Do you think Rom coms and the like influence you

krudler

liah wrote: »

I do disagree tbh. I'm one of those girls who probably doesn't want to have kids or get married. I don't foresee myself changing my mind, but it could happen. I would hate to think I could be branded as a bitch simply because I can't predict how I'm going to feel a year down the line. It's hardly fair.

Also, she told him flat-out she didn't want anything serious. How is that being a bitch? She was honest with him about what she wanted and he read too far into it. That was his own fault. If he couldn't handle it, he shouldn't've went along with it. Hell, that was even covered in the movie.

This gets back to guys feeling entitled to a girl and if she doesn't feel the same way she's automatically the bitch, which is bs. People can't really help how "into" people they are. And they can't predict what's going to happen down the line or who they'll meet.

To consider someone a bitch just because she didn't want anything serious with him, which she was perfectly up front about from the beginning, and then ended up changing her mind about who she was down the road because she met the right guy... is a bit weird, tbh.

A year ago I was content in a relationship, the casual/not serious thing was never really for me, prefered being with someone longterm, saw who I was with at the time as possibly the one, fast forward a year and I love being single, nobody to answer to, can go on trips or weekends away with friends or holidays alone when I please. My time revolves around me and me alone, and I'm happy with that for now. And chances are I'll want to get into another relationship when the time is right, but it doesnt mean I dont want to do the dating thing or meet new people now either (I'm not a monk :pac:) so I can see both sides of the argument in the movie, its one of the best examples of how love blossoms then falls apart, I like how they even tell you right from the opening scene "this is a story about love, but its not a love story"

feck it I'm watching this tonight

LittleBook

strobe wrote: »

Summer is a bitch ... that's kinda the whole point of the film.

Scott Neustadter, writer and "real life Tom".

I love relationship stories where the obstacle that keeps the two people apart is legitimate and sincere. It’s not “he likes the Mets, she likes the Yankees, how will they ever make it work!?” Nobody relates to that stuff and it’s insulting to watch. In “500,” the obstacle is very real — she doesn’t feel the same.

And, because we chose to tell the story through the prism of memory — where things aren't always clear or, um, you know, accurate

I think that this is sort of a cautionary tale ... but at the same time it does embrace the romantic conventions that we had for generations and generations. In a lot of ways, the touchstones are still true and that’s kind of what we’re saying here.

People call us anti-romantic and I don’t agree with that. I think it actually is quite a romantic movie and we’re in defense of all those notions, but we sort of I guess are saying be careful about embracing them too strongly, especially if the other person isn’t giving you - - if you’re hiding the truth from yourself.

We had made such a conscious choice to not have a B-story, to not have any side s*** going on, just to make it very much about this couple. If you do that as one is the good guy and one is the bad guy, it's not that great a movie. We sortta always knew that

metrovelvet

Rom Com is a contradiction in terms. For it to be romantic it has to fail, either through death or through abandonment. You cannot be both romantic and ironic. It just doesnt function.

Comedy has neat and tidy endings, that is why it is funny, it is part of the convention. There just happens to be a relationship in what we consider a ROM COM, the relationship is incidental to the comedy.

Wibbs

On the Summer wan in the movie I'd hover between Liahs and strobe's take on her(and the bloke). Do I think her a bitch? Nope, not particularly. Would I get into a relationship with her? Not in a million years. A fling would be it. I wouldn't open up my emotions to her an pursue her like he did. Doomed to failure. On his part. For her she just wanted an in between lover. On that score I would call her self centered.

I would say they're both self absorbed, though his looks more "noble". She because a fool could have seen he was getting attached but she went along with it because it suited her at the time. Like the kinda guy who gets into a FWB situation, sees the woman clearly has growing feelings and still keeps jumping her bones. Both usually lie to themselves and the person they're deceiving. They'll both use the "well its nothing serious" as a get out clause down the line, by adding "well I told you it was nothing serious". IE its your fault. No matter which way you cut it, it's selfish behaviour.

