There is no such thing as acting unselfishly. These actions are done for attention (not necessarely romantic one). There are also the selfish reason of pshichological effect, when one feels better about himself for doing something.TheLaughingMagician said:
What's The Difference Between Creepy and Romantic?
- Thread starter KissingSunlight
- Start date
You got it backwards. The reason they did it is because they want to feel good about themselves. That need to feel good is the motivating factor to do the "good" thing.TheLaughingMagician said:
There is literally no action humans ever take that are not out of selfish interest, though often they do not think about it.
What the hell did I just watched? What would have happened if the lid fits on a jar of a guy? Would he shrugs his shoulder and decides that he is gay now?Addendum_Forthcoming said:
It was actually a commercial at a movie theater that inspired me to start this thread. I reacted to the commercial as the guy was being creepy. While two women behind me cooed "That's romantic."
Well, yeah. That's how personal taste works. To each their own and all that.KissingSunlight said:
Everybody's got their own taste as to what's creepy or what's romantic.
Unfortunately sometimes you don't know where someone else's line is until you cross it.
That and it's different when its a movie or book because it isn't real and it doesn't reflect what the person would actually like in real life, something most on this site will scream to the high heavens if it's about questionable themes they like.Phasmal said:
Context and reciprocity. That's literally it. It has nothing to do with attractiveness, those who say it does aren't spilling the hard truths they think they are, they're just misinterpreting situations. For instance, I'd bang Chris Evans like a screen door in a hurricane, but I'd still think it was weird if I found him face down in my laundry basket inhaling like a crack addict.
How attractive someone is may make the person their romantic gesture is aimed at more likely to accept it, but it's the acceptance, not the attractiveness that matters.
And context is important. Social situations are hard, so yeah, it's a thin line between sweeping someone off their feet and skeeving them the fuck out. You should really try to know the person and what they like first.
Lastly, don't take lessons from romantic films in the same way you wouldn't take lessons about driving from racing movies. They're not a how-to. People don't work the way they do in films in real life. I've known one too many people who expected life to play out like a film and it'll blow spectacularly up in your face.
I hate rom coms and that is part of the reason why but the people who like them aren't likely to be into the behavior you see in them in real life regardless of attractiveness.
In fiction there is no real danger. Characters always just know that the other person isn't actually a dangerous nutjob and that they love them for them and not some weird fantasy they made up in their heads about them. It's the fantasy of having someone totally devoted to you and since the audience don't actually have to live with this shit it dulls the frustrating and creepy things about it.
Hah, no need to tell me twice. I actually love most romantic comedies. I mean, they're often full of bullshit messages and mostly not very good. I'd call it a guilty pleasure but I don't feel particularly guilty about it.DementedSheep said:
But if my boyfriend tried half the shit that's in those movies, well, I think he'd be staying with his mother for a little while.
There's a world of difference between saying "Oh how romantic" at a film and actually finding someone doing that thing to you romantic.
Ah, excellent post. It's worthy of the Bible, what with all the moralizing and pitying opposing points of view. You have a truth the rest of us clearly miss. Incidentally, the whole thing only reinforces Strazdas' point. For one thing, you said that "You do it because making someone else happy makes you happy", which is a point he himself made earlier and, of course, the entire last paragraph; if your actions were so irrelevant to you and you didn't gain, emotionally or psychologically from them, you wouldn't even care to remember them enough to bring them up here.fisheries said:
Can we drop the holier-than-thou attitude around here? You don't know him, you don't know his relationships with others, you only know his interpretations of the exact same thing you are saying. The world isn't the Borg and neither you nor I get to be the moral arbiters of life and philosophy.
Hrm ... well, that's just the thing. hidden subtext being that two people shared such an intimate moment, that he somehow tracked down a woman for which he might have had that moment with (which is creepy enough) ... so if it was a guy with the missing lid, then obviously he's bisexual. Different folks, different strokes would consider this creepy or romantic. But with the logical context, I just find it creepy. And the gaze + smile + context + means at the end basically said to me; "They'll never find your body." Or maybe I'm somewhat too paranoid of people?KissingSunlight said:
But then again ... what people are meant to find romantic are often outside the bounds of reason to begin with. how often does one protagonist sacrifice everything on a hunch of love? How often do people inexplicably wind up back together after a major and intimate tragedy that would cause most to suffer night terrors and post-traumatic stress?
Being romantic is more often trying to do something with panache, overtly difficult to maintain surprise, and through it all merely an expression of benign affection. Things of irregular activity, but still not without reasonable bounds. What we call romance is ultimately undefineable, because the extents and means of each person to express a sincere and earnest affection for another is still relegated to the realities of their existence.
Like, imagine a homeless person offering someone a word of warning someone was trailing them, because they remembered a moment of kindness they had provided in the past? Even willing to risk themselves to make sure they get to their home safely? Compared to some millionaire simply turning up at your doorstep, willing to spend thousands on airfares just to see you inbetween international meetings? What actually represents a meaningful display of benign affection?
In the end, it's the viewer that tries to determine what it means ... and more often than not it's a self-constructed ideality of what another can provide as an earnest expression.
I'd say consent and boundaries, I'd say. Even if someone doesn't reciprocate your advances they might at least be appreciative of your efforts and/or intent. As long as you're not harassing and stalking them in anyway and will back off when told to, I'd say you might still have a chance, or it will go along to helping find someone else to romance down the road.
What exactly confuses you? Fisheries moralized and presumed the quality of Strazdas' person and relationships, because of a difference in perspective/opinion/interpretation. Strazdas made no statement regarding "people", he expressed his opinion regarding the nature of self-sacrificial acts. These two things are not the same.TheLaughingMagician said: