![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I wandered around the ballroom, feeling sleepy and bored, waiting for my crew chief to give me a job to do but not really wanting him to come up with anything because I was too sleepy to really be in the mood for work that day. A few yards away, several of my coworkers, including those in my own department, were also not doing anything. Instead, they were standing in a circle, having an animated conversation. I saw John, Phil, and Jim, and a few others who looked like they were peripherally aware of the conversation, but not actively a part of it.
As I got closer John said "Here, let's get a female perspective & ask Joreth."
"Because we're all the same person and have exactly the same perspective. Go ahead, what's the question?"
"No," John said, "I know you're not all the same person, but you're more like them than like a man."
"You obviously don't know me very well," I said.
"Well, ok, whatever, do you like roller coasters?" John said.
"Yes, I love roller coasters, why?" I said.
"Because I have this girl I want to take out on a date and I wondered if Busch Gardens was a good date place?" John said.
Phil jumped in with "I say yes, because they've done studies, and when girls get afraid, they get aroused, and they like to hug on you and be all protected and stuff."
"Yep," I said. "That works GREAT ... for those it works great for. It's a TERRIBLE idea for those girls it doesn't work for. Problem is, you don't know which one she is until you do. I have a novel idea, why don't you ask her if she likes theme parks?"
"Because girls never tell you what they like, they always say 'oh, I like whatever you like' and they want you to take charge and be in control," Phil said.
"Have we met?" I asked. "I don't know a single girl like that. I'm sure they exist, but my point is, again, that we're not all the same person and you have to treat a woman how SHE wants to be treated, and you don't know what that is until you ASK her."
From there, ensued a discussion that involved rising voices and everyone talking over each other, as each of the guys tried to insist that there was a One Right Way to treat women that all involved being "a gentleman", and I tried to explain that being a "gentleman" actually defeated the purpose if the intended recipient didn't actually like that particular behaviour.
"But men are supposed to hold open doors for women and stuff, that's how I was raised and it's a cultural thing." John said.
"I HATE it when men hold open doors for women only and not men. It is most definitely NOT polite, it's insulting and obnoxious. I actually had a guy run from down the street, tripping someone else, in his effort to beat me to the door so he could hold it open for me, but he was on the wrong side, so I would have had to walk under his arm, and he was blocking the people trying to come OUT through those doors. That's stupid and it is no longer a nice gesture when you inconvenience everyone else around you just because you're 'supposed to' do something," I said.
"Well, then I'll know from now on to treat you like a dude," John said, offering me a fist-bump.
"How about you treat me like a human being?" I asked.
"No," insisted Phil, "you're supposed to do these things. Like, when I'm walking down the street, I'll put the lady on the inside, to protect her from cars and stuff."
"I absolutely, fricking HATE that," I said.
"No, it's nice!" Phil said. "Like when you walk with a 5 year old, you put the child to the inside to protect him."
Blink blink.
"You seriously don't see anything wrong with treating an adult woman like a child?" I asked.
"No." Phil said. "It's to show her that I care about her that I want to protect her."
"You put the child to the inside because the child doesn't know any better not to run out into traffic. Putting the woman on the inside & comparing it to the child is implying that she also doesn't know any better and needs you to keep her from running into traffic. You can't see how this is insulting?" I demanded.
"If I let a woman walk on the outside, a Latin dude would think I'm offering her up as a hooker. But if I walk on the outside, the Latin dude will approve and know that I'm protecting her," Phil tried to explain (He's Puerto Rican).
"I don't give a fuck what some random Latin dude thinks, the person you should be concerned about is the woman you are insulting," I said.
This is why I'm bitchy. I'm sick of being treated like a child for the guy's approval rating in the eyes of other guys.
Why the fuck is this concept so difficult to grasp? Is it really so complicated to understand that a gesture of politeness or concern should be based on what the RECIPIENT wants, and not what makes the GIVER feel better, and that the way to find out what the recipient might like is to fucking ASK them what they might like? Don't answer that, I already know the answer and it's too depressing.
"If I ask my girl what she wants, she'll just say she doesn't know," John said, trying to bring the conversation back to the original topic.
"Well then it's her own fucking fault if she doesn't get what she wants, isn't it?" I said.
"Forget it," John said, "I'm not asking you about girls anymore, I'm going back to what the guys say".
