"Winning" someone's love

[beniki]

So a lot of movies, books, hell, even games, especially those dating simulators, empathise "winning" someone's love; in fact it's a rather common view throughout society, with deep roots in various fables and legends. As such, my query; why these mad mating rituals?

Perhaps I should explain. If we are to take the stereotypical example of a boy trying to win the girl of his dreams (probably defeating some evil arch nemesis along the way whilst performing a rocking guitar solo), the story usually goes that she initially shows no interest for him, perhaps even disdain, thus prompting him to impress her through various spectacles of supposed affection. In the end, she'll fall for him due to all his wacky, cloying attempts at romance, cut to kisses and wedding scene, the end.

Now, why the hell are we supposed to coerce relationships into existence via such efforts? Granted, love at first sight is far more moronic, but what good will ever come of forcing someone to become infatuated with you? Is this just the modern adaptation of someone pre-historic mating ritual where Grog crushes Trog's head and gives Groggina a flower so that they may procreate?

However, since all my romantic emotions and other lovey-dovey sentiments could barely fill the average teaspoon (and even then they'd be dissolved by my corrosive cynicism), I ask you, fellow escapists; what good comes of forcing love? Should it not grow naturally?

Well actually it's a metaphor for self-improvement rather than 'forcing love'.

Generally the hero starts off lacking confidence/strength/character etc., which is why the romantic interest isn't interested. Then the hero grows as a character, and becomes a better person, which is what attracts the love interest.

A good example of this is Sam in Lord of the Rings. At the beginning he and Rosie have an attraction, but he's too shy to do anything about it. Then he goes off on the adventure, comes back mature and determined, downs his pint and marries her. Or take Scott Pilgrim. His initial romance with Ramona is rocky and full of sighs, but at the end he acquires the power of self-respect, and everything (probably) works out. Or for a crappy rom com example: Seth Rogen in Knocked Up. He literally starts off as a lazy bum making a porn site, but by the end of the movie has a job and shows himself capable of handling Katherine Heigl's demanding family... which gets him the happy ending.

Yes, there's the attempts at romantic gestures, but these are usually played for laughs... the audience gets a giggle out of how stupid the hero is being. Only in badly written stories are these things played straight (e.g. Twilight: 'I break into your room at night because I like to watch you sleep.')

That's generally how it works in real life too. Self-improvement leads to happy ending.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Love isn't won with grand gestures, it's proven with all the little things.

 

[Strazdas]

I'm with:

I like to think of it more as "earning" rather than "winning," but that's just me.

This fellow. Winning someones love, to me, implies that love has a price. Which to me it does not, for it's priceless. ♥


Thus I earn. ♥

i have to second that. however i think females should earn their love as much as males.

 

[MakerofMysteries]

snip

snip

In response to the two gentlemen/ladies/individuals above:

I feel that I at this point should stress that I myself do not espouse these precise views on society, relationships etc. and that yes, of course the examples presented above are exaggerated.

So, yes, it is a completely antiquated idea at least in the sense that you are talking about. However, these tropes are just so imbedded in the cultural landscape, I don't think they are going anywhere for a long while.

This explains my thoughts on the matter quite well. It's might also be worth mentioning that my annoyance with this trend stems from the assertions of various acquaintances of mine (mostly females with, IMHO, distorted views on reality and romance). Also worth mentioning might be the fact that I value some of these individuals slightly less than stale cheese and that their intellects and ambitions might as well have been copy pasted from (insert crap reality show here). What worries me is that people whom I actually respect tend to agree with Giggle-Brains and Smash-Drink-Shag whenever the subject is broached; and anyway, this makes for good rant-material.

Finally, I realise that I probably just sound bitter and spiteful, but the Escapist is generally a good place to ask around if you want a decently intelligent, unprejudiced opinion. I feel glimmer of pride for my fellow escapist whenever someone preaches for acceptance and tolerance and equality for people of varying sexualities/genders/ethnicities/creeds/etc and most of the community eagerly nods along. Now, I don't know what I'm talking about, so long. *scampers off*

 

[Nickolai77]

So a lot of movies, books, hell, even games, especially those dating simulators, empathise "winning" someone's love; in fact it's a rather common view throughout society, with deep roots in various fables and legends. As such, my query; why these mad mating rituals?

Perhaps I should explain. If we are to take the stereotypical example of a boy trying to win the girl of his dreams (probably defeating some evil arch nemesis along the way whilst performing a rocking guitar solo), the story usually goes that she initially shows no interest for him, perhaps even disdain, thus prompting him to impress her through various spectacles of supposed affection. In the end, she'll fall for him due to all his wacky, cloying attempts at romance, cut to kisses and wedding scene, the end.

Well, I think the issue is that these stories have roots in certain fairy tales or other old stories.

Recall that "romantic love" or "marrying for love" is a fairly recent concept. Historically, it was more common for marriage to be the results of land mergers between families. Before that, it involved land gifts from lords or their vassals - say a King to his Knights. A knight would have to prove his worth to his king. If he did so, he'd "win" a wife.

