We are all "Ducky," FL. Even you.
Labs, you can turn a phrase. I want this one below to be on our currency before long:
We must torment, not reward, the egregiously eccentric.
Since I llive in England, though, there would be a whole lot of tormenting going on. The egregiously eccentric are the norm here after a certain age.
Are you, like whomever Amanda was quoting, counting Lloyd Dobler as a Ducky type? If so, I cannot join your movement.
Hey, Amanda linked the Whimpster so w-lfs-n didn't hav e to! Or, more realistically, me, since I was thinking of linking the Whimpster in Lindsay's comments but didn't want to get involved.
It's mildly disturbing to keep coming across links to that whimpster article. At least this time it's not w-lfs-n (here, and here.)
I'm glad I have no idea what anyone's talking about, having never seen the movie.
Damn. On preview I see Weiner's comment.
Incidentally, the most compelling "nice girl" movie I've seen is House of Mirth.
Lloyd Dobler kick-boxes, and is John Cusak, and is, therefore, worthy of our esteem.
Ducky. No man named Ducky resets the TiVo, ever. But doesn't Mollie Ringwald end up choosing that guy from weekend at bernie's? He's rather Ducky himself, all caved-in shoulders. Isn't the real issue that every copy of Pretty In Pink ought to be burned right now, this very instant?
Have you seen "two and a half men"? Jon Cryer is not the right choice.
I agree with this majikthise post about "nice guys" that was mentioned in FL's link. Being nice is good, but the internet is full of men who like to whine about this. They are creepy.
I do think our culture isn't particularly good at teaching young adults about romance so I can see were those guys went wrong. But, cut it out.
"I didn't want to get involved."
Thanks for the support guys. I had to stick up for the honor of lame, shy, sexist men who believe that all unchaste women should be murdered all by myself. And now Bitch hates me, too.
Not that anyone here is lame or shy.
This is probably just a reflection of my reading habits, but I've seen many posts complaining about nice guys complaing about the burdens of being nice and few posts by guys claiming to be nice guys complaining about the burdens of being nice.
That's odd, the second "complaining" (or rather "complaing") above was written correctly as "complaining", but upon both preview and post lost part of its suffix. Is this another MT thing?
and re: 9
Nice guys might finish last, but the lame shall enter first.
Unfortunately I'm shy but healthy.
One thing I found on that thread was that there is apparently a whole category of cheesy college guys who whine about being too nice, just as a way of of guilt-tripping their way into a girl's pants.
As far as I know, in my younger days, that ploy was not usable, but maybe I was just behind the curve on that too. The nice guys I'm talking about from those days would mostly just sit and drink homosocially (look it up first) and whine to one another.
Amanda and I apparently have entirely different definitions of "nice", too. What she describes as "nice" I describe as "a charming, seductive jerk". What I call "nice" she describes as "shy and not dangerous in any way".
Cultural differences. The whole thing was a matter of semantics.
She would describe. Not a quotation, pure speculation and conjecture.
While I'm not sure that this is exactly the 'nice guy' problem, I do think that the assumption that the guy is going to make the first move romantically/sexually is still pretty entrenched in our culture. Given that, a guy with absolutely nothing wrong with him other than being too shy/intimidated/nervous to make the first move is pretty much never going to get laid. I could see how, if you fell into that category, that could make you cross after a while.
why do we need to look up "homosocially?"
It seems to me as though it would be very hard to get into a girl's pants through guilt, unless you've been dating for awhile. My guess is that the nice guys you describe (or don't describe, whatever) still don't get laid, but perhaps complain louder about it.
Wait. Isn't Lloyd Dobler the one who follows his high school girlfriend to college? If I'm remembering that right, then he is infinitely worse than Ducky. And that movie isn't even emotional porn...it's something much worse. Ducky's emotional arc is from obsession to recognition that there are other opportunities in life. Lloyd's is from interest to temporarily accepted stalker.
