Lover

The point I think that is being missed in this thread - is that despite the obvious social connotations with the word "lover", the archetype itself is not meant to necessarily define the type of the relationship this individual is engaged in.  The archetype speaks of the method of the individual.  This method of the Lover being the *over* idealization of a person, ideal or both - in order to acheive a purpose or goal.    The Lover's cause/goal is not always about romance, even if the lover's cause is centered around an individual. 

The Archetype Lover could be a person who alters a picture to put their head on the body of a super athlete in order to motivate them to stay on their diet and remain healthy.  The method is meant to evoke an emotive response as a tactic for change.  Perhaps this person finds the athlete inspiring or is conscious that they have a problem with vanity and would like to take advantage of the motivator for a good cause.  This is not the same as boiling down something to its unchangeable essence such as in a parable or 'moral of the story' where the truth remains in tact even within a fictional context; but it is a deliberate stepping outside of the truth.

What makes this difficult to sustain in the long run is that inevitably reality does come into play.  That person could lose the amount of weight they need to in order to reach their desired health goal.  Though the underlaying reason has been to remain healthy - this person could wind up emotionally disappointed because they do not resemble the picture after reaching their desired weight - or they cannot perform/compete like the athlete they allowed themselves to aspire to.  If one is not always conscious of their own emotional state throughout this process - if they've only been feeding the emotions and not the motive at the forefront of their thoughts - the Lover can lose the underlying cause altogether and then thus lose the desire to maintain/keep the positive change in the end.

When this goes outside of the bounds of an individual's method - we come down to the methods of interaction an individual will have in approaching their relationships with other people.  These are defined under the Carl Couch Sociology link. 

The 9 forms of human relationship Carl Couch mentions are:
Parental
Solidary
Accountable
Authority
Romance
Exchange
Charismatic
Tyrannical
Representative

The Lover archetype can actually be set within any one of these sociations.

The Romantic relationship type is the setting for the worship/adulation narrative that we commonly see in "chic flicks" today.  However it's a bit ironic that though the Lover can readily slip into this relationship type - under the definition of the Lover archetype itself - these romances are the ones that are doomed to fail as soon as reality sets in because there is no truth to be found in the foundation of it.

Like the archetypes, any specific interpersonal relationship can involve many different relationship types as defined by the negotiation of the individuals within that relationship.  Though any successful relationship can center around any particular sociation approach specifically, what determines the success of the relationship is that both parties agree on their roles within that relationship negotiation.  They value the same thing.
I recall a conversation about this sort of thing under the "Butterflies" forum where the conflict (negotiation) determined the form of relationship.  There's also some cool stuff on physiology out there too.

I'm just trying to get straight the historical and transhistorical here.

The 9 forms of human relationship are going to emerge whatever the culture or time period.

The Archetypes are in a way a kind of syntax for narrative--so like syntax probably hard-wired and again transhistorical.

Then the Romance Narrative that we might be talking about in certain chic flicks today--that takes the romance relationship as setting, and uses the archetype as a kind of frame, but has particular structures given the culture and time period.

So we were talking about the story line of "Twilight" below and deciding that it is a kind of pure, distilled version of a particular romantic narrative, especially appealing to women today.  And I see a lot of the disturbing elements of that narrative related to cultural and historical forces, primarily having to do with women's status and various ideologies/representations about men and women.  My question is then, are the distortions of that narrative in any way related to these transhistorical elements (the romantic relationship, the Lover archetype), or only things that have to do with the history of gender relationships in Western culture?

I'm rereading some of this thread because of  Domina Luna's recent post on the poem below, and also because "Twilight" premiered Friday.  There's lots of interesting to stuff to think about here.  I'm trying to clarify again a couple of things.  

In the general post on Archetypes, the GC breaks down the archetypes into pairs and links them either to Carl Couch's 9 types of human relationship or to the 4 fears.  In that breakdown, Lover/Rival is connected to the Romantic relationship type.  But "Lover" as an archetype does not necessarily have to be applied to a human relationship--one can have the attitude of the Lover in relation to a cause.  Then Domina Luna was saying above that when the Lover is in a Romantic relationship, that relationship is doomed to fail as soon as reality sets in because there is no truth at the foundation.  

