protection, possession

[kaigou]

Question for everyone, about possession/protection in stories. Your impressions don't have to revolve around or be based solely on romantic sub/plots (RSP for easier typing), but in general, though it's most often overused in RSP.

In case I need to mention it again, interpersonal dynamics are absolute fascination to me, especially when you add in any sort of imbalance of power. Given that, you may get already the gist of what I mean when I bring up characters being possessive or protective: it's most often the more powerful character, the one with little to obviously gain, who feels anywhere from unexpectedly protective (or the shadow-side version, possessive) of another character -- to the RSP style in which it's an almost obsessive and immediate protective/possessive sense.

I can't recall now whether I discussed it here, though CP and I discussed the topic: if, at some point, in everyday real relationships, there's been an overwhelming (or at least just very strong) sense of needing/wanting to 'protect' a loved one. The premise I gave was similar to a hundred RSP situations, where Alpha-half looks over to see lover (or more often, simply potential lover) and wants to leap to the lover's defense. Or, at the extreme, to actually remove the destined/intended lover from the scene altogether to isolate/remove him/her from the danger -- which I must also add isn't always even that articulated, so much as a general flash of intense jealousy.

When I read such scenes, I can't help but see it not just from the POV-character's overweening anxiety/jealousy (which may or may not be understandable given the author's set up), but I also see it from the object's POV, and I always find myself thinking: hey, jerkwad, I'm quite capable. Don't treat me like I'm either so fragile I'll break at a wrong word, or so freaking stupid I don't realize I'm fragile. Cripes.

Because there's actually two versions of this Spontaneous Obsessive-Possessive Attack -- one being the classic Alpha version where the powerful/alpha character just steamrollers on over and yanks the beta/lower away, all sanity and reason apparently just gone in a sudden show of primal hair-pulling and chest-beating. Yes, that can be a make-or-break point for a story, and it does take some authorly skill to get me past a knee-jerk "hey, asshole!" reaction. (For instance, I'm a great deal more forgiving if the obsessive-possessive actions are coming from an older sibling, even though on the surface it's essentially the same behavior.)

The second version is what I guess is the modern adaptation of trying to mesh the classic sstrong/weak opposition in romance (read: romanticized) relationships, with the modern/western awareness or preference that a good relationship can be composed of equals. This isn't gender-based, though, because I've read it in gay fiction written by men for men, and lesbian fiction written by women for women, and in het fiction written by both genders, and the genders of the participants cover all possible permutations: it's when Alpha sees Beta, feels flash of protectiveness, and has to remind him/herself, consciously, that Beta is capable and able to self-defend.

Which was the point I made to CP, that somehow I find this immensely offensive, when I think of the Beta's POV even as I read through the eyes of the Alpha. How could you forget that the beta is perfectly competent? To have to consciously reassure yourself that yes, in fact, the beta can handle the situation, regardless of whether any clear danger is actually present?

When I say it's not gender-based, I mean that I've also read the same in, say, a situation where a socially skilled or powerful woman is watching her lower-class or less-social potential/actual lover hobnob. It's often expressed as a worry, and a need to intervene, but if you ask me it amounts to the same kind of thing.

Maybe I just have trouble believing in the strength of an interrelational dynamic when on some level the author seems to be determined to reinforce the imbalance. I don't know. Anyone else?

Comments

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I definitely, viscerally get the desire to stand up for somebody you care about who's taking a beating (literal or no). I have done and said many stupid things as a result. I think that to a certain degree it's a healthy thing. I probably wouldn't want to spend too much time with someone who didn't basically want to give me a hand...

But even when I'm doing/saying the stupid thing, I'm usually thinking, "This is unnecessary. This is just a grand stupid gesture. X can handle this just fine themselves." Which I think is a different thing than the conscious reminder? I'm acknowledging, not reminding. And my grand stupid gestures are of the supportive variety, not the inserting myself between my buddy and the other guy. Which feels qualitatively different to me...but maybe I'm just trying to make myself feel better? *g* (And I do make an effort, these days, to not step into other people's battles just for the sake of registering my willingness to do so.)

Which is to say that yes, I totally agree that a lot of these cases are in practice really insulting and sketchy, but no, the basic in-theory premise doesn't ring particularly false to me.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I think your distinction is the nuance that must've been lacking in what I'd read: the difference between acknowledging another's competence is independent of one's own visceral reaction -- versus reminding oneself. The latter, it seems to me, doesn't even really take into consideration that the visceral reaction may not even be warranted; the focus remains on whether the other person is competent.

