“One card says: ‘To me, you are perfect.’ Another says: ‘My wasted heart will love you ‘til you look like this [insert image of a time-ravaged skeleton].’ Juliet laughs. My reaction would be to slam the door and get a restraining order. What is Mark implying here?”
—Maitri Mehta, Bustle.com
Answer: What Mark is “implying” (with gentle, anguished humor) is that he will love Juliet “till the end of time” (“till the wells run dry, and every mountain disappears”) despite knowing his love can’t be requited. Mark silently confesses his feelings, to ease Juliet’s mind as much as his own, and then he walks away with no expectations at all. His is an act of apology and “closure” that could only be read as a tender gesture by people possessed of a soul.
(Ms. Mehta, exhibiting the undisciplined critical faculty characteristic of feminists and other judges, feels a picture of a skeleton authorizes her to infer that Mark intends to turn Juliet into one. Context is invisible to those who only see in monochrome.)
According to the Ms. Mehtas of the world, one of the great romantic figures of literature, Cyrano de Bergerac, would be a “stalker,” because he“serially” wooed his lady love beneath her balcony while masquerading as someone else.
(“And that nose and rapier! What was Cyrano implying there?”)
It doesn’t matter that neither Roxane nor Juliet was afraid. What matters is that they Damn Well Should Have Been.
By feminists’ lights, I’m a stalker, too, and I can’t imagine any romantic who wouldn’t be. I wrote love notes to a classmate in first grade even after she told me not to. With crayon hearts on them. I suppose the feminist interpretation of what my purple construction paper cards “implied” would be that I wanted to eat the girl’s organs.
They’re to be pitied, I guess, these women who never obsessively wrote a boy’s name in their notebooks as a girl or tittered with their friends about a schoolmate while spying on him (again) from behind a bank of lockers—and I would pity instead of scorn them if I didn’t know firsthand how perniciously influential their twisted perspectives are.
I was invited to visit some older friends on Christmas to watch Love Actually with them. That’s the movie the quotation above refers to. They’re in their 70s, and this is a holiday ritual of theirs.
The Mark-and-Juliet scene is a poignant one, and only an emotionally disturbed mind could construe it otherwise.
Ms. Mehta says this scene represents for her “a level of creepy that shakes me to my core, and every time she runs after him and kisses him in the street, I cringe.” (The phrase “every time” betrays Ms. Mehta has nevertheless watched the movie over and over.)
Sentiments like hers are what make me cringe. (Ms. Mehta’s name says her family is from India, where people still squat in the dirt because indoor plumbing isn’t universal. People starve there, too.)
I introduce Ms. Mehta’s remarks in this context (a blog about restraining orders), because they’re not exclusive to her. They echo social science produced by a post-doc fellow at Michigan U, Julia Lippman, who performed a study that concludes romantic comedies “mak[e] stalking behaviors seem like a normal part of romance.” It’s titled, “The Effects of Media Portrayals of Persistent Pursuit on Beliefs about Stalking.”
This “work” isn’t discounted, either. Google it. Dr. Lippman has her own website.
In a write-up about the study in The Atlantic, Julie Beck quotes the National Institute of Justice’s definition of stalking as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated (two or more occasions) visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear.”
You’ll find this definition inscribed in many states’ criminal statutes.
Observe that the language is so tortured with qualifying phrases beginning with “or” that the “fear” component seems optional—and feminists more than suggest it is.
To judge from Ms. Mehta’s response to a scene in a romantic comedy, the “reasonable person” restriction in the definition of “stalking”…is entirely superfluous.
Copyright © 2016 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
*A comment from a female respondent submitted three days ago: “I too am a victim, then became a whistle blower/informant exposing my perps, then victimized again with six false stalking petitions…. Three were granted and all were dismissed, including one where we made case law!” The respondent calls herself “Warrior Lady in Florida.” When I was a kid, that’s what feminists were: warrior ladies. Today, they’re distinguished for cringing.
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
While I know the story of Cyrano I have to admit its more so by way of Steve Martins movie Roxanne. I say that to say this. I am the only child of my father and mother without a bachelor degree or better in fact I am an 8th grade drop out. I wont go into how I earn 4xs what any of those with graduate degrees earn that’s another story.
I do have a son put through Texas A&M and then Law School and another who finished HS but chose to work rather than be contained in a class room another 4 years. And I couldn’t be more proud of either one of them.
The reason I say all that is because of your “Social Science” comment. There is where I’d like to impose my two cents worth as it may be valued that much.
