Loved this post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I love how you call out the Red Pill extremists for their interjection into every form of “proof” that women are no-moral having whores and every man is good intentioned and sorry sad sacks who get taken advantage of these manipulative hussies. When really they, like Rose, are just 17yr old girls coming into womanhood and maturity and just falling into love with men that make them feel wanted and important. Broke or rich doesn’t matter as much as kind and interesting (and ofc handsome/muscular) . Love your work, please keep informing and sharing with us
People are really ill informed on puritanical cultural influence and what periods it emerged in and why. It’s always a phase that comes and goes. People get too wild and bam, Puritanism gains popularity. It’s cyclical.
Women were not always required to be chaste nor do I think we are wired to. The Bible aids us in overcoming animalistic instinct by showing us how and why to choose a wiser path, but women do fall to lust much in the same way men do. It’s been a real tragedy to see healthy female sexuality demonized by extremism on the Left and Right.
The irony is that Cal, Rose, and Jack were all fictional characters of the actual ship and took away the real-life tragedy of what happened that fateful night. The actual museum, when it was still there in Orlando, Fl., did not mention those three characters at all. Cameron knew the only way the audience could be invested in a movie of this scale, was to create a fictitious love story; which was apropos in that era of film-making.
The actual documentary was far more gripping than the love story.
I accidentally deleted your reply to my reply! Sorry! But I really enjoyed our conversation in the comments section today and hope you chime in again in the future!
["...I was analyzing from an emotional point of view if I were to direct "emotion" in that film. The blood-stained life jackets that were recovered would have done an excellent job at that. Otherwise; it truly is a boring story. Ships sails. Ship hits iceberg. People die. Ship go down. Except...some of the people on that ship were against the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Hmm..."]
I think it’s so funny you say that because to me, 50% of the pleasure of the film as a viewer is the maritime physics and tragedy coverage and the other 50% is the love story. My husband and I were watching it recently and mostly analyzing how the ship fell apart and the logistics of casualties and rescues.
I don’t think men wish they were broke like jack; probably handsome and charming as who wouldn’t! But broke no because men know that women value resources and will move on to someone who has them and also happens to be charming. The aura of Jack would’ve worn off Rose as soon as they got off the boat and real life hit her like a ton of bricks. Rent still needs to be paid and charm won’t get one out of it.
Pining (like Rose pined for Jack for a few days) isn’t a good basis for a relationship. And those women who pine for broke men are also not the women men typically want for a relationship either. They may have sex with them (which man wouldn’t want to have sex with someone pining over them?!) but the scenario you describe doesn’t make the basis of a love story in real life.
Formerly completely broke womaniser here. The women who pined over me back when I was broke not only wanted my babies (not a supposition), they actively provided for me. I didn't ask for it; they paid my way without me ever asking for anything. The point is, if you've never experienced women in this way, you probably can't even imagine them gladly doing such things, with love. If sufficiently attracted and in love, women will do just about anything and suffer just about anything. In such cases, when scorned, they keep coming back, begging for love, hating that they love you.
I'll put it in a different way then. Do you not see the value in a woman who wants nothing more than to be with you, belong to you, and is willing to walk through literal hell to be with you and take care of your needs? The fact that it is misplaced with some men is irrelevant to that.
What women miss about "angry men online." Latent purpose is not to coerce attractive women into to remaining perfect virgin brides for men who lack value. Rather, to remind women that men (and other women) clock every sexual decision they make. IOW. It's not about what Rose should have done. Rather to signal to women that exercising sexual agency always carries a cost.
Pre-HBC, this didn't look like angry men online, but it was ever-present. Post-HBC, we reached a zenith of permissiveness, the state of "ruthless hypergamy" we're still living thru (aided by other tech advancements). My guess is permissiveness only exists because enough men think it's an effective sexual strategy. These men confuse permissiveness with discretion, or are too thirsty to care.
Being butthurt and resentful toward women IRL is unattractive. Discretion (which masquerades as permissiveness) is the attractive, strategic, pro-social alternative. But from the safety and comfort of the internet, these men merely express the eternal paternal instinct. And your impulse to DEER for Rose means it has some effect.
But not much. We still live in a culture where "empowered" women are perplexed by the idea that Rose might have to answer for any choice she makes. Eventually they become filled with resentment if/when they are on the losing end of the reality that men never stop noticing, never stop keeping score.
I do not think men clock every sexual decision women make. I’ve seen too many men marry women in their thirties or with prior children to think or believe that.
"or are too thirsty to care" or have their own reasons for taking their actions. Clocking a woman's decision doesn't mean men automatically deem everything she does unacceptable, or make her permanently damaged. But everything is noted.
