White Male Victims: Boo-Fucking-Hoo

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah. My very important Duckie post was lost when the server crashed.

Oh, well.

I can't decide if I feel passionately enough about it to rewrite it.
But I can tell you one thing-- it's a whole hell of a lot easier to feel passionate for a young Andrew McCarthy ( ) than a young Jon Cryer. Even when Andy McC is playing a vapid rich kid. Sorry, Jon.

LOL - yeah, the chicks always did seem to dig Andy mcCarthy.

But, when I read the "Duckie is a Predator" bit of that stupid article, I busted out laughing, at the same time as I felt horror that there are people out there that would actually consider the behavior exhibited in Duckie's character in that movie to be "Predatory."

It seems to boil down to these ApeLuster's belief, which they likely don't even acknowledge themselves, that if a man gets emotionally upset at being rejected by a woman, that he is doing something wrong.

And, there is no recognition by these Apelusters that there are cultural customs that occur in dating and relationships -- and, that it might be cause for a teenage boy to think a teenage girl might be interested in him if certain signals are sent. They seem to equate this with men "expecting that any woman they're interested in must sleep with them."

All right, then, since you responded, this isn't exactly what I wrote the first time out, but here goes:

I remember, for years, people (girls and boys, or women and men, alike) chiding Molly Ringwald for not choosing Duckie over Andrew McCarthy (seems telling that Jon Cryer's character is the only one who gets called by name. Telling of what, exactly, I'm not sure.)

Because Duckie was "so nice," and "really went out of his way for her," and he "deserved to win the girl in the end."

Well. If you've watched the movie as often as I have, you'd know that while Molly R is certainly affectionate towards Duckie in a friendly way, she is clear, time and again and in no uncertain terms, that she will never want to have the sexytimes with him, and he really oughtta just back off. She cares about him enough that she doesn't break off the friendship over it, but you can see there are times when she's really frustrated with him, and she lets him know. In words. No expecting him to read her mind about it or anything.

She is interested in Andrew McCarthy. Which, well, I've gotta say, that era of Andrew McCarthy (even more his character in St. Elmo's Fire, but still) makes my knees weak and my heart all aflutter. I don't know why. It's not like he "deserves" it-- but deserving it just isn't how romantic attraction works-- as evidenced by the countless time the goofy girl with the heart of gold doesn't win the guy of her dreams. That's just the pissedness of l'amour.

And Andy McC's character steps up to the plate, goes to the prom stag so he can tell the girl in the homemade dress (the really godawful homemade dress, incidentally, but whatever, it's a moment ) that he's "always believed in her."

So it's not like Duckie's getting tossed over for some frat-boy rapist or anything. Which he realizes (FINALLY!) when he tells her to go after him, so they can make out in the rain.

And THEN, Duckie gets the sexy eyes from a richie girl at the prom who likes his duds, and the audience knows that this goofy but great guy who tried too hard is going to get interest from women who see him and feel the sexy feelings.

Happy endings all around.

Now, if the movie had stopped dead at the scene where he's pulling the fire alarm at her work so she'll come deal with him instead of being able to talk to anyone else, I'd agree he would seem predatory. But that's not who he is. He's a boy, who makes some mistakes learning how to love people. He doesn't "deserve" Molly Ringwald. But he's not evil.

I agree with you, 98%. The place where I disagree is where you say if the movie stopped dead where he pulls the fire alarm, he's "predatory."

I will add and reiterate that the problem with the "Duckie is a Predator" line is that even if he was a moonstruck teenager who wouldn't stop "trying" to get his childhood crush to love him back, he can't possibly be described as a "Predator." Even the scene where he pulls a fire alarm. He's hurt. Just because it's not Molly Ringwald's fault doesn't delegitimize his feelings. People get hurt from having their love left unrequited. They feel rejected. They try and try to "rationalize" what could it be that they did or didn't do that makes them not attractive while the other person is picked instead. This is not rational behavior. It's not saying women "owe" men anything or are "obligated." Duckie is a 17 year old boy who didn't fit in in high school and had few friends. He was an oddball, and the one person who accepted him was Molly Ringwald, who he grew up with and had some heavy feelings for. She has every right to "not be in love" with him. She didn't do anything wrong. But, since when does that mean that a person who is rejected is a "Predator" if they pleadingly wonder why, or [gasp - horror] actually get upset about it.

