I see it as a promise of intent on an abstract level moreso than a guarantee of any particular capability. Maybe more like, “I’ve got you, wherever/however I am able.” And that may well look like traditional gendered roles of physical protection on one side and emotional support on the other, but doesn’t have to.
I have sometimes tried to point at the core thing by phrasing it, not very romantically, as an adoption of and joint optimization of utility functions. That’s what I mean, at least, when I make this “I got you” promise. And depending on the situation and on my or my partner/companion/intimate-other’s available actions/capabilities, that manifests in various and possibly-individually-distinct ways.
Also, aside, in practice I really think of it as a commitment to doing one’s level best at a much messier process, because there’s a delicateness to inferring the other’s utility function and also trying to infer your own and jointly optimizing both, with some effective weighting arrived at by a partially opaque process that may not be equal, but not too strongly because you’re probably somewhat wrong about everything, and often there are no direct conflicts of values but often enough there are and you need to develop some resolution mechanism for that, probably by pressing the “cooperate” button again and popping up to discuss how to resolve best with partner etc etc.
Also, another aside, I would argue that the standard romantic relationships I see portrayed very often seem lacking in the portrayal. I see lots of infatuation, sexual attraction, and symbols of romance (candles and flowers etc,) but only in the rare depictions that include at least strong hints at the stuff you quoted me saying in the OP do I get a little tug at my heart and believe/believe-in the relationship I’m seeing. This goes for film/TV/prose as well as the people around me, now that I think about it. …I kind of wonder sometimes if most people (including writers and actors) don’t really know what the really good thing consists of, not even intuitively, and only stumble upon it / partial instantiations of it, without full recognition, by chance.
A tangent: Often when prospecting for friendship and always for companionship, I used to say that people either did or did not have any “Peter Pan” in them. I coined it when thinking back at watching Peter Pan as a kid and how immediately afterward I ran around the house pretending to be Peter and trying to believe myself into flying etc.. When talking about this I’m bringing a lot more than the current topic into it because this is also supposed to capture a “named character” energy, and an unbrokeness in terms of will-to-joy and other things I won’t get into, but also (relevantly) a “romantic soul.” And with that last thing I think I was gesturing at this stuff we’re talking about here. Joy and desire at the idea of finding a(t least one!) compatible soul to entwine with and make their happiness yours as they make yours theirs.
Also, another aside, I would argue that the standard romantic relationships I see portrayed very often seem lacking in the portrayal. I see lots of infatuation, sexual attraction, and symbols of romance (candles and flowers etc,)
I think this is evidence that supports the hypothesis that “I got you” is male-coded.
Romantic movies are mostly made for women; it makes sense that they would portray female preferences.
Fair enough, re: romantic movies showing female preferences*. (Though I don’t watch many romance movies and would guess my gestalt impression is therefore more made up of romantic elements in the non-romance movies I do watch...)
*...maybe See below.
Two main thoughts: 1) I think I’ve lost track of what “male-coded” means and am not sure why it matters. I know that the women I’m closest too see it similarly to me. (Obvious selection effects there, of course.) 2) This aside you’re replying to is a pet theory I haven’t given much thought to that both men and women are frequently confused about what the main value proposition of romantic relationships is, and I think the main value prop is a unified thing (viewed at the appropriate level of abstraction, like higher than laundry vs car-repair) that both are looking for. So, even if romance movies are aimed at women, most writers will be writing the meme of female-romance, and writers of macho-romance movies (were there such a thing) would be writing the meme of male-romance, and those things may well diverge, and both are misrepresenting the thing that is most good about good relationships. That’s the pet theory anyway.
I think the stereotypes for choosing a (heterosexual) partner are the following:
The ideal man is strong, street-smart, agenty, high-status, rich.
The ideal woman is pretty, emotionally sensitive, sexually inexperienced.
How this relates to supporting each other?
The attributes of the ideal woman are unrelated to needing support. Actually, when a woman needs support, that is a perfect opportunity for a man to demonstrate his strength and resources; this is what the “damsel in distress” trope is about.
But when a man needs support… well, apparently he is not strong/smart/agenty enough to help himself, so it kinda ruins his value on the dating market.
So the situation is not symmetrical. Loyal partners will support each other, but for the man, it has a flavor of “by supporting you, I demonstrate my value, which makes our relationship stronger”, while for the woman it has a flavor of “you lost some of your value, but I will support you loyally anyway”. (That is the “she’s not very happy about it” part. She now has to work harder than before, to get less of what she wanted.)
