What could possibly be better than UST between an OTP? UST between an OTP that gets disrupted by a BLT! Sorry, couldn’t resist the acronyms. In all seriousness, though, I’ve noticed that when shows bring in the whole love triangle chestnut, it is almost always the woman in the middle who has to choose her man. Everyone knows that it’s not compelling drama, good acting and concise writing that keeps viewers watching a show. It’s the romantic entanglements, and nothing says high romance like a love triangle.
Example BLT storylines:
Stargate SG-1: Sam apparently loves Jack. Jack’s her boss, and they’re military; it ain’t going to work out. Sam starts dating a sweet young thing named Pete. Sam looks to Jack several times to help her decide if she should be dating Pete or if she maybe has a chance with Jack after all. Pete does the unthinkable and asks Sam to marry him. Aha! Now she knows. She can’t marry Pete. Her heart “belongs” to Jack. Good thing Pete was there to act as a catalyst! Bonus points to Stargate’s PTB to upping the triangle to a quadrangle by adding a girlfriend for Jack…
Eureka: New sheriff in town Jack kind of digs DHS agent Allison. He’s separated (maybe divorced) from his wife. Allison kind of gives the impression she likes Jack…and then her soon-to-be ex husband Nathan enters the picture. Oh, the angst! Nothing’s happened between Jack and Allison, and Allison claims she doesn’t want anything to do with Nathan. But the UST between Jack and Allison is blatant…and so is the UST between Allison and Nathan. Whatever is a girl to do? (In this one, the POV we’re supposed to sympathise with is actually one of the guys…but Allison is not without her moments of whinging.)
Grey’s Anatomy: Okay, I don’t really watch much of this show. But what’s not to love about the skinny woman with long, scraggly blonde hair being torn between two different men: one she can’t have because he’s married and one who’s pretty much picture perfect? Don’t doubt for a minute that this isn’t the most important storyline the show’s got – despite some downright tragic events that happened to other characters, it was this cliffhanging “which will she choose?” moment that ended last season. (I won’t stick around to find out because, as I’ve mentioned before, I only watched GA at all to see Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Oh, and I won’t stick around because I DON’T CARE!)
The few times I can remember it with the guy in the middle, he still managed to not spend every waking moment hemming and hawing about the momentous decision he had to make. With the woman in the middle syndrome, everything else about her ceases to matter; it always seems to make her character be only about this one issue, which is, in my opinion, a pretty big disservice.
No related posts.
{ 80 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I agree with you that we’re talking about several things, and there may be a slight disconnect about just what’s being discussed by whom.
Mecha, I think generally we’re talking about the romanticization of unhealthy or obsessive behaviors in the media, and real life people inheriting those ideas.
“I will let you abuse me because I love you so much” is not evidence of love. It’s evidence of a neurosis that probably goes back to childhood. This person is probably playing out a psychodrama in which you’re just the actress, easily replaced by another. And if you think to yourself, “Wow, a slave! My lucky day!” you’re a sick puppy, too.
Reverse the gender and it becomes even more apparent.
“I love you so much I interviewed all your friends back in the little town where you grew up just to get a better sense of who you are” is also not evidence of love. It suggests a desire for control over the other person’s entire life.
Anyway, I’m not sure how your remarks about body image fit in. I know Scarlett mentioned that, in saying that if her former friend considered a guy’s neurosis to be evidence of her own feminine wiles, then she must lack confidence in her feminine wiles. I’m not sure I agree with that point: I don’t think insecurity alone could lead one to participate in an abuse dynamic just in hopes of feeling pretty. There’s an extreme lack of morals, conscience and/or empathy going on there as well.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Well, we did sorta dip into real life behavior, and real life examples, as opposed to romanticization.
I agree with your first example, with the caveat that replacing the word ‘abuse’ with a few other very similar words turns it into a ‘normal’ BDSM scenario, which I’m not prepared to say is bad. Indicates psychological issues, yes, but I barely believe in people that don’t have psychological issues, so I don’t believe that’s a disqualifier for being ‘normalish’.