Social Science RESULTS by a college professor is (as my dad might say) as useful as tits on a boar hog. Because “social science” is by definition academic yet society is by its very definition a dichotomy to scientific theory. True Science teaches that in fact an combination of certain elements will result in X. Society does not has never and never will consistently result with X. These lab rat participants directed toward the cheese provided by an orchestrator are glaringly comical to those of us who were never “taught” or indoctrinated by critical thinking skills. Those of us who by participating in life at our own peril found that we prefer more than an instructor we actually prefer the sights and sounds of life happening to us rather than the monotone doling of those scantly experienced in “our” life. Ill take wisdom over education every time.
There in lay the caveats emptor of life. Have you ever heard the saying “never judge a book by its cover”. I try my best to live by this. Because I have met people only for a moment in time that seemed to me to be either awesome or awful yet the realization that they have no actual participation in my future causes me to dismiss that encounter much like a zombie on the Walking Dead Series. They are simply not characters in my life’s storyline they are one of thousands of extras making up the scenery. But social science is telling us contrarily that if we are not conformist to the zombie hoard we shall be devoured. i.e. Don’t laugh at a romantic comedy and be happy that life happening to those characters turns out well at the end. Rather think about the scientific results we (the non participant scientist) see social ///life/// as causing(insert stalking, rape, discrimination etcetera here) or whatever your political issue of the day is.
I would point out to anyone reliant upon these scientific results to turn the rudder of their own life that if you are conformed to the zombie hoard of the educated critically thinking…..My dear sweet lost soul, you have already been devoured. But of course that thought is wasted on someone whom will never realize what they have become. Critical thinking has been defined as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, ///as a guide to belief and action.///
I believe that no matter the circumstance that I can not credit the actions of one to the whole or even to another. Though the whole will often suffer for the actions of one because they are in unison as a zombie hoard.
Do I ascribe to all cops, judges, preachers, scientists, lawyers, Christians, Muslims, or any other “group” for the actions of a few? No. Even feminist beliefs have splintered and are now to be greatly scrutinized as to what degree they conform to X. But anyone as they fall into or support those same actions and beliefs are indeed become leaven for the lump.
Though (I believe) society has a natural flow which is life the inevitable glitches are turned into gulches by the small minority, those who indoctrinate into a certain “culture” which is social not science because they are unhappy with their own storyline yet rather than edit or rewrite what others have written for them become complacent being provided a worn path. They begin to rely upon the rhetoric of others accepting of there plight which is by the way superbly exampled here on Todd’s website by the gathering of those who have suffered false accusations and so forth.
The great disparity here is that though one group or gathering cry foul the other continues to use long tried tested and now socially acceptable (= emotional) methods to bait the cheese trap for those unwitting zombie mice. Those doing “scientific studies” are the same those who will scream “rape culture”, “patriarchy” then when the ///facts/// i.e. legal abuse syndrome expose their science fiction will simply excuse empirical evidence provided according to their own standards because it puts a glitch in their evaluation of life.
So I suppose that all I wanted to say here is that I am an individual, judge me as one by my actions not your pre assumed and choreographed X result. I’ll do the same for you. But if you insist on running a maze of insults dodging and ducking life unwilling to admit your own faults while perforating the earths core in hopes of exposing what you see as my faults…. well game on bitch.
LikeLike
Ok wait up, hold the damn phone here just a minute.
TWO POINTS
1) I have never seen the movie Love Actually and had not read Ms. Mehta’s commentary prior to writing the above comments. THERFORE I was unaware of the “context” relayed by the movie thinking it to be comparable to Roxanne. I only have to ponder if my words were divinely inspired…Rick? No way come on man really? LOL…wow so while I stand by everything I said above now I must add the following in order to avoid being a mousy follower of Todd’s blog.
2) TODD my well written friend… you pulled a fast one. Stop and think about your comment “(Ms. Mehta, exhibiting the undisciplined critical faculty characteristic of feminists and other judges, feels a picture of a skeleton authorizes her to infer that Mark intends to turn Juliet into one. Context is invisible to those who only see in monochrome.)
You in fact have used Ms. Mehta’s post WAAAaaaay Outta context. In no way did I feel by her writing that she infers Ricks cards are meant to turn Juliet into a skeleton. Actually that point is completely irrelevant to her writing which was specifically about his “agenda” romantically with Juliet . Furthermore I feel her stated would be reaction is not only justified but authentic and correct.