That seemed interesting to me to think about further--the idea that if the archetype (Lover) is applied to the relationship from which it seems to be derived (Romance) it is doomed to failure.  Is that because the archetype is a reifying of a social relation?  That is, romance is a relationship, an exchange--to be a healthy exchange the people in the relationship have to adapt to changing circumstances including changes in each other.  But to maintain the "Lover" archetype in a romance is to remain fixed in one facet of a relationship, even a romantic relationship, and therefore would, by definition, be unhealthy?   The person who maintains the Lover archetype in a romantic relationship would often, then, not even see the other person as s/he really is, would not, in fact, be treating the other person in a loving way, but would need to make both self and other fit an over-idealized narrative.

Would this be generally true of all archetypes?  Master/Apprentice are the pair associated with the Parental--it seems obvious to me that if parent and child remained fixed in those archetypical roles that would be unhealthy.  I'm less sure about the relations of some of the others--Hero/Martyr to Representative for instance.    

Getting back to "Twilight" and generally the dominance of the Romance narrative in our culture.  I was trying to get at the unchanging vs. the cultural elements here--and I think I've answered my own question.  The Romantic relationship is ahistorical I think, as are the archetypes--but to have a culture in which the Lover archetype is dominant and in which Romance narratives are always shown with that dominant Lover archetype--that seems to be the result of particular cultural forces.  

Hmmm, here's an idea--because our culture is dominated by the exchange relationship (tit for tat), we tend to judge everything based on equality of exchange.  When there are imbalances, we ignore them, deny them, or demonize the one on the + side of the scale.  For instance, we (I'm thinking of Americans here primarily) think that everyone has an equal chance to achieve the American dream.  For us the most general "bad-guy" is the Tyrant, whereas we like the Rebel.  We distrust even the legitimate authority of the Monarch.  We suspect the Genius of elitism.

However, we long for something that goes beyond equality--something greater than self instead of equal to self.  And so the archetypes that most catch our attention are the Hero and the Lover, and the two narratives--the Charismatic and the Romantic. 

This definition seems a lot more balanced to me. 
I think the Lover archetype does has a positive and enduring side.  I think it's important to note that though Love may be "self sustaining" that in no way means that it will be "effortless".

It's easy to allow emotion to overwhelm and then idealize the object of that emotion.  It's desire and fear soothing gone awry - the path of least resistance.  In the long run, however, when that happens it will feel like an effort to sustain such a relationship - because you are constantly having to rewrite the narrative to "make it fit" into what you want to believe.  If you love someone (and can indulge in those passionate feelings) "only if" they change or you could change the situation... then you don't really love that person - you're in love with what you think that person could possibly be.  In a way it's putting your will above Love's will; yourself above others.  Such relationships are destined to fail. 

Biblically a good example in a sense outside the romantic narrative is the Golden Calf story.  The Idolatry post I think ties in here well with its concepts. Idol worship is not love.  Worship of an ideal trait in a partner is not love.  The feeling of being "in love" is only part of the picture - and there is a destructive, mirror opposite that is hard to distinguish by indulging in the feeling alone.  Both feelings are "truthful feelings", one could never argue with a person's experience, but the feeling borne out of destructive behavior and the feeling borne out of positive behavior feel pretty much the same.

Love will only last if your partner defines love in the same or a compatable way.  Whether it's the core value itself - or a shared coping mechanism that has been given as high a value.  People change and they move in the direction of what they value.  If your values are not in unison - you will grow apart and the feelings will change or fade or create a deep pain that you will carry with you the rest of your life unresolved.

All this reminds me again of the research in the post on the Butterflies forum... that "romantic love" is the only love that people are known to kill to keep.  That this is statistically common signals to me an imbalance of the highest social sort. 

The only difference to me between the negative side of the Lover and the negative side of the Tyrant is the extent to which the Tyrant will go to coerce the situation out of desperation.

...this song: Addicted to Love

Just pondering this  -  I did find the parallel to the Tyrant interesting so took it a step further:

What fault do the Lover and the Tyrant share?
Too much weight put on self importance or self knowledge to the degradation of others
Egotistical, self idolized, pompous, or self inflated

What fault do the Lover and the Rival share?
Too much weight put on social rank to the degradation of others
Justification of promoting ones social importance and rank value
A "win-lose" attitude; Vanity, jealousy...

What fault do the Lover and the Merchant share?
Too much weight put on self importance to the degradation of oneself
The deliberate exchange of the truth in order to promote ones social importance and rank value
A "win-lose" attitude; liar, the iconic prostitute

I was reading an old anthology of poetry the other day and stumbled across this poem.  The title translates to Tyrannical Love.