The Tom fella is self absorbed(and deluded) because all he sees is the effect she has on him, not what she's actually saying or what she actually wants. Like Liah said he has that self entitlement thing going and like she said and I've noticed that's much more a male thing. Like the guy who shouts at a woman leaving him "but, but I love you". As if that's actually going to change much of anything. It's all about him.

IME and IMHO as a very general thing, I think men are more often thrown by and delusional when they're actually in love. They're more black and white and I would say unconditional about it. I'd go so far as to say a guy(especially a young guy) being conditional isnt in love. I would say women's love is more conditional and practical over time. It's more dynamic and needs more upkeep. Guys tend to fall into the emotional rut of "well we love each other" and don't keep an eye on the practical. Then of course are thrown when it goes belly up and claim "I didnt see it coming".

I read an interesting interview with the guy who wrote it. Where he recalled how he met his "Summer" for the first time after they split and gave her a read of the script. Apparently she read it, liked it and identified with the Tom character, not her own. Didnt spot herself in it at all. So it seems perception is all and that his Summer was more than a tad self absorbed(and a little slow).

sorry about the source :D http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1209556/500-Days-Summer-Revenge-writing-film-girl-dumped-you.html In his case I reckon he dodged a bullet.

mariaalice

There have been some very interesting reply s to my thread ...i think a better way of saying what i was asking is ...has the media/film depiction of love conditioned some women to value the romantic gesture more that practical expression of love.

For example a man clearing the drive way of snow and ice or a man driving you to work because you were afraid of driving on an icy road is showing his love a man who works hard to provide to a good home for his family is showing his love, a very deep love....

metrovelvet

mariaalice wrote: »

There have been some very interesting reply s to my thread ...i think a better way of saying what i was asking is ...has the media/film depiction of love conditioned some women to value the romantic gesture more that practical expression of love.

For example a man clearing the drive way of snow and ice or a man driving you to work because you were afraid of driving on an icy road is showing his love a man who works hard to provide to a good home for his family is showing his love, a very deep love....

People's expectations of each other have gotten completely out of control. They want a life coach, a shrink, a hotel porter, a waiter, a masseuse, a sex god [dess], a mother, a father, a mechanic, and a housekeeper all rolled into one.

Can it be pinned on ROM COMS? Maybe partially, but I imho it can be blamed on expectations of happiness, that it can last forever, that love wont fade. Of course it fades and then it becomes a choice, as it always has been even in the blinding intoxication phase, despite the revisionist tendancies, post mortem.

The amourous realm is signifiably unstable, in that we can never know certifiably, without doubt that someone loves us, it is an act of faith [why I like the term "unfaithful' rather than 'cheating' but takes a certain amount of literacy. Roses are nice, but clearing the ice from your path so you can get out the door, well freedom ...can't put a price on that or draping a blanket on you when you fall asleep but most of all being there when the chips are down.

I haven't seen the movie Summer people are referring to. But from what I have observed in others and my own experience, after a certain amount of time with someone they can become invisible and become a series of your proejctions, which is why it seems unfair to read too much into the biographical information provided here by Wibbs. A character, like any piece of art, is only how the artist sees the object or chooses to see the object so the model's inability to see her self in the character may not be narcicism but evidence that the character is the construction of the writers imagination and a revisionist project in his own therapeutic process.

Wibbs

mariaalice wrote: »

There have been some very interesting reply s to my thread ...i think a better way of saying what i was asking is ...has the media/film depiction of love conditioned some women to value the romantic gesture more that practical expression of love.

I'd say with quite a few women out there the answer is yes(men get BS'd by it too in different ways). The guy must be seen to do the right thing by the cultural romantic standards of the day. I've seen this in my own past experiences and that of others. IE one ex, a bunch of flowers and rosemantic dinner and I was God's gift, doing the small, even big things quietly and privately that helped her and us in life was barely noticed. She needed the public and cliched stuff. The "oh look what my BF(publicly) does for me". That got real old real quick. A woman mate of mine was the other side of that. One of the more sensible people I've known whose not inconsiderable mind often took a holiday when it came to romance. A succession of guys who were like some character from a trashy romance novel when it came to the obvious romantic stuff, yet were usually cheating on her while they were at it. She saw the flowers and romantic breaks and expensive gifts, but not the infidelity. It took her a while to see the problem.

