Sitting anxiously on a discomodious polypropylene chair and perusing one of those consummately fascist-fashion magazines, to pass the hour, while awaiting to be called in for my 6:45 appointment, I snarled and fawned at numerous depictions of women lacking any vestige of verisimilitude whatsoever. And while normally I would steer clear of such publications I had little inclination to leaf through Heating & Plumbing Monthly which was the only other option in the rack. And so I flicked from page to page until my eye snagged on the following tag line: How Can You Make Him Get Married?'

Now, is it just me or does that sound so wrong that even mail-order nuptials, contemptible and contrived as they are, seem relatively acceptable in comparison? The article suggested entrapment by cajoling was by far the best course of action while psycho (therapist) Philip Pulman (whoever he is) asserted that 'a little cunning doesn't go amiss' before adding that 'flattery' works wonders with men as they are nothing more than 'praise-seeking missiles.' Sooooo rub the missile up the right way and you might get a Mariachi band, a four-tear wedding cake and a boot up the aisle? Is this right? It just might be, at least the latter part.

I feel so out of touch with the female niche of the market that I didn't even realise such features still featured in modern day magazines. How naive. The three page spread began with a protracted introduction which entailed such jisms as this: ' Bullying, bribery and coercion might work in the short term...persuasion, however, might just tip the balance - especially if you're prepared to stretch the truth and make your point so subtly so that your partner thinks it was his idea in the first place.' No wonder one in four marriages ends in divorce. The article went on: 'Some of the best lessons in manipulation are taught by those in advertising,' and avidly encouraged women to try and 'persuade' their partners by 'using one or more of the of the following five approaches':

Reciprocation - do something nice and he will feel duty-bound to do something nice in return. (?)
Commitment and Consistency - get him to make a decision and he will stick to it so not to appear weak. (?)
Social Proof - show him everyone else is doing it thus he will feel inclined to follow the herd. (?)
Authority - be firm, convince him it's the right thing. (?)
Scarcity - show him that what's on offer is in short supply, and that there's plenty of fish in the sea. (?)

The mantra that followed read thus: 'Practice them! It might seem cold and calculating - but remember that all is fair in love and war.' So basically, the whole idea of romance, which is shoved down our every orifice each February, is not only a corporate capitalistic enterprise courtesy of Hallmark, Cadbury's and florists nationwide but also an utterly redundant concept. I knew that God was dead, but I didn't realise that romance was too. While reading the article I remembered the following lines by Bukowski: 'there's no chance at all: we are all trapped by a singular fate. nobody ever finds the one.' And maybe he was right, but surely the point and the fun and the romance is in the trying? Coaxing someone in to something, anything, especially in to an institution, with vulpine tactics and artifice is abominable but also rather pointless in the long term. Or is it? According to the magazine you can even force your other-half in to having children if you adhere to the above principles. I sat there perturbed and bewildered and realised for the first time why Freud, like almost every other man, couldn't understand women because as a woman myself I do not understand them either. To end, a rather fitting quote by the one and only Mr Beckett: 'Women are all the same, bloody same, you can't love, you can't stay the course, the only feeling you can stand is being felt, you can't love for five minutes without wanting it abolished in brats and house bloody wifery.'

Here, here.