I read the Wikipedia article and the Business Insider article that captured Russ’s eye, (avoided the scholar articles) and for the life of me I cannot figure out how he thinks that fits into his case. Obviously, for normal humans it makes no sense in regards to his lawsuit, but even trying to think like Russ, I can’t figure it out.
He sued her initially based on the expectation he felt-she did nice things for others, therefore she had to do the same for him, and he suffered because she didn’t do them. It’s insane but I understand it.
The new theory suggests that the fact that the more disruptive something is, the more interesting it becomes, or how violating social norms and personal space has consequences for a relationship.
How does that fit his case? Even trying to lose 50 IQ points and think like a stalker tard, I can’t make sense of it.
One if the articles had the word arousal in it, maybe that’s all it took.
“How do you like them apples?“. Green, boomer.