For example a man clearing the drive way of snow and ice or a man driving you to work because you were afraid of driving on an icy road is showing his love a man who works hard to provide to a good home for his family is showing his love, a very deep love....

Yes he is and most copped on men and women see that. Sadly the world is full of easily led dopes too.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

A character, like any piece of art, is only how the artist sees the object or chooses to see the object so the model's inability to see her self in the character may not be narcicism but evidence that the character is the construction of the writers imagination and a revisionist project in his own therapeutic process.

Oh I agree, but still shes at least a little dense not to spot herself. I mean if I had an ex of mine who wrote a book/screenplay with a similar relationship storyline to ours my first thought would be, "hmm wonder is this about us, or one of her other exes, or an artistic invention, not "oh I must be the female character" in this. Even from an egotistical point of view. "Jesus the bitch completely misrepresented me"(many of us have had that one). Her response is more along the lines of "Oh I've been hurt before and I see that in this guy", not "I wonder have I hurt others before?". The author admits he was acting like a sap with the real life Summer and the screenplay follows pretty closely how he was acting and how he was feeling. Unless he was completely delusional(he was a bit) in picturing her, she would surely notice the issues in the relationship and something of herself in screenplay? So I'd still say, either self centred or thick.

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but still shes at least a little dense not to spot herself. I mean if I had an ex of mine who wrote a book/screenplay with a similar relationship storyline to ours my first thought would be, "hmm wonder is this about us, or one of her other exes, or an artistic invention, not "oh I must be the female character" in this. Even from an egotistical point of view. "Jesus the bitch completely misrepresented me"(many of us have had that one). Her response is more along the lines of "Oh I've been hurt before and I see that in this guy", not "I wonder have I hurt others before?". The author admits he was acting like a sap with the real life Summer and the screenplay follows pretty closely how he was acting and how he was feeling. Unless he was completely delusional(he was a bit) in picturing her, she would surely notice the issues in the relationship and something of herself in screenplay? So I'd still say, either self centred or thick.

No, I still diasagree (although haven't seen the film so far, but going by everything on the thread).

Who thinks this:
"I wonder have I hurt others before?"
over this:
"Oh I've been hurt before and I see that in this guy"
when watching a film?

Only some kind of saint, imo.

We have most of us done both of these things but only one of these things is a big deal, a "growth opportunity", the stuff poems and books are written about and films made. A broken heart. Our broken heart, to be precise.

My point is, everyone will identify with the heartbroken character, it's not a matter of either gender, or narcissism, or objective reality. Especially reading a script like that, told from the heart-broken one's point of view. And especially if she never felt anything "deep" for the guy. All the more reason for her not to even recognise the devastation she caused ("caused") in another - she is, as any normal human, too busy recalling her own devastation at the hands of another.

File under human condition again.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but still shes at least a little dense not to spot herself. I mean if I had an ex of mine who wrote a book/screenplay with a similar relationship storyline to ours my first thought would be, "hmm wonder is this about us, or one of her other exes, or an artistic invention, not "oh I must be the female character" in this. Even from an egotistical point of view. "Jesus the bitch completely misrepresented me"(many of us have had that one). Her response is more along the lines of "Oh I've been hurt before and I see that in this guy", not "I wonder have I hurt others before?". The author admits he was acting like a sap with the real life Summer and the screenplay follows pretty closely how he was acting and how he was feeling. Unless he was completely delusional(he was a bit) in picturing her, she would surely notice the issues in the relationship and something of herself in screenplay? So I'd still say, either self centred or thick.

Is it dense or just indifferent to it? He invested a lot more in than she did. Peter Sellers invented an entire relationship with Sophia Lauren. Does that make Sophia Lauren a self centered thicko? Dont think so.

