Men are, it seems, expected to more active than women in this particular field. Our language reflects this: I cannot count the number of times I've said, "I just want to hold you," but the number of times I've said, "I just want to be held," might fit on one hand, if I've ever said it at all.

There is, of course, no real difference. It is difficult to hold and not be held back, even if the holding is more of an emotional holding than it is a physical one (by which I mean that the person doing the holding is also, to some extent, being held).

As I was lying in bed this morning, I was thinking about a few conversations I've had in my life, where the woman has said something like, "I just want to be held," or, "I just want to be in your arms again." Both the phrases are similar, as both denote states of being. Rarely do they say, "I just want to hold you again," the activity of such a statement seeming beyond their usage.

I often respond to this with something like, "And I want to hold you again." This isn't a passive state of being, it's an active statement. In these conversations, I take the active role, and the woman takes the passive.

How common is this? We are taught never to use passive voice in 6th and 7th grade grammar classes, but we cannot seem to heed that rule when it comes to this. How many women can think of times when they've held their man, I wonder, and how many men can think of times when they have been held?

I doubt that I wanted to be held before I met Tina. I recall distinctly how I learned how nice it was to be the receiver of the holding when my arm fell asleep and I rolled over and put my back to her. Her arms then wrapped themselves around me, and I slept comfortably in them. There is, I suppose, an implication in this that I was giving up part of my masculine role, but honestly, I don't care that much. Sometimes, I'm sure every man needs to be held, but even when all we want is to have arms around us, we still find ourselves saying, "I want to hold you again."

Why can we not say, "I want to be held?"

The request (sometimes addressed imperatively) of, "Hold me," is not a state of being, but it does seem to imply one. It indicates that the requester is the only one who needs held, that the person being commanded does not. It seems to make the assumption that there is an inherent weakness in one party, and a strength in the other.

How much of this is influenced by culture (and in particular, by Hollywood), and how much is just a natural extension of the gender roles we take on? "Hold me," is a common request by women in cinema, and often the man holds the woman for a moment (sometimes until she has died, sometimes until the end up being forcibly seperated, sometimes until they end up having what appears to be marvelous sex), and everything is alright, at least for that moment. But there is always a portraly of weakness on the part of the requester. Do we desire to show that weakness, and thus get the benefit of a few moments where "everything is alright?"

"To have and to hold" is the standard marital agreement. Both parties say that they will hold the other, that they will both be active. Is there a linguistic shift after marriage, in which the woman and the man can say with equal confidence, "I just want to hold you again," or does this strange, gendered active/passive split remain? I don't know, I've never been married. If the split remains, are the parties living up to their vows? Indeed, is this vow, even though it is repeated by both, meaningless to the woman and meaningful to the man? Are there then other parts that are meaningless to the man that are meaningful to the woman? Perhaps the nature of vows and oaths is too important in my mind, and so I'm seeing a grammatical flaw that is really not a flaw at all.

Women: think of your man. Do you want to hold him, or do you want to be in his arms, to be held?

Men: think of your woman. Do you want to be held by her, or do you want to have her in your arms, to hold her again?

(Of course, I suspect that these are gender roles, not actual sexual roles: a femme gay man would, I imagine, play the part of a woman while a butch lesbian would play the part of a man. Then again, I'm not sure.)

It amazes me that the simple change of voice, from active to passive, can shed so much light onto the way we interact. Is it something that is brought on by culture, or something brought on by gender selection, or something that is hard wired into penises and vaginas, or something that no one else has ever experienced (I could, very well, be the only idiot who thinks like this in the world, or who interacts with women like this). If we looked at this particular action across cultures, would it remain in all of them?

Boy, I wonder about weird stuff when I'm trying to wake up.

Content © 2003-2007, Michael J Dangler
Updated on 06/14/2007. Site Credits / Email Me!
Basic site design from ADF.org
(Yes, I stole it!)