Aug23

What You Can Learn From (500) Days of Summer

07:27 pm on Aug 23rd 2009 Evan Marc Katz

Finding the One Online is a comprehensive, life-changing program that covers everything I teach my clients about online dating. If you want to get your love life on track and aren't sure where to start, Finding the One Online is the best investment you can make.

48 Comments »Filed Under Sex & Relationship Advice

48 Responses to “What You Can Learn From (500) Days of Summer”

1. Honey Aug 24th 2009 at 08:36 am 1

   I think that Gone With the Wind qualifies as a movie where a woman throws herself at those she loves and is constantly disappointed (whether you’re a fan of Ashley or Rhett).

   However, accepting flaws is probably the most important part of relationships – so I agree that being able to do that and unconditionally love someone (and accept love from them) anyway is probably the single most important thing you can do and be when it comes to finding happiness in love.
   .-= Honey´s last blog ….TGIF In Honey-Land =-.

2. Honey Aug 24th 2009 at 08:37 am 2

   Oh, and if you read the sequel to Gone with the Wind, then she gets the guy, anyway

   You know, now that I am thinking about it, that book/movie is like a very very early version of Sex and the City!
   .-= Honey´s last blog ….TGIF In Honey-Land =-.

3. Ava Aug 24th 2009 at 09:50 am 3

   Letter From An Unknown Woman, an excellent 1940’s melodrama. The female protagonist has an unrequited love for her entire adult life!

   I, too, thought of Carrie and Big in Sex and the City – up until the end, when he decides he does love her.

   I thought 500 Days was a classic “SHE’S just not that into you” tale. Obviously, we’re used to hearing all about “HE’S just not that into you” from real-life women, so having a male protagonist experience that is a bit of a gender/role reversal, plus, men do tend to be the active pursuers (and in control) in relationships. On the other hand, the concept of the ball-busting and elusive femme fatale is a staple of Film Noir. Maybe a woman sitting around waiting for a guy for months would simply seem pathetic, and the man would just seem like a big jerk?

   I do believe that if women made more films, we’d see more of them from the woman’s point of view…

4. Ava Aug 24th 2009 at 10:13 am 4

   Actually, in Letter From…the unrequited love starts when the woman is a teenager…yes, it’s a devastating film.

5. JuJu Aug 24th 2009 at 10:29 am 5

   “The Story of Adele H.” (as in, Victor Hugo’s daughter), by François Truffaut.

   She was so madly in [unrequited] love with someone, that she indeed went insane.

   Very atypical for a woman, though, methinks.

6. Joe Aug 24th 2009 at 10:37 am 6

   In “500 Days” there’s also the parts where Tom, during the phase where he’s high, he describes various characteristics of Summer’s as endearing/attractive; when he’s low he describes the exact same characteristics in different terms, as flaws.

7. Shawna Aug 24th 2009 at 10:47 am 7

   I can’t help but to nitpick about something — the use of the term “unconditional love.” I have a real problem with that — I think this is the root of much of our relationship confusion/problems.

   I don’t unconditionally love anyone — there are always conditions. Don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t mistreat me, don’t disrespect me, etc. for the big ones. Then there are the little ones we live with every day. I think that many people, especially women, misunderstand full and complete love for unconditional love and then let their lover mistreat them because they are loving them unconditionally.

   There should always be conditions.

8. Lorihaah4 Aug 24th 2009 at 12:46 pm 8

   Your thoughts and theories are profoud, as always. However, there is one problem inherrent in your words – take it from someone who is on the other side of the situation. I have been with a man who loves me, and has love me, as close as one can get to unconditionally for over 13 yrs. I married him for EXACTLY the reasons you describe, Evan, and, well, its been..hmmm… marginal at best. I was never totally madly in love with him, but he knew he wanted to marry me the minute he met me. I married him – BECAUSE he was a great guy in so many ways, minus the sky illuminating fireworks. Dont get me wrong, intimate momebts were always adequate..even pretty damn good at times. But never, well, you know…crazy great. Almost fourteen years later, i remain married and faithful, but with an empty space in my heart. And wondering if i aspired to mediocrity and lost out on the amazing feeling most of us have felt at some time, of true selfless love. I love him….but im not ‘in love’ with him. And that is what has happened to EACH AND EVERY married friend i have, (male and female) that married simply because of the reasons you mention.. many have strayed, the others are simply living there..yet nobodys home.

