And also how often the movie is completely oblivious to that. For example it’s been a while since I saw “Devil wears Prada” but if I remember right, the ending is:
Our main character has an argument with her boyfriend
Goes to a business trip in Paris
Sleeps with random guy
Returns home and makes up with her boyfriend
And the movie ends like nothing happened, she’s happy, that’s what’s important
I mean, that was bad, but I hated the movie more for turning it into feel-good drivel about the boss actually being kind and caring about her employee(s). The book ending, where the character realized her own self worth and started making her own decisions, was so much better than the american bullshit about putting up with a boss’ bullshit because they’re actually such good people and will throw a few dollars off the balcony for you to catch.
Her probably:
i wish my wife would do this so that i can stick my asshole on fire
wat
not betraying your partner’s trust is important too. cheating is disgusting, selfish behaviour
This makes me wonder how many women are quite unhappy in their marriage, and are willing to jump at the nearest opportunity.
Kinda depressing to think about, actually.
Work with elderly. Coworker said “how many of these women do you think have gone their entire live without an orgasm.” It connected a lot of dots. The no orgasm to elderly fox news white women is the school shooter pipeline for wasp women.
Boomer tropes exist because divorce was illegal.
You were expected to get married and stay married. You’d have unprotected sex with your high school boyfriend, you’re goddamn right you were gonna keep the baby, and you were going to live together until one of you died. Even if it meant separate beds and not asking why he frequented that bar by the docks.
Blame Catholicism. That’s usually a fair bet.
When was divorce illegal?
Edit: Divorce has never been illegal since the founding of the USA. It was uncommon, but it was granted by courts which means it was legal just uncommon.
The US didn’t get no-fault divorce until after the moon landing.
Divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.”
Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination (the suing spouse also being guilty).
Ok but that’s different than it being illegal. You had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country.
As if it’s something you can go out and do and be punished for. No: it simply was not allowed. The state said no.
This is stupid hair-splitting. You did not have a right to shit - you had to beg. Virginia did not grant any woman a divorce for an entire generation.
“After the colonies gained independence, states joining the union liberalized their divorce laws, as did the associated territories, with many permitting local courts to grant divorce. A few retained authority to grant divorce at the state level. In Virginia, for example, petitioners had to apply to the Virginia General Assembly for a divorce, and during the first thirty years of statehood, no female petitioner was granted a divorce.[1]”
So it really looks like Virginia was the exception and not the rule. It wasn’t illegal at all and there was a legal framework for how it worked which, again, suggests that the initial claim that it was illegal was incorrect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States
Did you even read your source?
“Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.” Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination(the suing spouse also being guilty).”
More troubling to me is how many romance movies have our protagonist stalk their love interest, who has already explicitly rejected them… and it works, because their obsession is framed as “love at first sight” and “not giving up on love”.
Oh, and the other common trope, non-consensual voyeurism… and it works, because the woman is ‘flattered’ that the guy finds her attractive.
…How good is the “pop culture detective” YouTube channel?
There’s so many songs, TV shows, movies, etc, that’s all romance or love stories that contain very blatant infidelity.
What tickles me is when very monogamous, very religious people talk that stuff up… Like it’s such a good song/movie/show… Ha. You have fantasies of leaving your spouse and running off with a younger, more attractive person. You slut.
I’m not religious, but I found a partner that gets me. Guess what. I’m not fantasizing about running off with some mythical “better” or “more romantic” person. Yeah, we’re living together unmarried, and we’re good like that. You rushed into marriage for God knows what reasons and now you live in regret. Good job.
Are you saying you don’t like piña coladas?
I saw Casablanca for the first time 2 weeks ago, and yep, checks out.
If I remember Casablanca right she doesn’t actually knowingly cheat on her husband at any point. The woman has a relationship with Rick when she believes her husband to be dead before the events of the movie that we hear about 2nd hand. Then in the movie Rick helps her and her husband escape Casablanca.
There is a scene with implied sex, when Ilsa goes back to try and convince Rick to give her the letters of transit.
Can’t remember that but I need to re-watch it since the whole film is pretty fuzzy in my mind
It’s heavy innuendo but yeah, they did the deed. Ilsa asks Rick to choose for her because she loves them both. He sets it up like he is running away with her but then does the ol’switcheroo and sends her and Laszlo off while he holds the Nazis at gunpoint. He ends up shooting Nazis and Capt. Renault covers for him.
And most of the time it is women cheating. I think it is because these movies are made mostly for women and it is like porn for them.
it is like porn for them.
You think that seeing other women cheat on their partners is like porn for women?
Yes. Because everyone has thought about that one hot guy that they want to fuck (most won’t act on it).
Same thing in porn for men is cheating porn.
It is a turn on for a lot of people. Very few act on it.
No. That is indeed not a normal thing that most women do.
well its a good thing that not a single fucking person can say wether it is or isnt because we are all only 1 person and none of us can reference a study…
I’m sure people do. But it’s not a “normal” thing that a majority of women do / think about.
Source: am woman. Have woman friends. Have woman siblings. Have woman parent. Have talked to other women before.
It’s not a normal thing.
Voting for fascism isn’t a normal thing to do either, but apparently it is, since what is normal is not defined by our social bubbles.
You might be internalizing those movie scripts and your own lived experience. A cursory Google search indicates the opposite.
What do you mean? I am saying what happens in the movies, the movies which mostly women watch. I didn’t say it was real.
So you meant to say:
And most of the time it is women cheating in those movies.
Which, fair enough if that’s what you meant.
Honestly that seems a little pedantic. I read their comment and understood just fine they were talking about those.
I mean, the rest of the comment did not help. It feels like a misogynistic critique of “how women are”. Glad you were able to pick up on that interpretation; but it obviously can be read, you know, the way it is literally written.
I mean, you could only read it like that if you ignore the post’s context, as well as the next sentence that clearly talks about the movies.
Come on dude, they even specify movies in their reply.
I don’t mind infidelity in media when the one being cheated on is “evil” in some ways like they’re abusive or not in love. Still icky though. It’s just very different when it’s something like that versus “I’m cheating because you’re bad at sex.”
So… 007?
I’m not familiar enough with the plot of any Bond media to tell you if it falls in the category I’m okay with. Like if Bond’s love interest is also married to the villain and has sex with Bond I would consider that okay. Because the villain is probably abusive.
love interest
What!? No!
He just fornicates all villain’s wives to churn out their information, which he uses, to destroy the villain or sth.The women are then left for dead. They do survive some times.
Every movie, new villain, new infidel wife.
Remember when the hottest song on the radio was Follow Me by Uncle Cracker?
Holy shit I just looked up the lyrics, I’m glad I was ignorant to them at the time
I’m not worried
'Bout the ring you wear
'Cause as long as no one knows
Then nobody can care
You’re feelin’ guilty
And I’m well aware
But you don’t look ashamed
And baby I’m not scared
On the other hand that is also one of those things that annoys me about romance culture, the whole notion of your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband being “stolen” by someone else as if your partner was just a passive object instead of being the actual person in the cheating who made promises to you (which might or might not include sexual exclusivity depending on mutually agreed upon preferences between everyone in the relationship) and should keep those promises or break up with you no matter what any third person tempts them with.
Bothered me significantly in the will they/won’t they dynamic of The Office.
The OG premise of The Office was similar to Seinfeld. They were all supposed to be awful people. Jim and Dwight and Michael were just three different flavors of incel. Jim hitting on a soon-to-be-married woman was supposed to be off-putting and gross. The front office guys treating the back office guys like trash was supposed to be elitist and revolting.
But because the writers needed to give you someone to root for, and because Jim was the “hot one” in a show full of normal looking people (aka the writers room from a bunch of sitcoms who thought it would be funny to have a show where they play each other’s characters), they had to justify Pam breaking up and getting together with Jim. And then they had to turn the Jim/Pam arc into Friends. And then they had to turn the Dwight/Angela and Michael/Jan arcs into Friends. And by the final season they were just, like, “Fuck it, this show is now the same as Friends.”
But because the writers needed to give you someone to root for
Moreover, because it went from adapting a British sitcom to making an American sitcom. The famous tweet goes something like: “A waiter spills soup on a businessman before a meeting with his boss. In the UK the show’s about the waiter. In the US the show’s about the businessman.”
Same reason Steve Carell went from playing David Brent to playing Brick Tamland. We don’t find a powerful sleazebag as funny as a powerful moron.
Not that there’s much difference these days.
Infidelity is widespread, because it comes from human nature. Instead of vilifying it we should strive to find and normalize forms of relationships that allow for more liberty without the necessity of lying and cheating.
What’s to stop anyone today from having an open conversation with their partner about opening their relationship? In the examples above, no one is vilifying having an open relationship… it’s vilifying lying and dishonesty.
Even if we were to normalize infidelity, that doesn’t mean anyone should be beholden to accepting it in their relationship. Your argument is akin to saying “lying is widespread because it comes from human nature” so we should just normalize lying.
F that noise.