DUde…. I don’t freagin care who you are, the time to express a love interest is before someone is dating your best friend or at minimum in the early stages. To show up to a woman’s door after she is married with a love note cannot be compared to a 4th grade purple construction paper courtship. You show up at my door doin that crap and best friend or not …. she may forgive your doting flattery with a peck of a kiss but im gonna F you up. The LESSON from Rick or Mark or whomever his character was… is grow up, move on, find that someone for you rather than coveting thy best friends wife.
BAD FORM TODD… very bad form.
Just btw… I don’t know how it ended but I hope that she shuts the door after she asks him to move to another town. Who could think otherwise than the motivation Mehta’s post was questioning was Marks attempt at supplanting his “friends” relationship. Which is the epitome of “creepy” deserving of a restraining order. Your a man so you surely have experienced that Men do not seek closure in such a way without hopes of success in an effort to gain something.
LikeLike
This is terrific parody, pretending you’re a guy who reads a post about context then says he doesn’t know the context of the scene under discussion then goes on to judge the character in the scene and by extension everyone “like” him, all the while associating the character in the scene with another character his portrayer plays on TV who shoots zombies. Brilliant.
Other people might think you’re being literal, though.
LikeLike
You know, right, that social science is used to influence the court.
https://restrainingorderabuse.com/2014/11/06/how-dogma-is-preserved-a-feminist-law-professor-is-awarded-a-500000-grant-from-uncle-sam-to-prove-claims-of-false-allegations-in-family-court-are-junk-science/
LikeLike
Lol Ummm, I am being literal. No parody here.
My first post commented specifically about the social science aspect of your article not the movies. Where I prefaced those comments and dissented from the social science mentioned. I think perhaps my analogies were influenced by my watching the Dead series and possibly your skeleton card comments. (idk but maybe)
My next post was directed specifically toward the movie scene, Ms. Mehta’s article you referenced and the lack of “feminist agenda” contained therein. You’ll be delighted to know I did watch the movie over the weekend. When I found that this characters storyline was literally no more than the one notecard scene I felt maybe as Ms. Mehta did that it contributed nothing to the movie. It felt awkward and out of place.
Though I do not judge all like this character alike because all would not perform the same actions in real life . I stand by my comments about the scene. Mark makes an attempt to leave a door open for Julia to be “with him”. Agenda clear.
My conclusion is simply this. I believe you may be suffering battle fatigue, seeing the enemy everywhere and lobbing the “F” bomb in hopes of hitting something…anything. IMHO because you inserted personal insults toward Ms. Mehta “squats in the dirt” and credit her with asserting a position she just did not assert, you come off as total propaganda rather than thought out commentary. Glitch into gulch.
Pull back from the front and take some R&R rather than dig fox holes in quick sand.
“10 minutes at Elton Johns and your gay as a meatball”
to the kid “your fucked”
“shut up Ms. Dunkin Doughnuts 2003”
I laughed my ass off… good show.
LikeLike
What people need to understand is that judges couldn’t give a damn whether there are “restraining orders” or not. They rule on the things because they exist. It’s their job.
Legislators create laws in response to hue and cry. So who is the “enemy”? What “force” makes these conversations necessary?
Also, how pampered are Americans that romantic comedies inspire them to “fear” while people in other countries do without sanitation, dignity, or food?
LikeLike
Todd, People are strange fools. Most cant see beyond lunch much less care about the feminist agenda or starving countries unless they can “end hunger for less than the price of a cup of coffee per day”. They pick and choose from whom and what makes them feel good about themselves only to say “look what I have done” to their friends. They watch the news and hear what is doled out in popular terms like “women’s equality”, “stop domestic violence” etcetera. Church inspires this, universities and government inspires this friends and family already in the fold inspire this and the lack of a strong marriage/family unit allows it to be an easy transition. People (most) don’t want choices they want to be told what to choose and made to feel good about those “choices”.
Pardon me madam, would you like a table in hue and cry or do you prefer to sit at the bar of don’t give a damn? Excellent choice.
So the simplicity of your question “who is the enemy?” They become obvious.
What “force” makes the conversations necessary? None…see the above choices.
But if you choose to bypass the above dictated choices you will be attacked. So fight back.
I’ll tell everyone here a quick personal story if no one minds if I talk about numero uno for uno momento.
I attended a particular Pentecostal Church of God for years all the time tithing and giving offerings in support of missions and youth functions etcetera. My wife and I volunteered with the youth because our kids were in that age group at the time. Though to be completely transparent I was only a fixture in the background of what was the Barbie Dynamo.
While Barbie was accepted and “loved into the kingdom” I was not. Barbie volunteered for everything from youth to women’s groups and every special function even being one of only a couple allowed to drive the youths in the church van. People sang her praises regularly in the church and nothing she ever did was questioned. Why? Because she had the pastors “special” stamp of approval as fitting the mold. Pretty, petite and well kept. Not to mention she is a social person easy to get along with superficially. While I on the other hand was a tatted up long hair biker who did community service at the church for a bogus weapons charge. And couldn’t volunteer to take out the trash without a meeting and the church elders approval. None the less I supported the church financially because it was what I believed was right at the time.
The pastor one Wednesday after service drapes his arm over Barbie’s shoulder in front of me and comes off with “We just love you so much. You know you remind me of (Insert his wifes name here) 30 years ago.” I casually took her out from under his arm saying Yeah but this is 2008. Not long before that Barbie had commented to me that she hopes she looks as good as his wife when she gets to be that age. (I didn’t think she was that old. She is a nice looking woman dressing very well)Then a few months later at our anniversary I stood after a Wednesday night service and acclaimed “Its our 20th wedding anniversary blah blah blah” Others had done it to applause and congratulations but for some reason when I did… crickets and odd stares. Not only that but outside I got a good cussing on how I embarrassed her in front of everyone.
Well by that time next year when Barbie and I were separating (lol…ok) yeah separating and she took all the money and valuables etcetera. After years of giving tens of thousands and never asking for anything. I went to the church asking for a 20$ gas card that I knew they had given to others in need quite casually. Well the response to me was we only do that with “approval” after a board meeting. Well let you know. What the??? Really??? But I need …. door closes.
Well in 2013 during a deposition her lawyer asks me. Did that surprise you that your Church wouldn’t help you? A.) It did then. (with a knowing smerk.) Having read her response to interrogatories where she talks about how “Pastor called me the day of the hearing…” while I was penny less and had no fuel to get to court.
Live and learn or just live like a dummy on a string.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKOEMqDupE0
I hate war but once its begun, well I simply chose not to run away.
LikeLike
This is such a good article and there is some sadness for me as well..Michael called Sam a stalker and said he didn’t want to talk to him or anybody and that he was tired of the “stalkers’. time was when I could go up to his store and sit and talk with him till he closed and then he came over to my place for four or five hours till he left at midnight…now that would be stalking or criminal trespass if i went to his store and he would likely call me a stalker..he calls himself a ‘serial killer’ which my therapist and psychiatrist friend said is typical of an untreated schizophrenic who is deep in his delusion whatever they may be….he sees himself as a killer so no wonder things are so crazy…trouble is…I never got closure though am doing a whole lot better than formerly and have to a certain extent been able to let it go if only a mutual acquaintenance of ours who helped him would stay out of my life. she acts like we are the greatest of friends and is responsible in the main for what happened between Michael and me…he turned to her to ask her how to do a ro and was really good about telling him what to write down…now she is very cutesy and trying to butter me up…it takes everything i have to not say anything to her at all about Michael. Anyway, being labeled a stalker is no fun and a very shaming word that is loosely thrown around like the word love and hate. i have no idea what is going on with him except that he is overtly psychotic thinking he is a serial killer and that everyone around him is stalking him…whatever
LikeLike
It is horrifying how feminist dogma has blinded its disciples to the humanity of the other. It abstracts and dehumanizes. I was introduced to feminist studies in the ’90s (which then marketed itself as “women’s studies” and probably still does), and one of the criticisms then, as now, was how women were “objectified.” What has feminism done if not objectify? It classifies and prescribes blame. Subjectivity, context, reality—these are ignored. The court follows the same formula (and that’s not just coincidental). Psychologists even, from whom you’d expect empathy and human identification, and who should be suspect of law and its reductiveness—they’re complicit in “formulizing” conduct into the narrowest, de-contextualized definitions, ones that authorize and promote punishment.
LikeLike
What’s really ridiculous is how many restraining orders get granted for harassing one’s own wife. The wife says, “I never want to see you or hear from you again” and leaves, and the husband says “Wait, what about the baby” which is of course harassment because he’s disregarding her expressed wishes to receive no further contact from him.
My wife accused me of cyberstalking her, and yet she was the one who, after leaving me, continued to go through my Facebook account and read all of my messages, some of which she took screenshots of and attempted to use as evidence against me. (I had given her the password while we were still together, but she had promised to only access the account in case of emergency.)
LikeLike