9. casualencounters.com/blog Aug 24th 2009 at 01:24 pm 9

   They both like the Smiths? And they didn’t end up together? A CATASTROPHE OF ELEPHANTINE PROPORTIONS!@#&$^&*!@
   .-= casualencounters.com/blog´s last blog ….Weekly Roundup – Top 10 Casual Sex Links from Around the Web =-.

10. starthrower68 Aug 24th 2009 at 01:34 pm 10

    Lori, true love is not always some sort of earth-shattering emotion. Often, it’s more of a choice. Even the most passionate relationships have days when partners don’t like each other very much or don’t feel particularly romantic. Nobody can contain that sort of intense emotion for long periods of time.

11. JuJu Aug 24th 2009 at 01:37 pm 11

    In response to post 8:

    that’s precisely the problem with this wise approach to picking a life partner. It *is* a great method in theory, but in reality we (most of us) are not as enlightened as not to keep wondering throughout such a relationship if we made the right choice. The only factor that is capable of ever removing such doubts is being truly in love with the person at the time of making this decision (however unpredictably it turns out later on).

    I would say, it’s more important to know yourself. If you are a self-aware individual and realize that you do need these “butterflies” to be happy / fulfilled, well, then, there is your answer.

12. JuJu Aug 24th 2009 at 01:40 pm 12

    post 7:

    I think the bigger point is to love yourself unconditionally. Then you won’t take all this crap from others.

    Enabling and accepting abuse is not the same as unconditional love – it’s pathological dependence on your partner.

13. Evan Marc Katz Aug 24th 2009 at 01:43 pm 13

    I hear you, Lori. But this is a classic case of the grass being greener.

    You’ve been in a healthy, solid, fireworks-less relationship for 13 years. Let’s say you leave him because of the emptiness and the desire for a “crazy great” relationship.

    Wanna know what you’re gonna find? A lot of players, a lot of losers, a lot of liars, a lot of frustration and heartbreak and disillusionment and loneliness.

    Every once in awhile, you’ll feel that divine spark – and get your hopes up – only to learn that Mr. Chemistry is not necessarily Mr. Right, and, in fact, usually treats you a lot worse than the guy you just passed up. Go read “The Post-Birthday World” and let me know your thoughts.

    I’m not saying you should stay in an unhappy marriage, Lori. I would say that what you gain from intense passion might not be as great as what you’re losing…

14. JuJu Aug 24th 2009 at 01:49 pm 14

    One more thing, Lori: does your adoring husband know that you think of the marriage as “marginal at best”?

15. Lorihaah4 Aug 24th 2009 at 02:51 pm 15

    thank you for your thots – very thot provoking. JuJu – yes, he is aware i am not in love w him…known for years. Ive told him he deserves deep reciprocated love, but as far as living together we do get along quite well, have children, and he feels intense attraction and love for me,so he is willing to accept me in whatever capacity. Intimacy is the most difficult part for me, but we make it work as best i am able. I have told him everything,literally everything that i feel. And as Evan similarly stated, i also understand no man will ever love me and kids as he does. I have 3 best friends now divorced – same situation – ALL going thru EXACTLY what Evan describes – dating players, etc.. and i am very aware of realities of life and relationships. I do send my divorcee friends links to many of your articles and dating programs and continue to (as relative). Basically, I just wanted to put it out there from the womans side of marrrying “mr. close to perfect” – it doesnt come without its pitfalls… as i told my husband, he lived his life able to feel what it feels like to feel intense passion for a woman , i will probably never feel the same for a man.

16. starthrower68 Aug 24th 2009 at 03:34 pm 16

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the grass is always greener on the other side, but you’re gonna have to mow that grass too.

