choice
of areas almost represents a continuum: from those seeking more intimate
and longer-lasting relationships through speed dating, through to the
anonymous encounters that can be found in the dogging scenario.
Given the relatively limited scope of each chapter, it has been frustrat-
ing not to go into greater detail or a more expansive analysis of the differ-
ent dating practices. In many ways it is hoped that the empirical data and
the tentative analysis of the data might enable others to focus and con-
centrate on the different areas in a more sustained manner.
Chapter 2 builds upon the earlier discussion about the range of mean-
ings that surround how we understand dating. It introduces the idea that
‘dating’ is one of a number of epistemes that configure how we make
sense of relationship initiation. The chapter is different from the others in
that it primarily relies on historical accounts to explore how gender and
relationship initiation has taken place historically. The tension embedded
in this stage of dating concerns power and control between men, women,
their families and their communities. On the one hand, relationship ini-
tiation is understood as part of a patriarchal control of women’s bodies,
whilst on the other hand, there is a claim that women had far more con-
trol and independence. From an episteme of Instrumentalism, the chapter
moves onto those of Courtship, Calling and Dating before exploring the
notion of Post-dating. It is suggested that in this episteme of Post-dating,
themes of neoliberalism, authenticity and marketization are shaping
men’s dating practices.
Chapter 3 explores men’s experiences of speed dating. The chapter
begins by examining existing theories of partner choices and critiques
these by exploring how the speed dating context is socially and culturally
18 C. Haywood

constructed. More specifically, the chapter engages with the ways that
men navigate speed dating events by focusing on their anxiety and vul-
nerability. This provides a pretext for the articulation and demonstration
of particular speed dating masculinities. On the one hand, there are men
who take up a predatory heterosexual script. On the other hand, there are
men who use speed dating events as a means to find a long-term partner.
Interestingly, men looking for partners make up the majority of those
who attend speed dating. However, the men in the sample had a number
of strategies that they would draw upon to choose a potential partner; or
in their words, ‘the right kind of woman’. These strategies involved
reviewing and evaluating the appearance and manner of the women they
were meeting, and establishing whether these women were ‘telling the
truth’. Thus, men would use such strategies to evaluate the quality of the
date. The chapter concludes by suggesting that although these men
tended to hold on to traditional gendered attitudes, it was clear that the
speed dating event exacerbated men’s insecurities and anxieties.
Since the 1950s and the emergence of mass tourism, holidaying has
been a leisure activity that has increasingly been associated with dating
and romance. Among the characteristics of mass tourism are its associa-
tion with pleasure, and the view that a holiday is a time when the formal
and informal rules that regulate behaviour at ‘home’ have little purchase
in ‘foreign’ contexts. Chapter 4 explores the nature of young men on
holiday. It begins with a discussion of holidays and masculinities, high-
lighting how most literature in the field tends to posit masculinities as
patriarchal, especially in the field of sex tourism. This chapter suggests
that men, masculinities and holidays are more complex. More specifi-
cally, the liminal experience of the holiday creates a tension between dis-
inhibition and relationship acceleration. This tension creates both
traditional ‘laddish’ behaviours, but also has the potential to produce
more progressive forms of masculinity. It concludes by suggesting that we
need to move away from simplistically equating men, masculinity, and
the holiday as a space for sexual conquest, and instead see the holiday also
as a space for men to experience shame and vulnerability.
Whilst online dating has witnessed a dramatic rise in popularity, the
incredibly fast rise of mobile applications points to a new method of rela-
tionship initiation. Chapter 5 explores the accounts of 15 heterosexual
 First Encounters 19