The second is indeed just creepy. Invasion of general privacy and a bunch of other things.
Here’s my problem with Scarlett’s statement, and how the ensuing conversation played out. Her story about how the guy was deluded and twisted and obsessive and bad and insert negative modifier here was because he was too blind to see when she treated him badly, and he tried to treat her well very constantly (to the point of apparent obsession, in Scarlett’s eyes.) She has to have body issues (Scarlett did indeed say that) and he has to be diseased. That’s the basis she started from, and everyone chimed in with, ‘Oh, yeah, totally, I’ve seen that.’ I assume that there’s other conditions that underly this that aren’t stated? But the fact that they aren’t stated makes the conversation less… conversationy and more stereotypey.
I think the general _point_ that the writers are confusing that highly romanticized scenario with the noraml love process is a valid one. But the discussion started off… well, badly, to my mind. And it returned to badly. ‘Guys like that.’ Guys that don’t see perfectly when someone’s abusing them? Guys that can actually be affected by emotions in such a way as to blind them? Scarlett wasn’t talking about a stalker. The person she was talking about was a lovestruck fool. I mean, unless it’s going to be backed with something else, that’s all that _she_ described. You added in the guys that do the goddess complex thing, sbg talked about someone who did background research… and all of those are clearly the same sort of creepy ‘guy like that’? They all represent the same profile?
Let me offer an example to make it clear. Someone I know (who was not me, I have my own issues) was in a bad relationship for a while. He would, in fact, spend money on his girlfriend to excess (he said that he wasn’t going to use it, so why not make her happy?) He did let her yank him around. This lasted a while. It hurt him hard when they broke up the first time. Eventually they broke up permanently. The examination of that thread was that he’s clearly a creepy near-stalker, if one only read the text. That does not sit well with me.
-Mecha
Mecha(Quote) (Reply)
Okay, I think you’re taking the word “obsessive” to mean “stalkerish” in every instance. When Scarlett referred to the guy who couldn’t get enough of her former friend being obsessive, I thought she was merely referring to his inability to break out of a cycle that wasn’t giving him what he needed – like someone who obsessively washes hands. Stalking is one form of obsession, but not the totality.
So *I* was operating under the assumption we were discussing two different improperly romanticized stereotypes.
Like I said, “reverse the gender”. Make the woman the lovesick fool, and you return to a very familiar and unfortunately very real refrain: “He only hits me because I make him so mad. It’s my own fault really. He’s a good provider.”
Now, how is it anymore romantic when a man allows himself to be emotionally abused? BDSM is something that people enter into with discussion, with safewords, with a plan. What Scarlett describes was not a conscious roleplay; it was a potentially damaging psychodrama. Merely the emotional equivalent of physical abuse.
Am I clearing anything up, or just mucking the waters more?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I just re-read this – I hope it didn’t sound like I’m telling you what you’re saying rather than listening to you. I’m just using the technique of “I said, she said, and if I’m not mistaken you said” to see if we’re all on the same page here.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
No, it is clearer, at least to your intent. (And yes, this thread really is hard to track, sbg. ^^;)
It’s not particularly romantic either way, really. Unless you’re really into hopeless love conquering all, I suppose. I don’t feel there’s much of a gender flip except in that the ‘men use violence, women use emotions’ stereotype flips and becomes clearer. Abuse is abuse, to me. And people messing with the stereotype in confusion, assigning it to people (women) who are generally stable just to make it work, that’s generally bad characterization. Character motivations cause character behavior, not the other way around, even if we (viewers) can only see behavior. Sometimes it feels like the writers are writing… as viewers view. Mmm. Anyway.
But the conversation still just bothers me. And when I typed it out just now, it was very much a deviation from anything approaching the actual point of the post (or the general point of the blog) so I’ll reserve it for… well, uh, never, I suppose, as it probably won’t come up, but!