That's very powerful and haunting.  Do you take the "he" in the poem to be Eros?  Because there seems to be that general mythological context of gods coming to earth to take mortal woman, or mortal woman doing anything they can to escape--like the line about "the changed familiar tree."  And the blind being driven under the sea to drown, I took them to be lovers.  I can't quite make out whose "sagacity" is referred to though.  The woman's?  And if Love "will not let him be" then I guess the he can't be Eros.  

It sure brings those two archetypes together.

Well, actually that's an interesting question.  Because in the Greek, remember, there are several words for love... so the "he" in the poem could possibly Eros and still leave room for 'Love' not letting him be. 

I took the sagacity referred to as the woman's.

That's interesting because with the "sagacity" being the woman's, she could be Psyche.

In the context of the poem that's kind of an interesting twist on the myth--having the woman's mind (psyche) lose its power to "sound" the man, to not be able to see him as he is (the mask, Psyche was not allowed to look at Eros) and to lose sight of "reasons" to refuse him by being blinded by love.  In the myth, blame for Psyche's predicament is placed on Venus and on her sisters.  Psyche herself eventually falls prey to vanity when Venus send her to take some beauty away from the underworld and Psyche takes some for herself (putting herself into a sleep from which Eros saves her).  The poem instead makes the woman's fall from reason and sagacity and the ability to see the man properly down to tyrannical love which here might be the man himself, Eros.

I don't know if anyone has read or heard of this book.  I listened to it awhile ago as a book on tape, and was pretty disappointed in it.  I was interested in it at first because it was a vampire story which seemed to be doing something different with the mythos (and it did have some interesting revisions to the standard vampire myth)--but in general it seemed like a very overwritten teen love story.  Well I've recently become aware that it's become this huge cultural phenomenon.  It's immensely popular with teenage girls especially, but I'm also finding that a number of my friends are reading it and getting hooked.  And then I read a piece in the paper yesterday about how the movie version has bumped back Warner Bros. release of the Harry Potter film (to release this first).

I find myself in the same position I was in in regard to The Davinci Code -- the kind of "what's all the fuss about?" response.  I actually still don't understand that about Davinci Code.  I think I might know what the Twilight fuss is about though--it's the romance narrative done in an almost hyper-purified way--the basic elements really honed to formulaic precision.

Here's a description from Amazon: "In Twilight, an exquisite fantasy by Stephenie Meyer, readers discover a pair of lovers who are supremely star-crossed. Bella adores beautiful Edward, and he returns her love. But Edward is having a hard time controlling the blood lust she arouses in him, because--he's a vampire. At any moment, the intensity of their passion could drive him to kill her, and he agonizes over the danger. But, Bella would rather be dead than part from Edward, so she risks her life to stay near him, and the novel burns with the erotic tension of their dangerous and necessarily chaste relationship."

But then what's oddly clear in that review is the way in which "erotic tension"=the man restraining himself from killing/consuming the woman.  The woman is body and she signals "love" by her willingness to sacrifice the body (does she have any "self" here at all?), and the man's love is his control of his desire to kill her.  I mean when you look at in this stark way it just seems so sick to me, a glossy version of domestic abuse really.  Yet as I say it seems to have really hooked into something in people's psyches--well actually in women--all the people I've known who have read it and found it captivating are women.  

Twilight

An article in the paper today loosely ties the Twilight phenomenon to a recent incident of bullying in a Boston School.  The quotation here from the head of the Massachusetts School Psychologist Association does point to why the novel is appealing, especially to preteen and teen girls.

" 'Susanne Toomajian,... said middle school students might be drawn to romanticized vampire images in films like "Twilight" because they depict an outsider who finds love. But the issue is more about acceptance.

That's something 'that early adolescents struggle with,' she said. 'The vampire themes are really ancillary to other themes of fitting in.'"

It's a very concise statement of what's wrong then, that the vampire theme is being taken up as a means of bullying Goth/Emo students.

Vampire rumors spur alert at Boston Latin on bullying

... I have heard of this series of novels.  And I regret even more to report that my knowledge of it comes by way of my twelve-year-old god-daughter.

Of course, when my god-kids take an intense interest in something it typically grabs my attention.  I read a chapter or two of the original novel and was... well... there really aren't words for how I felt about it.  I didn't think the story was terribly well written to begin with, but the plot left much to be desired as well.  It read to me like the border-line disturbed vampire fantasies of the author's teenaged self.  You know... the kind of stuff one might find in an imaginative young girl's diary.  The kind of stuff you'd like to have STAY in the imaginative young girl's diary.