Eh, when it comes to actual danger, that's a bit different. In that case, I'd probably be right with you in getting physically in the way. (My sister still hates me in a small way for that, I think.) What had me twigging was all the scenes in which the so-called danger amounted to 'those people are looking at him/her funny,' which to me just seems so patently ridiculous it's not even, well, funny.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Nodnod, that makes sense. The threat _does_ need to actually, y'know, exist, and then to be proportionate. Otherwise I start to wonder whether the character has anger issues and whether maybe our hero(ine) should be taking out a restraining order instead of swooning. *g*

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

It doesn't bother me if the roles trade off. Even the most competent person can sometimes need and even appreciate a little help, back-up, or even protection at times. To me, it's only a problem if it's always the same people in the same roles.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to think of any books (with significant RSP) that do show trading off. Can't think of any, except possibly Laurenston's books. Other than that, drawing a blank...

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

How could you forget that the beta is perfectly competent? To have to consciously reassure yourself that yes, in fact, the beta can handle the situation, regardless of whether any clear danger is actually present?

I suppose the same way that, for instance, many parents have to "remind" themselves that their fully adult children are just that: capable adults. It has a lot less to do (in an ideal situation) with demeaning the child's independence and a lot more with the parent having to abandon a role they have perfected and come to enjoy over a long period of time.

buymeaclue called it a visceral reaction, I'll call it an emotional one. There's the idea the response is born out of the fact that these are the behaviors the alpha feels the most comfortable with: being in control, throwing themselves into danger instead of risking a loved one, becoming actively involved in a problem instead of a bystander. The reminder is not so much about the beta's competency or lack thereof, and all about the alpha restating their commitment to compromising their own gratification and comfort for the sake of the beta's, which is a common relationship snarl cloaked in the language of power.

As buymeaclue said, the "reminder" can (should?) be much more about the alpha than the beta -- the alpha reminding her/his reptilian, ice-cream-first hindbrain: this is the way we're going to play it from now own, not just because [beta] can handle it, but because he/she wants to.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

The reminder is not so much about the beta's competency or lack thereof, and all about the alpha restating their commitment to compromising their own gratification and comfort for the sake of the beta's, which is a common relationship snarl cloaked in the language of power.

That's a really interesting way to put it, and you're right, that is hiding in there. Hrmm, I'll have to turn that one over in my head. Could be interesting to explore as a sub-conflict.

[shiegra.livejournal.com]

I definitely have to say that to me, that kind of moment has always been totally creepy, probably because you rarely see it handled any other way.

tatterpunk compared it to reaction of a parent--but a parent has usually spent most of your life protecting you, a great deal of that time when you were pretty much incapable of defending yourself. It isn't an equal relationship on that level. And your significant other treating you like a child isn't a good sign.

[tatterpunk.livejournal.com]

The comparison wasn't meant to equate alpha/beta relationship with the parent/child relationship. But just as a parent can become comfortable in that role over time, one should consider whether an alpha personality has come into their sense of self overtime and (as most people do) engage in the behaviors that make them the most comfortable with themselves.

I'm also not attempting to advocate for or against relationships (fictional or otherwise) with an obvious power balance, but "think out" what the emotional underpinnings might be.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

The comparison wasn't meant to equate alpha/beta relationship with the parent/child relationship.

It's there, though, and when you think of romantic sub/plots and how they're often idealized to some extent (along with being romanticized), then if the 'ideal' relationship in the society is a parent's (supposed-to-be) unconditional love for their child, then... no surprise if other aspects of a parent's template-love get dragged into the idealization, as well.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I think when SOs do treatment like that, it is (sometimes) because the parent/child relationship is their major template for how you act with someone you love. One of my closest friends is veryveryveryAlpha (and yes it gets teeth-gnashing sometimes); although the curious thing is he's not really that possessive, he's ultra-protective. There is a feeling, often, when I'm with him, that he's treating me like a child.

(A'course, then you also get into gender issues, which can be created pre-relationship, that is, before sex even comes into one's life as a way to relate.)

[stinky-horowitz.livejournal.com]

Yes, I find it annoying and unbelievable when one of a pair is Alpha in all situations. First of all, why would anyone want to be Alpha all the time? That's boring and stressful by turns unless one enjoys the power trip. If the character is in it solely for the control, either to protect themselves or for enjoyment, I respect that less--it's a weakness. If they think they have to be Alpha all the time to protect others, it's worse because that's self-delusion with a side of egotism. You can't even be Alpha all the time with kids-the natural Betas don't learn independence, while the natural Alphas will spend all their time rebelling if you don't share responsiblity. It's bad.