What irks me about these ApeLuster types and the person who wrote the articles above is that they color men - no matter what men do -- with nefarious purposes. Men's sexual desires are, by definition, nefarious. If a man gets upset for being rejected, he's a "predator." If he is emotionally upset because a girl he wants to sleep with wants to "just be friends" then he "thinks she's obligated to fuck him." That isn't the case. Men and women alike will "try" to woo or cajole their love interests. They will act irrationally and try to find some way to coax or stoke romantic feellings in another.

If a guy is told by a woman "I just want to be friends," does he become a "predator" if he still feels love/lust for her and figures he'll still try be around her "as friends" in the hopes that she'll change her mind? (like Duckie did). I don't think so.

If Duckie is a Predator, then the protagonist in the female protagonist of Taylor Swift's song "You Belong With Me" is likewise a predator.



What ApeLusters and their ilk don't get is that boys have these same feelings. She's dreamin' bout the day that what you're lookin' for has been here the whole time. She's waiting at his back door? Creepy, right!? Well, he's already made it clear he's interested in the cheer captain, so why doesn't she just stop, right? Predator!

I'm sure the ApeLusters will pull out some logic about how it's different when men do it. Men, if they do that, they're Predators.

[Coito ergo sum]

The article does make a couple points though:

You don't get to blame the person for your upset at them not being attracted to you. That's goes for all genders though.

The thing is, one thing to which rationality can't really be ascribed is love. People do "blame" the other person in matters of love. People get upset and cry, even though the other person hasn't done a single thing wrong or blameworthy and may have been nothing but kind, caring and considerate. I recall a pre-She Who Must Be Obeyed relationship I had with a woman I "reconnected" with online after many years apart. We had never had a sexual relationship before, but we got to corresponding and chatting online and found we had some things in common that we didn't know about before. Then we found some sexual tension building online. We lived far apart, and there came a time when I was going to be in the area for unrelated reasons, and we talked about getting together and spending the night together. Sex was openly discussed -- there was not any mystery or wonder - we both said we wanted to have sex. Now, I made it literally -- abundantly -- openly -- expressly clear that our relationship couldn't go past that for many reasons -- we lived too far apart, I would never want to move to her area - for reasons in her life, it would be near impossible for her move - and frankly, we only had an online relationship, and that is much different (far more conducive to building sexual suspense and longing than in-person relationships).

So, we got together and had a great time one weekend. We kept in touch, and I kept the communications casual. We still knocked around online, and we talked about when happenstance would let us get together again. But, she started sending me things. Cards. Things she made. And, stuff like that. Then talked about getting together again, but the reason for me coming back to the area disappeared - it was a business reason, that had gotten canceled. So, I had to call and say that unfortunately, I couldn't make it. She got very, very upset with me. Eventually, I had to break it off completely, because what started as an express agreement between the two of us to keep it strictly casual didn't work. She wanted more. And, she kept pushing. She was really, sincerely hurt, because her feelings developed in a way that she did not anticipate, or she figured that once I found out how awesome she was, my feelings would change.

I wasn't "to blame," but her feelings didn't make her "predatory" either. It happens in love. Sometimes it hurts, even when someone didn't do something wrong, and unrequited love making someone upset is not wrong or predatory.

[hadespussercats]

But I find the videos themselves underproduced, poorly delivered and dull as dirt.

It's a webcam post, not a Hollywood production. What does it matter, how well produced it is? The nature of the beast (video blogging) is precisely what she delivers.