I see it as a promise of intent on an abstract level moreso than a guarantee of any particular capability. Maybe more like, “I’ve got you, wherever/however I am able.” And that may well look like traditional gendered roles of physical protection on one side and emotional support on the other, but doesn’t have to.
I have sometimes tried to point at the core thing by phrasing it, not very romantically, as an adoption of and joint optimization of utility functions. That’s what I mean, at least, when I make this “I got you” promise. And depending on the situation and on my or my partner/companion/intimate-other’s available actions/capabilities, that manifests in various and possibly-individually-distinct ways.
Also, aside, in practice I really think of it as a commitment to doing one’s level best at a much messier process, because there’s a delicateness to inferring the other’s utility function and also trying to infer your own and jointly optimizing both, with some effective weighting arrived at by a partially opaque process that may not be equal, but not too strongly because you’re probably somewhat wrong about everything, and often there are no direct conflicts of values but often enough there are and you need to develop some resolution mechanism for that, probably by pressing the “cooperate” button again and popping up to discuss how to resolve best with partner etc etc.
Also, another aside, I would argue that the standard romantic relationships I see portrayed very often seem lacking in the portrayal. I see lots of infatuation, sexual attraction, and symbols of romance (candles and flowers etc,) but only in the rare depictions that include at least strong hints at the stuff you quoted me saying in the OP do I get a little tug at my heart and believe/believe-in the relationship I’m seeing. This goes for film/TV/prose as well as the people around me, now that I think about it. …I kind of wonder sometimes if most people (including writers and actors) don’t really know what the really good thing consists of, not even intuitively, and only stumble upon it / partial instantiations of it, without full recognition, by chance.
A tangent: Often when prospecting for friendship and always for companionship, I used to say that people either did or did not have any “Peter Pan” in them. I coined it when thinking back at watching Peter Pan as a kid and how immediately afterward I ran around the house pretending to be Peter and trying to believe myself into flying etc.. When talking about this I’m bringing a lot more than the current topic into it because this is also supposed to capture a “named character” energy, and an unbrokeness in terms of will-to-joy and other things I won’t get into, but also (relevantly) a “romantic soul.” And with that last thing I think I was gesturing at this stuff we’re talking about here. Joy and desire at the idea of finding a(t least one!) compatible soul to entwine with and make their happiness yours as they make yours theirs.
I think this is evidence that supports the hypothesis that “I got you” is male-coded.
Romantic movies are mostly made for women; it makes sense that they would portray female preferences.
Fair enough, re: romantic movies showing female preferences*. (Though I don’t watch many romance movies and would guess my gestalt impression is therefore more made up of romantic elements in the non-romance movies I do watch...)
*...maybe See below.
Two main thoughts:
1) I think I’ve lost track of what “male-coded” means and am not sure why it matters. I know that the women I’m closest too see it similarly to me. (Obvious selection effects there, of course.)
2) This aside you’re replying to is a pet theory I haven’t given much thought to that both men and women are frequently confused about what the main value proposition of romantic relationships is, and I think the main value prop is a unified thing (viewed at the appropriate level of abstraction, like higher than laundry vs car-repair) that both are looking for. So, even if romance movies are aimed at women, most writers will be writing the meme of female-romance, and writers of macho-romance movies (were there such a thing) would be writing the meme of male-romance, and those things may well diverge, and both are misrepresenting the thing that is most good about good relationships. That’s the pet theory anyway.
I think the stereotypes for choosing a (heterosexual) partner are the following:
The ideal man is strong, street-smart, agenty, high-status, rich.
The ideal woman is pretty, emotionally sensitive, sexually inexperienced.
How this relates to supporting each other?
The attributes of the ideal woman are unrelated to needing support. Actually, when a woman needs support, that is a perfect opportunity for a man to demonstrate his strength and resources; this is what the “damsel in distress” trope is about.
But when a man needs support… well, apparently he is not strong/smart/agenty enough to help himself, so it kinda ruins his value on the dating market.
So the situation is not symmetrical. Loyal partners will support each other, but for the man, it has a flavor of “by supporting you, I demonstrate my value, which makes our relationship stronger”, while for the woman it has a flavor of “you lost some of your value, but I will support you loyally anyway”. (That is the “she’s not very happy about it” part. She now has to work harder than before, to get less of what she wanted.)