Watch it again and look closely at how the video focuses on the woman the entire time. She's child-like and the only one who seems emotionally involved in the relationship… but in almost exclusively passive way. (All the dude does is smirk for a fraction of a second when something "nice" occurs.)
Every interaction focuses on her. She kisses him on the cheek; he just looks at the camera. She kisses his picture during the "shaving" scene. She watches him walk down the street and talk at her on video… the only personal expression element of the "story" is his. She simply receives it. When she's upset, the focus is on what he does to her — the arm, the drawing, she receives the apology but never participates in a make-up.
It looks like the boyfriend is a prop. But the joke is it's that the woman, the focus of everything, is the prop, because it's from the boyfriend's PoV and she's just this super-emo recipient of his actions. Except when she's delivering outsized love he doesn't return (omg! the fawning! the kissing! the posing! the crying! all while he looks on and, if he expresses any emotion, just a smirk).
And if you don't believe about the childlike thing, it's capped by the scene at the end where she's hiding under a sheet with one stripey sock sticking out, a direct echo of "kids reading under the covers when the lights are out." No adult does that.
So: the video is assuming you, the male viewer, are a narcissist (everything is about you, and ps, you don't have access to real feelings), and that the object of your affection (not "girlfriend" because that implies a two-way street) is a baby.
Amy, I agree with your analysis, except for what you leave out:
Most couples are like this.
The woman IS a silly, child-like, passive, docile baby, and the guy IS a silly, narcissistic, self-absorbed robot.
These are the ways women behave, and these are the kinds of guys women fall for, because that's what our culture encourages.
If you detect a sexist tone in what I'm saying because I seem to be blaming women, I can only say this: in modern western culture it IS women who ultimately choose who sleeps with who. Criminal activities like rape aside, it is women who choose which guys get to be in a relationship with them and which guys don't. So I don't think it's unfair to attribute the bigger part of this to women.
I'm pretty sure I get to choose who NOT to sleep with, and so do women. All rape aside of course, ho ho ho.
The tone of your comment depresses me. It sounds so bitter. And confused. As if you hadn't had sex or a healthy relationship in a very long time, if ever, and feel powerless to change that.
Yes, but women get to choose WHO TO (positively) sleep with; whereas, as a man, you generally don't have that choice, unless you're extremely famous/wealthy/etc., which you generally don't have control over.
I am bitter and confused about heterosexual relationships, because they seem to contain big contradictions which I can't work out.
I've tried to form a theory that explains most of what I observe in straight female attraction: women are attracted to men who are tall and socially powerful (i.e. popular).
This theory seems to generally hold. Yes, I know there are a multitude of OTHER qualities that women at least SAY they're attracted to.
But I think height and popularity are baseline requirements which are common to most women, regardless of what other requirements they choose stack on top.
Yes, I speak in terms of requirements. It's true.
Dating a woman is like going to a job interview. Any man who's honest knows this.
Sadly, not having a relationship can be a cause or… a symptom. Not speculating about this commenter cuz who the hell knows, but… most of the people I've known who were truly alone were people who drove everyone away.
No need to speculate. I don't have a relationship, and I've never really had a proper relationship.
This isn't something I'm ashamed of, because I don't base my self-esteem on other people's judgements of me.
Especially not on womens' romantic interest, which in my opinion (based on my observations) has a lot more to do with pre-determined evolutionary subconscious emotions than conscious, rational judgement.
You convinced me. It's a fact! It's a fact because you called it "the fact that."
On a serious note, I'm sorry you feel* that way (* not think, no matter how much you think it's "logical"), but have you ever considered that it's you?
If women don't CHOOSE to be with men like this, then either A) women are with men like this, but not by choice, or B) women aren't with men like this, by choice.
So which is it, Amy?
If most women don't go for men like this, then most relationships aren't like this.
But then why would a profit-seeking company spend the dollars on a video that portrays people like this?
You yourself implied (I think) in a recent tweet, that this company was disregarding ethics to appeal to a mass audience.
"@DanielAmitay well no point in asking THAT, since avg corporate ethics is clear for all to see. :) q: do they KNOW what they're doing?"