Ill-advised, ill-spoken snoozefest 2012.

Evidence, please. If you don't like her, fair dos... but ill-advised? As for ill-spoken... it is obvious that she writes a script and reads it aloud to the webcam. In that regard, they can be considered lacking a certain "oomph", as they lack spontaneity... but she makes her point well (whether you agree with her or not).

You say she makes her points well and is interesting. I disagree. Neither of us have evidence for our opinions, beyond the video in question. Let's leave it at that.

[Cormac]

And can we stop using the word "gender" as if it refers to people? The word is "sex", as in "people of both sexes", or "the male sex or female sex".

"Gender". What a load of bollox.

[hadespussercats]

Ah. My very important Duckie post was lost when the server crashed.

Oh, well.

I can't decide if I feel passionately enough about it to rewrite it.
But I can tell you one thing-- it's a whole hell of a lot easier to feel passionate for a young Andrew McCarthy ( ) than a young Jon Cryer. Even when Andy McC is playing a vapid rich kid. Sorry, Jon.

LOL - yeah, the chicks always did seem to dig Andy mcCarthy.

But, when I read the "Duckie is a Predator" bit of that stupid article, I busted out laughing, at the same time as I felt horror that there are people out there that would actually consider the behavior exhibited in Duckie's character in that movie to be "Predatory."

It seems to boil down to these ApeLuster's belief, which they likely don't even acknowledge themselves, that if a man gets emotionally upset at being rejected by a woman, that he is doing something wrong.

And, there is no recognition by these Apelusters that there are cultural customs that occur in dating and relationships -- and, that it might be cause for a teenage boy to think a teenage girl might be interested in him if certain signals are sent. They seem to equate this with men "expecting that any woman they're interested in must sleep with them."

All right, then, since you responded, this isn't exactly what I wrote the first time out, but here goes:

I remember, for years, people (girls and boys, or women and men, alike) chiding Molly Ringwald for not choosing Duckie over Andrew McCarthy (seems telling that Jon Cryer's character is the only one who gets called by name. Telling of what, exactly, I'm not sure.)

Because Duckie was "so nice," and "really went out of his way for her," and he "deserved to win the girl in the end."

Well. If you've watched the movie as often as I have, you'd know that while Molly R is certainly affectionate towards Duckie in a friendly way, she is clear, time and again and in no uncertain terms, that she will never want to have the sexytimes with him, and he really oughtta just back off. She cares about him enough that she doesn't break off the friendship over it, but you can see there are times when she's really frustrated with him, and she lets him know. In words. No expecting him to read her mind about it or anything.

She is interested in Andrew McCarthy. Which, well, I've gotta say, that era of Andrew McCarthy (even more his character in St. Elmo's Fire, but still) makes my knees weak and my heart all aflutter. I don't know why. It's not like he "deserves" it-- but deserving it just isn't how romantic attraction works-- as evidenced by the countless time the goofy girl with the heart of gold doesn't win the guy of her dreams. That's just the pissedness of l'amour.

And Andy McC's character steps up to the plate, goes to the prom stag so he can tell the girl in the homemade dress (the really godawful homemade dress, incidentally, but whatever, it's a moment ) that he's "always believed in her."

So it's not like Duckie's getting tossed over for some frat-boy rapist or anything. Which he realizes (FINALLY!) when he tells her to go after him, so they can make out in the rain.

And THEN, Duckie gets the sexy eyes from a richie girl at the prom who likes his duds, and the audience knows that this goofy but great guy who tried too hard is going to get interest from women who see him and feel the sexy feelings.

Happy endings all around.

Now, if the movie had stopped dead at the scene where he's pulling the fire alarm at her work so she'll come deal with him instead of being able to talk to anyone else, I'd agree he would seem predatory. But that's not who he is. He's a boy, who makes some mistakes learning how to love people. He doesn't "deserve" Molly Ringwald. But he's not evil.

