Are MPDGs an authentic artistic expression of young male romance and misplaced desire for female idealization, or a tired screenwriting trope that negates character agency and relates women (and the actresses that play them) to an unfulfilling one-dimensional stereotype?
>>217395760They’re women who have personalities and are interesting to be around, which is what makes them seem so strange and fantastical
>>217395760No Ramona from Scott Pilgrim? Summer does does not belong there, she ended up being a normal flighty girl.
>>217395760>AmelieShe's the fucking main character!
>BPD and ecstasy>conceited with low self-esteem
>>217396341that's why the movie is kino, it's a twist on the mpdg trope, she's the mc
>>217396003Ramona wasn't an MPDG, she was just a hipster chick who had more baggage than Scott himself.
>>217395760Sex with manic ADHD gingers
>>217396490Actually, if anything, Knives was the Manic Pixie Dreamgirl in that movie. She was the wide eyed, cheery ray of sunshine. Ramon was the grounded, cynical one who had to be won over.
>>217395760It’s a projection of the male desire for a “Beatrice” but for modern life.
>>217395760They're whores anon. You thinking too much
>>217395760It's young, insecure guys romanticizing girls that are different because they imply a liberation from typical dating norms. This goes for goth girls too.There's a reason all this shit coincides with internet culture. Losers tend to be extremely online. People who are actually successful in dating aren't obsessing over subcultural niches where they might have a better chance.
anyone who thinks clementine is a mpdg does not understand that movieshe's a deliberate deconstruction of that trope
Is that..... a woman that's friendly and nice and cute? AAAIIIIIEEEEEE IT'S A PROBLEMATIC TROOOOPE
>>217395760It's the archetype of the Anima. Read Jung.
>>217395760The entire idea is that, in this heightened reality, women are pleasant, have an actual personality, real hobbies and are kind and humane towards you and that they're actual people, who just happen to have a body made for sexual reproduction which, in this scenario, is just the icing on the cake. Of course, all of this is BULLSHIT in the real world and women are nothing but vessels for a man's seed to become a child and you can't be friends with them, just keep them at arm's length for the purposes of fulfilling cold, pragmatic biological imperatives. If they were simply men in female bodies, that's the gist of it, but with a faint sprinkle of feminine qualities like a sweetener. That's what it is.There ARE women in the real world who have some faint idea of this male fantasy and use it to honeypot lonely, desperate men into playing out a deranged facsimile of this idealized personification of an ideal life partner by sensitive, and often autistic, men who are let down by how vain and plain real women are.TL;DR: MPDGs are basically fellow men in female bodies and that's the appeal. If women weren't women in everything but in bodily form.
>depict an actually lovable woman in a romance aimed at men>women get angry something isn't for themso can I get angry at anything made for women and not me?
>>217397391Women have more close friends than men do and their friendship networks are more personal. Guys bond over shared hobbies like video games or sports, not over the ability to be emotionally open and supportive with each other. There's a reason it's the male loneliness epidemic. Clearly women are more pleasant and have real personalities while men are just projecting all their negative traits onto women.
>>217397391That's not true. They do exist. They just don't want to have sex with you specifically. They want Chad.
>>217396003This isn't a puta thread
>>217397434No because you'll get angry in a psychotic way like the dozen incel communities online that rage about the fact women exercise their sexual and romantic preferences.
>>217396003Summer is a Manic Pixie Girl until the movie actually reveals its agenda: "manic pixie girls are your male projection, every woman is a heartless whore".
>>217397468>That's not true. It is.>They do exist.They do not. But the latter half of your post is true. Women are only Chadsexual. End of story. Which is why any and all "lesbians" are LARPERs, with no exceptions whatsoever.>>217397466>Women have more close friends than men do and their friendship networks are more personal.They do not, and they are not. You're an imbecile mistaking the veil for the face. Their friend groups are sycophantic circlejerks where everyone is constantly trying to gaslight each other and enforce a pecking order at every turn, which just causes them suffering and hurt.>Guys bond over shared hobbies like video games or sports, not over the ability to be emotionally open and supportive with each other. There's a reason it's the male loneliness epidemic.Wrong, wrong and wrong. None of this is true in observable reality of which you're not a part of, clearly. Women in fact are more cold, more prone to lying and manipulating and in-group sabotage than men are, by a landslide.You two don't know anything about anything. You're either A) willfully ignorant because you hate being a man and want to believe women are better, as some weird cope or B) you're really that stupid and have autogynephilia, a universal trait among those who spew the kind of shit you two are. Kill yourselves, in short.
>>217397494okay not angry then, can I bitch and moan in a ridiculously catty way about something that's not for me and still have people take me seriously?
>>217397391Factual and lifeexperiencepilled.
>>217397391You know, I think when women complain about this trope and why it's problematic, I think they might be talking about you.
>>217397602his paragraphs of text sound just like those articles the women journos write about this stuff though, just from the opposite bizarro worldI mean look at this:>here ARE women in the real world who have some faint idea of this male fantasy and use it to honeypot lonely, desperate men into playing out a deranged facsimile of this idealized personification of an ideal life partner by sensitive, and often autistic, men who are let down by how vain and plain real women are.
>>217397602What a nonsensical and imbecilic reply to my post. You will never be a woman, whacko.
who's claire?
>>217397634All true, this is not any kind of debunking. You are repeating what I said back to me with some vague, passive-aggressive attitude that's supposed to make the person you're replying to and whatever fuckhead reading your post go along with your "...uh, yikes"-tier bullshit.
>>217397634he's right on all counts keep seething xir.
>>217397539>Their friend groups are sycophantic circlejerks where everyone is constantly trying to gaslight each otherNo you're misattributing an occasional problem for the general nature of their friendship groups. Everything I said can be backed up by studies. Women are more likely to have close friends, are more likely to feel emotionally supported by them, and are more likely to expect more support from them.Men on the other hand have fewer friends and even that's declining with time. Again there's a widely reported MALE loneliness epidemic because men cannot make friends anymore. >None of this is true in observable realityIt's all true. Guys do not sit around discussing their feelings at Sunday brunch lmao. Guys play video games together or they play sports or cards or whatever.>Women in fact are more coldCrazy that you're telling people to kill themselves over a simple disagreement and you want to argue that women are more cold. Guys behave like deranged psychopaths and are more violent.
>>217397638But I'll always be better than you, faggot.
>>217397638>nonsensical and imbecilicgame recognize game
>>217397651>>217397658>posts exactly 60 seconds apart samefag