young men aged 18–24. Using Tinder as a case study, this chapter argues
that the affordances of the app create the possibilities of how mobile
romance is experienced. The chapter begins by documenting these affor-
dances, which include Spatial Blurring, the Democratization of dating,
Multimodal dating and Accelerated Elongated dating. The chapter then
explores the interplay between these affordances and masculinity: first, by
highlighting how patriarchal norms become articulated through the mar-
ketization and gamification of dating; second, by exploring young men’s
management of dating failure through self-sabotage and effortless achieve-
ment, personal branding and Facebook stalking. The chapter concludes
by arguing that Tinder and mobile dating apps more broadly are rela-
tively new practices and that young men and women will continue to
learn how to use them and to develop their impact on gender relations.
Chapter 6 explores the world of online sex seekers. The chapter focuses
on men who use the internet specifically to have sexual encounters. The
semi-structured telephone interviews with 11 publicly identified hetero-
sexual men highlight the difficulty of simplistically describing online
encounters as lacking emotional depth. The chapter begins by discussing
the difficulties of researching online sex seekers and then discusses the
ways in which men understand sex seeking through risk and risk avoid-
ance. It then highlights the issues of emotional investment and the
­intensity of sexual encounters experienced by these men. Finally, one of
the surprising results to emerge from the data collection was the fact that
men who sought sex online tended not to want penetrative vaginal sex. In
other words, this group of men, who should embody classic masculine
penile-centred sexual subjectivity, found satisfaction beyond this widely
attributed characteristic of men. In conclusion, the chapter suggests that
there is scope in future research to identify men’s experiences that stand
outside of monogamous focused relationships.
Chapter 7 provides an insight into the sexual world of ‘dogging’: anon-
ymous sex between men and women usually carried out in car parks.
Drawing upon interviews with 12 men who engage in dogging practices,
this chapter provides insights into the micro-negotiations of the dogging
encounter and men’s masculine subjectivities. The chapter begins by
exploring the reasons for dogging and then details how dogging takes
place. By understanding the sexual etiquette of dogging, we are able to
20 C. Haywood

capture the different kinds of masculinities that may be involved in nego-

tiating the sex. However, as men in dogging encounters reject both gen-
der and sexual identity categories, the chapter explores the notion of
de-subjectification. Furthermore, with men explaining their sexual expe-
riences through bodies and pleasure, the chapter ends by examining how
men position women in control of the sexual encounter.
Chapter 8, which concludes the book, draws together the key interre-
lated themes—how men are experiencing contemporary dating practices
and the impact that these practices are having on their masculinities. It
also picks up some of the other principal themes of the book; those of
neoliberalism, the pursuit of authenticity, and markets and consumption.
The book ends by considering the next steps in the exploration of men
and masculinity in a Post-dating world.

Bibliography
Anderson, E. (2009). Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities.
New York: Routledge.
Anderson, E. (2014). 21st Century Jocks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Bailey, B. L. (1989). From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-­
Century America. Maryland: JHU Press.
Bartholomaeus, C. (2012). ‘I’m not Allowed Wrestling Stuff’: Hegemonic
Masculinity and Primary School Boys. Journal of Sociology, 48(3), 227–247.
Bartoli, A. M., & Clark, M. D. (2006). The Dating Game: Similarities and
Differences in Dating Scripts Among College Students. Sexuality & Culture,
10(4), 54.
Bauermeister, J. A., Ventuneac, A., Pingel, E., & Parsons, J. T. (2012). Spectrums
of Love: Examining the Relationship Between Romantic Motivations and
Sexual Risk among Young Gay and Bisexual Men. AIDS and Behavior, 16(6),
1549–1559.
Berlant, L. (1997). The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex
and Citizenship. London: Duke University Press.
Bouffard, L. A., & Bouffard, J. A. (2011). Understanding Men’s Perceptions of
Risks and Rewards in a Date Rape Scenario. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 626–645.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Taikapeili
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Taikapeili
Nelinäytöksinen satunäytelmä

Author: Larin-Kyösti

Release date: October 19, 2023 [eBook #71912]

Language: Finnish

Original publication: Jyväskylä: K. J. Gummerus Oy, 1916

Credits: Tapio Riikonen

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TAIKAPEILI

***
TAIKAPEILI

Nelinäytöksinen satunäytelmä

Kirj.

LARIN-KYÖSTI

Jyväskylässä, K. J. Gummerus Osakeyhtiö, 1916.

HENKILÖT:

IMANDRA, Suvikunnan kuninkaantytär.

KAUKOVALLAN PRINSSI, kuljeksiva kuninkaanpoika.
OTRO, hänen ystävänsä.
HOVIHERRA, |
HOVIROUVA, | kuninkaantyttären holhoojia.
INKERI, kamarineiti.
KEPULI, |
HEPULI, | kujeilijoita.
Hoviväkeä, keihäsmiehiä, morsiuspiikaisia, paimentyttöjä,
soittajia y.m.
NÄYTÖS I

Linnan etuhuone.

(Hovirouva tulee toiselta, hoviherra toiselta taholta, tekevät

naurettavia kumarruksia ja niiauksia, asettavat sormet suulleen ja
sipsuttavat prinsessan huoneen ovelle ja tirkistävät avaimen
reijästä.)