I agree with you, 98%. The place where I disagree is where you say if the movie stopped dead where he pulls the fire alarm, he's "predatory."

I will add and reiterate that the problem with the "Duckie is a Predator" line is that even if he was a moonstruck teenager who wouldn't stop "trying" to get his childhood crush to love him back, he can't possibly be described as a "Predator." Even the scene where he pulls a fire alarm. He's hurt. Just because it's not Molly Ringwald's fault doesn't delegitimize his feelings. People get hurt from having their love left unrequited. They feel rejected. They try and try to "rationalize" what could it be that they did or didn't do that makes them not attractive while the other person is picked instead. This is not rational behavior. It's not saying women "owe" men anything or are "obligated." Duckie is a 17 year old boy who didn't fit in in high school and had few friends. He was an oddball, and the one person who accepted him was Molly Ringwald, who he grew up with and had some heavy feelings for. She has every right to "not be in love" with him. She didn't do anything wrong. But, since when does that mean that a person who is rejected is a "Predator" if they pleadingly wonder why, or [gasp - horror] actually get upset about it.

What irks me about these ApeLuster types and the person who wrote the articles above is that they color men - no matter what men do -- with nefarious purposes. Men's sexual desires are, by definition, nefarious. If a man gets upset for being rejected, he's a "predator." If he is emotionally upset because a girl he wants to sleep with wants to "just be friends" then he "thinks she's obligated to fuck him." That isn't the case. Men and women alike will "try" to woo or cajole their love interests. They will act irrationally and try to find some way to coax or stoke romantic feellings in another.

If a guy is told by a woman "I just want to be friends," does he become a "predator" if he still feels love/lust for her and figures he'll still try be around her "as friends" in the hopes that she'll change her mind? (like Duckie did). I don't think so.

If Duckie is a Predator, then the protagonist in the female protagonist of Taylor Swift's song "You Belong With Me" is likewise a predator.



What ApeLusters and their ilk don't get is that boys have these same feelings. She's dreamin' bout the day that what you're lookin' for has been here the whole time. She's waiting at his back door? Creepy, right!? Well, he's already made it clear he's interested in the cheer captain, so why doesn't she just stop, right? Predator!

I'm sure the ApeLusters will pull out some logic about how it's different when men do it. Men, if they do that, they're Predators.

Coito, I agree with you about Duckie. But in the pursuit of love and affection, people sometimes resort to creepy tactics they shouldn't use-- like hounding someone at work and pulling a fire alarm so she can't talk to someone else. That was a mistake Duckie made. He learned from it, and moved on to become a real friend to Molly R. If he never learned from her refusals, and kept pulling the same shit, he would have been creepy.

There are a lot of songs and films that make creepy behavior into romance. Actually, to tie in an earlier reference, Emilio Estevez's pursuit of Andy MacDowell in 'St. Elmo's Fire' is reaaaaallly stalkerish.

That's why there's a difference between movies and real life. It's just like how, in a movie, I might cheer when some jerk gets beat up, while in real life, I think resorting to physical violence is only something that should happen when your life is at stake.

Still, even within the world of movies, Duckie rose up and learned to give up on a girl who wasn't interested in him-- and he gets rewarded for that choice. In a way, he's being rewarded for NOT being predatory. But he also sents a message to the misfit boys of the world, that they can stay themselves, and they might not win every girl, but there will be some pretty lady who likes him for who he is.

A nice message. Even if it isn't entirely true. That's movie romance for you.

[hadespussercats]

And can we stop using the word "gender" as if it refers to people? The word is "sex", as in "people of both sexes", or "the male sex or female sex".

"Gender". What a load of bollox.

Gender refers to behavior, and personal and social identity.

Sex refers to physical / biological characteristics.

When you come up with a better word for the first-- so good it'll catch on after thirty-odd years of the other one being in common parlance-- maybe we'll stop using it.

