This is for
rabican, and also for
vanityfair whom I'm sure wants us the f*** out of her LJ. If the rest of you would like to see the start of this conversation, go here.
The Peter Pan Syndrome was one of those pop psychology books that made the rounds of the daytime talk shows (this was back in '83, before things went tabloid, when all the shows were like Oprah and Phil Donohue). I think it was the first one to make use of a children's book character. It was written for women who are in relationships with men who "never grew up", like Peter Pan. These men behave irresponsibly, rarely take other people's feelings into consideration before doing something, and generally behave like they are the only people that matter (unless they want something from you, in which case they will behave like you are the only person that matters). Dr. Kiley claims it stems from persmissive parenting; he was part of that backlash against Dr. Spock. As in the Barrie book, the wives become Wendy--they mother him, clean up after his messes, etc. And as soon as they become mama, they're sunk, because Peter Pan will have no reason to change his behaviour in any way. If you look back at the original book, Wendy is mothering Peter Pan even though they are sort of the same age. The Peter Pan figure is generally a charming rogue, which is how he gets away with what is essentially classic narcissistic personality behaviour. That's what I meant by Peter Pan not being all sweetness and light--there are consequences to never growing up, to endlessly living a boys adventure tale. Maybe not to him, but certainly to the people around him, and there are a LOT of people who have suffered because of Sirius' heedlessness.
Hermione could become a Wendy if she isn't careful; it's why R/Hr would do her such a disservice but H/Hr would be good for her. Harry doesn't listen to her half the time anyway. However, that isn't to say that Ron is a Peter Pan; he isn't. But put some charmer in front of Hermione in the right mood and watch out.
Tinderblast, I hope this answers your questions, but feel free to reply for more clarification. And thanks again for the shibby icons.
The Peter Pan Syndrome was one of those pop psychology books that made the rounds of the daytime talk shows (this was back in '83, before things went tabloid, when all the shows were like Oprah and Phil Donohue). I think it was the first one to make use of a children's book character. It was written for women who are in relationships with men who "never grew up", like Peter Pan. These men behave irresponsibly, rarely take other people's feelings into consideration before doing something, and generally behave like they are the only people that matter (unless they want something from you, in which case they will behave like you are the only person that matters). Dr. Kiley claims it stems from persmissive parenting; he was part of that backlash against Dr. Spock. As in the Barrie book, the wives become Wendy--they mother him, clean up after his messes, etc. And as soon as they become mama, they're sunk, because Peter Pan will have no reason to change his behaviour in any way. If you look back at the original book, Wendy is mothering Peter Pan even though they are sort of the same age. The Peter Pan figure is generally a charming rogue, which is how he gets away with what is essentially classic narcissistic personality behaviour. That's what I meant by Peter Pan not being all sweetness and light--there are consequences to never growing up, to endlessly living a boys adventure tale. Maybe not to him, but certainly to the people around him, and there are a LOT of people who have suffered because of Sirius' heedlessness.
Hermione could become a Wendy if she isn't careful; it's why R/Hr would do her such a disservice but H/Hr would be good for her. Harry doesn't listen to her half the time anyway. However, that isn't to say that Ron is a Peter Pan; he isn't. But put some charmer in front of Hermione in the right mood and watch out.
Tinderblast, I hope this answers your questions, but feel free to reply for more clarification. And thanks again for the shibby icons.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-19 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-23 12:20 am (UTC)