-Mecha
Mecha(Quote) (Reply)
I’m going to attempt to qualify my example, and I apologise if it ends up in another string of comments…
My friend didn’t exclusively suffer from low self-esteem. She was selfish, self-absorbed, arrogant as well. I’m sure she had positive attributes, because she still had mutual friends, but by the end of the friendship, all I could focus on were her negative attributes, which is why it’s best I steer clear of her these days
All her negative attributes meant what she was looking in a man was someone who adored her and pandered to her self-absorbtion, her low self-esteem. I do believe he was blinded by love, and not a stalker – he seemed to take their breakup quite well, although he always went running when she beckoned :8 But ultimately, through her low self-esteem, her self absrobtion and her arrogance, she saw someone who adored her as a goddess as a reflection of her femininity, not his issues. And that audience, I think, is the only one which finds love triangles like in Greys, Stargate ROMANTIC; everyone I know thinks they’re creepy.
And for the record, while I’ve only met one person like this (and I’m not even friends with them any more!)I realise the example could just as equally apply to a man; my friend Alexandra could just as easily be an Alexander. I was just making a point about when someone obsesses about you like that, its usually an indictation of their issues and your irresistability.
I have a feeling I may have started an argument from my opinions, so if anyone wants to discuss it in more detail, you can email me at paulacole2000@yahoo.com – but this is my spam account, so make it obvious from the tiutle what it’s about, or I’ll spam you :p
scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
Mecha, I think I do get what you’re saying. And Scarlett’s clarification makes it sound a bit less like what I was thinking, although I think a lot of what I said still applies…?
Well, that’s the point that I don’t think everyone gets. As a society, we’re still just learning to recognize emotional abuse in any case. The idea that a little ol’ female could possibly use words and actions to rip a man to shreds just hasn’t quite entered public awareness yet.
So every time I have a chance, I try to point out the parallels – not just for the person I’m responding to, but for anyone else reading it. Men need to be allowed to recognize that women CAN hurt them, and they have a right to the same sympathy and support as a woman in similar circumstances.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Scarlett: I think that clarification helps as well in working the discussion. Thanks. ^^;
Beta:
I actually see the hints of this a lot. The concept of a ‘shrew’, loveless marraiges blamed on nagging and arguments, etc (although those presentations can vary wildly and build upon stereotype, the hints still seem to be there.) But those hints don’t really sink in to everyone, not even the people in the situations. At the same time, I think to a surprising degree those sorts of thoughts resonate with men, right before the big manly men quash ‘em.
I think the mention of ‘recognizing emotional abuse in _any_ case’ (emphasis added) as difficult is what really hasn’t entered public awareness (and here I go expanding on the concept in a big rambly fashion, but it does touch a few other active posts on Hathor!) Even if due to the ‘women = mental, men = physical’ stereotype, men are generally less capable of being believed to suffer it, but it’s still understated for a lot of groups. People either over-estimate (IE: Divorce => Crazy Children) or under-estimate (IE: Verbal mockery means nothing, take it like a man/adult or ‘Why are you complaining about sexism? You’ve got a job.’) it. This ties into beliefs of culpability: if someone wasn’t physically forced into doing something, it must be their fault completely. That then ties into the discussion elsewhere about abusers coaxing children into sexual relationships. And, of course, the entire thing ends up tying to the feelings that a minority ends up having to deal with via subtle (or not so) general oppression being treated like a non-issue because it ‘isn’t real.’ Psychological issues/frailty/pain is really an understated thing for a lot of people, and I personally like/appreciate that you point it out.
-Mecha
Mecha(Quote) (Reply)
Why is it that the Worf triangles (involved in TWO of them? the guy gets around!) never felt ‘right’ to me. They were always clumsily written or acted. Like the actors couldn’t get into it…or maybe Michael Dorn didn’t ‘feel’ right in the role as a multiple love interest, you know?
