Jump to content

Society defaults to romantic


Arvid of Rivendell

Recommended Posts

Arvid of Rivendell

In the Zorp-forsaken year of 2016, after watching Zootopia with my family, my brother and I disagreed on the relationship between the movie's leads, Judy and Nick. Near the end of the movie, there is a short piece of dialogue:

Nick: Sly bunny.

Judy: D*mb fox.

N: You know you love me.

J: Do I know that? [pauses] Yes. Yes, I do. 

Maybe it's just because I'm aromantic, but I had read their relationship as platonic. To me, they were really good friends who weren't afraid to say that they loved each other. In the dialogue, I saw myself and my best friend (who I am not afraid to say "I love you" to). I was excited because this scene/movie was, indirectly, representation for me, and there were no canon romantic feelings or relationships established. However, because of the above dialogue, my brother was convinced that Nick and Judy were romantically involved with each other.

 

People can't seem to comprehend that a non-romantic relationship between a (assumed) man and a (assumed) woman is a possibility. If a guy and a girl are close and express love (a word that is very subjective) for each other in some way, people assume romance, even if that romance is nonexistent. In fact, this probably extends to LGBT+ literature; if a character is lesbian/gay and has a friend who is a girl/boy, it'll probably be assumed that a romance will form. People and society default to romantic when there is ambiguity. Does anyone ever get annoyed by this, or is it just me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While most people do feel romantic attraction, the majority of a person's relations are platonic. They just don't seem to remember that, especially when looking at people who are both single and platonic friends with each other. I definitely agree that this is aggravating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I watched it, I saw it as a platonic relationship. Maybe people want to see it romantically because they ship them? I don't know. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recently a friend of mine swore she was being flirted with because someone glanced at her. I said, "Uh...and?", and she looked at me like I was the crazy one for not understanding that if you so much as look in someone's general direction for a fraction of a second, you're making a move. 

 

A lot of people have a big problem of reading into everything as some form of romance. Things get especially toxic in certain "fandoms", where merely bringing up the possibility that two characters interacting doesn't have to be romantic is treated like a slap to their face.

 

I guess it's just a natural tendency. I bet there are a great many people who would say that men and women cannot be "just friends" (i.e. either the man or woman or both want some type of relationship, but something's "in the way"), which is silliness, but still more common a belief than you would think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they're platonic personally, but I can see how people would ship them, I think they make a cute couple but don't think that they HAVE to take that route. I like them as friends. But don't really feel too invested in their lives. That said, you felt indirect representation which was moments later denied. I'm sorry that happened and I do think that the idea of platonic friendships between potiental romantic interests is something that should be done more often. Not EVERYTHING has to blossom into true love

 

(I really want to see how nick and Judy handle meeting judy's parents who are a tad foxphobic. Either as friends or lovers, it'd be interesting to see how they handle that)

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Arvid of Rivendell said:

In the Zorp-forsaken year of 2016, after watching Zootopia with my family, my brother and I disagreed on the relationship between the movie's leads, Judy and Nick. Near the end of the movie, there is a short piece of dialogue:

Nick: Sly bunny.

Judy: D*mb fox.

N: You know you love me.

J: Do I know that? [pauses] Yes. Yes, I do. 

Maybe it's just because I'm aromantic, but I had read their relationship as platonic. To me, they were really good friends who weren't afraid to say that they loved each other. In the dialogue, I saw myself and my best friend (who I am not afraid to say "I love you" to). I was excited because this scene/movie was, indirectly, representation for me, and there were no canon romantic feelings or relationships established. However, because of the above dialogue, my brother was convinced that Nick and Judy were romantically involved with each other.

 

People can't seem to comprehend that a non-romantic relationship between a (assumed) man and a (assumed) woman is a possibility. If a guy and a girl are close and express love (a word that is very subjective) for each other in some way, people assume romance, even if that romance is nonexistent. In fact, this probably extends to LGBT+ literature; if a character is lesbian/gay and has a friend who is a girl/boy, it'll probably be assumed that a romance will form. People and society default to romantic when there is ambiguity. Does anyone ever get annoyed by this, or is it just me?

 
 
 

In fiction, the default seems to be romantic more than real life situations. In fiction, any action between two people can be seen as romantic and being one who has done a lot of those said "Romantic" actions I can tell you it's not really romantic. For example, stuff like teaching someone to hold their gun correctly is romantic. I went shooting with an instructor before and there was no romantic tension there. This does happen in real life as well as a lot of people tend to assume any close friendship equals a romance. However, I think it might because of how we view intimacy. We regard certain actions as "Romantic" vs "Friendship" actions. While things like "Full on making out" is most definitely romantic, in my opinion, some things are rather borderline. For example, a kiss on a friends head can be "Intimacy" but not a romance of any sort. In some cultures, you greet with a kiss on a cheek, in American culture, it is considered much differently and reserved for family, lovers, friends. Not strangers! I think it's a cultural thing. While I observe it, it doesn't really annoy me. In fiction, it sometimes does when people say there is clear subtext because "Oh my gosh, they were nice to each other. They are totally dating". Also, the fact fans do it over ANYTHING means we can't adequately point out when it's legitimately happening like *cough* Gotham. Sort of like the story of the boy who cried wolf. I am not going to say which shows I think DO and DO not have subtext though, at least not in this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's annoying.  romance is just the norm.  whether the two characters' relationship is romantic/platonic, that's what analyzation is for.  people interpret things differently.  I'm sure the OP and the OP's brother can both make really convincing arguments for both interpretations

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chieftain-Drake

Their are certain couples in media that have enough chemistry and something else (I can't put my finger on it, there are some that just do better than others) that I'm fine with them being considered a couple, Nick and Judy being one of them. But yeah, romance easily irritates me in the way that it floods out everything that's really important in life or a story. I'm not disgusted by romance, definitely not, but most romance I see (or mentions, thereof) grates on my nerves.