HOVIROUVA. Kuulitteko?

HOVIHERRA

Kyllä minä kuulin.

HOVIROUVA

Kuulkaa, kuinka prinsessa mellastaa. Nyt hän heitti jotain lattialle,

ai!

HOVIHERRA

Kaulakoristeen, jonka hän sai korkealta kosijalta. Rasavilli!

HOVIROUVA

Hän on mahdoton! Eilen hän tahtoi pukeutua ryysyihin ja kulkea

paljain jaloin.

HOVIHERRA

Tuittupää, oikullinen orpo. Hänellä ei ole ikäistensä seuraa. Eilen

hän näki linnanikkunasta paimentyttöjen ajavan lammaskarjaa ja nyt
hän tahtoo olla paimentyttönä.

HOVIROUVA

Hänen täytyy tottua hovitapoihin. Meidän velvollisuutemme on

opettaa ja ohjata häntä.

HOVIHERRA

Mutta hän ei tottele, tekee ja sanoo kaikki päinvastoin. Olisiko

syy…

HOVIROUVA

Syy meissä, minussa? Minä olen aina hyvällä esimerkillä

koettanut…

HOVIHERRA

Hänen pitäisi saada kuulla soittoa, tanssia ja iloita. Ja sitten pitää

hänen rakastua. Minäkin…

HOVIROUVA
 Tekin..? Hän ei huoli kenestäkään. Kääntää kosijoille selkänsä tai
tekee heistä pilkkaa.

HOVIHERRA

Eilen hän istui pitkän aikaa tornikomerossa ja uhkasi vaijeta

kokonaisen viikon… Mutta pohjaltaan hän on hyvä, hän antaa
almuja.

HOVIROUVA

Te olette pilannut hänet. Te olette niin kevytmielinen. Eilen te

nipistitte kamarineitiä korvasta, te, te…

HOVIHERRA

Mi, minä, armollinen rouva, olen aina ollut vain teidän nöyrin
palvelijanne. Mutta nyt prinsessa tulee, vetäytykäämme syrjään.

(Hoviherra ja -rouva poistuvat perälle.)

IMANDRA (tulee paljain jaloin ja hajalla hapsin, kamarineiti rientää

hänen jälessään. Prinsessa heittäytyy maahan.)

Minun on niin ikävä, ikävä että… minä purisin!

INKERI

Menemmekö kutomaan kultakangasta? Sehän huvittaa teidän

korkeuttanne.

IMANDRA
 Ei, ei! Minä osaan jo sen taidon. Minä olen kyllästynyt koreihin
pukuihin ja koreihin puheihin.

INKERI

Nouskaahan, armollinen prinsessa, joku voi tulla!

IMANDRA

Joku kosija? Hahhaa, muistatko, sitä viimeistä minä nipistin

nenästä.

INKERI

Hyi, prinsessa, kuinka te olitte häijy.

IMANDRA

Niin, hovirouva sanoo minua häijyksi ja minä tahdon olla häijy, niin
häijy, että ne ajavat minut linnasta.

INKERI

Kultavaunuissa te kerran linnasta ajatte, te olette niin kaunis ja

maan kuulu, että tänne saapuu ruhtinaita aina Arapiasta kameleilla,
kuormitettuina kullalla ja kalliilla kivillä.

IMANDRA

Minä en tahdo olla kaunis, katsos kuinka minä olen ruma! Sano,
enkö minä ole ruma! —(vetää kasvonsa ryppyihin.)
 INKERI (leikillä)

Ruma kuin hyypiä. Mutta jos nyt saapuisi se Kaukovallan prinssi,

josta huhu käy.

IMANDRA

Kaukovallan prinssi? Keimeileva kenokaula?

INKERI

Ei! Sorea, solakka, yhtä viisas kuin viehkeä. Hän kulkee

tuntemattomana kuin tuhannen yön ruhtinas.

IMANDRA

Jos hän tulee minua kosimaan, niin minä nokean naamani, kynsin
kuin kissa tai juoksen linnankaivoon.

INKERI

Suokaa minun sukia suortuvianne. (Nostaa prinsessan ikkunan

ääreen.)

IMANDRA

No, teehän niin. Mutta lue samalla sitä hauskaa kirjaa paimenesta
ja metsätytöstä!