I dont know the malevolence behind what she did or didnt do, but I do think, and this is unfashionable, there are a lot of convenient 'i told you so's' with the cynics who use their cynicism to enjoy something that invariably leads the other up the garden path and then down a trail of pain. Unfortunately the culture endorses it so...

Novella

seenitall wrote: »

My point is, everyone will identify with the heartbroken character, it's not a matter of either gender, or narcissism, or objective reality. Especially reading a script like that, told from the heart-broken one's point of view. And especially if she never felt anything "deep" for the guy. All the more reason for her not to even recognise the devastation she caused ("caused") in another - she is, as any normal human, too busy recalling her own devastation at the hands of another.

File under human condition again.

Naw, loads of times I've watched movies, tv programmes etc., and have seen pieces of myself in characters who weren't the ones getting the bad end of the deal. Tbph, I've never really been badly heart-broken, so it's a lot more difficult for me to relate to that kinda character than it is to the one doing the breaking. It's nothing to do with being a saint, maybe moreso just personal experience.

seenitall

Novella wrote: »

Naw, loads of times I've watched movies, tv programmes etc., and have seen pieces of myself in characters who weren't the ones getting the bad end of the deal. Tbph, I've never really been badly heart-broken, so it's a lot more difficult for me to relate to that kinda character than it is to the one doing the breaking. It's nothing to do with being a saint, maybe moreso just personal experience.

Fair enough, and that shows the compassionate side to you. I do still think that it is a matter of human experience and human self-centred point of view, more than anything.

I hope I'm right, otherwise I fear I am... eh... nar. ci. ssis. tic. (euuw )

Malari

Self-centred or thick being the only two options is a bit unfair. I mean if you are in it just for a casual relationship and are upfront, it is not your fault if the other person gets upset when you don't fall head over heels, like they have done. At what point do you stop being "self-centred" and dump the other person? As if that is going to offset their heart-break?

I'm a complete cynic, but I do like the odd romcom. Usually one that's a bit off the wall, though. I like some sci-fi and vampire stuff too, doesn't mean I'm secretly harbouring a desire to be Buffy one day (cos I know I never will be ).

metrovelvet

Novella wrote: »

Naw, loads of times I've watched movies, tv programmes etc., and have seen pieces of myself in characters who weren't the ones getting the bad end of the deal. Tbph, I've never really been badly heart-broken, so it's a lot more difficult for me to relate to that kinda character than it is to the one doing the breaking. It's nothing to do with being a saint, maybe moreso just personal experience.

Yes. I think better art, can show us our own monstrosity and capacity for cruelty, whether it is through indifference or outright direct sadism.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is it dense or just indifferent to it? He invested a lot more in than she did. Peter Sellers invented an entire relationship with Sophia Lauren. Does that make Sophia Lauren a self centered thicko? Dont think so. .

No, but the movie(and it seems the relationship) situation was different. They actually had a relationship. He fell more she didn't, but more than Sophia she was happy to have the sap follow. Like I said if anyone, man or woman, is in a situation where it's obvious that the other person involved is investing way more than you are willing to then you're acting out of selfishness if you continue it. If you don't spot this then at best you're not too clever at reading people. Indifferent can also be another word for self centered.

I dont know the malevolence behind what she did or didnt do, but I do think, and this is unfashionable, there are a lot of convenient 'i told you so's' with the cynics who use their cynicism to enjoy something that invariably leads the other up the garden path and then down a trail of pain. Unfortunately the culture endorses it so..

Oh there's defo an element to that alright.

Malari wrote: »

Self-centred or thick being the only two options is a bit unfair. I mean if you are in it just for a casual relationship and are upfront, it is not your fault if the other person gets upset when you don't fall head over heels, like they have done.

No but it is your responsibility to call a halt when you see that happening. If you don't then what are you getting from it? Clearly something. Sex, a cardboard cutout BF/GF tm, social proof etc? So you're getting something at the expense of them thinking they've signed up for something else. The upfront part IMHO is too often used as an excuse. If I see it happening and I dont make the break at that point then any upfront protestation I would make is false, one sided and an excuse to use the line "but I told you...." when it finally falls apart.

