Romance schmomance [sigelphoenix]

I don't buy into a lot of the typical heterosexual "romance" schtick. I don't believe that my guy needs to get me a lavish bouquet of roses for Valentine's Day, or that he needs to serenade me from outside my window in the middle of the night, or that I need to dress up in a fancy dress and have a perfect princess moment.

But just because I don't buy into this stuff - because I don't believe it ought to be important - doesn't mean that I don't ever get affected by it.

I've been thinking about Enchanted since we watched it last night (damn movie >_>). Much of the romance between the main characters was typical (maintstream) movie cheesiness, romanticized and glossed over and condensed for the sake of a popular movie. Which is not to say that parts of it weren't cute. But it was hardly a romance of substance.

Still, I find myself thinking of it, even tonight. I was won over by some stuff that was ... if not cliche, at least cliche in most contexts, and rarely sincere or necessary. The guy singing softly in the girl's ear. The slow dance in the ballroom (to Jon McLaughlin's "So Close," which I am listening to repeatedly via YouTube >_>). The "perfect princess moment," if you will.

So I liked some cheesy stuff in a movie. No big deal, right? But of course, I can never leave well enough alone, so I wonder why.

I mean, the obvious answer is that we're force-fed this image of romance from movies, pop music, advertising, et cetera et cetera. But what I don't quite get is how this constructed image/narrative/standard has such a hold on me. I can, and do, know that it's false, and that I don't want it. Still, I have an almost visceral reaction sometimes (like right now) wherein I do feel wistful and want to be that pretty pretty princess and wish I could get that dramatic-romantic moment.

Even though I don't really want it - or, at least, I don't need it in order to actually be in love and have a romantic relationship. Even though I know it's tied to all sorts of constricting images about gender and sexuality. Even though, when it comes down to it, I know that a lavish ballgown is more likely to make me trip and fall on my face than give me a storybook moment.

Does social conditioning really have such a hold on me? Am I the only one who gets like this? Uh, someone tell me I'm not?

Blargh.

edit: Oh yes, and the desire for the male protector! That sometimes hits me too. Even though a guy who gets violently jealous is likely to be obnoxious, and me being weak/threatened enough to need protecting is not a good thing ... I still feel the appeal of being the object of said jealousy, or protection, even if it's just a little bit.

January

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14 1	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

okay so I have been looking at ridiculous dresses for like two weeks now -- both full-length black fancy things for Chane and wedding dresses for Lua and yes yes I keep going Eee! So pretty! Clearly I would wear something like that all the time!

even though I know this is a dirty lie, as evidenced by the really fancy dress I do have that I have worn exactly once .____.

but I understand. Occasional bouts of princess. >:

[link] [reply]

Oh, good, I feel less dumb now. XD;;

On the one hand, there are uses for such frilly things - sometimes they're good for feeling pretty in a way that doesn't reinforce the idea that only straight/white/rich girls get to feel pretty. There are times that it is about looking good truly for oneself (and one's geeky Baccano-loving friends ;) ). But then there are other times.

"Bouts of princess" describes it pretty well. :P

[link] [parent] [reply]

I can't vouch for the Princess feeling, but I do find myself excessively attracted to the Prince-as-defender stereotype. Although I realize it is impractical and demeaning to the other party to think that they would NEED MY protection from whatever; although I do not feel romantically attached to anyone, I still wish to display my love by interposing myself physically or emotionally between the person I love and their troubles. This is also known as a "Messiah Complex". Maybe I read to much manga. The Shounen stuff really plays up this stuff. Fortunately, I am not attached to anyone so this never really comes to the forefront of my emotional facade.

Ooh, thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes I feel the desire to be the object of that Prince-as-defender stereotype. Even though, like you say, it can be impractical and demeaning, and most likely any girl who earns your regard would be strong enough that it wouldn't be necessary.

On top of that, the eventual result of these constructed roles is that we teach girls to think that they ought to be weak and needy, and boys to think that they ought to be aggressive and controlling. Knowing this doesn't completely eradicate the appeal, though. :/

Love and romance are complicated for most people (Actually, I'd say for all, but there are varying degrees and types of complications). Standard tropes and signals tell clueless and uncreative people (or their clueless and uncreative prospective mate) what they need to do to show the love of their life that they are actually in love with them, even for people who are less socially conditioned to the "norm" than others.