My god-daughter informed me that in the mythos of the novels, vampires can walk about in daylight but they prefer not to because for some reason in daylight they become unbearably attractive.

HUH??

I saw a button that I thought summarized well my issues with the series.  It said something like, "Thanks to Twilight I can pretend that hot guys avoid me out of fear they'll be driven mad by smell of my blood."

Yeah.  That's just twisted.

Now, the angle of the story I hadn't really known about (and thus hadn't considered) is the sexual tension angle.  That's probably the hook for many women who like the story right there.  Because women are generally taught that their value comes from being loved by a man.  They're also taught that when a man loves a woman, he wants to have sex with her.  BUT... they know that men often want to have sex with women they don't love AND those men often profess love only to get sex (and often only until they get it).  So what says "true love" more than a guy who keeps showing and professing undying passion even though sex is out of the picture?

Yeah... messed up.

"they know that men often want to have sex with women they don't love AND those men often profess love only to get sex (and often only until they get it)"

Rereading this I don't think, based on my experience, that I agree with the statement that "men often want to have sex with women they don't love" or that "men often profess love only to get sex."  I realize that's a completely unscientific approach, but I think that kind of lack of emotion really only describes a very small minority of men who have extreme psychological illness--sociopaths, in fact.  The need for love, for emotional connection, I think that exists in almost all people (with the exception of those who do have extreme disorders)--they may have very messed up ways of trying to find it, they may deny that that is what they're looking for in something like multiple sexual encounters, but I still think it's there.

Ahhh, ETA, I'm repeating myself.  I pretty much said the same thing below under "Messed Up."  So feel free to disregard...or not, if having said it a slightly different way is more clear.

An article I read today was talking about "Twilight" in the context of a more general trend in teen culture in which romance is replacing sex, chivalry is not dead, abstinence is valued.  While I think that it's generally a good thing to see the time of the Britney Spears--get attention through sexuality model--get tossed on the dust-heap of pop history, I don't think the replacement is actually in contrast to, or in opposition to what it's replacing.  Here's an interesting quotation from a teen age girl about the appeal of the vampire-hero in Twilight:

"Edward, he wanted to get married before they did anything sexual," Veronica Lopez-Doherty, 13, of Hyde Park, said approvingly. "That's pretty old-fashioned. You want someone who is there for you and wouldn't hurt you. Someone who wouldn't lie to you and would be protective of you. I think he would be a really good boyfriend."

The whole proof of Edward's love for Bella is not that he's protecting her from others (though he does that as well)--but that he's protecting her from his own violence.  That is the model of an abusive relationship, not of a "good boyfriend"--though I completely understand the impulse behind what this girl is saying--to be protected from violence and from being hurt.  The problem is in looking for that protection by choosing the right guy.  Being protected through love.  In both the older sexual model, and this newer romantic one, girls are being taught to define themselves according to how a man feels about them.

Romance has rebirth in pop culture

Just to get off of the stereotypes of women here for a sec--but just as I think it's false to believe that women get their value through being loved by a man--I think it's equally false to believe that men generally are after sex rather than love, or are able to separate the two in some way more easily than women. At least in my experience, even men who have internalized a view of themselves as "womanizers" really want an emotional connection, even if a combination of cultural and psychological determinants keeps them from making that connection or even realizing that that's what is missing their lives.

I know my students seem to have been taught at some point that there's this absolute male/female divide in which men want multiple relationships and sex, and women want a single partner and love--some kind of sociobiological hooey--and I think that divide is complete nonsense.

What GC said above reminded me of an old saying - that women give sex to get love, and men give love to get sex.

I agree with the notion that men are generally unwilling to admit to anyone or themselves that they seek similar intimacy through sex that women do. Bottom line is love and sex are two different things and men and women are very much equally susceptible of confusing the two. 

I have to say this is one point where I started to get confused about what you were trying to say.

Kat - you mention that you "agree with the notion that men are generally unwilling to admit to anyone or themselves that they seek similar intimacy through sex".  You also tack on "that women do" -- which in the logic of the sentence means that you believe women seek intimacy though giving sex.
The objection about the stereotypes men hold to in denying their intimate side suggests that giving sex *is* about seeking intimacy and that men are in denial about being like women in seeking intimacy through sex.

Your next sentence... seemed contrary to that (and more in line with Jaz): "Bottom line is love and sex are two different things and men and women are very much equally susceptible of confusing the two." 

So it really wasn't clear to me if you were saying sex is about seeking intimacy, or that sex and love are really two different things.  (Or maybe I'm missing something else entirely -- I waited to see if you made your point more clear later rather than asking for clarification at this time.)