At what point do you stop being "self-centred" and dump the other person?

Obviously the moment when you see this unequal situation happening.

As if that is going to offset their heart-break?

Of course it would. If after a month you spot the other person falling for you and you're not feeling it, then dumping them then is going to be a lot easier than waiting say a year to do it. The longer it goes on the more convinced/deluded they become. I would have thought that obvious? Like I said while its no ones fault if one party goes troppo and overboard(except said party), it is ones responsibility as the object of that not to make it worse. Basically if someone gets the wrong end of the stick it behoves you not to keep handing it to them.

And yes I've been in this situation on a couple of occasions. Usually something that kicked off as a flingette or a FWB thing. Most of same have been above board and fine, but it has happened where I've spotted they were getting into it more and more and wanted more. They weren't nutters or saps tm either. Just emotions grew(though I suspect one reckoned from the start I'd get on board), so I ended it. Hey I might have wanted to keep the nookie and fun going, but that would have been about me, not them and unfair on them. Luckily Ive never been in their position, but I could imagine myself in their shoes and how that would affect them if we continued.

As for rom coms, none as a genre really spring to mind. Not modern stylee ones anyway. The older stuff yea. The various Bogie, Bacall ones I like. There's a few Cary Grant ones that spring to mind. Some romantic moments in non romantic films get me alright. Actually one weird one was on telly a few years back now. It was Dr Who with David tennant and Billie Piper and IIRC they're stuck in different universes or some such and will be apart forever and its their last chance to say goodbye. She tells him she loves him but while she's sad that shes losing him she seems more sad about him being on his own. He's about to tell her he loves her, but doesnt get the chance. I was in love at the time watching it with an ex and I had an unexpected lump in my throat at that one. Dr Who FFS. :eek:

metrovelvet

^ That is exactly right, because the longer you keep it going the longer you verify their fantasies about what the relationship is and you are doing it solely for your own benefit. And sorry, but this 'being upfront' is a cop out. Any noob will tell you that sex can create things, and I don't mean just babies, I mean bonds and expectations.

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ That is exactly right, because the longer you keep it going the longer you verify their fantasies about what the relationship is and you are doing it solely for your own benefit. And sorry, but this 'being upfront' is a cop out. Any noob will tell you that sex can create things, and I don't mean just babies, I mean bonds and expectations.

How is it a cop out? I don't get that.

I'm not a great one for a FB arrangement, but when I did get offered it once, I had nothing but respect for the guy for putting his cards on the table (so to speak ). He said, as I recall: "I can't guarantee that I will fall in love with you." (I took that to mean "I most probably won't. I am after sex only.") Fair play. If I had chosen to disregard that disclaimer and carry on regardless, I would have NO ONE but myself to blame for most probably falling for him, pining, hurting, god knows what. Why would that be his fault? I know myself better than anyone else knows me, let alone some guy who wants a FB arrangement. I know what I am capable for and what I am not capable for; no one else knows that, least of all him. So how he would be to blame for me accepting his offer, I don't know.

The guy is not bad-looking; I would wager that he succeeded to have satisfactory FB arrangements with girls at that point in his life; all it ever needs for that to happen is for two like-minded people to meet - and neither of them has done anything different to what you would term to be a cop-out.

metrovelvet

seenitall wrote: »

How is it a cop out? I don't get that.

I'm not a great one for a FB arrangement, but when I did get offered it once, I had nothing but respect for the guy for putting his cards on the table (so to speak ). He said, as I recall: "I can't guarantee that I will fall in love with you." (I took that to mean "I most probably won't. I am after sex only.") Fair play. If I had chosen to disregard that disclaimer and carry on regardless, I would have NO ONE but myself to blame for most probably falling for him, pining, hurting, god knows what. Why would that be his fault? I know myself better than anyone else knows me, let alone some guy who wants a FB arrangement. I know what I am capable for and what I am not capable for; no one else knows that, least of all him. So how he would be to blame for me accepting his offer, I don't know.

