This is something I posted on FB as a note. I thought if it's already public on FB for an even wider audience to see, might as well post it on my blog too.
The Case of the Curious Conundrum - A response
I'm penning this as a response to a note I was tagged in, primarily because the topic interests me. For the benefit of my friends who clicked their way here out of curiosity, the topic of discussion is as follows:
"Everyone loves stories of redemptions. Maybe that's why chicks dig guys who're asses.... because they want to facilitate that redemption. I mean, to think that a dude changed from his wayward ways to something more normal, because of you, hmmm... it would make you feel pretty good about yourself no?
Furthermore, when I say "guys who're asses" I mean guys who physically abuse and cheat on their women. Something which is not condoned in today's society, well, here at least(I hope). So let's put it into context then, maybe to put it more clearly in layman's terms, and this is something I'd like to understand and hopefully the ladies can help me with their input, why do women keep going back to physically/mentally/emotionally abusive and/or philandering significant others."
I humbly offer my one cent's worth.
Why the appeal in the first place? Bad boys are quite the opposite of boring. They are interesting, exciting and unpredictable. Everything that spells macho.
All the Judith McNaught toxins during the adolescent stage simply do not help. Villain heroes (note the oxymoron) are good looking, hard, insensitive, ruthless. They are arrogant, self-centred troublemakers but they all fall hopelessly in love. Awww. A steeled man having a soft spot for no one else but you. How can any girl not swoon. I would.
I recall an illustration that is absolutely radical – a friend of mine digs these sop romance stories and tells us of one in which the female protagonist was kidnapped and eventually fell in love with the same pirate responsible for her capture (and some sexual assaults). How utterly bizarre and ridiculous, but there you have it. (Yes, for your information we did call it a trashy novel and drowned the poor friend with our exclamations of disgust, complete with the eye-rolllings.)
Females are creatures of emotions. We feel a lot, think too much and are highly intuitive. The tendency for girls who are emotionally attached is to hang on. The experience and history of the relationship means too much to be let go; rather it is to be treasured. Being naïve creatures, we equally believe (and can actually hope) that the other party will feel the same. A common tendency/mistake/over-sight (whatever) is that these girls believe that a change is possible and people learn from mistakes. Afterall males are slow to mature but they grow to be sensible over time, or at least they are supposed to. The male protagonists in the novels and movies always give up everything for the one woman. And you would clock a hundred brownie points plus an A-star for being the sweetest partner who never left but chose to forgive, wouldn’t you? Top that with the knowledge that this wayward son is changing himself for no one else but you. (Yes Fuzzy, everyone loves stories of redemptions, particularly when it’s because of you.)
The number one male defense so commonly used is that of the primal nature of man.
Man hunt and kill for survival. The idea of monogamy is unnatural, only introduced by law and largely in protection of the interests of females. The caveman struts behind a random cavewoman, up swings the club and back to the cave with the unconscious female in a fireman's lift. How accurate this version of early man is, I do not know. But even a female like me has this stereotype in my mind in which the roles are pretty clearly defined – to put it bluntly, man just whack lah, girls stay in the cave and mind their own business. How subservient.
It is convenient and understandable to presume that it is natural to evolve to modern man with similar primal nature.
I say, the same evolution brings about the current civilisation. Who we are today is moulded by a set of moral values, ethics and conscience – the very same traits that defines humankind in the first place, aside from intelligence. So, primal nature serves as a very nice logical and possibly plausible explanation but no excuse.
Sadly, most females are naïve. The worst that can happen is that females actually buy into this primal theory. Suddenly the tolerance bar is raised by leaps and bounds as it appears inevitable that such mistakes happen. We should understand and compromise as “it is just a mistake and they do not mean it”. That is true, why would someone who loves you hurt you emotionally/physically – it was just a mistake.
The fundamental flaw in this thought is the irony within. Why would someone who loves you hurt you emotionally/physically – he doesn’t.
My take in layman’s terms and my simple english. Not intending for you to agree/disagree.
Chatboard (0)