Well, what you're saying here largely applies to the aristocracy who would have been mindful to advance up the social and political ladder through marriage, it doesn't account for the other "99%" of the population who were ordinary farmers and small time shopkeepers. Based on when these kind of people started to write things down (around 17th century) i think it's reasonable to say that they married for love based on what they wrote in their personal diaries and what was circulating through popular ballads at the time.

Personally, i think ordinary people throughout history have always married out of love, the writings of the aristocracy (which understandably dominate historical literature) complicate things by throwing in social advancement into the equation as a major factor to consider (but not the only one, they considered love and genuine compatibility as well)- but one shouldn't draw the conclusion that romantic love is a new concept for all because a load of rich people wrote about marrying for reasons other than love. Their writings arn't representative of the broader population.

Going back further, think of the animal kingdom in general. Males often have to do mating rituals to impress a female for the purposes of breeding. Why? To prove that they're superior genetic stock. The female deer wants strong children, so she mates with the buck that kills three other bucks in one-on-one combat.

Back to fairy tales, the Knight who slays the Dragon, when a dozen other knights fell to it's teeth and breath, has proven that he is superior genetic stock.

All of this has seeped into the collective consciousness. Today, men get into fights to impress women, or buy fancy cars to show how wealthy they are. These are ways of proving that they are superior genetic stock and thus attract a mate.

Is this a good thing? No. Not it is not. There are better ways to choose today.

I'd drink to that! The social emphasis on males impressing females has always really annoyed me. I agree it's probably rooted in our evolution but it's very much reinforced by popular culture. It encourages some dickish behaviour in males, encourages women to be romantically passive and it disadvantages a lot of other males who arn't so forward in their nature. I'd love to see dating conventions become more egalitarian, but even in an age after feminism it hasn't happened.

 

[MetalMagpie]

My boyfriend didn't need to do anything to "win" my love, and I didn't need to do anything to "win" his. And it wasn't "love at first sight" (which I suspect may be a myth anyway).

It was "he's quite cute" at first sight, then as we got to know each other we hit it off more and more. Having-a-laugh gradually turned into flirting and friendly messing around turned into an excuse to hold hands. Then one day he invited me to his halls room to watch a DVD and during a quiet part of the film we kissed. (The film was Pulp Fiction, which makes this story a little less romantic.)

Anyway, there was never a distinct moment when I moved from "not in love" to "in love". In fact, it was six months into our relationship before I felt comfortable enough to say the magic words "I love you". And it was a couple of years before I realised that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with this guy.

TLDR In my experience, love develops over time. It doesn't turn on like a light-switch.

 

[Shraggler]

I hate the idea of "winning" someone's love because the guy is doing all the work while the girl just sits back and reaps the benefits.

Hahahahahaha, that sounds so bitter. Oh my gerd, I just pissed myself laughing. Gross. Urine.

OT: I think it's a load of shit. Winning someone's love seems arbitrary and shallow. "You must defeat X and attain Y in order to bang me." Fuck you.

 

[Not Matt]

okay. love is not won it's developed. it is the evolved form of trust and affection both of which have to be earned. notice how nobody says "i love you" before they have gotten to know each other well enough (before you ask, no i don't believe in love at first sight). real life isn't super Mario where if you do something to "win the girl" she is instantly in love with you. the real world doesn't work like that no matter how many turtles you jump on

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

It's a load of bollocks. Whatever you do for someone if they aren't attracted to you there is sod all you can do. No amount of presents or sweet words is going to change that.

Also, don't slay endangered creatures, girls don't like that shit.

 

[Smeatza]

It's just nature.

The male Walrus must fight other males to prove his is the strongest, and therefore best father for the female's child.

The male human must prove his ability to provide what the female human desires from a relationship (and by assumption, from the father of her child).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Well, what you're saying here largely applies to the aristocracy who would have been mindful to advance up the social and political ladder through marriage, it doesn't account for the other "99%" of the population who were ordinary farmers and small time shopkeepers.

True. However, they weren't the ones having bardly tales written about them, which is how the concept that the OP is referencing entered the collective consciousness.

As for the other 99% - I'm sure some of it was love. Some of it was also probably "you knocked up my daughter so you'll marry her or I'll cave your skull in!" Which is marriage due to sex, but not necessarily what modern viewers would necessarily consider love.

I'd drink to that! The social emphasis on males impressing females has always really annoyed me. I agree it's probably rooted in our evolution but it's very much reinforced by popular culture. It encourages some dickish behaviour in males, encourages women to be romantically passive and it disadvantages a lot of other males who arn't so forward in their nature. I'd love to see dating conventions become more egalitarian, but even in an age after feminism it hasn't happened.

After feminism? Feminism is still around, and still working to bring equality to women. We're better than we ever have been, historically, but better doesn't necessarily mean good or done. The world has changed a lot for women in the past 20 years. We aren't there yet, but we're closer than we've ever been. We need to keep going another few decades or so.

To that point, when I was in high school, the idea of asking a man out (to say nothing of a woman) was insane. That was the early 90s, mind, but I still wasn't going to be asking anyone out.

By the early 2000s, just 10 years later, I was asking people out without difficulty. The social landscape changed that much in just 10 years.

So yeah, give it time. A decade can make a huge difference.