So the first part of your statment seemed slightly different than what Jaz was actually saying. 
Jaz's point was that she thought the stereotype her students were taught and the reasons for holding that stereotype as the truth were "sociobiological hooey".  Not that the stereotype about using sex for intimacy held true for both genders.
She clarified later "I didn't mean to say that men are generally unwilling to admit to anyone or themselves that they seek intimacy through sex. ... sex can express love, but it can express other things as well. "

I'll tack on more notes about my misunderstanding below.

OK I'll start with this and go from here.

I misinterpreted what Jaz was saying, so I agreed with what I thought she was saying, but I was expressing it in more broad terms - the false illusion that men are typically after sex rather than love. 

I see how what I said can come across as contradictive ... I wasn't being very clear. My second sentence was in direct relation to the first sentence. If a man is seeking some kind of emotional connection via sex but is in denial of it because of the masculine stereotype that he clings to - that is sexist. And being in denial about that (seeking emotional connectedness) can sometimes be more dangerous as far as the susceptibility of confusing love and sex.

Did that make sense?

To be sure I've got this right, I'm going to reiterate in my own words.
It looks like you're saying that you felt you were building upon what Jaz said, but it turns out you misunderstood her statement.
In broad terms - what you were speaking to was the illusion that men seek sex at the exclusion of love.  Your understanding/point is that men use sex to seek love just as much as women do, and that is where you believe the gender stereotype comes into play.

I agree with this statement:
If a man is seeking some kind of emotional connection via sex but is in denial of it because of the masculine stereotype that he clings to - that is sexist.

You're saying it's a gender stereotype to say that seeking emotional connectedness is a feminine attribute. 
However it's also a gender stereotype to say that women use sex to seek emotional connectedness.

I'd say that being in denial about seeking emotional connectedness is an internal form of mistaking sex for love (or vice versa) and so equally harmful - it's just a different way to phrase it. 

What you reiterated sounded right.

I agree with your other points that the stereotype applies to both genders, and about the internal form of mistaking sex for love. But I wasn't sure about the last thing you said, that it's "just a different way to phrase it". What is "it" ?

You mentioned denial was "more dangerous" ... more dangerous than what exactly?  I tripped over that and misread the rest of the sentence, actually.

I was thinking that you separated the notion of mistaking sex for love from the idea that the person was in denial.  My only point was that they seemed the same to me.

No, they are the same to me.

Well, more dangerous than not being in denial. Narrow-minded vs open-minded. Sure, they're equally dangerous, but if the person clings to the stereotype and refuses to evaluate the situation in any other way than through a false image, there can be no progress there.

Ah... so is the distinction being made then about:

>> If a person is in denial they are deliberately clinging to the stereotype aka closed-minded; resistant to change?

>>And someone who is merely confused perhaps then would be a person with the same problem, but with an open mind?

If that's the case, I think I see your point about someone in denial might be more "dangerous" or perhaps a word that fits better for me would be "harmful".

I think I got it.

...you got it, too.

Heh, "harmful" does the trick.

I didn't mean to say that men are generally unwilling to admit to anyone or themselves that they seek intimacy through sex.  I don't know if that's generally true of men (actually I don't believe anything is generally true as far as gender--including the whole binary division in the first place, but that's another story)--just going by the men that I know I would say not.  But, to give a concrete example of what I did mean--I had a boyfriend who had that reputation as a "womanizer."  He even warned me against himself--and worried that he might be "using" me.  That just seemed a very distorted way of representing both of us I thought--a distortion in which somehow he had all the power, maybe 'cause I was supposed to be reduced to an inability to assess the situation because of my emotions?  And I had no sexual motivation/needs of my own?  But I did, on the other hand, find it a sign of his own emotional connection and need for intimacy that he was worried about his effect on me.

And I take your point about the confusion--I think it's because sex can express love, but it can express other things as well.  Human beings often seem to want that guarantee of meaning, that a word or an action will remain fixed and especially about something as important as love--happily-ever-after, end of story.  Personally, though I'm not a big fan of storys ending :-).

Ah ok that is more clear. I thought you were going more broadly on the view that men are typically after sex rather than love. And I agree with your "generally true" statement. 

Using you - I think what you observed might have been true, and if he was a self-acknowledged womanizer he might also have felt that he was disrespecting you. But if he ended up being inhibited by his fears of the situation, it seems, to me at least, you couldn't have received the respect you deserved anyway.