So, apparently, the trick to figuring out the "opposite sex", is to poll all your friends of the incorrect gender, ask one random person of the same gender to be representative of that entire gender, and then throw out all the answers that don't confirm your original presumption.
I've had enough chauvenistic sexism for one day.
As I got closer John said "Here, let's get a female perspective & ask Joreth."
"Because we're all the same person and have exactly the same perspective. Go ahead, what's the question?"
"No," John said, "I know you're not all the same person, but you're more like them than like a man."
"You obviously don't know me very well," I said.
"Well, ok, whatever, do you like roller coasters?" John said.
"Yes, I love roller coasters, why?" I said.
"Because I have this girl I want to take out on a date and I wondered if Busch Gardens was a good date place?" John said.
Phil jumped in with "I say yes, because they've done studies, and when girls get afraid, they get aroused, and they like to hug on you and be all protected and stuff."
"Yep," I said. "That works GREAT ... for those it works great for. It's a TERRIBLE idea for those girls it doesn't work for. Problem is, you don't know which one she is until you do. I have a novel idea, why don't you ask her if she likes theme parks?"
"Because girls never tell you what they like, they always say 'oh, I like whatever you like' and they want you to take charge and be in control," Phil said.
"Have we met?" I asked. "I don't know a single girl like that. I'm sure they exist, but my point is, again, that we're not all the same person and you have to treat a woman how SHE wants to be treated, and you don't know what that is until you ASK her."
From there, ensued a discussion that involved rising voices and everyone talking over each other, as each of the guys tried to insist that there was a One Right Way to treat women that all involved being "a gentleman", and I tried to explain that being a "gentleman" actually defeated the purpose if the intended recipient didn't actually like that particular behaviour.
"But men are supposed to hold open doors for women and stuff, that's how I was raised and it's a cultural thing." John said.
"I HATE it when men hold open doors for women only and not men. It is most definitely NOT polite, it's insulting and obnoxious. I actually had a guy run from down the street, tripping someone else, in his effort to beat me to the door so he could hold it open for me, but he was on the wrong side, so I would have had to walk under his arm, and he was blocking the people trying to come OUT through those doors. That's stupid and it is no longer a nice gesture when you inconvenience everyone else around you just because you're 'supposed to' do something," I said.
"Well, then I'll know from now on to treat you like a dude," John said, offering me a fist-bump.
"How about you treat me like a human being?" I asked.
"No," insisted Phil, "you're supposed to do these things. Like, when I'm walking down the street, I'll put the lady on the inside, to protect her from cars and stuff."
"I absolutely, fricking HATE that," I said.
"No, it's nice!" Phil said. "Like when you walk with a 5 year old, you put the child to the inside to protect him."
Blink blink.
"You seriously don't see anything wrong with treating an adult woman like a child?" I asked.
"No." Phil said. "It's to show her that I care about her that I want to protect her."
"You put the child to the inside because the child doesn't know any better not to run out into traffic. Putting the woman on the inside & comparing it to the child is implying that she also doesn't know any better and needs you to keep her from running into traffic. You can't see how this is insulting?" I demanded.
"If I let a woman walk on the outside, a Latin dude would think I'm offering her up as a hooker. But if I walk on the outside, the Latin dude will approve and know that I'm protecting her," Phil tried to explain (He's Puerto Rican).
"I don't give a fuck what some random Latin dude thinks, the person you should be concerned about is the woman you are insulting," I said.
This is why I'm bitchy. I'm sick of being treated like a child for the guy's approval rating in the eyes of other guys.
Why the fuck is this concept so difficult to grasp? Is it really so complicated to understand that a gesture of politeness or concern should be based on what the RECIPIENT wants, and not what makes the GIVER feel better, and that the way to find out what the recipient might like is to fucking ASK them what they might like? Don't answer that, I already know the answer and it's too depressing.
"If I ask my girl what she wants, she'll just say she doesn't know," John said, trying to bring the conversation back to the original topic.
"Well then it's her own fucking fault if she doesn't get what she wants, isn't it?" I said.
"Forget it," John said, "I'm not asking you about girls anymore, I'm going back to what the guys say".
So, apparently, the trick to figuring out the "opposite sex", is to poll all your friends of the incorrect gender, ask one random person of the same gender to be representative of that entire gender, and then throw out all the answers that don't confirm your original presumption.