INKERI (järjestäen tukkaa, lukee)

— — — Ja paimenpoika kulki metsälähteelle, jonka luona istui

ihmeen ihana metsätyttö. Paimenpoika koristi hänen päänsä
mesikukilla, syötti häntä mesimarjoilla, soitteli paimenpillillään, hyväili
häntä kuin katrastaan, ja he nousivat, kulkivat tanssien ilossa ja
rakkaudessa läpi hämyisen metsän — — —.

IMANDRA

Oh, olisinpa metsässä ja kohtaisin kauniin ja kainon paimenpojan!

Täällä minä tukehdun. Minua inhoittaa kaikki hovitavat, tanssin- ja
soitonopettajat! Hyi! (Sylkee).

INKERI

Ai, ai, ei saa sylkeä!

IMANDRA

Mutta minä sylen vaan! Hyi! (kurkistaa ikkunasta). — Kas tuolta

tulee paimentyttöjä! Hei, hei, tytöt, tulkaa tänne!

INKERI

Mutta prinsessa, ne ovat niin likaisia.

IMANDRA

Mutta minä tahdon!

INKERI

Pistetään toki kultakruunu päähän ja kultakengät jalkaan!

IMANDRA
 Ei, ei, kruunu painaa ja kengät puristavat.

INKERI

Mutta hovirouva pistää mustaan komeroon.

IMANDRA

Pistäköön vaan! Minä tahdon olla kuin likainen paimentyttö.

(Paimentytöt tulevat.) Tässä on mesikakkuja! Kuulkaas, miltä
ketunleivät maistuvat, tuleeko niistä kieli vihreäksi? Näyttäkää
kieltänne! Kas niin. Sehän on punainen niinkuin minunkin. (Näyttää
kieltään, tytöt nauravat.)

INKERI

Mutta prinsessa!

IMANDRA

Mutta miksei teillä ole koreita vaatteita eikä mesikukkia kiharoilla?

PAIMENTYTTÖ

Me koristamme itseämme vain sunnuntaina.

IMANDRA

Ja minun pitää olla koreana joka päivä, siksi ei se tunnu miltään.

Minä tahtoisin kulkea metsässä puettuna repaleisiin vaatteisiin.
Annahan, kun koetan! (Aikoo ottaa tytön röijyn.)
 INKERI (estää)

Ei, ei, siinä voi olla pieniä — eläviä.

IMANDRA

Hellan lettu, minä en koskaan näe täällä linnassa pieniä eläviä.

Mutta osaattehan tanssia. Tanssikaa!

(Tytöt tanssivat.)

Kuinka se on kaunista! Siinä ei ole kumarruksia eikä polven

koukistuksia. (Syöksyy keskelle tanssia.) Hih!

HOVIROUVA (tulee)

Mitä tämä merkitsee! Prinsessa, kuinka te käyttäydytte! Tämä on

kauhea rikos hovisääntöjä vastaan. Avojaloin ja hajalla hapsin!

IMANDRA

Minä en välitä säännöistä! Piti, piti, piti!

HOVIHERRA (liehutellen nenäliinaa)

Hirvittävää! Mikä katku!

HOVIROUVA (pirskottaen hajuvettä)

Tuulettakaa huonetta! Ja te karjatytöt, lähtekää heti tiehenne!

(Tytöt pois.)

IMANDRA
 Ei, ei, minä tahdon mukaan. Minä tahdon tanssia heidän
kanssaan.

HOVIROUVA

Kamarineiti, viekää armollinen prinsessa heti pukuhuoneeseen,

sillä kohta tulee tänne Kaukovallan prinssi ja hänen ystävänsä
hovitaidemaalari!

IMANDRA

Jos he tulevat, niin minä rupean rääkymään tai hypin harakkaa.

Joko minä alan? (Tekee liikkeen).

HOVIHERRA

Ä, älkää toki, tuuliviiri prinsessa…!

IMANDRA

Minä en tahdo olla prinsessa!

HOVIHERRA

Vaan harakka!

HOVIROUVA

Hirveätä, harakka!

IMANDRA
 Armollinen rouva! Hyppikää minun kanssani harakkaa!

HOVIROUVA

Olenko minä harakka?

HOVIHERRA

Hahhaa!

HOVIROUVA

Mitä te räkätätte! Te pilaatte prinsessan.

IMANDRA

Hahhahhaa, harakka! (Juoksee tiehensä, Inkeri hänen jälessään.)