... made absolutely no sense to me upon first reading.  It's totally me... I'm just painfully lost.

Mainly - when you said " I agree with your "generally true" statement. "  I had no idea what you were in agreement about.

I'm not sure what point you were making about this guy "using" Jaz...  I guess I chalked that up to my not really being certain what you meant exactly about "the respect you [Jaz] deserved" or how why the relative perspectives you offered made any case for that point.

Jaz said (in parenthesis) "actually I don't believe anything is generally true as far as gender" - I was basically agreeing that one should resist the notion that any particular gender acts a certain way.

"the respect you [Jaz] deserved" - I was looking at the fact that he knew his reputation was of a "womanizer" and the fact that he was concerned that he was using her. To me that just suggested that it might have been possible that he felt he would be disrespecting her in the long run - I guess I don't see that as a long shot. The point of respect - if he did more or less feel that way - if he was inhibited by his fears of the situation, instead of trusting Jaz's judgement, he would actually be accomplishing the opposite of what he wanted, which was to respect her. I admit there was no case for that point in relation to her situation - I was just expanding as something that could be used in broader terms, even if it didn't apply to that specific person.

Again, sorry if I'm not being clear but if I'm conveying in any way that he did use me or disrespected me at all, that's not what I intended.  I was trying to say there was no way that I thought he could use me (well without actual force).  That just doesn't even make sense to me.  How could someone use me without my going along with them--in which case I'm not being used at all--I'm going along of my own free will.  That whole idea of men using women comes out of an idea that somehow men can use a pretense of emotion in order to get women to do something (sexual) that they don't want to (because women don't want sex...huh?).  My point to him was that I was a grown-up; I'm responsible for my own feelings and actions; therefore there was no way that he was "using" me. 

Somewhat of a tangent, but I'm realizing that I'm not sure I understand what respecting someone is all the time, or even if I always want to be respected.  Like I suppose somebody being insulting is "disrespectful"--but why do we need to add that descriptor in addition to "insulting."  I think I mostly associate the term "respect" with things I would sometimes hear when I was younger--that it's an attitude you are supposed to have which--I dunno--means you don't challenge or disagree with someone older?  And in the above situation with my boyfriend, I'm not sure what the respect I deserved would be.

Ah, ok...I looked it up.  The usage that I think I'm objecting to is the one that says to show deference toward--and I don't object to showing deference as much as the fact so often it's set down as a kind of rule--show deference because this person is older, or has this position of authority, or whatever.  So I don't like that kind of automatic response.  

Well, I admit I don't really know in what way he felt he would be "using" you in that context. But no, I didn't think you were conveying that he DID use you or something. The notion of disrespect toward you, I was just adding my two cents as something he might have felt (but didn't say) - as opposed to disrespecting you in a more tangible way. And the notion of disrespectig you in the end, it depends I suppose, but if someone isn't willing to accept one's judgement over their own fears, that's not being entirely respectful to that person - although said person might mean well. And just to be more clear about my point - being protective of somebody isn't even always respectful to that person.

I'm realizing I might not be making much sense so I'm confusing things - but regardless, I do get what you're saying... I just shouldn't try to type up comments when I'm rushed.

Here I don't understand what the purpose of speculating what "he might have felt (but didn't say)" or what you meant about "disrespecting you in a more tangible way".  ???

All I can gather from this is that your notion of respect vs disrespect is contignent upon what her boyfriend intended by the communication.  Because you delineate the situation by speculating as to the potential intent of his warning.

You mention:  if someone isn't willing to accept one's judgement over their own fears, that's not being entirely respectful to that person - although said person might mean well. And just to be more clear about my point - being protective of somebody isn't even always respectful to that person.

I think you were saying if he didn't accept Jaz's judgment over his fears that he might be a womanizer - that would be disrespectful (even if he meant well).... and then you rephrase to mention that if his intent was to be protective of Jaz that this isn't always respectful to that person.

I have to wonder if the generalities are part of the problem.  That saying is a stereotypical presentation of the male/female roles within a relationship, and this notion that men and women generally fit this pattern - an extention of that.  What we really need to do is to teach the next generation something different.

I would say generalities are absolutely part of the problem. I don't know if people tend to view sayings like that as if they are true (and not a stereotype) but I can't imagine it remaining a "saying" if people didn't think it was generally true. But... like most stereotypes, it is demonstrated from time to time (it makes more sense to me that it's demonstrated more commonly in young folks) but it should not be expressed as a general truth about men and women. 