I've had enough chauvenistic sexism for one day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 4/4/11 02:32 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 4/4/11 02:35 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 4/4/11 03:08 am (UTC)From:This doesn't apply anymore, of course. But it does somewhat taint the gesture. And the issue of being splashed by passing cars only applies under certain weather conditions. So, most of the time it's totally irrelevant.
Roller coasters would, however, create a heightened sense of arousal, and this would be likely to lead to a misattribution of emotion to cause both people to feel more attracted to each other than they would otherwise. This can be seen as beneficial, in the sense that it increases the likelihood of things continuing. Or it can be seen as a drawback, in that it increases the likelihood of two people who don't actually have much compatibility tricking themselves into thinking that they appeal to each other and trying to make things work when they'd both be better off spending their time on someone else. If they really are compatible, they will likely figure it out in a more mundane setting anyway.
It will also backfire with people like me who will simply refuse to go on the roller coaster and will find very little to do at most amusement parks. I would have much preferred to have been asked first, but then, I've only ever dated people I've been friends with for a while first, so they tend to know me and know what I like already. And when they aren't sure, they tend to already know how to talk to me to get more information.
Oh, on a side note, the studies have nothing to do with "being all protected". And it works equally well with males. In fact, the study I was thinking of, the famous one, was done by making men afraid (or in the control group not doing so) and showing that it increased their attraction to a reasonably attractive female. It's called the Shaky Bridge Study and it's an adorable experimental design. But there have been countless followup studies and variations and so forth on the basic ideas.
no subject
Date: 4/5/11 03:36 am (UTC)From:Although, the reason this guy (and others) gave regarding "protecting the wimmenfolk" didn't have to do with splashing from cars, it had to do with being hit by a car. My point is that if a car ran off the road and onto the sidewalk, there's little that a guy walking on the street-side can accomplish, and the comparison to the child only reinforces my position that it's an infantilizing gesture.
I had read that study, and it was interesting, but I didn't have the details stored in accessible memory to address that specific point. So thank you for reminding me of the details.
As you pointed out, this method of courting would backfire if used on you, which was my point that the method works great on those it works great on but not so good on those it doesn't work on. So, yes, that's it exactly!
It also doesn't work on me, since 1) I'm much more self-aware and often can tell which factors are contributing to which mood, and 2) roller coasters don't have the same effect on me because I get more aggressive with thrill-seeking activity, not more sexually aroused. I'm more likely to want to pick a fight than have sex.
Although, with a partner I have already established these parameters with, that's not necessarily an either/or option!
no subject
Date: 4/5/11 04:30 am (UTC)From:This would be in-line with a followup study where they gave people a placebo and either told them it would give them a host of random side effects (I forget what weird things they invented, maybe things like dry mouth) or side effects that mimic physical affects of anger/frustration (sweating, increased heart rate, etc.). Then they ad them in a waiting room with someone deliberately being annoying and measured how they responded. People told to expect physical symptoms of arousal acted less annoyed - presumably because they chalked up their real annoyance to the drug they had been given, so they didn't blame the person they were with.
Misattribution is a tricky thing. It can easily backfire. Plus, it's just not generally a good plan for you attempt to woo someone to be based on making them deceive themselves.
no subject
Date: 4/5/11 04:39 am (UTC)From:Definitely agreed! There is so much about "normal" dating that I just don't get. I don't understand dating people you don't like, I don't understand "tricking" people into liking or dating you, I don't understand making your partners read your mind & then getting pissed when they can't, and I don't understand holding your lover hostage (i.e. if you cheat on me, I'll slash your tires). It's these kinds of things that I don't understand that have caused many people with Asperger's Syndrome to think that I have it too (I don't quite fulfill enough items on the AS checklist to qualify, apparently). They all seem so ... inefficient & self-defeating. I have too many other interesting things to do, to be spending time with people I don't like, forcing them to spend time with me.
no subject
Date: 4/4/11 06:05 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 4/4/11 07:25 am (UTC)From:It is much less work to learn one system and then force women to comply to it than to learn what a particular individual likes.