If most women aren't like this, who's the company's marketing aimed at? A tiny minority?
And by the way, when did I ever say it wasn't "me"? I'm not claiming any moral high-ground here.
I never said women shouldn't be the way they are.
If I'm upset, it's just because I happen to lose out in today's culture.
But I never said (or even implied) that the culture should change. The culture is what it is and I am what I am, and I just have to deal with that.
Who cares what most couples/women are like. You are on here, so you'll tend to find a very small proportion of women attractive. (presuming higher than average intelligence)
If you are proactive enough to choose in your dating life, you wouldn't complain about the culture. That's just externalizing the sources of your problems.
"If I'm upset, it's just because I happen to lose out in today's culture."
Make the most out of yourself and play the numbers game. The culture is better than at any point in the past. More choice, more freedom for both sides (it's not a war or a competition - everybody wins). You just "loose" if you don't invest in yourself and overcome fears.
Meaning, just make a complete doormat of myself. Go on as many dates as possible, buy women as many things as possible, just keep giving and giving more and more.
And maybe one day, some woman who no one likes will decide to give me a go, as a last ditch resort, and I'll get lucky for a night or two before she dumps me for someone with higher status.
But of course I must not have enough "self esteem" to do all that.
> If you are proactive enough to choose in your dating life
Oh I have all the choice in the world.
I mean, I can literally CHOOSE who will reject me.
I can approach any woman anywhere and get a rejection within 5 minutes.
That's wonderful.
And the internet makes it even easier, because now, I don't even have to know of the rejection.
I can just send off 100 messages to 100 women and get 0 responses after 5 days, and just assume that I was rejected.
You are deliberately misinterpreting to get some pity and avoid the hard work of changing what you can control.
Life is not black or white. Women do have very similar problems to men. With your attitude you'll just filter out the people that will treat you like shit (because you expect them to treat you that way).
You think we're having a big debate, but we're not. Your central thesis: "Most couples are like this. Women are like x. Men are like y." You have zero evidence for this. We're not having a discussion at all. I am saying "There's no evidence" and you're arguing with tautologies -- "If women don't CHOOSE to be with men like this, then either A) women are with men like this, but not by choice, or B) women aren't with men like this, by choice." That false binary choice includes a big assumption. Do you see it?
I never claimed that narcissism like in the video is prevalent… nor did I claim that it isn't. What I said was "This video is from a wholly narcissistic viewpoint."
I didn't say THIS company was disregarding ethics. I made no judgment other than "this is narcissistic" and (in that twitter conversation you extracted) "This video isn't guy-focused, it's narcissist-focused. If I was a guy, I'd find Couple's apparent opinion of me insulting."
The tweet you excerpted was from from a separate, subsequent conversation:
DANIEL: I meant my original tweet slightly in jest: Could a company potentially be OK with their sexist video if it got them results?
ME: well no point in asking THAT, since avg corporate ethics is clear for all to see. :) q: do they KNOW what they're doing?
You COULD rebut the idea that the average corporation will gladly use sexism to sell things, but it would be a waste of your breath.
My question: "Do they KNOW what they're doing? Do they SEE what they're portraying with their video? Do they know what narcissism is?" is a useful one, on the other hand.
You said:
> If most women aren't like this, who's the company's marketing aimed at? A tiny minority?
Tautology. "It must work, or else why would they do it?" This is not a safe assumption. See again my useful question above.
> You think we're having a big debate, but we're not
True, because you're not coming out and saying what you think is true; you're just attacking my statements.
> That false binary choice includes a big assumption. Do you see it?
Just one? I think it includes several, but I tried to narrow it down to what I guessed you would think the most likely possibilities are.
Maybe you don't think women have a choice. Maybe you don't think there's such a thing as free will at all.
I don't have time to second-guess every possible opinion you might have; I'm offering my own opinion and trying to ferret out what yours is.
> If I was a guy, I'd find Couple's apparent opinion of me insulting
And you never say why. Is that a moral judgement on your part?
> My question: "Do they KNOW what they're doing? Do they SEE what they're portraying with their video? Do they know what narcissism is?" is a useful one
Is it one you intend to find the answer to?
