Is love self-serving self-delusion ?


The movie is very deep not because it advocates certain political views but because it challenges us with conflicting views and situations. And in the end it does not indoctrinate us (as many critics would mistakenly assert) but it rather opens our mind up to ponder. On one hand there is exploitation between classes, on the other hand there is exploitation between sexes. Exploited proletarian males exploit their women, possibly, as some form of “punching bag” to release one’s gathered anger. “Exploiters”, the rich men, in contrary let their women “exploit” them. However rich women, deep inside, perhaps even not aware about it, rather be exploited than exploit.

While “class exploitation” is an accurate term, “sex exploitation” might be a misnomer if that what women want. Well, it’s just a biological fact that primordial woman wants a strong man who can assert power, perhaps through occasional slap, without being gratuitously abusive though. A man who is assertive, perhaps even aggressive with his woman is likely to get his way with other men and thus ensuring “a larger piece of meat” for his family.

A modern woman doesn’t need physically aggressive men, since the modern world relies much more on brain power than muscle power. Flimsy but mentally shrewd men can become financially much more successful than strong but dull men, and thus exert control over the later through economical and/or political systems. Subsequently the modern woman normally would rather gravitate toward successful, rich softies rather than macho losers. Except when they found themselves on an abandoned island.

And on that abandoned island here comes the “love”. But what is love ? Self-serving self-delusion ?

reply

The message is a simple one...women and men are most happy in the roles God intended.

reply

The message is a simple one...women and men are most happy in the roles God intended


Who's God? Certainly not mine.

reply

Well..I hope you're happy. I was just discussing what the meaning of this movie was. I wasn't trying to start a debate, although I do agree with it.

reply

[deleted]

The only thing I found striking about their interaction: Two individuals with a shared personality "found" eachother in an environment outside of structured society. Class lines didn't matter, given the circumstances. In matters of class, they were rich/poor counterparts leading parallel lives: Both were difficult, self consumed and motivated by aggression. While I wouldn't exactly call what they had functional, it was--somehow--found to be satisfying for both.

...and as a bit of advice to the previous poster: It's difficult to make a comment along the lines of "Men and women behaving properly in the roles God intended", regarding men as dominant and women as passive...and not spark a debate. It's a very debateable subject and I'm sure many would readily share their opinions regarding that notion.

reply

What do women want? Well, I can't speak for all of them, as for myself...certainly not a physically abusive one but one that can understand and handle me, with love, compassion and a firm "hand" when necessary. I cannot stand a whimp or a man I perceive I can walk all over. Definitely he has to have a sense of humor, and be reliable, responsible and dependable, but can be spontaneous at times too.

Yeah, he can't be a dope, either. I've tried the 'no brainers' - oh have I tried - guys I don't know how you can date a woman on looks only and not be able to talk to them at all? I just couldn't do it, and I mean he was HOT, but when he opened his mouth...aw geez I knew it was doomed. Now I have my sights set on one with BOTH beauty AND brains, and FUNNY, reliable, etc. etc. Plus he can handle me. Turned me from a tough, independent bitch, into making me wanna wash his clothes and say, "yes master." Go figure.

reply

[deleted]