17. JuJu Aug 24th 2009 at 05:13 pm 17

    I have to say, I don’t know about this “greener grass” bit.

    If you have to somehow overcome yourself in order to have sex with a person – hmm, let’s just say, that’s not the kind of relationship I would ever want for myself.

18. Ava Aug 24th 2009 at 06:52 pm 18

    And why must it be so black and white? Stability = boring? Passion and fireworks = player/loser? Can’t there ever be a happy medium? Why marry someone you’re not in love with?

19. A-L Aug 25th 2009 at 03:11 am 19

    Ava wrote, “And why must it be so black and white? Stability = boring? Passion and fireworks = player/loser? Can’t there ever be a happy medium? Why marry someone you’re not in love with?”

    Think about your best friend. You two have a solid relationship, you love hanging out together, you two know each other’s whole histories. It’s great. But (assuming the two of you are in the same town) you’re not going to get super-excited when you’re planning to hang out together. You just know you’re going to have a good time, but are not crazy excited. This is because you and your best friend have a stable relationship without all the drama of jealousy, catfighting, etc.

    The same thing tends to hold true for romantic relationships (perhaps even more so). The drama is created by having tension in the relationship, but not because either person is necessarily bad. It might be arguments over money, or how to raise the children, or spending too many hours at work, or being emotionally withdrawn, or whatever. So for a period of time you and your partner are having this total disconnect and you’re not happy. But then something improves (usually temporarily) and you’re ecstatic, over-the-moon, and crazy in love again. And then things go back to the way they before and things yo-yo in between.

    So it’s sort of a choice. Would you rather have a lifetime of A-/B+ all of the time or a lifetime of A+/D all of the time? If you can’t live without those extreme highs and are willing to take the lows along with it, that’s perfectly okay. If you want the stability of being consistently happy, then you’re probably not going to get the extreme highs, and that’s okay too. But it’s very rare (perhaps even impossible) to have the wild, extreme high and have that be consistent all of the time.

20. starthrower68 Aug 25th 2009 at 06:49 am 20

    That’s true; why marry someone you’re not in love with? See, we do things without thinking them through or being honest with ourselves and each other and later wonder how we end up in these situations.

21. Joe Aug 25th 2009 at 07:47 am 21

    “The light that burns brightest, burns the shortest.”

22. Jennifer Aug 25th 2009 at 08:18 am 22

    To Lori- Thank you for sharing your situation and I understand what you are saying. I agree with Juju that it’s not really a case of the grass is greener. You made an informed choice at the time, what many would’ve said was a smart choice, and now you have some regrets. Perfectly understandable.

    It’s easier for people who have never had fireworks to talk about how unnecessary they are but I believe what gets you through a lot of tougher times in your relatinoship when your spouse is getting on your nerves etc. is the common history of the ‘fireworks’ that you had for each other. Even if you no longer get butterflies with the same intensity you did at one time and that counts for a lot. Without that, i imagine lots of things would seem more like a chore than anything else.

    As for the questions about ‘why marry someone you don’t love’- it sounds like Lori did exactly what a lot of people advocate for people to do when choosing a relationship- someone you care about, get along with, stable, etc. Fireworks don’t last so don’t worry about them at all (If you can’t already tell, i really disagree with that last statement)

    I feel for you Lori and I don’t know what the answer to your situation is but thank you for sharing.

23. lorihaah4 Aug 25th 2009 at 08:31 am 23

    in re post 21: “it is better to burn out than to fade away.” Neil Young

24. lorihaah4 Aug 25th 2009 at 08:55 am 24

    thank you Jennifer – after 5 yrs of dissecting the issue, aspiring to self awareness w logical choices, there is no perfect answer. Its a choice. Ive chosen a life (truth be told) of acquiescing, w the tradeoff of stability for my children. If it makes any difference to even one young passionate reader, think carefully… forever is a really long time to love someone. To live safely, without love and passion, is.. in my experience..a life unlived. I go forward..one baby step at a time,not sad or regretful, just aware, making choices for the present, being sure i have conviction before i make any final decisions..and never ever losing hope.

25. AJ Aug 25th 2009 at 09:17 am 25

    I think it is good to feel the fireworks in your life and then make a decision to except less. I know fireworks fade but I agree with an earlier comment. I need to start out with fireworks but I want my fireworks to be based not just on looks but a connection. I believe these are the fireworks that can be reunited at times throughtout the relationship. Smouldering on!!!

26. AJ Aug 25th 2009 at 10:49 am 26

    accept less

27. mic Aug 25th 2009 at 12:20 pm 27

    It’s not uncommon for a woman to marry a man she’s not in love with, but the increasing emphasis on looks is making it less common. Lori, are you going to explain why it happened? Is it like what the movie seems to be, where the man thinks he has a chance with a woman who clearly is ranked higher than him and tries very hard to charm her?

    By the way, for all the advantages the beautiful people have in life, higher marital satisfaction is not one of them, according to research. A contributing factor might be the scenario in which the less attractive partner treats the other as an object (maybe as a cherished object), while the objectified person feels emotionally lonely and wonders why she (or she) isn’t with someone more desirable.

28. mic Aug 25th 2009 at 12:22 pm 28

    rather “she (or he),” though “she (or she)” is closer to the reality

29. Ava Aug 25th 2009 at 01:38 pm 29

    A-L #19

    I’m not talking about extreme highs or lows. I’m talking about having a stable, but passionate love, not a crazy roller-coaster ride with someone who is volatile. I do have friends who have this, so I don’t think it’s impossible.

30. lorihaah4 Aug 25th 2009 at 01:55 pm 30

    Mic – i knew i was not crazy in love w/him, but loved him enough, knew he’d be a great dad, handsome etc. never felt intense chemistry, my friends think he’s great, ask jokingly if they can have him if i ever divorced. Before marriage I dated lots, had great boyfriends. At some point, I felt time was right to ’settle down’. wanted kids & he was a good ‘choice’. I had no idea of the capacity to love/be loved at that time. If i had a magic wand, id wish to fall in love with him, rather than leave and make him sad. Ive tried everything short of the wand. Without that indescribable passion for another person that little something missing becomes a very big something.

31. mic Aug 26th 2009 at 08:54 am 31

    Thanks for sharing. “Handsome” and not getting less attractive relative to you? It’s a personality issue or a lack of physiological chemistry? Maybe it’s time for some counseling and self-help books. There are all sorts of ways to strengthen relationships.

32. JuJu Aug 26th 2009 at 09:48 am 32

    I dunno, if the man is intelligent, has a good personality, and on top of that is physically attractive – I just fall in love automatically! (an argument in favor of oxytocin, Honey ).

    It’s finding the combination of the three that’s the problem.

33. Selena Aug 26th 2009 at 10:24 am 33

    @Jennifer # 22

    I feel the same way you do. But I’ve HAD relationships with the dynamic of chemistry getting us through the tough times. I consistently fail to understand some of the readers on this board who seem to believe chemistry and stability are opposed ideas. That *fireworks* is synonymous with rollercoaster.

    I guess it can be if you pick as a partner someone who is fundamentally wrong for you. But for me, “chemistry” is not physical attraction, it’s that hard-to-define sense of connection beyond the physical that you have with some people and not with others.

    I wonder if the people who are dismissive of chemistry are the ones who’ve yet to experience it.

34. Jennifer Aug 26th 2009 at 12:47 pm 34

    @Selena #33 Tell that truth. I couldn’t agree with you more.

35. Lance Aug 26th 2009 at 03:54 pm 35

    The scenario where the guy falls madly in love and is left devastated by an emotionally distant chick happens way more often that you give it credit for. I see it happen all the time among my friends and others around my age, in real life. Don’t forget, attractive women hold a lot of cards.
    .-= Lance´s last blog ….Hello 30! =-.

36. Honey Aug 26th 2009 at 04:04 pm 36

    @ Lance, #35 -

    What you say is true! After all, you fell madly in love with me and I moved across the country for grad school.

    Or at least that’s how the story goes when I tell it
    .-= Honey´s last blog ….Hello 30! =-.

37. Lance Aug 26th 2009 at 06:38 pm 37

    Riight.
    .-= Lance´s last blog ….One Super Important Thing I Learned From Dating Three Chicks At Once =-.

38. lorihaah4 Aug 27th 2009 at 03:14 am 38

    Mic & JuJU: tried counselors & self help – short of a magic wand (or hypnosis), you cant force yourself or convince yourself (or anyone else for that matter) to fall in love. To male readers: movie star looks have very little-nothing to do w/ it, ive felt great sparks w/some “ok looking” men & ended relationships w/handsome, successful men. All my friends agree: it is something you cant put your finger on…charisma & chemistry. And yes, Lance, these female friends are considered very attractive. I know many divorced people & many unhappily married (tho outwardly ‘perfectly happily married’) couples, and EVERY ONE of them tells me the same thing – “it” just isnt/wasnt there…one doesnt want to kiss the other, pretty good sex became mediocre became…, every one i know, that married because the partner seemed a great choice, (several of who say they overlooked the missing spark for whatever reason… timing, ’seemed’ like a good choice, would be a great dad, etc. ended up divorced or unhappy. The FEW couples I know who are happily married – still love to hold hands AND ‘make-out’ – THEY married someone they felt intense chemistry for & vice versa…and of EVERY one of the divorced friends, several who are dating but have not found love, only ONE tells me she made the wrong choice leaving. The rest say they would rather be alone, than with someone and lonely. I have just seen way to many unhappily married couples to ever advocate settling…it may have worked 100, 200 yrs ago, but the world is so connected now…and there are so many choices…without passion for EACH OTHER, infidelity, divorce, alchoholism, depression etc.. rear their ugly heads. Please know, I am not a cynic, i have SEEN & BELIEVE IN great love & marriage, but it SHOULD NOT BE treated as a business decision – it sounds great in theory – but it just brings way too much misery for way to many down the road – you better be pretty damn sure you wanna come home to this person, sleep with this person, and walk on the beach holding hands with this person 50 yrs later…because divorce.. from what i have seen… hurts. And living in quiet desperation…hurts.

39. Jennifer Aug 27th 2009 at 04:18 am 39

    As an aside, this is why I don’t think movie dates are a bad idea. You see a movie, you discuss it afterwards and you can find out a lot about how your date sees the world and interprets things. Of course, you have to have some sort of activity after the movie that would allow you to talk easily but I think it’s doable.

40. JuJu Aug 27th 2009 at 08:49 am 40

    I realized a long time ago that I need to truly love a person in order to be able to live with him. It is just so difficult for me to tolerate the constant presence of someone other than myself!

    More recently (spurred on by meeting someone who would be a great husband and father, but whom I could probably never love) I realized that unless I love, love, LOVE a person, I wouldn’t be able to take care of him if he falls ill. I mean, without it feeling like an imposition on my life.

41. sophie Aug 27th 2009 at 07:08 pm 41

    To quote Lorihaah4 post 8: “And that is what has happened to EACH AND EVERY married friend i have, (male and female) that married simply because of the reasons you mention..”

    Can you give me/us an idea of how many of your friends you think/know married people they weren’t in love with? Both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all of your friends? Do you think men and women make this sort of decision equally often?

    And to the other posters on this blog, how widespread do you think this practice is in societey as a whole? I have tried to find academic papers on this subject online but haven’t had much luck, I’d like to know what perecentage of people aren’t in love on their wedding day. I don’t want to “settle” but I think it would make it easier if I knew that its what a lot of people end up having to do.

    And to Selena, I agree, I don’t think chemistry and stability are opposing forces. There’s no idea why you can’t get both in theory. Practice is another thing!

42. Selena Aug 28th 2009 at 04:52 am 42

    Sophie # 41

    As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I think we tend to gravitate to people who are most like us in terms of lifestyle, so our “statistics” are likely to be skewed in terms of comparisons with our friends.