HOVIROUVA

Ei, tämä menee jo liian pitkälle, minä ihan halkean harmista.

Hoviherra, te olette kelpaamaton kasvattaja, te turmelette koko
hovin.

HOVIHERRA

No, no, armollinen, muistattehan, te itsekin… hypitte nuorena

harakkaa! Muistatteko, kerran puutarhassa ollessamme…

HOVIROUVA

Siitä on jo kulunut monta vuotta, kun…

HOVIHERRA

… Kun minä katsoin teihin kuin kuningattareeni.

HOVIROUVA (keimaillen)

Oi, kuningattareen! Anteeksi! Minä kiivastuin. Miettikäämme

kasvattavia keinoja.

HOVIHERRA

Prinsessaa hemmoitellaan, vuoroin peloitetaan. Seuratkoon kerran

oikkujaan, olkoon paimentyttönä, niin hän saa nähdä, onko se niin
hauskaa ja runollista.

HOVIROUVA

Te olette oikeassa. Tehkäämme niin, jollei hän suostu Kaukovallan

prinssiin. Menkäämme nyt katsomaan prinsessaa! (Hovirouva ja
hoviherra menevät.)

(Kaukovallan prinssi ja Otro tulevat.)

PRINSSI

Minä näin hänet taas ikkunassa. Mikä suloinen, kiehtova kuva!

Sellaista sinä, Otro, et koskaan ole ikuistanut.

OTRO

Me olemme vaeltaneet kauan tuntemattomina, nyt olette onnenne

ovella. Mutta olkaa varovainen, prinsessa kuuluu olevan omituinen ja
oikullinen.
PRINSSI

Mutta paimentytöt kertoivat hänestä vain hyvää. Minä vapisen

onneni odotuksesta.

OTRO

Teidän korkeutenne! Ette ole ensimmäinen, jonka prinsessa on

karkoittanut.

PRINSSI

Mitä? Kuulin ääniä.

OTRO

Sieltä tulee jo tuulispää! Olkaa vatuillanne! (Vetäytyy syrjään.)

IMANDRA (Toisessa jalassa kenkä, toinen puoli päätä on

palmikkona.)

Mitä? Kuka te olette, mitä te täällä teette?

PRINSSI

Olen Kaukovallan prinssi! Armollinen, armas prinsessa! Kuulu

kauneutenne on minut tuonut tänne kaukaiselta maalta. Te olette
kuin ihana ilmestys.

IMANDRA

Minä en ole kaunis enkä armollinen. Katsokaa! (Vetää tukan

silmilleen.) Minä onnun.
PRINSSI

Se johtuu siitä, että nousitte ehkä vuoteestanne väärällä jalalla.

IMANDRA (tehden eleitä)

Ja minun nenäni on väärässä ja silmäni vinossa. (Vääntelee

nenäänsä ja silmiänsä.)

PRINSSI

Sallikaa minun suudella ruusuista kättänne. (Tarttuu käteen.)

IMANDRA

Hyi, siinä saitte! (Tukistaa prinssiä.)

PRINSSI

Prinsessa, minä en ole tullut tänne tukistettavaksi vaan…

IMANDRA

Vaan?

PRINSSI

Pyytämään teidän kunnioitettavaa kättänne.

IMANDRA

Mitä, kättäni? Mitä te sillä tekisitte? Onhan teillä käsiä

itsellännekin.
PRINSSI

Minä tahtoisin laskea sydämeni teidän jalojen jalkojenne juureen.

IMANDRA

Nyt te puhutte kuin sydämenne olisi kurkussanne. Älkää puhuko

tyhmyyksiä, olettehan viisas mies.

PRINSSI

Se ilahuttaa minua kuullessani sen teidän suloisesta suustanne.

IMANDRA

Miksi olette imelä niinkuin muutkin korkeat kosijani? Minä olen

väsynyt teihin, koko hoviin, kaikkeen, kuuletteko!

PRINSSI

Niin minäkin, siksi lähdin etsimään jotain uutta. Minä haukottelen

usein hoviherrojeni seurassa.

IMANDRA

Nyt minä pidän teistä. Haukotelkaamme yhdessä! Kun minä

katselen teitä, niin olettehan sentään ihmisen näköinen. Kunhan
olisitte paimenpoika ja soittaisitte paimenhuilua!

PRINSSI

Ja jos minä olisin paimenpoika?