Teach the next generation something different - agreed! I think a decent start would be the misleading ideologies of stereotypes itself.

As I mention in my post below... I didn't completely follow this post either. 

Particularly... you say generalities are part of the problem, but then it looks like you're saying people believe them to be generally true because they are "demonstrated from time to time".  As if the stereotype has some basis in truth.  Well first, I'm not sure how you "demonstrate" a stereotype without holding the mindset of the stereotype yourself as a frame.   Secondly it doesn't make it less of a stereotype  if you apply the guidelines to a more restrictive class of people - i.e "young folks".   I brushed all that aside though, because at the end of your post you mention "a decent start would be the misleading ideologies of stereotypes itself."

I took that to mean that the something different we should teach the next generation is that stereotypes and what they represent are misleading.  I proceed to comment on why people might use stereotypes to define an ideology.

"Demonstrated from time to time" - I get what you're saying, but that's exactly what I find to be part of the problem. People believe stereotypes to be generally true because we live in a sexist culture and we are conditioned to behave/think a certain way. So when people DO behave/think a certain way, it seems to reinforce the illusion that stereotypes actually contain a morsel of truth in them. However, I think most stereotypes were built from false generalizations to begin with, so I am actually of the opinion that very few stereotypes having ANY morsel of truth to them.

Ah... right.  Yes, I do get your point about societal pressure and how that affects perceptions.

In fact I was bemoaning this problem on the Lies thread, earlier.

Even when you personally "live outside" a stereotype - you can't control another person from picking facts out of context and perceiving you within that frame... and that can be incredibly frustrating.  But this frustration comes from feeling misunderstood - and maybe a little lonely.  It starts to suck even more when people do this then project their own issues onto you.  Thankfully, I have people who *do* understand me and so I can redirect my energy and just be really, really thankful for what I've been blessed with.

As far as "supporting the illusion" goes... I guess not really the type of person that classifies a person's behavior in generalisms - even when I see what could be classified as a stereotypical behavior.  I take a person's behaviors as they come and try to simply address the "here and now" and let them reveal to me who they are in how they interact with me.  People change, they've got choices and it's all unpredictable and all that. 

But really - I've got no reason to try and predict if someone is going to be an ass to me in the future.   Again - it's that notion that if there is someone who is out there who wants to stereotype, I'm not going to be able to "stop them" -- they have to want to listen first for me to even have any influence at all.  It's usually fear that causes people to stereotype in the first place and that's something that person is going to have to choose to set aside or live with... it's not my responsibility.  If I am just myself I will challenge their stereotypes and then the choice is left with them what they want to do with that.

Sorry... rambly with a cold today. 

I know what you're saying about feeling misunderstood; and how to live outside of the stereotypes. With people who do tend to stereotype, I think challenging their assertions by emphasizing individualism ought to at least get them thinking about its validity to begin with (it did for one of my "open-minded" friends anyway).

I'm not sure if I totally get what you're saying with your mention of fear as the cause for people to stereotype. Fear of what exactly?  - I think you're talking about fear of their own image being threatened and in turn, the person stereotypes others in order to feel better about their own self image? I think that is related to how people can project how they see themselves onto others.

Speaking of causes, this reminded me of something I've read in the past that talked about a different cause for why people stereotype. It said that humans tend to see the world in terms of categories because doing that is easier, and doesn't take as much effort. That's curious to me because the "simplicity" of categorizing complex things becomes obsolete when you have oversimplified opinions and images misconstruing how people see things in the world!

The way we learn things...  I've never heard that before. Makes sense. Stereotypes being thought of as a very immature level of cognitive development... yup, and it can completely cripple cognitive development as we get older. Hmmm.

I think I'm picking this up where you left off.

People use stereotypes to classify a person.  You can do this for a positive end or to a negative end.
You can stereotype in order to facilitate a label and judge; or... the stereotype can be used as an initial frame - the beginning place of a cooperation where you are attempting to find common ground.  Once you find the generalities of a person, it allows you to probe the individual in depth and allow you to discard the stereotype/classification.  Really, actually... this approach might even be likened to an approach used by the Lover.  Care must be taken that you don't try to rewrite the truth in order to fit with what you are more comfortable seeing.  In order for anything good to come of it - the stereotype must be discarded in the end.

I'm not sure what point you are making about young people.  I think I've seen an equal amount of people across the generation span that fall into the deception of clinging to a stereotype.