Actually, I suspect they do get dates, relationships even but keep getting left for someone they perceive as not so nice.
If you never ask anyone out, then you can't complain about rejection.
Text:
He was so much better in Better Off Dead, One Crazy Summer, or that other one.
"Why do we need to look up "homosocially?"
I guess y'all don't, being sophisticated and shit. My bad.
Yeah. Maybe the best movie of the bunch.
You see, I did not know until Majikthese's thread that "the nice guy problem" is one of the stereotypical problem-units, like counterfactual conditionals, etc. I am out of touch. I should apologize to Amanda.
Is there a "nice guy problem" book out?
I will concede your point. Maybe we should condemn Lloyd Dobler for his clinginess, like Ducky, but when I watched that movie, I didn't have such a visceral dislike for him. Following your highschool girlfriend to college is bad form. But he seemed like a guy you could hang out with, and not hate him.
To be fair, I wore a lot of Generra back in the day, so take my (relative) Ducky defense with a grain of salt.
and for me the same, as I have a habit of holding large boom-boxes over my head in the morning.
I remember seeing this movie on Valentines Day back in college. Wow. For a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the movie it was one of the most amazing nights of my life. Good Times.
As for Jonathan Cryer, any one whose sister is Robin Cryer has an excellent chance to be a very cool person. Even if they themselves were in the fabulous Teddy Z.
http://www.evenmore.com/band.html
And really, having taught college as well as attended, I think that an awful lot of Duckies go on to get a clue. And some Blanes just hit the wall. Each of these things hapened in that movie. And there was something poignantly stereotypical and sacharine about Molly's dad as the lovable loser.
In the remake, Molly or Ducky will have a blog. And text messaging will be ued to make it that much harder for Molly and Blane to come together.
Benton, you should try to pitch that.
The hook would be getting John Cryer to play the lovable loser dad, or the snarky teacher.
Is it possible that our 6'8" philosopher-TE friend is a Blaine type? Is that where the anger comes from.
Has there been a movie yet in which a major or any character had a blog? A major movie, like.
At least in this post:
"Ducky exemplifies a sort of disgusting "cuteness," bordering on stalkerish obsession, that should never be rewarded romantically. We must torment, not reward, the egregiously eccentric."
FL is pretty much in James Spader territory rather than Blane. That makes Ogged Blane, right?
I haven't seen the movie, but it's very unlikely that I'm any character that has been played by Andrew McCarthy.
I remember Blaine as a tall waif, bland and neutered. I'm not sure if 6' counts as tall, but other than that....
34: That Hilary Duff movie--The Perfect Man, I think? Ted Barlow noted the thunderous blogosphere silence on the first major motion picture to feature a blogger, probably caused by the fact that no one who writes a blog that Ted or I reads would admit to having seen a Hillary Duff movie. Even through three layers of pseudonymy.
Re 34. I think not.
Re 36. Who would play Ogged?
Are you saying that The Perfect Man is NOT a major motion picture, Benton? Good luck with the pitch.
40 couldn't have worked better following 39 if I'd planned it.
No, I didn't preview before posting, thereby revealing that I was copletely unaware of Hillary Duff activities of any kind, or was unwilling to admit such.
She or Lindsey Lohan could be Andie in the remake.
That makes Ogged Blane, right?
I've always imagined Ogged as more Robbie Benson in Ice Castles.
39- I would admit to seeing a Hillary Duff movie, if I had in fact seen one.
Hmm. Benson might be too tall. Ralph Macchio, The Karate Kid. Billy Zabka as FL.
Much as I'm fascinated by the question of who would play my online persona in movies I've never seen, the real question here is What does Labs have against the egregiously eccentric? What's the backstory there? Labs, the tall philosopher with a taste for metal and pro wrestling, after all, isn't exactly apple pie. Was he out eccentricked by a boy with green hair? Is there a Labsian notion of "egregious" that needs to be explored? These are the urgent questions.