However, it isn't likely to lead to all that much happiness for either partner, really. And while one can appreciate the thought of someone trying to please you, it is a lot easier to appreciate things that one actually cares for. Also, the thought is better when it involves something about you as a specific person rather than just somebody noticing you're female.
no subject
Date: 4/4/11 09:00 am (UTC)From:So, apparently, the trick to figuring out the "opposite sex", is to poll all your friends of the incorrect gender, ask one random person of the same gender to be representative of that entire gender, and then throw out all the answers that don't confirm your original presumption.
Very true. But that's also a common trick of getting a second opinion in general: ask your friends, get their approval of your presumptions. Together with them, conclude that everyone who has a different perspective is wrong.
Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/4/11 09:42 am (UTC)From:It seems to me that most of what you describe stems from an unwillingness to say "well if you don't know what you want, how am I supposed to know?". They appear to believe that there is a social expectation that they "intuitively" know what the other person wants, and that it will be regarded as a personal failing if they don't do so. Hence doing what ever they can to "figure it out" without involving the person about whom they're supposed to know. (Asking anyone you think might be more knowledgeable than you about a particular topic is a common approach to attempting to fill in gaps. For any topic.) It seems a rather common affliction, if popular media is to be believed. Eventually one comes to realise that as WOPR (War Games) said (about a different topic), the only way to win is not to play. And sadly some people take longer to realise that than others.
I'm intrigued by the way you describe chivalry with the same pejorative as sexism, and shall have to think about that some more. At least the way that I was brought up chivalry described the "good bits" and sexism the "bad bits". But as you point out, the situation isn't that black and white.
Ewen
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 02:43 am (UTC)From:Most of the code, however, had more to do with court behaviour. It also covered a whole crapload of stuff that our current society would find horrific, or at least, baffling.
The current version of what is called "chivalry" is actually a misnomer, attempting to play on historical authority to justify sexist behaviour. All the gender stereotypes and differences in treatment come from some original justification to enhance and/or reinforce the man's position of authority over the woman. The "good bits" are merely an attempt to re-interpret the justification in words that *sound* nice on the surface, but really have the same sexist attitudes underneath.
Take
If you want to be "polite" or show consideration, you do not ignore an entire 50% of the population and bestow special privileges upon the other half (most of which, as I said, are merely coverups for sexist origins). If someone's hands are full, open the door for them. If you arrive at the door first, open the door for them. If someone expresses a preference for having their door opened for them, open the door for them. But do not open doors for women only just because you're "'sposed to" while deliberately refusing men the same courtesy, do not open someone's door when it actually causes them more inconvenience because you are blocking their way, and do not open someone's door who expresses a preference for opening their own doors.
Any insistence on opening the door in those last 3 do-not examples is not a "good bit" by any definition. Yet, those are exactly the people who insist that they are "gentlemen" and are being "chivalrous".
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 03:34 am (UTC)From:FWIW, I'm a (mostly) equal opportunity door opener/holder, and certainly avoid doing so where it's stupid (eg, it just makes things more difficult). My door opening/holding is largely governed by "optimally efficient for all" (give or take people's stated preferences where known). But I say "mostly" because I think in borderline situations (ie, it's about equally easy for everyone either way, or they're still a few steps away from the door but I have time to wait, or whatever) I'm more inclined to hold a door for a woman than a man -- and that has, at least historically, fallen in the "chivalry" category for me.
And I'm mostly egalitarian about other "chivalry" things too -- politeness is politeness to all people -- but am, eg, more inclined to walk a woman to her car/house/whatever than a man. I'm not certain how much of those two examples is "person of the attractive sex", eg, as a form of flirting/spending more time with them, and how much is "raised to believe shouldn't be forced to do it by/for themselves". As I said, I need to think about this some more.
Either way it's certainly informative that there's enough annoying "chivalry" to make some people want to write off the whole thing. (Reactions to what I do seem to vary from disinterest to surprise anyone still shows any courtesy.)
Ewen
PS: I'm aware that "chivalry" shares pretty much only a name with the original knight's codes; words change meanings over time.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 03:45 am (UTC)From:As I said, with the sexist meanings underlying the gestures, all forms of "chivalry" are "annoying" because they're all sexist, and it is sexism that I want to write off. The problem is that most people don't bother to question it, so that is the part where you see bits and pieces to be salvaged. Plus, plenty of people see no reason to question the status quo when they think they can benefit from it (i.e. girls getting free drinks at bars - why would a girl want to give that privilege up?) I don't believe we can be a free society when anyone is privileged above any other, so I do not take my form of privilege as a benefit to me or to society. Privilege can be just as confining, if more subtle, than some forms of discrimination.