[Cormac]

An important lesson for young boys lost in their hormones and delusions of romance is that the "friend zone" is corrosive of self-esteem. They should be taught that as soon as there's a chance that they'll enter the "friend zone" it is time to completely walk away. Moon-calfing after a girl who has no romantic interest is an awful existence.

This isn't to say that guys and girls can't be friends - but once romantic feelings have entered into the fray, it is no longer really possible without a significant time apart, I think.

Another thing - there are girls out there who get gratification and a boost to their own self-esteem to have a guy moon-calfing around them. To me, this is bullying behaviour. It is an abuse, and noone should behave that way.

[Cormac]

And can we stop using the word "gender" as if it refers to people? The word is "sex", as in "people of both sexes", or "the male sex or female sex".

"Gender". What a load of bollox.

Gender refers to behavior, and personal and social identity.

Sex refers to physical / biological characteristics.

When you come up with a better word for the first-- so good it'll catch on after thirty-odd years of the other one being in common parlance-- maybe we'll stop using it.

Gender is a grammatical term.

It was coopted by the so-called equality movement, primarily because they were squeamish about the word sex. All the rest was added afterwards - in terms of the behaviour, and personal and social identity stuff.

It is commonly used today to refer to male and female. You see it on forms regularly - Gender: Male/Female. It is used in this very thread in that manner.

It's usage in this context just rubs me up the wrong way. It seems clumsy to me, like a square peg rammed into a round hole. It is as bad, to me, as Xhe and all that other bollox.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I agree with you about Duckie. But in the pursuit of love and affection, people sometimes resort to creepy tactics they shouldn't use-- like hounding someone at work and pulling a fire alarm so she can't talk to someone else. That was a mistake Duckie made. He learned from it, and moved on to become a real friend to Molly R. If he never learned from her refusals, and kept pulling the same shit, he would have been creepy.

Maybe. Whether he is creepy depends on (a) the opinion of the people involved, and (b) exactly the facts and circumstances of a given situation. Sometimes, a person finds another person "creepy" just in the manner of one encounter. They may just "seem creepy." Sometimes, a person finds persistence and the expression of wild emotion like Duckie expressed to be charming and endearing. Sometimes persistence is what a person wants in order that love and affection be demonstrated. It's hard to tell, sometimes.

There are a lot of songs and films that make creepy behavior into romance. Actually, to tie in an earlier reference, Emilio Estevez's pursuit of Andy MacDowell in 'St. Elmo's Fire' is reaaaaallly stalkerish.

And, it is portrayed as such. It's not in the least considered, even in the movie, to be normal. He's gone batty. He becomes a house-sitter for a rich guy so that he can have a party and invite Andie MacDowell to the party and impress her. He threatens her roommate to give out the address of the cabin and drives up there in the snow. He's bonkers. Bananas. it's not even portrayed as romantic.

That's why there's a difference between movies and real life. It's just like how, in a movie, I might cheer when some jerk gets beat up, while in real life, I think resorting to physical violence is only something that should happen when your life is at stake.

Still, even within the world of movies, Duckie rose up and learned to give up on a girl who wasn't interested in him-- and he gets rewarded for that choice. In a way, he's being rewarded for NOT being predatory. But he also sents a message to the misfit boys of the world, that they can stay themselves, and they might not win every girl, but there will be some pretty lady who likes him for who he is.

A nice message. Even if it isn't entirely true. That's movie romance for you.

Well, yes, the movies can be examples for discussion, but they aren't real life.

The illustration, though, via the use of the Duckie character, to me, includes what you describe. Yes, he learned that just because he had a crush on his childhood friend Andie, does not mean she will love her back. But, the ApeLuster allegation of a predatory intent, and the idea that if gets upset at her and hurt because his love is unrequited, that he is somehow an example of men thinking women are "obligated" to them if men want them is pure bollox. It says more about the writer of the article than it does about men. She views men as having nefarious purposes, and hurt feelings as a "demand" or an "entitlement."