45: Well, part of the thought was that we/they wouldn't admit to seeing HD movies because we haven't in fact seen them.
No, what I want to do is bait you into actually seeing The Perfect Man. And blogging it. So I say this: I don't believe you. Prove it.
47: what we need to do is distinguish between the eccentric and the affected. The former is, if not to be praised (because we don't want to make it explicitly a subject), at least to be silently esteemed; the latter is to be vigorously repressed, preferably with lead pipes.
I have seen Lindsay Lohan's entire oeuvre, except for the Herbie movie. Does that count?
Weiner, by his own admission, doesn't think there's anything wrong with seeing Mean Girls, not least because it contains Tina Fey.
Ah, but I have seen Freaky Friday. More than once.
Ben, are you going to gradually post everything I've ever said to you IRL?
But yeah, Lohan >> Duff, though I haven't seen any of their movies. Would Fametracker even bother with Hillary? (well, yes.) And Tina Fey as a math teacher has got to be teh hotttt. That's right, four 't's.
w-lfs-n's indiscretion is now nearly legendary. And I've seen Mean Girls. Baa style review: fun!
I had no reason to think you would object to my saying that.
The Cecil Taylor thing, you've got a point. But this? Innocent.
I'm not so much indiscreet as I am bubbling over with enthusiasm and sociability.
I'm watching Say Anything right now, SCTM is clearly wrong about any negative attribution he made towards Lloyd.
Not really objecting this time. But the Cecil Taylor thing is good for at least two more raggings.
Here is an essay on Llyod Dobler. The author uses exaggeration for comedic effect.
In general, there are three registers one may employ for comedic effect. The first, overstatement (or exaggeration), occurs when one makes more of something than is justified. The second, understatement, occurs when one acts as if something is less than it is. Finally, one can employ a deadpan evenness, in which a thing is treated exactly as it should be.
I skimmed the 59 essay and reject any connection implied between thinking that Lloyd Dobler is an interesting, likable character and not recognizing that Coldplay is teh sux.
WOlfson is right in 49. In my first weeks of college one of my room mates ran into a guy who had transferred out of his high school junior year. The transferree had taken on an entirely new persona, complete with new name (it wasn't Blane, but it might have been). My room mate is a wonderful human being. But this brought out the Labs in him. He would go out of his way to walk across crowded hallways to say "Hi Jimmy How Are You" It was both cruel and completely hlarious and deserved.
And Dobler is to stalkers as Colin Powell is to Bush administration cabinet secretaries. So much better than the rest, but still, a stalker.
Complaining about how badly the opposite sex treats you is a vice that overwhelms almost any possible virtue. Thus, guys who talk about their niceness should not be primarily characterized as "nice guys" even if they are, in fact, nice. The description should be "irritating, passive, initiative-lacking whiners who are also nice."
You are right ogged, Mean Girls is way fun.
Yes, Ben's 49 is exactly right, it seems to me.
I haven't seen Pretty in Pink, but what's up with the first sentence of this editorial in today's NYT:
Far be it for us to denounce leaks.
"for" us? Have I been living a lie all my life?
And 49 seems right to me, but William Faulker was hella affected in his youth.
Rest easy, Joe. "Far be it for" vs. "Far be it from".
Yeah, but what's correct?
If you guys think I'm relying on googlefight to settle this dispute, you've got another thin(g)(k) coming.
I think "from" is correct. In the indicative mood, the Times sentence would read, "It is far for us to denounce leaks", which is nonsense.
But my thought is, the Times never makes a stylistic choice without there's a purpose.
Also, if google is good enough for Language Log, it's good enough for me. (That first link is just one of many examples.)
And apparently, Unfogged (Labs, anyway) is good enough for Language Log. The post title is even a cock joke.
1. w-lfs-n is wrong in #49. There's another word for people who are "genuinely" eccentric in high school; it is "crazy." I am much less worried about the ponce who puts on airs in high school than the guy whose deviation from the norm is driven by the voice he hears in his head. (I'm not sure what genuine eccentricity means in high school other than something organic.)
2. Re #63. On reflection, it's not just that Dobler is a stalker, it's that he's a pathetic stalker. He's the guy you can't kick hard enough to make him leave. The end of the movie is like the middle of A Clockwork Orange; if you have any decency at all, you have to want Dobler to turn (slightly) bad, to reclaim some human agency.
If you meet a woman who idolizes Lloyd Dobler, run, do not walk, in the opposite direction. It's actually sort of frightening that so many women look at him as the ideal.
1. There's a difference between "eccentric" and "crazy".
Not by high school there isn't; at that point (and maybe always), you're just a collection of tics that you either saw on TV or read about in a book or learned from your parents.
That's not true, or wasn't at my high school. We had genuinely eccentric folks, who went on to do interesting things.
If you meet a woman who idolizes Lloyd Dobler, run, do not walk, in the opposite direction. It's actually sort of frightening that so many women look at him as the ideal.
Okay, this isn't entirely fair. John Cusak? Immensely appealing. Lloyd Dobbler as written in the script on a scene-by-scene basis, ignoring the trajectory of the plot? Also immensely appealing. Dobbler-appreciation can be separated from the stalker plotline, which is, admittedly, entirely creepy.
And re 74 re 49: Genuine eccentricity in high school is being interested in things that most people aren't interested in. Spending all of your free time, e.g., designing and building model rockets, or reading eighteenth century novels, because that's what you enjoy? Genuinely eccentric, and neither necessarily good nor bad in itself, although with the potential to make you a genuinely interesting person. Hanging around oddly dressed in order to attract attention and complain that no one understands your ineffable differentness? Affected, and w-lfs-n is right about the appropriate response. Medically crazy is an entirely different can of worms.
I often fear that I picked up most of my personality from various books I liked. But they were good books at least.
LB's "scene by scene basis" point is valid, something I wish I had articulated. Dobler is a charming fellow, says witty things, and seems self-assured, even as his overall trajectory could be called pathetic.
Of course, since I own any number of things which would lead one to call me affected, I should be careful whom I denounce.
81: This deserves to be thematized in its own right.
I hate it when I use the word "thematize".
I often fear that I picked up most of my personality from various books I liked. But they were good books at least.
I have the same feeling, text, except with respect to badly abridged Dave Barry columns published in Reader's Digest.
At first I misread 85 to claim that SB picked up his personality from bad bridge columns.
What's pathetic about Lloyd Dobler? He ends up with Ione Skye! My formative years could have used that kind of pathos. Also, and this is a really central point: it's not stalking if it works. That's called "courtship."
If all we mean by "genuine" eccentricity is behavior that isn't driven entirely by the desire to be noticed for it, great. But thinking back to high school (and college), there's definitely a relationship between such behavior, a distict lack of social integration, and a myth about the "genuineness" of such behavior.
w-lfs-n, there's something puzzling about the earnestness of your belief in "genuine" eccentricity from someone who eschews "authenticity."
Also, and this is a really central point: it's not stalking if it works. That's called "courtship."
Oh, no no no no no. It's still stalking, and it's still fucked up, even if it works. If someone has broken up with you, standing outside their bedroom window with a boombox makes you a scary freak, even if the person you're stalking buckles under the pressure and takes you back.
But everyone wants to be noticed in high school (some people even want to be noticed after it). And anything that one does that departs from strict norms seems affected in high school, because people are just figuring out who they are.
I just want to weigh in on the John Cusack issue. The John Cusackness of John Cusack is so tremendous, it is John Cusack tremendous.
IIRC, Dobbler's stated ambition in life is to serve Skye. She's a high-flyer, and he's distinctly not. He's a disposable emotional crutch who makes no demands of his own, save that he be allowed to serve her. Not a good model for who you want to be in a relationship.
LB, you've just invalidated 80% of all successful relationships!