I think, in a healthy relationship, the partners switch off being Alpha in different venues. The hard part is figuring out where to step in an where to shut up. Depending on how it's written, I can see the situation of the Alpha evaluating her partner's performance across the room being either:
A: totally patronizing. She is so caught up in her role as Alpha that she can't see a possible switch occurring. He's going to fuck up and she has to go over and stop it.
B: protective oversight. She continues to identify with her role as Alpha, and views the situation as one she is monitoring from above. Still patronizing as all hell, because she's not seeing her partner as more than a special minion who may perform well or may need her to take control. She WANTS control though, and may need to remind herself not to take it.
C: protective wingman/second. She sees that her partner is in control of the situation. Whether he handles that well or not is up to him, but since he began that interaction as Alpha, it's his turn unless he overtly indicates he wants her to take over. She may go over and play the role of backup, but that's all.

A is obviously bad, but still around as a scenario in many novels. B is still bad, but there's a lot of gray area between B and C. I don't have answers about the gray area; it would depend on how the story was written.

Did that make any sense?

[stinky-horowitz.livejournal.com]

Oh. Your actual question is in the cut line so I missed it.

Medical emergencies only. Their ill health will put me on edge, and I know I get pushy with the care, but I go all out for medical emergencies. In fact, I ended two serious relationships (at different times) because they mishandled MY medical emergency--they wouldn't step up and be Alpha when I needed them to.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I like the #C term of 'wingman' -- acting as a person's backup.

Which is another dynamic altogether, having watched a friend think she was really telling that guy what-for and that he laid off because she said so -- only to turn around and discover her 6'5" boyfriend had been looming angrily behind her. She wasn't sure whether to be pleased (being backed up) or be furious (that she needed backup) or to be -- well, from what I gathered (and could empathize with), it was a strange mix of let-down that it wasn't entirely her own power that told the creep off, and a little bit of embarrassed pleasure that she'd had backup.

That's a scenario I've never entirely managed to tease out all the implications of, but there's a lot going on in there: gender issues, the question of independence, the need for control, self-determination, lots of things I can't quite recall the words for this early.

I guess it's like untangling the dynamics of, oddly, a dominant-submissive interaction: who is really driving this bus, and how do you react after that flash of "yeah! did it myself!" only to find out that it was either two-person deal or that possibly you "did it yourself" only by the grace of someone else's assistance?

Odd, how we brains think sometimes. hrmmm...

[tanuki02.livejournal.com]

It gets tricky when your SO is probably going to be okay, but you aren't sure if you should intervene or not: I'm thinking of an incident in which I speak the language much better than my SO, and couldn't decide whether to jump in and shut up the annoying jerk, and possibly piss off my SO, or if my SO was really hoping I'd come over and break things up.
No one really appreciates help unasked-for, unless it's a fistfight.

[teeheeiambad.livejournal.com]

Ahh, how to answer this one..

I've had to retype it, like 6 times. This situation is a fav theme, but I need certain aspects in place, to enjoy it; Shown respect by the Alpha character, words of affirmation by the Alpha character, affection without sex by the Alpha, courting by the Alpha, open pursuit by the Alpha, playfulness by the Alpha, a shift in power, when the Beta needs it, without question, by the Alpha.

If all that is there, then I can roll with it. If not, things get ookie in my head.

I have no issue, if those things are there, for an Alpha to step in, even if the Beta is dealing and just making something stop or removing them from the situation. Due to my past and having had someone do that for me, despite it being a rather abusive association (much of what I mentioned, was not there), the fact he did it, was... it made me feel secure, for the first time in my life. I didn't have to deal. Someone else would take care of it. I could just walk away. I wasn't alone anymore. His response, to someone or thing making me nervous or angry or uncomfortable, was fast and without comment. He'd notice, when my best friends would not. I never had to explain or ask him to do anything. He'd just click on and handle it, then go back to what he was doing, as if it hadn't happened. To me, it was like he was saying, "If they want to fuck with you, they have to go through me first." That sort of thing, is very alluring.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I have no issue, if those things are there, for an Alpha to step in, even if the Beta is dealing and just making something stop or removing them from the situation.

I have actually read perhaps one or two stories where a difficult past is twigged on by the alpha/more-alpha character, who knows enough and/or is perceptive enough to drop into the required role, such as you mentioned. But if someone doesn't have that history, such behavior can potentially be seen as usurping the person's right to determine where, and when, that line of "no more of this situation" really stands. (oh, that was mangled.)

I think what's most interesting is that you mention 'playfulness by the Alpha' -- which I'd say also comes from a certain security for themselves. My friend the ultra-Alpha was not, genuinely, that playful the first few years I knew him -- he could tease, and joke around, but he was rarely playful... then he remarried and this time to someone who holds her own and with whom he's very much in love and sometimes it's almost mind-boggling how playful he can be.