"Politeness" is not the same thing as chivalry, and I am not writing off "politeness", nor trying to discourage anyone from being polite. I want to discourage people from being polite only to one group of people and not any other, especially when those forms of politeness serve to reinforce stereotypes and rigid social hierarchies.
And don't get me started on the bullshit being passed off as "good done by religion". People are good in spite of their religions, not because of them.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 03:58 am (UTC)From:Thanks again for the response. And for writing so much insightful stuff (in this and many other posts).
Ewen
PS: You may be right that all the "good bits" belong in "politeness" and not chivalry as I'd originally assumed.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 04:28 am (UTC)From:Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 04:28 am (UTC)From:When I was in high school, I dated a guy who was raised to be "chivalrous" but who was, in reality, a pretty egalitarian guy, for a white, upper-class, wealthy, privileged male. When I insisted on carrying my own bags, after only a single conversation to reassure him that I wasn't resisting to play my half of the politeness charade ("oh no, I can carry them ... well, since you insist!"), he let me carry my own bags.
As I explained to him, it wasn't actually about asserting my dominance or independence or any other bully-feminist tactic. I value my physical abilities and I revel in the feel of physical activity. I find it fascinating, on a cerebral level, to analyze my body as it goes through physical activity, and to push my body to see what it's capable of. It is a sheer joy and pleasure for me to exert myself (moreso as a teenager, when my body worked better than it does now). I wasn't insisting on holding my own bags to be a bitch and rub the whole chivalry thing in his nose - I felt good when I lifted something heavy. I felt physically good, I was mentally stimulated, and I felt pride in my accomplishments. It was a Big Deal to me.
One weekend, I went on vacation with his family. We packed up the car, and naturally I carried my own suitcase to the driveway. On my second trip, my then-boyfriend intercepted me and tried to take my load out of my arms. I got pissy and jerked it back, saying "I can carry my own stuff!" He whispered to me that his father had yelled at him when I went into the house, for allowing me to carry my own bag. He tried to explain to his father how important it was to me to carry my own things, but his father wouldn't listen. His father told him that my boyfriend was to insist on carrying my things for me or else my boyfriend would be punished.
Seriously.
So my boyfriend begged me to let him carry my things, just this once, insisting that he agreed with me, he understood my reasons, but just please, can I keep the peace and help him stay out of trouble.
So, I was forced to give up something that I valued very highly, for the sake of "chivalry". That's what these gender roles do. They require people to give up things that they may value in order to save face, or be "polite", or not make waves, or to shore up someone else's sense of entitlement. If it is not a sacrifice, if someone appreciates the gesture, then asking first does not decrease the polite meaning behind the gesture, and, in fact, can be even more meaningful that you asked. When we do not ask every one if we may be allowed to assist them every time we try, we may be taking something of value away from them.
Some women, myself included, are often so beaten down by the constant barrage of having their valuables forcibly removed, that many times we don't even bother to tell people that what they're doing is bothersome. Sometimes, some people feel it's just not worth the effort, because attempting to explain that a person is being more harmful than helpful causes all sorts of social awkwardness. Sometimes people choose to let it go, to give in once more, to allow someone to trample over them yet again, because the fight is too taxing when the result is most likely not a change in behaviour or an apology, but a dogged insistence that we should take their gesture and like it.
So you (the general "you", I'm not trying to pick on *you* specifically) may never even know how many people were irritated or upset by what you thought was a gesture of politeness simply because it didn't occur to you just to ask what the other person might want. As I keep saying - a courteous or polite gesture should be something that is meaningful to the recipient, not the giver. If the giver is doing something for his own pleasure, in direct contrast to the wishes of the recipient, it is not courteous or polite, by definition.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 05:22 am (UTC)From:I do hear you that there's a bunch of these things which, as a single once-in-a-lifetime instance probably wouldn't be a big deal, but as a general keeps-on-happening-way-too-often pattern are really irritating. At least in my life I do try to be aware when my "polite gesture" isn't the thing the recipient wanted. And try to keep a look out for "keeps on happening" situations, and avoid being part of the problem.