I doubt the writer of the article would think it problematic at all, if we reversed the sex roles and made Duckie female and Andie male. Lifelong friends. A young, 17 year old, relatively inexperienced girl, misfit, few friends, has strong feelings for her childhood friend. She thinks that eventually he will come around and like her, and she is loyal to him, kind, caring, giving, listens to his problems, holds his hand when he is sad and gives him a shoulder to cry on and to help pick up the pieces, etc. One day, a hot cheerleader arrives on the scene, and he is smitten. He decides to date her. The Duckiegirl is upset. She cries. She yells at him about how the "popular" cheerleader girl is not good for him and will hurt his feelings, but that she would have always been there for him.Duckiegirl informs him that this time, she may not be there to pick up the pieces, and she may not be able like him anymore. He informs her that he is allowed to date who she wants, and that he "can't believe that she is saying that" she won't be there to pick up the pieces if it falls apart. Duckiegirl cries and is hurt, and exits the room, passively aggressively lashing out by pulling the fire alarm.

Is she a predator? Of course not (IMO). She's hurt. What the woman who wrote the article we're talking about doesn't get is that men can actually have these kinds of feelings for women -- and can get hurt feelings if their love is unrequited -- and yet they aren't being predators and viewing women as their property who must put out if so desired.

[laklak]

All women are predators. That's why they apply fake blood to their claws and lips.

[Robert_S]

Coito. she has set a lower threshold for "stalkerish" but I don't see where she's actually blatantly used a double standard.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito. she has set a lower threshold for "stalkerish" but I don't see where she's actually blatantly used a double standard.

I haven't suggested that she (Hades) used a double standard. We're actually, as far as I'm concerned, just discussing. We only disagreed on one small, very small, point. So, my understanding was we were just kicking the topic around, not really disagreeing.

The example I used of reversing the sex roles was more to illustrate my opposition to the writer of the article's view that Duckie was a predator.

[hadespussercats]

All women are predators. That's why they apply fake blood to their claws and lips.

Fake?

[Coito ergo sum]

Regarding the Nice Guy article - what is weird is that all of the examples cited as "Nice Guys" (except Duckie, who I can't imagine being described as anything other than "nice"), well, they just aren't nice. The Incredible Hulk guy who flies into a rage because the author discloses she has a boyfriend? That's a "nice guy?"

It seems to me that the author is really saying that men who claim to be Nice Guys really aren't nice. There are no Nice Guys. Nice Guy syndrome is just a euphemism for dick pretending to be a Nice Guy to manipulate women into giving up some pussy.

Boo hoo hoo to men who have feelings. You haven't earned the right to have feelings. We'll tell you when you can have feelings, and we will tell you the proper way to express them.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, I agree with you about Duckie. But in the pursuit of love and affection, people sometimes resort to creepy tactics they shouldn't use-- like hounding someone at work and pulling a fire alarm so she can't talk to someone else. That was a mistake Duckie made. He learned from it, and moved on to become a real friend to Molly R. If he never learned from her refusals, and kept pulling the same shit, he would have been creepy.

Maybe. Whether he is creepy depends on (a) the opinion of the people involved, and (b) exactly the facts and circumstances of a given situation. Sometimes, a person finds another person "creepy" just in the manner of one encounter. They may just "seem creepy." Sometimes, a person finds persistence and the expression of wild emotion like Duckie expressed to be charming and endearing. Sometimes persistence is what a person wants in order that love and affection be demonstrated. It's hard to tell, sometimes.

There are a lot of songs and films that make creepy behavior into romance. Actually, to tie in an earlier reference, Emilio Estevez's pursuit of Andy MacDowell in 'St. Elmo's Fire' is reaaaaallly stalkerish.

And, it is portrayed as such. It's not in the least considered, even in the movie, to be normal. He's gone batty. He becomes a house-sitter for a rich guy so that he can have a party and invite Andie MacDowell to the party and impress her. He threatens her roommate to give out the address of the cabin and drives up there in the snow. He's bonkers. Bananas. it's not even portrayed as romantic.