As for the boombox -- yeah, if he were 35, that'd over the line into creepy.
LB, you've just invalidated 80% of all successful relationships!
Agreed. LB's contention is nuts.
w-lfs-n, there's something puzzling about the earnestness of your belief in "genuine" eccentricity from someone who eschews "authenticity."
Officially, I eschew "authenticity". Actually, I have a vexed relationship with the concept.
But everyone wants to be noticed in high school....anything that one does that departs from strict norms seems affected in high school
Right. But given that everyone in high school is hyper-conscious about issues of social acceptance, it's nearly impossible to imagine that anyone who deviates from the norm does so obliviously or even without caring about the effect. It's all at least slightly affected behavior. I'm just saying that maybe we ought not kill those people right off the bat; if they're still the same once they reach the work world, swing away.
In fact, there's something kind of precious about making the genuine/not-genuine distinction at the high school level.
More on 94: What makes stalking stalking isn't any particular courtship strategy, but the reaction of the person being courted, and the inability of the pursuer to understand final rejection. Courting strategies that work by definition can't be "stalking."
I am reminded of an O Henry story where a man follows a woman from train to train for a while and it seems (to my eye, I don't know if this was what O Henry intended) like he's stalking her until he finally meets her, at which point she reveals that she has been watching him the whole time by saying that she had been worried at one point that he was going to miss one of the connections and not be able to follow her anymore.
I think it turns out that she's from a wealthy family, and they get married.
baa, ogged --
You guys must be toning down your memory of the movie by a lot to think that the way Dobler acted was in any way normal. If a friend of yours had been involved with a guy who acted literally like Dobler did, you'd be telling her to run, and bemoaning the fact that she couldn't figure out he was a complete loon, and a controlling, scary loon at that.
I haven't seen the movie. I just mean in principle. People do some crazy things when they're a courtin', and other people seem to like some of those crazy things.
I thin what ogged is trying to say is that relentless, remorseless pursuit of a woman has always worked for him.
Complaining about how badly the opposite sex treats you is a vice that overwhelms almost any possible virtue.
What did I ever do to baa?
Does the fact that that a group of grown adults have spent 100 comments debating the merits of a fictional character in a piece of 20-year-old adolescent confection qualify any of the members of discussion for egregious eccentricity? Should I be tormenting each of you? [Leaving aside the issues of the required tormenting for the post's author--Labs seems tortured enough these days.]
Officially, I eschew "authenticity". Actually, I have a vexed relationship with the concept.
So I suspected; don't worry, life will beat it out of you.
don't worry, life will beat it out of you.
Another candidate for the Unfogged motto?
What makes stalking stalking isn't any particular courtship strategy, but the reaction of the person being courted, and the inability of the pursuer to understand final rejection. Courting strategies that work by definition can't be "stalking."
This isn't right. I'm no particular expert in domestic violence, but from my superficial awareness of the subject, a classic pattern for relationships that turn into battering is: (1) Wildly intense, romantic (Dobler-esque) pursuit from the guy which (2) overcomes initial reluctance or rejection from the woman (he 'knows they're meant to be together', she initially isn't interested in a relationship with him, but eventually gives into the pressure), culminating in a relationship that (3) turns violent when she resists being totally controlled. This doesn't mean that any kind of persistence makes a man a batterer, but a man who engages in over-the-top romantic pursuit of a woman who has rejected him should be regarded as acting scary and weird, regardless of whether acting like that works sometimes (which, of course, it does. )
Re 91
It is going to be a sad day for John Cusack when they find an actor with more John Cusackness than John Cusack.
91 reminds me of the once-burgeoning field of Texology, which investigated such questions as how large a Texas-sized Texas would be.
What did I ever do to baa?
Sorry John, didn't see you upthread. No direct object to those comments was intended!
The onion once ran a headline along the lines of "romantic-comedy behavior leads to real-life restraining order." Yet again, everything I have to say has been said better by a satirical newspaper.