Come to think of it, almost none of the ‘ship episodes on Next Generation were very good. Except maybe for two episodes that stand out for me – both involving Capt Picard: the one with Picard and Dr Crusher linked together via their minds while escaping a hostile territory that settled that they were going to be Just Friends; and the ones with Vash – which I enjoyed. Why did I enjoy that one? (and I’m sorry for moving away from triangles, although Vash was involved with Q, too) Because Vash DIDN’T CHANGE TO A DOGOODER like Vala on Stargate. She remained the same incorrigible character, and Picard knew it, and never trusted her even though he liked her – aLOT.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
Bringing this topic up again to ask for clarification. I don’t watch Lost anymore but I’m a notorious channel flipper during commercial breaks. Last night, I flipped onto Lost midway through the episode and found Kate and Sawyer wrapped in each other’s arms. She flashed back to a time when she was apparently married, yadda. Flashed back to real time, and Sawyer said something about how she didn’t love him, did she? No answer, just an annoying kiss.
I flipped back to what I was watching.
Flipped back again at the end of the episode, and Kate’s on the radio, in the rain. She looks very tragic. I think Sawyer’s got a gun on him, and he’s on the other side of some bars. The person on the other end of the radio is Jack, who’s insisting she run like hell. She blubbers a bit and refuses to “leave you.”
Now, my question is – was she talking about not wanting to leave Sawyer or Jack? Did she actually make a choice, or was this just more of the love triangle crap?
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
I fell out with LOST way back in the first third of the first season – I could see *exactly* where it was headed.
Not that I ever liked Kate on LOST, but they sure aren’t painting her in the best of lights…unless, of course, she’s *meant* to be a “loose woman” in mind and body. Is she supposed to stand for the liberated twenty-first century woman/girl on that show? Fuck who she likes when she likes, when the guy she really likes is being threatened with death?
I don’t ask that all characters behave or act honorably all the time (it would be very boring otherwise) – is Kate acting like a man in that same position, if there were a male character in her position? If yes, then it doesn’t bother me. If no, then yes, it does bother me. But in either case, I don’t think those writers understand how to write angsty romance, either.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
I was all what, what, what? I only stuck around during the very curtain!fic flashback because Nathan Fillion was in it – and was pretty disturbed to see Kate and Sawyer all nekkid and stuff.
And then the end disturbed me too, because while I can understand loyalty to fellow castaways, Kate was made to look as though the decision to leave was breaking her into a million pieces and giving the impression (to me) that she wouldn’t leave Jack because she loved him. Only, since I’d just seen her wrapped in Sawyer’s arms…
Ugh. I’m sorry. I have to go throw up now. The little wifey, woman-in-the-middle stuff is making me queasy.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
I’m pretty sure that she was refusing to leave without Jack, since has to stay behind for his plan to work. If Jack is threatening them to make them let Kate go, presumably they’ll let Sawyer go too. (Jack only agreed to operate on The Others’ leader because they were going to kill Sawyer if he didn’t. Or because he came up with this nifty guarenteed to backfire plan, who knows.)
Danny, the guy who was getting ready to shoot Sawyer, was acting in revenge since his wife died after being shot by Sun in the second episode of this season. Now immediately after his wife had died, he went and started beating the crap out of Sawyer while asking Kate if she loved him. She said she did, but later told Sawyer she only said that to get Danny to stop beating him.
Of course then last night she slept with Sawyer, and begged Jack to do the surgery so they wouldn’t kill Sawyer (you’d think threatening Kate’s life would have been a more effective control tactic with Jack, but what do I know?) and then refused to run without Jack despite the fact that The Others need to keep Jack alive right now while someone actually has a gun to Sawyer’s head right this second.
I can’t even put my finger on exactly why this storyline is so aggravating because the whole thing sucks so very much.
(And I originally made a typo that said ‘we went and started beating the crap out of Sawyer’. Wish fulfillment? You be the judge.)
MaggieCat(Quote) (Reply)
Ugh – just reading this is making me cringe.