I'd assume that the reason people are like this is because we're introduced to the concept of romance at a young age. Most classic Disney and Dreamworks movies (and many newer ones) pull us into the idea that romance is essential to living a full life. Since we grow up being taught this, it becomes as important to some people as oxygen, and they end up seeking any opportunity to take it.

I wouldn't know though, that's just what I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the movies where I recognize the romance in a negative way is 20th Century Fox/Don Bluth Animation Studios- Anastasia (1997) (No It's NOT a Disney film people...frustrates me when people call it Disney- it's like saying HTTYD is Disney 😒)

 

It bothers me that both characters start out NOT liking each other one bit, but putting up with each other...and then in what seems like less than a month (movie's timeframe)- suddenly they're eloping?? Like what?? 

Like I still Enjoy the movie- it's that part of it that bugs me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

It irritates the crap out of me, in RL and fiction I'm sick of every close non-familial relationship being seen as romantic. A guy at the group I go to is convinced I have "feelings" for my friend because we text a lot and I smile when talking about her. Like jeez, I smile when I think about my dog (I've been unable to teach her to text though).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvid of Rivendell
2 minutes ago, Toothlesss said:

One of the movies where I recognize the romance in a negative way is 20th Century Fox/Don Bluth Animation Studios- Anastasia (1997) (No It's NOT a Disney film people...frustrates me when people call it Disney- it's like saying HTTYD is Disney 😒)

 

It bothers me that both characters start out NOT liking each other one bit, but putting up with each other...and then in what seems like less than a month (movie's timeframe)- suddenly they're eloping?? Like what?? 

Like I still Enjoy the movie- it's that part of it that bugs me. 

I agree. I prefer Anastasia to most Disney and/or princess movies, but I think the story would have been more tolerable (and realistic) if they went from enemies to friends. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

Unfortunately Judy and Nick fall into the obligatory romance that movies put into everything.

 

Although, the nature of their species does give me a certain feeling that maybe their trying to pass off a good friendship disguised as a romance since even Judy says "a bunny can call another bunny cute, but when other mammals do it...." earlier on in the film. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally felt that the movie, being aimed at kids, WAS going for a 'best friends', like the good old 'buddy cop movie' relationship. I thought that was the intent, but I do also like seeing the romantic fan comics, because the two DO have a high level of trust that lends itself well to a successful romance. They're good as friends, their good as a couple, so the only reason I prefer to see it as a friendship in the movie itself if to buck the stereotype of 'leading man and leading woman must become an item'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the relationship between Nick and Judy as platonic too, and hadn't even considered the possibility of a romantic relationship being implied until my sister mentioned it. I'm fine either way; I'll be happy if it stays platonic and I'll be happy if it evolves into a romance, 'cause I know the two characters already like each other as friends and that won't change either way, they'll still be happy together regardless of the nature of their relationship. 

 

Society does seem to default to romance, and I'm not altogether sure why. I honestly can't tell if it's just a natural thing for the majority of the population because it isn't grey/aro, or if it's a learned behavior/conditioning from an early age (looking at you, Disney <_<). Or maybe it's a combination of both? It's hard to say. *shrugs*

 

I dunno, but if I had to guess why, I'd say it's because people seem to feel a need to define things; they dislike ambiguity, and would rather potentially misidentify a relationship as romantic than deal with the fact that it is ambiguous. As a result, you see society as a whole having a hard time understanding that a very close non familial relationship that's more than a friendship doesn't necessarily equal a romance. This is all just speculation, of course, but that's been my observation anyway.

 

It does annoy me, sometimes, that everyone feels the need to shoehorn romance into every storyline. Not everyone needs it to be happy, so it's just unrealistic for that to be the "happy ending" in every. Single. Story. *eyeroll* It gets old real fast. But then again, that might just be my aceness and ambiguous romantic orientation talking. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I haven't seen Zootopia, but I think something similar happens in Rogue One (SPOILERS!). Jyn and Cassian hug at the end of the movie, and a lot of people view that as proof they were in love. But I don't see why that means that they can't have been "just friends." If my best friend and I were about to die, I think we would hug! ChirrutxBaze is another popular ship, and I don't get it. LGBT representation is awesome, but is there any actual evidence, besides the fact that as far as we know, they don't have any other romantic partners, that their relationship was romantic? Maybe I'm just bad at picking up on romantic subtext, but most of the popular non-canon ships make no sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great example with the end of Rogue One, I thought the same thing. In fact, I was so glad they never kissed because it felt like a stronger bond that way. 

 

In literature there are a lot of great, loving friendships. Harry and Hermione, Frodo and Sam, Aviendha and Elayne, the list goes on. I love when authors explore these deep friendships and show how beautiful they can be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.2.2017 at 7:30 PM, Polygon said:

I guess it's just a natural tendency. I bet there are a great many people who would say that men and women cannot be "just friends" (i.e. either the man or woman or both want some type of relationship, but something's "in the way"), which is silliness, but still more common a belief than you would think. 

I believe that this is because of the lack of credit the terms "friends/friendship" get. Sometimes it seems as if you don't want to punch someone in their face instantly upon talking to them, you're "friends". It's very well possible to develop romantic feelings towards someone you don't want to punch instantly at some point in your life (at least for romantic folks). Boom, point "proved".

Link to post
Share on other sites
NerotheReaper

It wasn't referring to "I love you", as a romantic partner. It was more of a platonic love or a brother and sister love. 

 

"Love" doesn't always mean romantic, like when you say you love your pet. It doesn't mean you want to date your pet, it just means you care about them a lot. And they mean something to you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...