Young people - sorry, I didn't mean that only young people cling to stereotypes. I was speaking in terms of that particular "saying" I quoted. I'm not assessing an absolute or asking for one, it just would make sense to me if that stereotype is demonstrated more commonly among young people, if you consider wacked-out hormones and sex drive, inexperience - as compared to someone older and more experienced, but still interested in sex. 

To be clear my comment above was made in regard to that particular saying as well.

My point was addressing the notion that - if this stereotype could be "demonstrated" at all - it would require the person making this judgement to hold this stereotype to be at least partially true in some respect. 

I do not agree that biologically there is any reasoning that would justify this stereotype to be true in any sense - regardless of what class you restrict it to. 

In fact - I refrained from commenting that your delineation of the sexual preferences of "Young people" vs. "older people" came off as stereotypical as well... because is was slightly off topic.

Ok - I know you're not speaking in absolutes, but ... I'm not really sure what you're saying is demonstrated "commonly among young people".

That women give sex to get love, and men give love to get sex.

Ok... but now it seems like I really wasn't understanding you...
Because to even make that statement you are approaching the situation with a prejudice/predetermined frame.  Stereotypes don't get "demonstrated", unless the observer interprets the situation in that manner - describing an interaction between 2 people is not as easy as an observation of a "solid fact".  People witness an event or conversation - and then interpret to give it meaning. 

You have decided that "though its not an absolute" generally among young people "women give sex to get love, and men give love to get sex" and then give reasons for your belief/assertation.  That says more about your frame than the actual facts of the situation itself.

Jaz's example with her boyfriend and your subsequent conversation about "what it meant" ultimately - shows just how pliable a frame of reference can be.

Jaz mentioned that a former boyfriend applied a stereotype to himself -- that he is "a womanizer".  He hashed out that he's afraid it meant he might be "using her" for sex.  She initially disagreed with his frame.  Beyond that his claim that "he might use her for sex" logically did not make any sense to her - she took the conversation itself as evidence that he did have an emotional connection and proof that he was worried about his effect on her (didn't want to hurt her).

You countered this notion by reframing her boyfriend's comments into yet another gender stereotype -- that it was possible he wasn't actually emotionally connected, but that his comments were said to "protect" Jaz -- implied as if she was a helpless, emotional female.

Well which is it - is he a stereotypical male talking down to the helpless woman, or was it only a frightened guy talking about his feelings and being confused?  When he talked about his feelings - what really determines that he was patronizing/protective - and why should Jaz give into that stereotype either?  The secret is that - she gets to pick what she wants to believe.  It's called trust.

I think it was clear that he was working through some issues with the past relationships he's had - having been told by someone else that he was doing something the he apparently did not have any idea he was doing. 

But what I assert is that Jaz as a participant in this exchange has an equal say in the definition of that relationship negotiation.  As an active participant she can define herself, set a healthy frame and interpret her observations of the situation (and her boyfriend's actions) for herself based on what she thinks his message meant.   She can only be held accountable for what she knows.  Like anybody she does the best she can with the information she does have.

She knew she was not the helpless female - so she didn't have to accept/take that role (even if he offered it).  If the relationship did not end with a successful emotional connection she did not have to feel like a victim and blame the guy for being a stereotypical "womanizer", even if the fault lies with him for not overcoming some emotional issue he may have had.  She asserted that went into the relationship knowingly, willingly and with her own sexual needs and saw him as a potential equal to her.  Why shouldn't the rest of the interaction be seen from this vantage point of her own strong self identity?

In the end it actually doesn't matter what this guy was thinking or even what he intended.  If Jaz got the wrong idea about what kind of person he was or what he was saying - the relationship will end as the reality of it brings the truth of each person to the forefront.  She is a strong woman (and thus only put out there that what she was willing to risk) - and then left it up to him to decide what kind of man he will be in the end.  She doesn't have to worry about what might be hiding in his mind - she only has to worry about her end of things. 

Actually by approaching the situation without a stereotype and treating him with compassion she may even help him to overcome whatever hurt/doubt led him to stereotype himself in the first place - just by seeing himself through her eyes.  Or by seeing that she was not a sterotypical weak female he could decide that he valued this and use this as an impetus/inspiration to change if he really believed this about himself (that he was a womanizer and everything that meant to him).  

In the end what you believe about yourself ends up becoming what is real.  You can't control what happens with other people and their choices in the matter.

In any case - I believe the only way to fight prejudice is to present the other side of the story.  This is one of my favorite quotes:

Treat a man as he appears to be, and you help make him worse. But treat a man as if he were what he potentially could be, and you help him to be what he should be.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe