=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = 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. = =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=