He still displays all the other ultra-Alpha symptoms that drive me up the wall, but will also show plenty of playfulness as well, even goofiness. What I really like is that now he still offers backup (to his first wife: "they're bothering you, I'll say something") but it's offered, not insisted -- "want me to say something?" To which his current wife, I've watched/learned, thinks it over and says, "no, I'll deal with it," or "yes, if you don't mind," and either way, she then gives him a smile or some other affection to let him know his alpha-flareup was appreciated.

I think it's actually the cutest thing. Alpha-male, if not tamed and domesticated, at least trained (finally) to be housebroken! Wah!

[teeheeiambad.livejournal.com]

To this day, I am not sure what he twigged on. He had an idea my homelife wasn't great. That was pretty understood by loads of people, but they didn't know details. He never asked me about it. He just..I don't know, paid attention to every freaking thing I did and how I did it. I rarely showed when things unnerved me. Made me mad, yes, unnerved, no. But he could tell. Don't know how, but he could. I suppose, my inaction, or passive action, made him think it was time for him to show he was paying attention to what was going on and did not approve. He was a big guy, lean, that skater build that is so yummy, had connections and a skate crew who were known to not back off from a fight, if one was gonna brew. A long level stare from him, was enough to cause anyone who bugged me, to back right off, fast. I think you know the type, you ran with some, back in your day. He was 17 and adults would take a step back, when he did that.

Yes, playful is important. Very much so. It signals a lot about the relationship.

[kythiaranos.livejournal.com]

In either fiction or life, I think I'd find it unbelievable or annoying if one person was always the 'protector'. In a healthy relationship, people have different strengths and fears, and they take care of *each other* in proportion to their needs. I certainly feel protective of my husband, children, family members and friends. But feeling protective is not the same as interfering.

I think also it depends on relationship dynamics. I have a young friend who always treats me like I'm a little fragile or something. If it was anyone else, it would annoy the heck out of me. But from him, it's just kind of cute, because he looks all serious but doesn't actually interfere.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

What I just realized upon reading your reply and rereading the rest is that none of us have really discussed (and I'm not sure I explicitly question in the post, or maybe overshadowed the mention with other things) is that in most RSP setups, this flare of protective/possessive behavior is not only spontaneous but often a precursor for Signs of Luuurve.

Most often as someone who normally just "would not care" about either a type of person (like when it's a powerful insert-nonhuman-type-here attracted to a Measly Human) or the Alpha is supposedly commitment-shy and scoffs at caring about others (whatevah), etc.

It's strange. It's like the dynamic is presented as, "I am immune to those messy things called relationships, I am easy-come, easy-go, oh noes, I feel suddenly protective and want to make sure s/he is never hurt and always safe, oh noes could it be luuuuurve?" There's always a thread of attraction running through there -- the usual "wow, that person is sexy and interesting and fun" but it's the protective/possessive display that acts as the lynchpin for defining the entire package as luurve.

But feeling protective is not the same as interfering.

This is true, and maybe someday I'll drag out all the texts I have that have characters feeling the flash of protective/possessive signs, and deconstruct them... just to see how authors parse that moment, whether the protector recognizes it's a sensation independent of the protectee's actual need, or, uh, what. Someday, y'know, when I don't have twenty other projects on my plate.

(Speaking of which, I really need to finish the baseboards in the dining room. Sigh. I wish the table saw were set up, this'd go so much faster...)

[teeheeiambad.livejournal.com]

Twu Wuv.

Well, I do know this, his actions and how they made me feel secure, is why I was in the relationship with him for so long. I wasn't happy with him, but I knew, by at least those actions, he cared, or at least, at one time had. He never did that for anyone else that I ever saw. Even when mutual female friends had problems with an ex. Other guys would step up, but he ignored. Except for me. He was like that, before he ever laid a hand on me. Watching, stepping in. My friends sighed over it. He soooo Liked me! Ahhh, how romantic!! I thought so too. I didn't Like him, but his actions, they sure were attractive to me.

[sevenall.livejournal.com]

That response has always struck me as a sign of something being not-quite-right with the alpha. Most of the situations I've read about where it happens and lightning isn't about to strike the beta, I see that as transference of the alpha's own insecurities, perhaps a bit of social panic. Which is fine, which is totally cool, unless it's portrayed as a desirable reaction and something the beta should be grateful for. It can also be bad writing, the writer's only way to remind the reader, that oh by the way, the beta really is capable and even the alpha thinks so.

This is tangential, but what I like to read is a switch of the alpha and beta role, for reasons internal or external. That's why post-war GW fic is so interesting to me, I like to see how characters deal when their most important reason is taken away, when cracks start developing in the parts they've always relied most on etc.