No, the other one.
Looking at the examples, and what the trope seems to be about, I don't see how the relationship pans out to be important to the trope. Neither do I see a significant difference in which gender takes which role.
The description isn't that good for several reasons. Unclear, jumps a lot, assuming things not reflected in the examples, tangents, bad use of parentheses...
I think a rewrite is the best option.
Check out my fanfiction!
The name makes me thing more of "inter-generational relationships", to put it politely, rather than active and passive. Since when were puppies passive?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'm guessing you own a puppy that's a handful. For the rest of us, puppies are "cute", while pitbulls are associated with being "mean" and "dangerous" even when they really aren't.
iRidescence
But cute =/= passive. Now it sounds like a pairing involving someone with the Face of a Thug and The Cutie, regardless of personality.
Still, no one associates puppies with aggressiveness.
The trope is sound. I don't have a problem with the name, but the part about these relationships not working can be removed.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
There is no Planet B
I agree with Septimus. The trope is doing fine and the name is ok (in my book). The examples need to be cleaned though — there is lots of bad Example Indentation, Not A Subversion, Word Cruft and Zero Context Examples.
I also agree that the description should be trimmed and in some cases made less ambiguous. For instance: "Mostly done with women dating men these days." It probably means to say "Mostly done with pitbull-women dating puppy-men these days."
Radical Moderate
Agreed as well.
There is no Planet B
OK, I commented out ZCE and tried to clean the misuse.
Can I suggest a new draft of the description? Or should we continue discussing what to do with the page?
edited 18th Mar '14 8:45:00 AM by XFllo
There is no Planet B
There is no Planet B
Yet another bump. (I'm willing to work on the new draft, but I'd like to hear more opinions if that's needed.)
15 days late, but yes feel free to propose a new description.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
There is no Planet B
Almost a month later... sorry about that. Hopefully I'll have time this weekend.
edited 8th May '14 7:53:30 AM by XFllo
Hi
Clock is set.
Hi
Clock's up; locking for inactivity.
The Pitbull Dates Puppy trope seems to involve an aggressive character dating a much more passive one. This in itself is entirely tropeworthy. The problem is that the trope description emphasizes over and over again how such a relationship is DOOMED TO FAIL because one character will be too wimpy to stand up to the other one — and then at least half the examples describe more or less happy, long-lasting couples. Lots of 'aversion in that the relationship works' language — never a good sign. Should the trope be rewritten to emphasize the basic dynamic (aggressive with passive), and then cut the prognosis part of the description to a paragraph saying something like 'this sort of relationship may run into problems given the different personality types and repressed feelings, but can also work out if the characters communicate well and are devoted to making it work'? Otherwise, if the 'relationship fails' is a big part of the trope, many of the examples should be pruned.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.