That's why there's a difference between movies and real life. It's just like how, in a movie, I might cheer when some jerk gets beat up, while in real life, I think resorting to physical violence is only something that should happen when your life is at stake.

Still, even within the world of movies, Duckie rose up and learned to give up on a girl who wasn't interested in him-- and he gets rewarded for that choice. In a way, he's being rewarded for NOT being predatory. But he also sents a message to the misfit boys of the world, that they can stay themselves, and they might not win every girl, but there will be some pretty lady who likes him for who he is.

A nice message. Even if it isn't entirely true. That's movie romance for you.

Well, yes, the movies can be examples for discussion, but they aren't real life.

The illustration, though, via the use of the Duckie character, to me, includes what you describe. Yes, he learned that just because he had a crush on his childhood friend Andie, does not mean she will love her back. But, the ApeLuster allegation of a predatory intent, and the idea that if gets upset at her and hurt because his love is unrequited, that he is somehow an example of men thinking women are "obligated" to them if men want them is pure bollox. It says more about the writer of the article than it does about men. She views men as having nefarious purposes, and hurt feelings as a "demand" or an "entitlement."

I doubt the writer of the article would think it problematic at all, if we reversed the sex roles and made Duckie female and Andie male. Lifelong friends. A young, 17 year old, relatively inexperienced girl, misfit, few friends, has strong feelings for her childhood friend. She thinks that eventually he will come around and like her, and she is loyal to him, kind, caring, giving, listens to his problems, holds his hand when he is sad and gives him a shoulder to cry on and to help pick up the pieces, etc. One day, a hot cheerleader arrives on the scene, and he is smitten. He decides to date her. The Duckiegirl is upset. She cries. She yells at him about how the "popular" cheerleader girl is not good for him and will hurt his feelings, but that she would have always been there for him.Duckiegirl informs him that this time, she may not be there to pick up the pieces, and she may not be able like him anymore. He informs her that he is allowed to date who she wants, and that he "can't believe that she is saying that" she won't be there to pick up the pieces if it falls apart. Duckiegirl cries and is hurt, and exits the room, passively aggressively lashing out by pulling the fire alarm.

Is she a predator? Of course not (IMO). She's hurt. What the woman who wrote the article we're talking about doesn't get is that men can actually have these kinds of feelings for women -- and can get hurt feelings if their love is unrequited -- and yet they aren't being predators and viewing women as their property who must put out if so desired.

No, see, what I was hoping to convey in several of my posts is that, regardless of who is the goofy friend and who is the sexy beloved (whichever is male or female, or both or neither or whatever), there seems to be this notion in many parts of the culture that the good, sweet, social misfit person "deserves" to win the heart of the star.

No, he or she or xie does not. The star has a right to feel what the star feels, just like the goofy person has a right to their feelings.

Still, feelings aren't the point when it comes to what makes someone seem predatory-- behavior does. Duckie isn't wrong to feel hurt by the rejection, or to long to change Andy's mind. But some of the actions he takes are wrong. For me, pulling that alarm is a standout example. If a friend of mine told me that there was someone hanging around his work, who kept pulling the fire alarm so he'd have to go talk to her, I'd be frightened for him. Turns out in this case, Andy wasn't worried, just irritated. I think that Duckie caught a lucky break there, though.

You could argue (and I think you have) that whether a gambit works or not determines whether or not it's creepy. I tend to think it's more the knowledge of the person doing an act about the recipient. Like, if some guy I met once at a party showed up outside my window holding up a boom box Lloyd Dawbler-style, I would be frightened, and would call the cops. But if J did it, after we had a fight, I'd probably try to jump him. In a good way.

This might prove your point, in that Duckie knew Andy since they were little, and had a sense of what her reception would be. I could see that, though i think his lust for her blunted his ability to understand her refusals. Regardless, he did figure it out eventually. Because Duckies a good sort, generally.