And, off-topic: does every show have to have a Jack, a Dan/Danny/Daniel and a Sam/Samantha? Is this some rule that’s posted somewhere? Okay, yeah, I know not all shows have all three names, but I bet 90% of them have 2 of the 3.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah – I get SO CONFUSED when folks on my flist carry on and on about Danny and Jack, or Sam and Danny or what have you, and *don’t specify the goddamn show* on their LJ entry! Bugs the heck out of me. It’s not really the LJ writer’s fault that every show seem to have a limited name pool, but really – put the name of your goddman fen show up on the title or something!
*ahem* Okay, this rant belongs more on LJ. I shall transfer it there.
Thank you for your time.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
My friends keep telling me to watch Lost, but everything I’ve seen and heard leads me to believe that the writers want you to think the show is going somewhere, but really they’re making it up as they go along, and all the cryptic stuff is there to make you think the show is deeper than it really is.
I can’t stand that kind of thing. The only show where I could handle cryptic stuff with no actual meaning was Twin Peaks, because I knew that the ultimate explanation was not “David Lynch wants you to think he is a genius,” but was “David Lynch is a madman with a midget fixation.”
I expect Lost will go through the same thing that the X-Files did, where they try to tease things out for so long that by the time they decide to explain anything, the audience has left because finding out wasn’t worth the effort.
Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
If they were writing her as someone who sleeps with whomever she wants, when she wants, I wouldn’t have as big a problem with her as I do. One of the worst problems with what she did last night is that she’s making me feel sorry for Sawyer. 2 weeks or so ago (which is what- a day and a half in Lost time?) she said she loved Sawyer (under duress, yes) and then told him she didn’t mean it. Then she slept with him last night, and when he asked her again about whether she loved him, she didn’t answer. Either she does in which case okay, I can go with the non-verbal response if nessecary. More likely is that she doesn’t love him, or doesn’t know- in which case not answering is jerking him around, especially considering that right after that he said he loved her. And then Sawyer had to listen to her refuse to leave Jack behind while someone held a gun to his head. Now I would subscribe to the ‘leave no one behind’ mentality myself whenever possible but someone’s life is at stake right this second and it’s NOT the person she’s refusing to leave behind. That’s a lot of very mixed messages from one tiny person.
Unless the writers are trying to make her look like a useless, heartless, weak willed, indecisive cliche. In that case, well played.
I never trusted the producers when they claimed to have a plan, I already got burned with Buffy and The X-Files that way. I was fine with that as long as the characters stayed interesting…. which- yeah. Not so much. I think at this point the only thing keeping me watching is that I feel like it’s turned into a grudge match. Well that and the hope that more people will start dying because at this point I’d kick myself for missing that. There are only about 4 characters left that I don’t want to punch.
MaggieCat(Quote) (Reply)
Names go through popular/unpopular cycles in real life so I don’t mind it too much on tv. I’d just appreciate it if people would stop naming dogs ‘Maggie’.
(Current offender is a Petsmart commercial in heavy rotation. At least that one’s a very pretty great dane.)
To be fair, I think part of why Lost-Danny was named what he was might be because it’s common. One of the other Others (jeez, even talking about the show is starting to sound like nonsense) we’ve seen a lot of is named Juliet, and since it looks like they’re trying to put some sort of romantic tension between her and Jack they seem to have cribbed that directly from the ‘star crossed’ entry in their dictionaries.
MaggieCat(Quote) (Reply)
Have you ever watched Nip/Tuck? It has it’s own problems with sexism, but I was particularly impressed with the central love triangle. Rather than it be about Julia having to choose between Sean and Christian, the Sean/Christian angle was always emphasized. In the fouth season (which just ended in the U.S.), has Christian getting engaged to a woman named Michelle. Sean is jealous, but there is not, as you would say, any Sean/Michelle angle. And at the end of the season, Christian breaks up with Michelle to follow Sean across the country. The portrayal of woman on the show could still be better, although I enjoyed Julia leaving all her male love interests in order to have her own life, and Michelle wasn’t too bad.
S. A. Bonasi(Quote) (Reply)
LOL, seven months later…I tried watching Nip/Tuck a couple of times but was often too troubled by it to continue. I think I might have posted about it here.
For the record, I still hate 95% of all love triangles.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments