In my early teens I went through a period of popularity with some of the girls at school. It seemed inordinate. I couldn’t quite get it and thought there had to have been a mistake. After all, I was the antithesis of standard masculinity, something of a girly-boy, shy and sensitive. When I began playing a bit hard-to-get the effect intensified. For a while I was this curious, almost lionised creature. At the school party that year I was attended by a coterie of interested females. I was kissed more times that night than I can remember. In the weeks to follow I even broke hearts!

At different points in later life I would experience variations on that theme. It would make me wonder what could possibly be the attraction. Although the answer to that was complex, one aspect was that “softer” men can have a specific pull in a more subtle way than their counterparts. Over time I would watch this type fall in and out of fashion.

There is a current buzz-term going around: “metrosexual”. It essentially describes the same phenomenon. Only a few years before in the early 90s it had been “the new man”. He was supposed to be a reconstructed type more sensitive to the needs of women, generally softer and better able to relate. He lost his appeal when he was found to be lacking in danger or intrigue. Prepared to change nappies and share the load was one thing but being too unchallenging in other ways he just wasn’t sexy enough. More recently he has been resurrected in an altered guise. His archetypes now would be a David Beckham or a Hugh Jackman.

Attractiveness in oneself is not an easy subject to broach. With men such talk is taken to be about conquest which either intimidates or gets a round of back-slapping. With women it’s a non-starter as being seen to be aware of one’s appeal isn’t consistent with the type and therefore negates the allure. Understanding oneself in terms of the cultural sway is a way of exploring the subject while hopefully avoiding opprobrium … maybe.