The guy is not bad-looking; I would wager that he succeeded to have satisfactory FB arrangements with girls at that point in his life; all it ever needs for that to happen is for two like-minded people to meet - and neither of them has done anything different to what you would term to be a cop-out.

It's a cop out because unless you are completely naive, eventually the balance shifts in one direction or another, and to keep on exploiting someone who has feelings for you because you are getting something out of it, namely sex, or romance, or arm candy, or status, or company on Friday night or whatever it is, they will eventually get the damage for that, and to turn around and say 'ah sure you knew the deal', well yes, technically that is right, that is correct, but then so was Shylock when he wanted his pound of flesh. But it doesnt make it any less cruel and its not taking on any emotional accountability.

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's a cop out because unless you are completely naive, eventually the balance shifts in one direction or another, and to keep on exploiting someone who has feelings for you because you are getting something out of it, namely sex, they will eventually get the damage for that, and to turn around and say 'ah sure you knew the deal', well yes, technically that is right, that is correct, but then so was Shylock when he wanted his pound of flesh. But it doesnt make it any less cruel.

The bolded bit is simply not true in a lot of cases, and therefore you can't with credibility say that anyone is doing anything wrong when they are being straight and honest with another person.

Even if you read the PI/RI threads with people giving out about how their fcuk buddies won't fall for them, you will see that there will be an amount of people responding who have in fact managed to have mutually satisfactory FB arrangements, and are going "eh, and why did you think you were entitled to a happily-ever-after when you knew the score from the start?". And they are absolutely right.

Everyone is responsible only for their own feelings (and that responsibility is often difficult enough to assume, let alone assuming responsibility for someone else's feelings. Madness.)

EDIT: ok, I do agree that IF the emotional imbalance occurs, it would be the right and decent thing for the heartbreaker to stop the arrangement with the heartbroken, in order to stop stringing them along.

My point is that people don't actually know that other people are too sensitive to be their fcukbuddies before the thing kicks off and if they are not given any prior notification on that score. They are not mindreaders. And the people who should be giving them that notification are the ones you find a few months down the line moaning about their fcukbuddies not loving them.

Novella

seenitall wrote: »

The bolded bit is simply not true in a lot of cases, and therefore you can't with credibility say that anyone is doing anything wrong when they are being straight and honest with another person.

Even if you read the PI/RI threads with people giving out about how their fcuk buddies won't fall for them, you will see that there will be an amount of people responding who have in fact managed to have mutually satisfactory FB arrangements, and are going "eh, and why did you think you were entitled to a happily-ever-after when you knew the score from the start?". And they are absolutely right.

Everyone is responsible only for their own feelings (and that responsibility is often difficult enough to assume, let alone assuming responsibility for someone else's feelings. Madness.)

There is never a fuck buddy situation where both parties are only interested in sex, there just isn't. One person has to like or maybe even love, one person has to hope for more and the other person sort of just floats along for the ride, literally. There are no relationships in the world that are 50-50 with both people wanting the exact same, giving the exact same, needing the exact same and taking the exact same. One person always has to give more and one person always has to take more, that's just the way it is. 50-50 would be way too simple, way too perfect.

Those who say they've has successful fb relationships are more than likely the one's who floated, the one's not emotionally invested. That's what you're reading in PI - the Summer's of the world - the people who say, "It's only sex, you know" but don't step back when they see and when they know that the other person is falling for them.

I agree that people are responsible for their own feelings, but no way in hell do I think that makes it okay or acceptable to disregard the feelings of others.

metrovelvet

seenitall wrote: »

The bolded bit is simply not true in a lot of cases, and therefore you can't with credibility say that anyone is doing anything wrong when they are being straight and honest with another person.

Even if you read the PI/RI threads with people giving out about how their fcuk buddies won't fall for them, you will see that there will be an amount of people responding who have in fact managed to have mutually satisfactory FB arrangements, and are going "eh, and why did you think you were entitled to a happily-ever-after when you knew the score from the start?". And they are absolutely right.

Everyone is responsible only for their own feelings (and that responsibility is often difficult enough to assume, let alone assuming responsibility for someone else's feelings. Madness.)

