For some reason, a number of newspapers all came out with articles about a new show on CBS (airing tonight apparently) called Love Monkey (thank you Google News).
So I Googled it, watched the trailer, and low and behold, my defamation of non-traditional relationships sensors went off. See what I mean:
Boy: Marriage does have its benefits…laughter…
Girl: You’re never going to propose to me are you?
Boy: Yeah, what, no, you said you didn’t believe in marriage. Is this a joke?
Girl: You can’t keep swinging from branch to branch, eventually you’re going to have to pick one and settle down.
Boy: Oh c’mon, what is it with you and this settling…I’m not just going to pick any old random branch, it has to be a smart, funny, pretty, sexually adept branch. It’s the perfect branch.
Girl: If you keep looking for the perfect branch, you’re going to end up one lonely monkey.
All I gotta say is, what’s so wrong with being alone or swinging from branch to branch?
Eventually yours arms get tired and you end up somwhere you didn’t want to be.
I disagree. But them I’m kind of a naive believer in the Candide-esque philosophy that this is the best of all possible world.
Or to put it slightly differently, I believe that where I am now is a direct function of where I was before. If I end up somewhere I don’t want to be, then I’m making bad branch jumping decisions. I’m a fan of making good decisions.
And I’m not expecting my arms to get tired until I’m like 70.
Btw, I’ve extended “branch” to represent any experience or place in life, not just girls.
While the quote from the show was namely about girls, I, too, extended to experiences, places, and things. Also, I am glad you disagree. I should note, though, that I did not intend my comment to be accusatory. In retrospect, it sort of seems like it might be.
Kudos to you that your arms are so strong. :) Some people are more comfortable constantly “on the move” while others need some sort of solid foundation. However, based on discussions we’ve had I have some questions.
You extend “branch” to places, but you’ve noted your apprehension of having a live-in girlfriend on the grounds that you really enjoy your living space and don’t really want someone moving in and changing all your stuff. Home is home, after all; a safe place. It is your fortress against the outside world in more than just the physical sense. It would seem to me your theory on brachiation of places doesn’t really apply here. Or am I misunderstanding your delineation?
If not, then it seems your idea (or, rather, my understanding of it) is a bit muddle. Swinging from branch to branch is alright for certain ideas, places, or things. But for others, a little solidarity is required, no?
Your move. :)
Re: accusatory, no offense taken. I’m just sparring on this topic with you for fun. Feel free to bring it!
Ha to “live-in girlfriend” that sounds funny to my ears, kind of like a live-in nanny. Your comments, though I’m sure unintentional, seem to suggest by default that the female, who would be less stable/situated in your scenario would be moving in with the male. However, if I was to map out a successful living-together strategy, it would probably require the couple move to a new place together so as to subvert any established routine or sense of space ownership. Oh yeah, and if I was to suggest an important attribute in a partner, self-sufficiency would be pretty close to the top of my list.
But that’s really another matter entirely.
I would reply to your query by saying that being content or comfortable somewhere is not necessarily the opposite of swinging from branch to branch. I may just be resting on a branch. What concerns me more is the second half of the assertion of one of the characters in the advertisement for the pilot for this TV show I’ve never seen:
My feeling is, settling down (in the broader sense) is death. I interpret that statement above as “you can’t keep leading a rich, interesting, diverse, non-traditional life, you have to choose one boring thing (like the rest of us!) and do only that for the rest of your life.”
What spectacularly crappy advice when viewed from that perspective. But the idea of “settling down” is so ingrained in our culture that we barely bat an eye at how offensive that advice really is.
Re: female moving in with the male. I chose this scenario because I am engaged in dialogue with you. The roles would have been reversed were I talked with some female. Simply put, if person A is content in their habitat, they are less likely to want to move to person B’s habitat.
That said, I understand your point of view, now, and agree with you whole-heartedly. That is, in fact, spectacularly crappy advice and I am left with nothing more than this: maybe that quote is taken out of context. Maybe, and this is a strech, Boy from the quoted conversation is (unbeknownst to the humble viewer) has had a string of terrible relationships due to ridiculous choices made due to his view on brachiation. And perhaps (and likely closer to the truth) you were right and society just hates wanderers.
Either way I think we need to take a long, hard look at the phrase “..sexually adept branch…” and reflect on ourselves for a moment.
My grasp of grammer is without equal. Just check my previous comment.
My feeling is, settling down (in the broader sense) is death. I interpret that statement above as “you can’t keep leading a rich, interesting, diverse, non-traditional life, you have to choose one boring thing (like the rest of us!) and do only that for the rest of your life.”
Hear hear! Hell yes.
Getting a vote of confidence from Robin totally made my day.
Matt, re:
I think you’re on to something here. The advice I’d give someone in the scenario is “stop making stupid decisions” assuming they even wanted to advice, as opposed to “stop making decisions, period” which is what “settle down” equates to in my mind.
And if you sat down and watched all the stupid cast member interviews (as I did) you’d discover that the girl character dispensing the advice might have some romantic interest in our “boy.” But of course he’s distracted by more exotic properties [excuse my shameless objectification of women right there].
Which I have to admit, makes the advice all the more confounding. If you’re attracted to someone, but they’re oblivious, the last thing you’d probably want to tell them is that they should “settle down.”
i actually downloaded and watched this show of which we speak, and it was appalling to watch this very decent, fun-seeming guy (doesn’t hurt that the actor is very good) get pummelled by his doltish, questionably-intentioned friends as they attempted to forcibly mold his life for him.
If the show really were the Sex and the City ripoff people are claiming it to be, then it would be a lot more fun. The boy would get to fuck around, sans emotional duplicity from the “best friend” and we would get to live vicariously. However, the networks still think that what the viewin audience really loves is for the masculine “playa” stereotype to be inverted and watch the poor bachelor turn all gushy and pine for a wife. Don’t be the poor bachelor, J.
Yecchh. This show is gonna blow.
Wow, you even went so far as to watch the whole show?! I felt bad tearing it apart for it’s trailer (figuring it couldn’t be that bad after all the actors praised the “writing”) but I guess it’s one of those cases where the trailer couldn’t save the movie.