I know this might sound a little stereotypical, but I genuinely don't understand why writers always associate emotionally detached, nonchalant characters with being womanisers. If a character struggles with emotional attachment or has difficulty experiencing emotions, why does that automatically translate into sleeping around, hooking up with multiple people, or being incapable of loyalty? Those are two entirely different things.
And I think there's another aspect to this that writers often overlook. I don't necessarily have a problem with hookup culture or casual relationships. I think it's perfectly fine when both people are on the same page and understand that it's purely physical, with no expectations of emotional commitment. The problem arises when there's an imbalance in the dynamics between the people involved.
In real life, casual relationships don't necessarily mean that both people are emotionally detached. Sometimes, one person might develop feelings while the other sees them as nothing more than a sexual partner. And often, people who are known for frequently engaging in casual relationships aren't necessarily considered serious romantic prospects by the people they hook up with. That's not universally true, obviously, but it's a dynamic that exists.
And that's what makes the whole thing frustrating in this story as well. Even if both parties are initially aware of the arrangement, it doesn't automatically make the ML's behaviour or the way the story handles his relationships interesting or justified. I just don't think writers should use someone's inability to form emotional connections as a convenient explanation for their entire sexual and romantic behaviour.
Honestly, this story could have been so much better if he wasn't a womaniser. The entire emotional aspect of his character could have been explored without him constantly sleeping around and getting involved with other people. There were so many ways to portray someone who struggles with emotional attachment without making him a womaniser. I would have loved to see an emotionally detached, nonchalant character who simply doesn't care much about romance or relationships rather than someone whose promiscuity becomes part of his personality and is subsequently justified by his psychological condition.
And what bothers me even more is how cheating and other questionable behaviour are sometimes excused through past experiences or psychological conditions. Having difficulty forming emotional connections doesn't mean someone is incapable of understanding right and wrong, nor does it absolve them of responsibility for hurting others. I genuinely think the character development could have been so much more interesting if the writers had explored his emotional detachment differently.
I know this might sound a little stereotypical, but I genuinely don't understand why writers always associate emotionally detached, nonchalant characters with being womanisers. If a character struggles with emotional attachment or has difficulty experiencing emotions, why does that automatically translate into sleeping around, hooking up with multiple people, or being incapable of loyalty? Those are two entirely different things.
And I think there's another aspect to this that writers often overlook. I don't necessarily have a problem with hookup culture or casual relationships. I think it's perfectly fine when both people are on the same page and understand that it's purely physical, with no expectations of emotional commitment. The problem arises when there's an imbalance in the dynamics between the people involved.
In real life, casual relationships don't necessarily mean that both people are emotionally detached. Sometimes, one person might develop feelings while the other sees them as nothing more than a sexual partner. And often, people who are known for frequently engaging in casual relationships aren't necessarily considered serious romantic prospects by the people they hook up with. That's not universally true, obviously, but it's a dynamic that exists.
And that's what makes the whole thing frustrating in this story as well. Even if both parties are initially aware of the arrangement, it doesn't automatically make the ML's behaviour or the way the story handles his relationships interesting or justified. I just don't think writers should use someone's inability to form emotional connections as a convenient explanation for their entire sexual and romantic behaviour.
Honestly, this story could have been so much better if he wasn't a womaniser. The entire emotional aspect of his character could have been explored without him constantly sleeping around and getting involved with other people. There were so many ways to portray someone who struggles with emotional attachment without making him a womaniser. I would have loved to see an emotionally detached, nonchalant character who simply doesn't care much about romance or relationships rather than someone whose promiscuity becomes part of his personality and is subsequently justified by his psychological condition.
And what bothers me even more is how cheating and other questionable behaviour are sometimes excused through past experiences or psychological conditions. Having difficulty forming emotional connections doesn't mean someone is incapable of understanding right and wrong, nor does it absolve them of responsibility for hurting others. I genuinely think the character development could have been so much more interesting if the writers had explored his emotional detachment differently.