Accepted as a possibly hard truth in the modern world of relationships is the phrase “If he wanted to, he would.” This phrase, often heard in chats, gossip and online, refers to men and personal agency, representing roots in social norms and expectations when it comes to romantic interest. It seems to be a ruling principle used by those waiting to be approached passively, not as much “if I wanted to, I would.” We have concepts of our desires and how they link to our actions, which are not as directly correlated as we might hope. Our minds may often be occupied with distant goals or dreams not present in our day-to-day lives. Or, is this an attempt to accept a situation, leaving it to fate, rather than taking action ourselves? It appears that once those desires develop a common presence in our routines, we become less afraid to address them with a sense of urgency and confidence.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy approaches ideas of desire through varying motives of our perception and exertion by theories based on attention, pleasure, and the most common one: action. This theory suggests that one can desire something without being motivated or attempting to get it, and is inclined to acquire it once convenient. Socrates declares that all people desire what is good, and the desire for something bad is what is believed to be good. The desire for loud expressions of romance may appear as good, but are based on the display of attention one receives. If we translate this outside the conceptual realm and into our daily interactions, what comes to mind is hesitation on the basis of nerves, which often manifests in the worst possible scenario, causing more tentativeness and less action.
This hesitation can go against the thought “if they wanted to they would,” as we are often stopped in our tracks out of fear of rejection. Sometimes these interactions are placed on a pedestal, like distant goals of fame or adventure. Many have thought about approaching someone and chosen not to out of shyness or enjoyment of the mystery that is not knowing the result of an interaction. Women are rarely expected to assert interest, but are told that a man would act on their emotions if they truly wanted to express them, possibly making excuses for lack of communication on either side. These expectations branch from the portrayal of relationships. On social media, couples are advertised through material gifts and extravagant acts of love, but would they be appreciated as much if they weren’t publicized on social media? There are plenty of opportunities to break the script of life and do something out of the ordinary that aren’t necessarily harmful or impactful, but we refrain from them because they’re rare.
Today, it seems odd for people to approach others in-person. “Meet cutes” happen less and less. This may be due to expectations for men to initiate an encounter, or some could argue that we are more divided, separated and individualized as a whole. In order to counter a society diverged from socialization, one that is increasingly less comfortable with awkwardly genuine conversation, perhaps we can be more real by truly expressing ourselves rather than relying on a slogan to direct our actions. TikToks circulate that glamorize romance in movies and shows, depicting scenes of reverie and the highs of adoration.
Social media suggests an “ideal” relationship is full of unrealistic expectations of gifts every day or prominent posting of your partner on your social profile. We are told to want these things, so we spend our time waiting for them, placing our own happiness on the acts of another.
Although many of us can attest to a time when we desired something and did not act to get it, there is a hard truth in this declaration of “if he wanted to, he would.” Buddhism states that “we were reborn into this life because of our desire to be.” Everything we do is a result of desire. Therefore, desire often leads to action. It becomes a question of having blind trust in the idea that someone we desire would pursue us if they really wanted to. Arguably, no relationships, romantic or platonic, would exist if at least one person didn’t act on their desires in a given situation.
However, if we are content living in a space of the unknown, we must also accept inaction. Easily, more time can be spent wanting and waiting than taking charge when it comes to expression. By waiting to be approached, more energy is being used thinking about a relationship than actually being in one. Buddhist philosophy suggests that desire in ignorance is the root of suffering, because desire relates to dissatisfaction. Yet there is the presence of skillful desire (chanda), which results in liberation as it causes the development of positive qualities that can be gained through human interaction, like potential personal relationships.
Throughout time, theories and arguments on matters of love have been fluid in their influence, and even truth. By unpacking the philosophy of modern dating advice, we learn that we are humans with desires, some more driven by them and others frightened. Our time is short, and our interactions with other people are what foster our humanity. So maybe he wanted to but didn’t, or did.
At the end of the day, it comes down to our own actions and intentions as responses to what we want. This expression, backed by social media and pop culture, places our expectations on others with the hope of mutual understanding without communication. It stems from personal insecurities that make us want to flaunt the chocolates and flowers from somebody else, bandaging our pride and true feelings with a trite piece of advice advertised to us so we avoid real conversations with unknown outcomes. We are led into a spiral of disappointment through this phenomenon, a cycle that is broken by stepping away from today’s façade of what a real relationship is, versus what it looks like.
