|
**** couples that make you sick (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Everybody (whether they know it or not) expects the people around them to play at the various roles they fill. It's just an act - but it's something we all do.
The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough to serve its social function. Because we tend to interpret human behavior and human interactions in terms of generalities, a poor job of playing at that specific role creates friction between the general idea of romantic relationships and the image that is being presented by the actors involved in a specific relationship. Your "social intuition," so to speak, rejects that image because it is not consistent with expected generality - and the resulting feeling is quite naturally one of disgust or displeasure. |
You scare me sometimes, Arbiter.
Just wanted to let you know that.
MrS |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough to serve its social function |
unless they love each other, then you're wrong, aren't you? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dopey
unless they love each other, then you're wrong, aren't you? |
No, they are playing at the role of a romantic couple regardless of their state of emotion. There is nothing inherent to the emotion "love" that ties it to any of the behaviors associated with it (with the possible exception of coitus) - rather, these behaviors are a social construct for what it is "to be a couple in love" and that is the role that they are playing at (poorly, in this case). |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, they are playing at the role of a romantic couple regardless of their state of emotion. There is nothing inherent to the emotion "love" that ties it to any of the behaviors associated with it (with the possible exception of coitus) - rather, these behaviors are a social construct for what it is "to be a couple in love" and that is the role that they are playing at (poorly, in this case). |
lol spoken like a true romantic
love has nothing to do with sex or "coitus"
and the smartest sounding people are the stupidest people alive sometimes. in fact, some insanely smart people are the stupidest people I know. 170, 180 IQ means . not that you have an IQ that high, but you clearly want to sound smart using words like coitus instead of sex, well guess what buddy, nobody cares that you've never loved anyone that certain way some people have. you know nothing. love is not an act, pretending to be wise and preaching about something you don't know is. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dopey
lol spoken like a true romantic
love has nothing to do with sex or "coitus"
and the smartest sounding people are the stupidest people alive sometimes. in fact, some insanely smart people are the stupidest people I know. 170, 180 IQ means . not that you have an IQ that high, but you clearly want to sound smart using words like coitus instead of sex, well guess what buddy, nobody cares that you've never loved anyone that certain way some people have. you know nothing. love is not an act, pretending to be wise and preaching about something you don't know is. |
So many people have a lot of trouble with the concept of irony...
We should use your post in illustrating this concept to people who aren't quite certain of the meaning behind the word. |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
So many people have a lot of trouble with the concept of irony...
We should use your post in illustrating this concept to people who aren't quite certain of the meaning behind the word. |
at least i'd never use the word coitus |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dopey
lol spoken like a true romantic
love has nothing to do with sex or "coitus"
and the smartest sounding people are the stupidest people alive sometimes. in fact, some insanely smart people are the stupidest people I know. 170, 180 IQ means . not that yo have an IQ that high, but you clearly want to sound smart using words like coitus instead of sex, well guess what buddy, nobody cares that you've never loved anyone that certain way some people have. you know nothing. love is not an act, pretending to be wise and preaching about something you don't know is. |
You're completely misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say they are acting I am not saying that their feelings aren't genuine.
I'll refer you to my original post:
| quote: | | Everybody (whether they know it or not) expects the people around them to play at the various roles they fill. It's just an act - but it's something we all do. |
In the sense I am saying that they are acting, almost all behavior is also a form of acting. When you go to the grocery store, you'll see people acting in the role of cashiers, and people acting in the role of shoppers - that doesn't mean that they aren't really cashiers, or aren't really shoppers - it just means that their behavior is an act predicated on a general notion of what it is "to be a cashier" or "to be a shopper." Likewise, when I say that people who believe that they are in love are playing the role of a person in love, I am not saying "but they're not really in love." I am saying that their behavior is an act predicated on a general notion of what it is "to be in love." |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dopey
at least i'd never use the word coitus |
You've used it three times in this thread so far, which is three times more than Arbiter has. :p |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dopey
at least i'd never use the word coitus |
I'm not sure why you're hung up on this, but "coitus" and "sex" aren't perfectly interchangable. In particular, sex can be taken to include a much wider range of acts than coitus. I chose the word that most precisely described the intended meaning - imagine that. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Everybody (whether they know it or not) expects the people around them to play at the various roles they fill. It's just an act - but it's something we all do.
The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough to serve its social function. Because we tend to interpret human behavior and human interactions in terms of generalities, a poor job of playing at that specific role creates friction between the general idea of romantic relationships and the image that is being presented by the actors involved in a specific relationship. Your "social intuition," so to speak, rejects that image because it is not consistent with expected generality - and the resulting feeling is quite naturally one of disgust or displeasure. |
A most awesome post Arbiter.
I find that a LOT of disgust/displease comes, not necessarily, from the actions of people, but from their actions WHEN COMPARED WITH your expected actions of those people. |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
You're completely misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say they are acting I am not saying that their feelings aren't genuine.
|
So being genuine and acting are coexistent in your world? |
|
|
| Dopey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm not sure why you're hung up on this, but "coitus" and "sex" aren't perfectly interchangable. In particular, sex can be taken to include a much wider range of acts than coitus. I chose the word that most precisely described the intended meaning - imagine that. |
if everyone went around doing that, we'd all be speaking Latin |
|
|
|
|
