Haha, it didn't tug any of my strings but it's a very very well down product video nonetheless. Way beyond the usual, hey look at feature 1, 2, 3 etc. Love that it tells a little story and actually includes some drama instead of just all cheer. Kudos to whoever came up with that one.
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?
> 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.