I've thought that Grosse Point Blank is a kind of bookend to Say Anything. Although they have a caperish hollywood ending, the sub text is this guy is going to become a complete psycho killer.....
Although it also makes me wonder if Cusack is getting too old to play Cusack.
LB, sure, and I'd advise my friends much the same way you'd advise yours, I imagine. What I mean to say is that there's a much broader range of behavior that ends up being acceptable than what you and I would necessarily find acceptable, and there's no good way to know in advance what the limits of that range are.
The Grifters, too. That movie was entirely disturbing becuase you had Cusack playing a screwed-up neurotic, but basically fun and likable guy, and I kept on subconsciously expecting it to fall into the pattern of Cusack movies -- he shakes off the neuroses and gets the girl. Which made the actual plot of the movie even more unsettling than it would have been innately.
But he did get the girl. Or she got him, anyway.
surely there must be some "over the top" behavior that is less indicative of potential domestic violence than others. Can't we draw a distinction between, say, sending flowers for days on end (or a more imaginative analogue) and leaving harrassing voice messages? Isn't there some type of persistence that, though annoying, isn't necessarily scary?
Once we can draw that line, then we aren't left in the uncomfortable (untenable?) position that all courtship is stalking.
LB, sure, and I'd advise my friends much the same way you'd advise yours, I imagine. What I mean to say is that there's a much broader range of behavior that ends up being acceptable than what you and I would necessarily find acceptable, and there's no good way to know in advance what the limits of that range are.
I wouldn't say that kind of behavior ends up being acceptable, even if the target accepts it, temporarily or permanently.
Romantic pursuit only becomes stalking when forms a pattern of escalating reactions to firm and credible refusals.
On the other hand, defying someone's sincere request to be left alone is almost always inappropriate. "No" means no. "Get lost" means get lost. Romance doesn't give you any special rights or privileges to override another person's wishes.
Knowing what's acceptable isn't just a matter of anticipating what might work. Some morally unacceptable ploys pay off.
Knowing what's acceptable isn't just a matter of anticipating what might work. Some morally unacceptable ploys pay off.
Agreed, but, for a time, there was a fair bit of debate about what was appropriate behavior for guys. (Think, "May I place my hand on your right thigh?") The models here tend to be piss poor, and you learn by doing and hanging out with women and finding out what they find appalling.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere.
Knowing what's acceptable isn't just a matter of anticipating what might work. Some morally unacceptable ploys pay off.
Well, I'm just talking about courtship acts in particular. Obviously, if you kill all your rivals, that's a morally unacceptable ploy, but I thought we were talking about things like calling, following, sending gifts etc.--things that don't really have a moral status outside of courtship. For those, I'm having a hard time seeing how people outside the relationship can pass moral judgement (I think we could still say something like "this behavior is not indicative of good character...."
Ogged, I agree that there isn't necessarily a bright line between persistence and stalking in every case. But the line only blurs when the suitor doesn't know whether his advances are welcome or not. It's not always easy to tell what's a mutual game and what's a unilateral campaign: sometimes people play hard to get, sometimes mixed messages are sent (or imagined), etc.
What I'm saying is that if I realize that someone doesn't want to see me and I keep pushing, I'm violating their rights. Now, the object of my affections has the right to change his mind. It could be that advances 2-12 were obviously unwanted, inappropriate, hurtful, and therefore wrong, but that my beloved changes his mind on my 13th attempt. Maybe I actually won him over, or maybe it was just a fortuitous change of heart. In either case, I was acting wrongly on tries 2-13. I had no right to keep pushing just because I was hopeful that he would change his mind.
This may sound snarky, but isn't meant to be: You believe people have a right not to be called or sent gifts? If someone asked me not to call them and I continued to do so, I would describe my actions as, "being a dick" not as "violating thier rights." Also, what about the case of a passive rejection where someone does not return a call, rather than actively refusing?