M is incredibly traditional-romance, and I'm so very not. The trouble is, that I'm harder to please overall, too. (Which may or may not be related.) He can get me flowers, and I'll say "they're pretty, but they'll just die." He can try to get me something else, and I'll say "anime is nice, but that's something you'd also buy for a friend." What's M to do? At least the flowers are a blatant romantic signal, and I know what he's trying to say, even if I'm not impressed by them in particular, I know he's trying to tell me that he has a romantic attraction to me.

(Now, we're assuming all parties are acting honestly, but I think that's another subject...)

And, I think, despite not being terribly romantic, and despite that they make me snigger at times, this is also probably why I like trope-laden, tried, warm and fuzzy romance novels, manga, anime, songs, and movies. I understand the language they attempt to speak, even if the words themselves are cheesy.

So, in short: It's not just you, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily sign that you're a socially conditioned drone, either ;)

I like what you said about the standard signals/trope of romance, because it's true that having a generic language that we can call upon is useful. Even though I try to make everything I do for S thoughtful and creative and tied to our individual personalities ... sometimes I've just got nothing, and I need some easy answers to help me out.

What I have a problem with is how were told (& told & told) that a very specific set of signals equals "romance." Full stop. And the reason I'm complaining right now is that I'm bothered by the way in which part of me still believes all that. A small part, but one that's still there and influencing my reactions, to the point where I sometimes want things that don't fit S's personality, or even mine, or border on unhealthy behavior (like buying into the idea that jealousy indicates the depth of one's affection).

Of course, when things like this happen, I can just say to myself or S, "I'm feeling like this, but I know it's imposed externally and that I don't actually want _____" and not act on the feeling. But I want to be able to move beyond that, and get to the point where I don't need to resist the reaction, because I don't get it at all.

A tall order, I know. :P I don't mean that I must reach a goal of never having wrong feelings, ever. I'd just like to make more progress.

Here's the thing... you're kind of contradicting yourself to me, and you're doing in such a way of saying "I like these things, but of course it's because society tells me to like these things/have certain feelings about these things, and therefore, it is wrong of me to feel this way about it."

Flowers alone don't make romance, the thought and emotion behind giving them does. The "pretty pretty princess" moment is not devoid of emotion, otherwise, it's just a staged event of dancing (in a completely geeky respect that probably doesn't belong here, I'm calling to mind Sae having max ranks in Performance (Dancing), which makes her technically awesome, but her lack of CHAR makes it passionless). It's not the dancing or the flowers that are romantic, is the intention behind them. (Again, assuming they are pure.)

I'm completely baffled by the concept that jealousy is supposed to be a required trope of romance. Maybe that's a trope that has completely bounced off of me. I associate jealousy with badness, not romance.

If someone believes every single person that gives them flowers and is destined to be their eternal love, and that whispering in their ear is most certainly a declaration of true love... then I think they have other, more troublesome problems than societally conditioned norms of what romance is ;) If you just think these things can be sexy? Then what's the problem?

If these things are not romance, than what is romance? I think the hardest thing I'm comprehending is that I'm getting the "this is meaningless," but what are the alternatives?

Okay, I should be more specific. It's not that I think all of the common tropes of romance are bad, it's that some of them are tied to very constricting ideas of gender and sexuality, and can encourage harmful behavior.

The emphasis on the diamond engagement ring, for instance - it's troubling because of the violence behind the diamond industry, for one thing. Also, there's the troubling implication that the more expensive and shiny, the "better" it is as a sign of the guy's love. And why should women have such a signal that they're "taken," anyway, when men don't get rings until they're married?

I do know all this. If I got a giant sparkly diamond ring from S, I know he wouldn't be particularly emotionally invested in it, and neither would I. But a part of me would still feel excitement at getting it. Because I've seen it in countless romance stories, or because I know that it will impress people who saw it (not a lot of my friends, who don't buy into that, but family members and coworkers) ... because of various reasons that I don't truly consider important. But I would still have that visceral excited reaction, and that's what I'm bothered by - the fact that I dislike a romantic "tradition," and know the important reasons why I do, and yet still have the involuntary reaction to it.