Ewen
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/13/11 07:59 pm (UTC)From:Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/13/11 08:13 pm (UTC)From:But that's a whole 'nother rant.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/13/11 09:39 pm (UTC)From:Rant away, lady, your voice is a clarion call amid the endless fog of idiocy and oblivion.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 04:42 am (UTC)From:And that mixture of "chivalry" and flirting... yeah, that can come across sometimes too. It makes it more awkward, because women can get yelled at for rejecting "nice" gestures (which are dangerous to accept and can lead a guy on if you're not interested), but there can be really good reasons to not want a guy to walk you back somewhere.
Sure, from your point of view you can think, "Well, I know I'm not a threat, so I'm making her safer." But she can't know that.
I also really dislike when people I don't know well try to help me with my things. Because then somebody I don't know well has just taken my things. It makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 04:48 am (UTC)From:You bring up a really good point that, statistically, women are more likely to be harmed by someone they know than a total stranger. And this makes things really difficult when we are told that we are supposed to let guys "protect" us, but guys are simultaneously the threat we are supposed to be protected from.
I, also, don't like the idea of someone I don't know well taking my things from me. And if he took my things from me, he must not be someone I know well, since everyone I know well knows not to take my things from me.
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 05:08 am (UTC)From:It pains me the world is like that. But I'm very aware that it is. And you're right the "sort of know" category is probably, statistically, the most dangerous. (It also pains me that people won't take "no" for an answer, at least without putting up a fight about it, which ties back to other things in this post's comments, re "Ask Culture". I have a bunch of food allergies, and I usually politely refuse unknown offered food out of reflex, so I do have some experience of people not wanting to take "no" for an answer where it wasn't the one they expected.)
Anyway, yes, I'm actively thinking "will this seem creepy" before I offer, and trying to ensure I don't seem creepy. And 90+% of the time it's people who do know me well enough to know I'm safer than the unknown. But for the other situations I guess I'm still trying to "play nice" with "Guess Culture" enough to not expect that they'll always ask if they want someone to walk them to their car/door/etc. (Some have asked, and I've gladly done so, but the request always seems to carry a tone of "I know I'm supposed to be independent enough not to ask this, but..." which feels.... awkward.)
Ewen
Re: Chivalry/Sexism
Date: 4/5/11 05:24 am (UTC)From:As long as someone offers and then takes a no graciously, I think that's fine. I'm strongly ask culture, and if you're asking, "Do you want this?" that's generally a-okay to me. What is a violation of ask culture (at least my ask culture) is to press for reasons, try to push someone into changing their answer, or to not accept a no.
It's just some people will take the whole "it's chivalrous" notion and get offended or angry if you try to politely decline. But those who can accept a polite no are, I think, doing a fair job at navigating a difficult mess of conflicting cultures. Since you can't easily know which preferences someone has until you get to know them well.
Ask Culture vs Guess Culture
Date: 4/4/11 08:06 pm (UTC)From:Ewen
no subject
Date: 4/5/11 02:53 am (UTC)From:It's people like that who spawn such gems of songs as "I don't know what I did to deserve you, but I'm glad you like me" (that's a paraphrase, I can't remember the name of the song). It's terrifying how many people do not know their partners, and make little to no effort to get to know them.
I've never seen the guessing method actually work out as the most effective way to go in terms of date success. Usually, it's a random smattering of hits and misses, with the guy totally clueless as to the person he's dating, and the girl usually frustrated that he can't read her mind.
I'm reminded of the classic example of buying an engagement ring. Sex And The City even did an episode on it. "How could he buy me that ring? He's supposed to love me, he should KNOW that ring isn't me!" Oh really? And HOW is he supposed to know that ring isn't you? And yet, taking her ring shopping is supposedly not romantic, or something.
That method does not work, and yet it's hyped up in all the romantic comedies as the One True Way to do relationships. And, as I mentioned, surveys of people before and after watching romantic comedies vs. people watching some other kind of movie, consistently show a decreased level of relationship satisfaction after watching the romantic comedy due to the unattainable romanticism portrayed in the movie.
Even in monogamous relationships, any couple that has both longevity and happiness says the key to their success is communication & knowing each other.
no subject
Date: 4/4/11 10:42 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)