    Offhand, I can’t think of anyone I know who “settled” for someone they weren’t in love with in order to be married/ have children. But also, the overwhelming majority of people I’ve known well had their first child by age 26. I have a couple friends who married at 30, but they also chose their partners based on love, not a sense of practicality.

    So I wonder if this phenomena of choosing a partner based on how well you get along, disregarding “chemistry”, has more to do with the urge to procreate. There can be a strong pull for this for people in their 30’s. Women who want biological children realize they don’t have an unlimited time span to make that happen. I’ve heard men say they want to have children while they are still young enough to play with them.

    Extrapolating, the statistics for people who are “not in love” per se, on their wedding day I think might be skewed to people in their 30’s, perhaps 40’s, who haven’t had a romantic liason that produced offspring. Further, I suspect in some cases, people who have not been in love – as opposed to infatuation which is fleeting – may doubt such a thing exists. And therefore why wait for it? Just speculation ofcourse.

43. mic Aug 28th 2009 at 09:01 am 43

    Many people apparently are incapable of falling madly in love. For statistics, try a book such as, Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love. Unfortunately, maybe nothing out there explains the role of looks in limerence, beyond the limerent object probably not being objectively quite unattractive.

44. mic Aug 30th 2009 at 01:14 pm 44

    Selena, that’s called assortative mating. You are presupposing that, when settling, “how well you get along” replaces “chemistry” when perhaps it’s neither. Most people probably can get along for a while if they want to. More concretely, possibly because it’s harder to test than it seems, there is no evidence that assortative mating on physical attractiveness declines with age. What research does indicate is that an 8 settling for a 5, for instance, would have a decreased chance of a lasting bond. It might be a good thing that, within the peer group, aging virtually gets rid of the high end of the physical attractiveness scale.

45. Selena Aug 30th 2009 at 06:30 pm 45

    Mic #44

    I didn’t mention physical attractiveness as a basis for anything. Frankly I find physical attractiveness too subjective to be evaluated on a meaningful scale. Would you care cite the research paper that indicated an 8 settling for a 5 would have a decreased chance of a lasting bond? I’d like to know how, precisely, the researcher defined an *8* and a *5*.

    In any event my response to Sophie was about the desire to have children. Why do you keep bringing up physical attractiveness in every post you write Mic?

46. mic Aug 31st 2009 at 09:12 am 46

    You don’t have to be rude. 8 with a 5 is an example. The research, which isn’t easy to cite as it’s probably from the back of a book, doesn’t get that specific. Interestingly, per your idea, there’s a study titled “Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits,” so that people who are settling might do so in terms of perceived personality traits, but that’s dangerously neither synonymous with actual personality traits nor with “getting along.” Guy looks “friendly” and nice,” you know.

    Who knows what’s behind your last question, but it wouldn’t be professionally appropriate to comment more than occasionally without mentioning appearance. Speculation, possibly enjoyable, needs to be grounded with factoids, or else it could be damaging.

47. Selena Aug 31st 2009 at 10:29 am 47

    @#46
    Speculation without FACTS is possibly enjoyable. Apparently.

48. Steve Mar 1st 2010 at 09:29 am 48

    I saw this movie this weekend.    I thought it was hackyneyed in everyway except for the lesson show in the film.  A “he is just not that into you” for guys.   I wish I would have seen it when I was younger.
     
    I’m chagrined to write that when I was younger I fell fort he BS of believing that someone could care for me while “not looking for something serious”,  being unwilling to call me a boyfriend and claiming to have a unique, erudite “philosophy” of  not defining relationships, not using “labels”.     I was made a foold by this kind of thing more than once.    I guess that was being young is partly about.
     
    I was suprised to find that the movie brought back old feelings of disappointment, humiliation, anger and hurt.
     
    I’m glad this movie is out there now, for the sensitive and naive young guys out there.   It will save them a lot of hurt.
     
    If someone isn’t willing to call herself your GF or “define the relationship”   you don’t have a relationship.   Move on.
     
     

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply