We have all been exposed to, at
some point or another, one of those cheesy, romantic “love stories” where the
guy gets the girl, they walk off into the sunset together, and everything is
presumed to be perfect for eternity after. It seems like this was a major theme
in the movies and shows we watched as children, but what about now? As I tried
to think of any instance where this has been the scenario in the plot of an
adult-themed show or movie of this decade, I struggled to come up with an
answer. It has become increasingly hard to find movies about idealistic couples
and their perfect lives, and even harder to find shows about them.
While going over the Segrin & Nabi
(2002) article in class the other day and discussing whether the television has
gotten less idealistic and “rosy” or the audience has become more cynical, I
tried to work out this question with my own experiences with television. I
tried to come up with one example (other than the Bachelor and Bachelorette)
that did, indeed, mirror the idealistic view of marriage and relationships that
Segrin & Nabi’s (2002) study participants valued for their own hypothetical
relationships. When I came up with goose egg, I wondered if there were more
examples of counterscripts of the values mentioned by their participants. According
to Segrin & Nabi (2002), some of the most frequently mentioned expectations
of marriage mentioned by the participants in their study were “time together,” “physical
intimacy,” “positive affect,” and “permanence.” When thinking about this, I realized
that I have seen more instances of the opposite of these values on television
than I have of the actual values. For example, there is a show on TVLand called
Happily Divorced, that proposes the idea of divorce being more ideal
than marriage. For those of us (probably most of us) who don’t watch TVLand on
a regular basis, here is a clip
of the show that basically explains the overall premise.
The show is about Fran and Peter, a
long-time married but recently divorced couple, who live together despite the
fact that Fran’s ex-husband Peter is gay. Although the couple in the show is
not actually a couple, according to dominant cultural norms, they are perceived
as being happy with their situation. The show presents the couple in a number of
ways that goes against a lot of the “ideal” expectations of relationships. First, and most obviously, they are not
married. The show is proposing that you don’t have to be married to have an “ideal”
relationship with someone. This is directly contradicting the “permanence”
ideal as proposed by Segrin & Nabi (2002). In fact, since the couple is divorced,
they are able to maintain a lasting relationship while not being committed to
one another. The second idea that the show contradicts is “physical intimacy.” The
couple obviously does not have sex anymore, due to the fact that Peter is gay.
The show seems to be suggesting that the two can have a relationship without
having to be physically intimate, which definitely runs against the majority of
romantic scripts found in media. Lastly, the show also questions “time together,”
and “positive affect” as “ideal” qualities as a necessity for a couple. In the
show, both Fran and Peter actively seek other partners, both for sexual gains
and other, and the other partner seems completely fine with this. The show is
not stressing the need for people to spend infinite amounts of time with each
other or to even enjoy the other’s company on a regular basis in order for them
to be happy. The show often deals with Fran and Peter’s differences and
conflicts and shows how the two find a way to work through them in order to
create a deeper friendship.
Although the show Happily Divorced
seems to be proposing that the new standard for an “ideal” relationship may
look a lot different than what was once thought to be “ideal,” the show also
stresses the need for “couples” to be friends or partners, suggesting that,
even though they are not still married, they should still be there for each
other like they once were. So, maybe “happily ever after” still does exist. Maybe
it just looks a little different.