I believe I have the right to be left alone if I ask to be. On the other hand, other people aren't responsible for reading my mind. Just ignoring someone could mean all kinds of things from "try harder" to "I'm just distracted" to "get lost."
It might be obtuse to keep calling and sending gifts after being repeatedly ignored, but it's not a violation of anyone's rights.
I'm roughly with Lindsay on this as regards pursuing someone after her lack of interest is communicated. The problem is that no one thinks of it as "she's said she's not interested in me" at the time. You think of it as "she's making a decision based on incomplete information; I'm not pestering her, I'm giving her more information so that she can make a fully informed decision." I'm less clear about my beliefs when I describe it in the latter fashion.
I'd say that's true where the ignoring is genuinely ambiguous. When, e.g., you send someone an unanticipated gift, and they have an easy opportunity to acknowledge it but don't, that's a pretty clear signal that it was unwelcome. For another example, if you greet someone enthusiastically, and they look through you and don't speak, that is, I think, clearly interpretable as a request that you stop addressing them. (It's arguably ruder than explicitly saying "please stop calling/sending flowers/speaking to me", but I don't think it's much less clear.)
Can't we draw a distinction between, say, sending flowers for days on end (or a more imaginative analogue) and leaving harrassing voice messages? Isn't there some type of persistence that, though annoying, isn't necessarily scary?
You know, I'd find repeated gifts of flowers or anything else, persisting after I had indicated they were unwelcome, fairly disturbing, in that they indicated that the giver was both significantly invested in the 'relationship' and unwilling to accept that no such relationship existed. I really don't think there's a non-creepy way to actively pursue someone who has indicated they want no part of you.
123 to 121.
To 122 -- I think the key to behaving decently there is that you can keep on providing more information as much as you like, so long as it is within the context of a relationship that the object of your pursuit is willing to participate in. Just because someone has turned you down doesn't mean you can't continue to be friends, if they're amenable, and then take another try at it at some later time when you think they may have changed their mind.
to 123 -- what if the repeated gift-giving was in response to one party's terminating communication because the other party had, say, been caught sucking some other party's toes or something? That is, in the context of a relationship that already existed, the purpose being to demonstrate that the gift-giver is invested in the relationship moreso than he/she has shown? This is romantic comedy territory, and seems ok to me.
I think the distinction is valid in the other context as well -- even where there is no preexisting relationship. I don't argue that repetitive gift giving is proper, but that it isn't necessarily scary in the same way that other obessisive behavior would be. I think the two types of behavior are qualitatively different -- one annoying, the other dangerous -- and they should be treated as qualitatively different. Though I would not advise a friend to either send gifts excessively or make threatening calls.
I'm with LB. At some point annoying turns into scary -- not letting something drop opens up a field of unknown possibilities at precisely the point when you're trying to foreclose all future possibilities. There's a "I've asked him not to do X, and he keeps doing X; what other prohibited things will he do" flavor to it.
That said, I was actually thinking of the proverbial toe-sucking incident in #122. I just don't think that there's a bright line solution to this one.
Sure, Lindsay is absolutely right in 119 -- people play games, send mixed messages, play hard to get, etc., and in the face of genuine ambiguity, there's nothing wrong with being persistent. I think there is less ambiguity in real life than people pretend, though -- gameplaying usually doesn't look all that much like genuine "I don't want you bothering me".
No, but I don't think it's crazy for a person to respond to "I don't want you bothering me," -- issued forth after the speaker discovered an infidelity -- with flowers, even flowers sent on multiple occasions. I think you would find that is quite a common response.
Then again, where "I don't want you bothering me" is issued forth in response to verbal or physical abuse, any sort of obsessive attempts at contact seem inappropriate. That is because of the physical abuse, though.
Where there was no preexisting relationship, lots of flowers seems weird. That's all it seems, to me. I wouldn't recommend anybody do it, but I wouldn't call any person who did so a potential spouse abuser, either.