A better alternative, for me, would be something like ... well, if we're talking about jewelry, I would say rhinestone hair jewelry. It's not "valuable," and not your usual romantic gift (although it is traditionally feminine), but I actually like it and wear it (unlike precious stone jewelry). Or there's the 14K gold d20 necklace S once found online (except I don't wear gold, but you get the idea).

Those are some things that would actually make me happy. Expensive diamonds would cause that involuntary excitement, but nothing lasting - certainly not enough that I actually would want S to shell out for them.

To take the "princess moment" example ... that's something that I would actually like. I like to dress up, and I'm interested in ballroom dancing, and this kind of thing can definitely be problem-less fun. But when I watched that movie and felt so wistful about it that it seemed like something was missing because I didn't have it? Like I lacked extravagant romance, even though S does plenty of romance, just in a non-mainstream way that fits our relationship better? Whoa, that's just crazy talk.

So my reactions feel out of whack - I feel indifferent or antipathetic to a romance trope, yet part of me still wants it; or there's one that I like, but part of me puts way too much importance on it. And, most likely, the reasons behind these odd reactions are the societal messages that push these tropes as the be-all and end-all of romance.

Does that make more sense?

I think a lot of women who were raised on a diet of fairy tales and Disney movies are prone to, as Meggie put it, 'bouts of princess'; and I think that, like most kinds of junk food, it's really only bad for you in large doses. And if you want to be more healthy you can try to give it up (as one might try and give up chocolate or potato chips or soda with high fructose corn syrup) but that doesn't mean you won't still get cravings.

Maybe it's just a sign of the fact that I've been studying for my philosophy final (which I should probably go and take), but I'm reminded of what Beauvoir says, about subject/object relations. In the majority of our interactions with each other, someone is going to be the subject who's doing the doing, and someone is going to be the object that's being done to. The problem, she argues, is that we as women are disproportionately in the object position. No one should be in the object position all the time, but I think the reverse is also true: no one should (or perhaps can) be in the subject position all the time, either.

You don't seem the kind to me who wants to be pampered and taken care of all the time and have everything done for you by others. You are independent, hard-working, strong and smart. So I wouldn't worry too much about what these 'bouts of princess' mean. Yeah, they're at least partly socially conditioned -- so what? Everything is, to some degree or other. If it makes you happy (and why wouldn't it make you happy, to feel beautiful and special and cherished?) and it's not hurting anyone, then I don't really see a problem with it.

In some situations you want to be the one in charge, the one taking action, the one sweeping your partner off his or her feet -- and in other situations, you want to be swept off your feet. Which I suppose is just another way of saying that sometimes you're the fly, and sometimes you're the windshield, but... more romantical?

Also, I don't think you can at all be blamed for being addicted to a song when it's written by Stephen fucking Schwartz.

Right, right, right. The subject/object dynamic isn't bad in and of itself - I don't want to say things like, "One partner can never protect the other!" or "One partner can't be more assertive than the other!" or "One partner can never be dominant in bed!" It definitely is a matter of degree, and as long as both partners can take turns being ... er, the fly or the windshield XD, it's good.

You are right that everything is at least partly socially conditioned, so what actually makes me feel beautiful and cherished gets mixed in with what I'm told ought to make me beautiful and cherished. The important thing is to tease the two apart.

I guess what's bothering me is how strong of a reaction I'm feeling - I'm caught up almost as much as an inexperienced girl who hasn't been educated about how constructed and constricting these images are. And while I can use my education to ultimately refuse these images, I'm concerned that the "junk food craving" is still there at all, you know?

And you're right, there's nothing wrong with being addicted to a Stephen Schwartz song. ;)

sigelphoenix

Romance schmomance

(no subject)

(no subject)

Jonny

Re: Jonny

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

fixes HTML, is rightly ashamed

(no subject)

Re: fixes HTML, is rightly ashamed

January