I think it's pretty clear, from having observed a whole range of marketing material and cultural artifacts (TV shows, etc) that this really is how people think about relationships, and that this company is appealing to that thinking in this ad.
I don't have a massive amount of statistical data to prove this, but I don't have a high regard for statistics anyway. I think it's better to consider as evidence things you can observe directly, rather than having faith that some bean-counter is getting his stats right.
Sorry if I come off as a whiner, but I think human beings generally like to express themselves when something in life is upsetting/depressing to them, and I don't see why I should have to shut up and put up just because I'm a guy.
>> You think we're having a big debate, but we're not
> True, because you're not coming out and saying what you think is true; you're just attacking my statements.
Yes. I don't have to have a position, nor do I have to share it with you. Why? Because I'm not trying to describe 100% of all humans, walking around, with my own little pet theory. If I were, the burden of proof would be on me.
> Maybe you don't think women have a choice. Maybe you don't think there's such a thing as free will at all.
No. The enormous hidden assumption is that 3 billion+ people can be jammed into your tidy little binary choice. You've seen it all… you've figured it out. You don't have "a massive amount of statistical data to prove this" -- you have zero data to prove this.
But still, you think you know. Enough to dare to say to the world: "This is how men are. This is how women are."
Oh good! Jonathan Conway figured it out. Stop the presses, everybody! Trim the wicks and lower the shades… we're done here! Everybody out of the pool!
What sheer, monumental gall.
By the by, nobody asked you to "shut up and put up just because [you're] a guy." Nobody asked you to shut up and put up at all, in fact. They merely pushed back against your labeling of the entire human race, because well, that's what people do when they see idiotic things on the internet. They push back.
> I'm not trying to describe 100% of all humans, walking around, with my own little pet theory
Neither am I, I'm just trying to describe the majority of humans, based on my own experiences.
> The enormous hidden assumption is that 3 billion+ people can be jammed into your tidy little binary choice.
And you're assuming there aren't traits that are common among most of those 3 billion+ people. But I think this marketing video indicates that there are certain common traits, which marketing is designed to appeal to.
> Jonathan Conway figured it out.
I'm not the first person to make these claims.
> nobody asked you to "shut up and put up just because [you're] a guy."
Fine, not here, but on many other forums (e.g. feminist) that's what I'd be told in an indirect kind of way.
> she's hiding under a sheet with one stripey sock sticking out, a direct echo of "kids reading under the covers when the lights are out." No adult does that.
Have a middlebrow dismissal: my wife does that, and she's 33. She loves hiding.
I do have to say that you seem a bit grouchy for someone who works at a baby blue and pink startup called 'Freckle' :)
I don't "work" at a "startup," I founded the business! I designed every last bit. That's all me, baby. True cheer doesn't come from denying reality, it comes from understanding life and laughing at the joke.
In this case, understanding means understanding narcissism and calling it out (cuz it's opaque to just about everyone else).
PS - Does your wife do it while one cutely pigeon-toed stripey-socked foot hangs out and she fawns and coos and pets your virtual image on her iPhone? No? Then sadly it's not a parallel to the video.
Every interaction focuses on her. She kisses him on the cheek; he just looks at the camera. She kisses his picture during the "shaving" scene. She watches him walk down the street and talk at her on video… the only personal expression element of the "story" is his. She simply receives it. When she's upset, the focus is on what he does to her — the arm, the drawing, she receives the apology but never participates in a make-up.
It looks like the boyfriend is a prop. But the joke is it's that the woman, the focus of everything, is the prop, because it's from the boyfriend's PoV and she's just this super-emo recipient of his actions. Except when she's delivering outsized love he doesn't return (omg! the fawning! the kissing! the posing! the crying! all while he looks on and, if he expresses any emotion, just a smirk).
And if you don't believe about the childlike thing, it's capped by the scene at the end where she's hiding under a sheet with one stripey sock sticking out, a direct echo of "kids reading under the covers when the lights are out." No adult does that.
So: the video is assuming you, the male viewer, are a narcissist (everything is about you, and ps, you don't have access to real feelings), and that the object of your affection (not "girlfriend" because that implies a two-way street) is a baby.
This video is insulting to everyone. Sheesh!