EDIT: ok, I do agree that IF the emotional imbalance occurs, it would be the right and decent thing for the heartbreaker to stop the arrangement with the heartbroken, in order to stop stringing them along.

My point is that people don't actually know that other people are too sensitive to be their fcukbuddies before the thing kicks off and if they are not given any prior notification on that score. They are not mindreaders.

Yes technically they are right, I don't dispute that, but so was Shylock, so is the commentator to a widow who says 'ah well your husband knew what the deal was when he became a soldier.' That doesn't do anything for the hurt does it?

[Sorry, but I dont take PI responses are particularly indicative of emotional maturity or depth, and sometimes they are down right mean tbh].

We dont know the deal half as much as we like to think we do. The whole **** buddy, friends with benefits, is for American comfort, as we are not comfortable with ambiguity so we have categories for everything, or nearly everything, but the category is a label, it's not a command. It's not 'We are **** buddies therefore there shall be no feelings', contracts change, people change, feelings change, as a member of the human race, people should know that, it's pretty basic.

And the very popular psychology of the 1990s which shouts out 'we are all responsible for our own feelings' .... well... there is another cop out. Other people can do damage, other people can hurt, and so can you and so can I.

seenitall

Novella wrote: »

There is never a fuck buddy situation where both parties are only interested in sex, there just isn't. One person has to like or maybe even love, one person has to hope for more and the other person sort of just floats along for the ride, literally. There are no relationships in the world that are 50-50 with both people wanting the exact same, giving the exact same, needing the exact same and taking the exact same. One person always has to give more and one person always has to take more, that's just the way it is. 50-50 would be way too simple, way too perfect.

Those who say they've has successful fb relationships are more than likely the one's who floated, the one's not emotionally invested. That's what you're reading in PI - the Summer's of the world - the people who say, "It's only sex, you know" but don't step back when they see and when they know that the other person is falling for them.

I agree that people are responsible for their own feelings, but no way in hell do I think that makes it okay or acceptable to disregard the feelings of others.

And how do you know the bolded bit? I suppose you have polled every person in the world who's ever had a FB thing going? There is a lot of presumption in your post, especially about the people who have been satisfied f-buddies presumably being Summers. Because no two into-sex-only like minded people are ever able to meet and come to a mutually beneficial agreement, I suppose? Too far-fetched, is it? I don't think so.

You then go on to say that there are in fact NO 50-50 relationships in this world whatsoever. Well, I really don't know how anyone manages to be happy in any kind of relationship, if it is all equally fecked and fcuk-buddily unequal. That's all too cosily black-and-white for me to take in, but as long as your worldview works for you.

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes technically they are right, I don't dispute that, but so was Shylock, so is the commentator to a widow who says 'ah well your husband knew what the deal was when he became a soldier.' That doesn't do anything for the hurt does it?

[Sorry, but I dont take PI responses are particularly indicative of emotional maturity or depth, and sometimes they are down right mean tbh].

We dont know the deal half as much as we like to think we do. The whole **** buddy, friends with benefits, is for American comfort, as we are not comfortable with ambiguity so we have categories for everything, or nearly everything, but the category is a label, it's not a command. It's not 'We are **** buddies therefore there shall be no feelings', contracts change, people change, feelings change, as a member of the human race, people should know that, it's pretty basic.

And the very popular psychology of the 1990s which shouts out 'we are all responsible for our own feelings' .... well... there is another cop out. Other people can do damage, other people can hurt, and so can you and so can I.

OK, I already discussed most of your points so I won't be repeating myself again. I disagree with you.

As for "we are all only responsible for our own feelings" - hell YES. I didn't even know it belonged to the 1990's specifically, thanks. But what I can tell you is since I have realised how true it is, my life has been transformed. I have unloaded a lot of siht that I should have never taken on board from other people to start with. To me it means pare yourself down to what you feel, and when you can own up to yourself to what you feel, you won't even have any interest in being dishonest with others. It may sound like pychobabble, but that's what it means to me.