Loved this post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I love how you call out the Red Pill extremists for their interjection into every form of “proof” that women are no-moral having whores and every man is good intentioned and sorry sad sacks who get taken advantage of these manipulative hussies. When really they, like Rose, are just 17yr old girls coming into womanhood and maturity and just falling into love with men that make them feel wanted and important. Broke or rich doesn’t matter as much as kind and interesting (and ofc handsome/muscular) . Love your work, please keep informing and sharing with us
People are really ill informed on puritanical cultural influence and what periods it emerged in and why. It’s always a phase that comes and goes. People get too wild and bam, Puritanism gains popularity. It’s cyclical.
Women were not always required to be chaste nor do I think we are wired to. The Bible aids us in overcoming animalistic instinct by showing us how and why to choose a wiser path, but women do fall to lust much in the same way men do. It’s been a real tragedy to see healthy female sexuality demonized by extremism on the Left and Right.
Thanks for reading Samantha!
The irony is that Cal, Rose, and Jack were all fictional characters of the actual ship and took away the real-life tragedy of what happened that fateful night. The actual museum, when it was still there in Orlando, Fl., did not mention those three characters at all. Cameron knew the only way the audience could be invested in a movie of this scale, was to create a fictitious love story; which was apropos in that era of film-making.
The actual documentary was far more gripping than the love story.
I accidentally deleted your reply to my reply! Sorry! But I really enjoyed our conversation in the comments section today and hope you chime in again in the future!
I found my comment. Thank goodness for email. lol
["...I was analyzing from an emotional point of view if I were to direct "emotion" in that film. The blood-stained life jackets that were recovered would have done an excellent job at that. Otherwise; it truly is a boring story. Ships sails. Ship hits iceberg. People die. Ship go down. Except...some of the people on that ship were against the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Hmm..."]
No worries! I read interesting articles like yours. 😊
I think it’s so funny you say that because to me, 50% of the pleasure of the film as a viewer is the maritime physics and tragedy coverage and the other 50% is the love story. My husband and I were watching it recently and mostly analyzing how the ship fell apart and the logistics of casualties and rescues.
I don’t think men wish they were broke like jack; probably handsome and charming as who wouldn’t! But broke no because men know that women value resources and will move on to someone who has them and also happens to be charming. The aura of Jack would’ve worn off Rose as soon as they got off the boat and real life hit her like a ton of bricks. Rent still needs to be paid and charm won’t get one out of it.
How do you explain broke men with multiple women pining over them then?
Pining (like Rose pined for Jack for a few days) isn’t a good basis for a relationship. And those women who pine for broke men are also not the women men typically want for a relationship either. They may have sex with them (which man wouldn’t want to have sex with someone pining over them?!) but the scenario you describe doesn’t make the basis of a love story in real life.
Formerly completely broke womaniser here. The women who pined over me back when I was broke not only wanted my babies (not a supposition), they actively provided for me. I didn't ask for it; they paid my way without me ever asking for anything. The point is, if you've never experienced women in this way, you probably can't even imagine them gladly doing such things, with love. If sufficiently attracted and in love, women will do just about anything and suffer just about anything. In such cases, when scorned, they keep coming back, begging for love, hating that they love you.
Does that not align with what i said anywhere? I can’t see where or how.
I'll put it in a different way then. Do you not see the value in a woman who wants nothing more than to be with you, belong to you, and is willing to walk through literal hell to be with you and take care of your needs? The fact that it is misplaced with some men is irrelevant to that.
I do see the value in that. Not saying I don’t. I think you want me to hold that as a supreme value over and above all others.
What women miss about "angry men online." Latent purpose is not to coerce attractive women into to remaining perfect virgin brides for men who lack value. Rather, to remind women that men (and other women) clock every sexual decision they make. IOW. It's not about what Rose should have done. Rather to signal to women that exercising sexual agency always carries a cost.
Pre-HBC, this didn't look like angry men online, but it was ever-present. Post-HBC, we reached a zenith of permissiveness, the state of "ruthless hypergamy" we're still living thru (aided by other tech advancements). My guess is permissiveness only exists because enough men think it's an effective sexual strategy. These men confuse permissiveness with discretion, or are too thirsty to care.
Being butthurt and resentful toward women IRL is unattractive. Discretion (which masquerades as permissiveness) is the attractive, strategic, pro-social alternative. But from the safety and comfort of the internet, these men merely express the eternal paternal instinct. And your impulse to DEER for Rose means it has some effect.
But not much. We still live in a culture where "empowered" women are perplexed by the idea that Rose might have to answer for any choice she makes. Eventually they become filled with resentment if/when they are on the losing end of the reality that men never stop noticing, never stop keeping score.
I do not think men clock every sexual decision women make. I’ve seen too many men marry women in their thirties or with prior children to think or believe that.
"or are too thirsty to care" or have their own reasons for taking their actions. Clocking a woman's decision doesn't mean men automatically deem everything she does unacceptable, or make her permanently damaged. But everything is noted.