=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= F.U.C.K. - Fucked Up College Kids - Born Jan. 24th, 1993 - F.U.C.K. =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In Response
-----------
In response to Mr. "chick-flick" hater...
Coming from the other end of the pasture, I can sympathize with the plight
of the expectations suddenly encountered with the sappy love stories and
romantic storylines. While women suffer from more or less the same type of
unrealistic expectations of a different nature, I will first explain to a
lesser degree of the reasoning behind the meet-me-at-the-top-of-the-Empire
State-building type of psychology.
As with anything, girls are socialized into the role-playing type of
pretending at an early age. Guys, were you ever asked to play "house" as a
child? (I'd talk about the "doctor-nurse roles, but what they evolved into
later in life has no bearing on the innocence of children). Girls played
with dolls, Barbies, and other pink frilly-boxed toys.
Girls were taught by this role-playing to dream or fantasize about the
future. Children's stories emphasize this. Remember Cinderella and her
Prince Charming who went to every household in the land to find his true
love, or Snow White under the evil of the stepmother? What other
role-models did little girls have to place their attentions on?
Where do you think expectations begin for the importance that is placed on
the nature of a spontaneous, unique marriage proposal? Believe me, every
possible romantic outcome was at least touched upon and dreamed about.
Even the wedding day has been fantasized about from an early age. I
understand that it doesn't hold the same importance to men as you were all
blowing up G.I. Joe men and chasing ships with Star Wars figures while most
girls dressed their Barbies and had Ken take them out on their dream dates
(and I do stress most girls, as I personally hated Barbies and owned only
the one that a hapless relative happened to give me for a birthday or
something like that). It is a time in our lives that has been formed from
the early stages of a girls childhood.
So rest assured, my dear men, that the "look" you get when viewing a
"chick-flick" with your girlfriend may have nothing to do with you
personally, but stems from the hundreds of Disney movies watched and fairy
tales bought as a child. I am certain the "chick-flick" has as much
reception from men as the silly love songs played on the radio (how many of
you men out there really hate Chicago and Journey simply for this reason?)
Now that I have brushed upon why these feelings are developed, I do want to
agree to some extent with my little "chick-flick" hater that romance
comedies and sappy love stories are somewhat unrealistic. Learned well
into the psychology 101 semester, these stories only tell the beginning of
these romantic, hot-to-trot couples. Nothing is said about two years down
the line, or six months, or even the following week. As heartfelt as the
ending of "Pretty Women" was and the "hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold"
routine, (and speaking about this movie because it was previously
mentioned), doesn't anyone think that because she was a hooker, it won't
cause any problems for the millionaire and the socialites that he
identifies with? Or that she will put up with his pretentious friends and
actually enjoy the snobby crowd? Possibly, but both extremes simply showed
a need to escape from the present situation (even Bill Gates has to get
tired of the same routine over and over again). So as unrealistic as it
may seem, not altogether impossible.
Romance, however, doesn't have to include rooms of roses, or helicopter
rides, or having your sailboat in the middle of a New York street.
Something simple and unexpected is all that is realistically desired. It's
where we women suddenly become an obligation to fulfill that puts us on the
defensive. "Oh, I took you out last week for an expensive dinner, so why
should I give you a hug today?" or "I guess since it is your birthday, I
should probably take you out." We don't want to feel like what you have to
offer us is out of settling, finality or obligation. We also like to be
reminded often that these things haven't changed.
Women thrive on the smallest, most insignificant gestures that say to us
that you are thinking about us. Not much effort is required to walk into a
jewelry store and pick up the first thing in sight, but a little note to
say "I love you" or an unexpected kiss, or a walk around the block can be
enough to keep us satisfied without you men feeling "required" to be any
certain way.
Also, what are the major components involved within a major romance movie
anyhow? Pursuit above all other women to prove interest, attentiveness to
show the interest is maintained, and connectedness to show there is no fear
of commitment. If your woman is asking "why don't you do this for me?",
then there is probably a reason why. As I've said before, it doesn't take
much to show your lady that she is important to you. Plus, the less
importance shown to us as to where we are in our man's life, the more
important these sappy-lovey dovey-romance movies have on our lives.
Something simple that is guaranteed to receive a response and is NEVER said
often enough is the words, "you are beautiful". Not "you look nice," or
"you look good," or "you are pretty," but "you are beautiful". There is
not much more that will receive as big a response, even if she is hesitant
to receive the compliment.
Even so, as painful as the standard is for men to act romantic and go above
and beyond the call of duty for their significant other, the standard for
women is much higher (even excluding the emotional circumference and
insecurities women already endure). While men are expected to behave
romantically, women are expected to look romantic at all senses.
Men, we know as well as you do that for the most of us, when we go into the
dressing room of Victoria's Secret, we do not suddenly turn into Stephanie
Seymore or Frederique. It is just not possible (as much as many of you
would like it to be). Somehow the garter just doesn't fit as well as the
model, or the bustier is a little too tight. For some women, there is
nothing to fit into the bustier that will make them look like the picture
in the catalogue.
It wouldn't be as bad, except for the fact that now women have a standard
to fill about looking like the model in the ad. We don't. We know it.
It doesn't help that you men spend so much time looking at these models,
whether it be in the catalogue, in a music video, on the big screen or live
at the strip bars. Even general casual conversation typically involves
some part of a woman's anatomy. We now feel that you all have visions of
Cindy Crawford or Jennie McCarthy running through your minds (or the
pictures strapped to your face) while you make love to us "common folk".
We also don't have the luxury of airbrushing and computer graphics in bed
to hide our little imperfections. And this is not supposed to make us
insecure?
I will mention this again for emphasis sake: little things make the world
of difference.
- spyder
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= Questions, Comments, Bitches, Ideas, Rants, Death Threats, Submissions =
= Mail: jericho@dimensional.com (Mail is welcomed) =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= To receive new issues through mail, mail jericho@dimensional.com with =
= "subscribe fuck". If you do not have FTP access and would like back =
= issues, send a list of any missing issues and they will be mailed. =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= AnonFTP FTP.DIMENSIONAL.COM/users/jericho/FUCK =
= FTP.SEKURITY.ORG/pub/zines/fucked.up.college.kids =
= FTP.GIGA.OR.AT/pub/hackers/zines/FUCK =
= FTP.ETEXT.ORG/pub/Zines/FUCK =
= WWW http://www.dimensional.com/~jericho =
= http://www.reps.net/~krypt/fuck.html =
= http://www.interlog.com/~lisa/f.u.c.k. =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= (c) Copyright. All files copyright by the original author. =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=