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.William Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 3

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

And the very popular psychology of the 1990s which shouts out 'we are all responsible for our own feelings' .... well... there is another cop out. Other people can do damage, other people can hurt, and so can you and so can I.

This. In spades. It's remarkably self centered. Like I said it's not a your fault if someone gets the wrong end of the stick, but it behoves you not to keep handing it to them. This "I'm alright Jack, I did make it clear at the start" is all very well, if and it's a big if, you back off when you see that person not getting that. I'll discuss morals all day and the grey areas involved but when it comes to the personal, I'm pretty black and white with a little bit of grey thrown in. It's either right or it's wrong for me.

As for "we are all only responsible for our own feelings" - hell YES.

Agreed, but one is also partly responsible for how ones own feelings impact on others.

As Willy said;

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man

The bit in bold is the thing. The realisation of being responsible for ones own feelings is but the start of wisdom in this. It is not the end point(though it may feel like it). The real trick is to extend that to the world around you as well as yourself.

Annnnyway, back vaguely on topic :D

God bless Youtubery, I found the Dr Who bit. Seems its popular

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvkjthzlyV8

Wouldnt be my type so much(apropo of nothing), but she's a good actress IMH(he made one helluva Hamlet). Nicely written too. (can't imagine my childhood Dr Who Tom Baker pulling this stuff Though my first kiddie crush was one of his assistants)

Casablanca

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43JHFPefmY

Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in his girl friday. This is a Romcom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrMcNk3MUgs

Bogie and Bacall in the big sleep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwXc4N_10rA

There are loads but I wont bore ye

coffee_cake

Wibbs wrote: »

God bless Youtubery, I found the Dr Who bit. Seems its popular


There are loads but I wont bore ye

Bore me? Oh no no.
David Tennant/Dr Who, *swoon*.
Oh, there was a point? Nevermind

seenitall

Gosh, I really dislike these threads where I find myself going against the grain all of a sudden.

Who knows, I may well be a self-centred narcissist (a self-centred narcisist usually being the last person to notice that they are one!) however as any type of relationship remains elusive, at least I'm not likely to inflict my self-centredness on anyone!

Agreed on Tennant, Wibbs. (Although Dr. Who in general leaves me absolutely cold, somehow.)

I was gobsmacked by his Hamlet. I did not expect that! He was smouldering. Very, very good.

My fave romantic scene from a non-romantic film is from "The Departed".
DiCaprio and Farmiga in her old flat, he's very jumpy, she's trying to be cool, you could cut tension with a knife. Then she says: "Your vulnerability right now is freaking me out." And then they get busy! (Couldn't find it on YouTube, except in Italian and Russian )

(Also, no need to point out that she was in fact cheating on Matt Damon - the scene is hot, what can I do?)

jamjamjam

I think rom coms make a huge impact on peoples lives especially womens.
They give false expectations of the majority of men out there.
Does anyone agree?

mariaalice

The only romantic film i like is love actually i watched it again recently i like it because its lighthearted and uplifting... i think whats happening at the moment is luxury of choice has made it harder for people to be content,...when i got married the first time i was very young but lots of people got married young in fact the majority of people i know got married by their late twenties...it would have been highly unusual for someone to be still in college at 25 now that not unusual at all...society in Ireland has changed so much in the past twenty years.

coffee_cake

jamjamjam wrote: »

I think rom coms make a huge impact on peoples lives especially womens.
They give false expectations of the majority of men out there.
Does anyone agree?

No, I don't

mariaalice

And another thing:D..re womens expectation of men ...often it not the actual incident that important but the issues around the incident...for example a man who didn't get a present and a card for his girlfriend on Valentin's day because he strongly objects to the consumerist ideas of love and has made this clear to his girlfriend IS completely different from the man who doesn't get his girlfriend a card because he is too lazy and cant be bothered/not interested....

I have just got engaged to my partner and his is very romantic much more so that i am and while its lovely to get flowers and have candle lit for me... in all honesty i am much more impressed by him getting at up at six in the morning to to drive me to work because i am afraid of driving in the snow.