Escape to the Movies: Love & Other Drugs

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

VenusInFurs:
There has to be someone who agrees with me here, right?

Really it's just there are many vocal conservatives around who feel they must announce their disagreement with Bob's more relaxed view towards sex. Problem is they state their points as fact and not opinion.

Hm, you probably have a point here. Last romantic comedy I liked was Just Married, where they may not have actually had sex, but that was because of tons of unfortunate circumstanzes, so it is not like they weren't trying.

Me, too, Bob. It's only because I was fired for being 8 months pregnant, but it's still a relief to not work in retail. And, you're welcome.

And even though my mom is not a cross between June Cleaver and Mother Bear, most romantic comedies are made for her. I swear. She won't like this one because there's sex in it, and she'll be disappointed in Anne Hathaway for taking her clothes off. Sigh.

This just in: in order to be considered great it must be about sex. Because that's what real life is about apparently. Games, films, books... this is a remarkably true trend.

Wow, in this episode Bob touches on a theory I developed long ago about women are to be pitied because the films they feel are "theirs" - ie the typical rom-com - are garbage.

Men have much stronger, better films being made for them because Hollywood understands men far better than women (I wonder why), and by contrast, once the women of the world embrace and accept the films they feel were made for them, they inadvertently swallow offal to which men are never exposed.

This has the final effect of making women stupid, and for that I am deeply apathetic.

Truth nuggets from a great critic. Excellent. Incidentally, definitely seeing this at some point. Oh, Anne Hathaway...

Nehari:

VenusInFurs:

Baby Tea:
I kind of have to disagree that sex is 'relationship fuel'.
Sounds like a pretty hollow relationship to me.

Sex is certainly there, and important to a degree, but to call it 'fuel' is vastly overstating it's importance.
And by 'vastly' I mean 'really really vastly'. Unless you're 15 or something.

And since your recommendation seems bend around the fact that they seem to be 'real' only because they are having a bunch of sex (And that's what real people do, apparently. All the single people I know obviously have a 'friends with benefits' thing on the side. Totally realistic), that the rest of the cliched tripe can be overlooked?

I find that hard to digest, Bob.

You try to pass off the addition of sex as something 'real', and then say 'see it for the obvious eye candy', essentially dumbing down that point of 'real relationships' to worthlessness. Apparently it's just boobs. How nuanced.

Are you seriously saying we have to overlook everything you said in your 'Yes' tirade, describing every romantic comedy cliche in existence (The only thing it's missing is her gay friend, apparently), just because they have sex?

Because, really, that was your big point: Sex is there. Now it's real.
Seems rather low-brow, and just an excuse for girlfriends to drag their boyfriends along.

I'll pass.
I'm not 15, Bob.

I'm sorry, but what you wrote really disturbed me. Maybe you need to get some release?

what he wrote was very well stated, he's actually an adult, which is more than I can say for you apperently

Oh, come now. An adult relationship has sex. It's not required, true, but it's very unusual without it. I agree with this review. A rom-com without sex feels childish, neutered, even patronising. It's refreshing to see a film prepared to approach sex in a mature and vaguely realistic way, rather than 'something' that happens beneath the bed covers.

So, MovieBob . . . You liked this film because it had noticeable amounts of sex between two relatively attractive actors.

You lose 50,000 respect points for approving art that caters to the most basic carnal tastes. Please reevaluate your position on said art.

Well, maybe if it does well, it will revolutionize chick flicks, or it would if Disney would do their part & stop stuffing lies & unrealistic expectations about romance into young girl's heads.

MovieBob:
Love & Other Drugs

This week MovieBob takes a long hard look at Love & Other Drugs.

Watch Video

I'm going to assume when you're saying "all [insert actresses here] movies put together" you're just talking about their romantic comedies, and not including things like Meg Ryan in InnerSpace or Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side.

I'm torn here. I will admit to watching a lot of chick flicks (most of them I have no problem saying are not good/great movies). They are what I watch when I'm tired and I don't want anything demanding or stressful.

That being said, saying that sex makes this movie more realistic is odd to me. Our medias are over-saturated with hyper-sexuality and I'm actually tired of it. Sex is amazing, I love it but seriously there's other things to life and a relationship than that. It's definitely a big part of it, for me at least, but the romance, the intimacy and time spent sharing are just as valuable. Now that doesn't me that cheesy crap is good. Even thought I love chick flicks, just the trailer for letters to juliet was too much for me. That crap like 27 dresses are sold as being honest portrayal of women today killed me. Besides, isn't sensuality also a great alternative? I'm sorry but Green Fried Tomatoes has the most sensual undertones between the two females leads even thought it's never explicit that they are a couple. In the commentary track it's even mentioned that the food scene in the movie is their version of sex, which I always felt was highly sexually charged. Not to mention, I'm not sure I agree that sex is that non-existent in chick flicks. It might not always be on camera but it's often implied.

The point is, bad chick flicks are bad because they are badly written and/or badly acted, just like any other movies. No offense but there's a lot of action movies that can be just as bad. Blood and boobs don't make good movies, not for me anyway. If they don't serve the story I don't give a crap.

Interesting review, I'm definitely curious about the movie but I'm not sold that sex is what has been missing in chick flicks.

I think I'll pass still.

With all due respect, I don't think sex (or the lack thereof) is the reason that so many romantic comedies make many people want to rip out their fingernails to jam them into their eyes and ears.

And while it may be that I'm just not cynical enough, I don't tend to feel that sex is the only drive for romance, either. If it was, there would be no romantic comedies let alone so many of them doing so well; we would instead be wishing that pornography had better scripts.

I have to confess that I've liked a fair number of romantic comedies. In the good ones, you like the people you're watching well enough to hope that they get together because they seem like they'd make one another happy and you want them to be happy. (That they might make one another happy horizontally comes second.)

But the most likable people in the world will frustrate you purple when they act like puppets. Especially when they act out of character in order to fulfil the mandatory romcom checklist. Or when we're supposed to forget what's come before because "that's how romantic comedies go."

*SPOILERS AHEAD*- for some movies that are a few years old. Can't be helped.

Take "How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days". Both hero and heroine have, in essence, started their relationship on the basis of a bet. But hers is that she can treat a man so abysmally that he'll choose to dump her. So he spends the entire movie being nice to her and putting up with her, and she deliberately finds ways to irritate him to prove her point. It is perhaps a credit to Kate Hudson that her character is still halfway likable despite this contrivance, but even still, when (inevitably) their respective bets are revealed and the third-act break-up goes off, he still ends up having to run after her.

Even worse is "Hitch", in which the "heroine" abuses the hero in his attempts to court her throughout the movie and then not only does an enormous harm to his life but nearly undoes much of the good he's done for many people on the basis of a misunderstanding she's rushed to the worst possible interpretation of in record time. And he still ends up running after her. It's truly amazing that the writers didn't realize that half the audience at this point is rooting for her to apologize at the very least (she never does), if not get a villain-style comeuppance.

"The Truth About Cats and Dogs" at least has the grace to have the heroine come after the hero after the third-act-misunderstanding-separation, and invests both with enough charm that we don't root against their coming together.

"My Best Friends Wedding" goes one better- it eschews the inevitable pairing up at the end for the far more likely reality that the heroine's best friend is indeed going to stay with the perfectly lovely young woman he's chosen to marry in the first place. Ironically, "Made of Honor" (don't look at me, it was my wife's choice)- uses the same premise but flips the genders and then fails to notice that "MBFW"'s ending is enormously superior, especially given the extent to which we're shown that the "hero" is in fact kind of a callow jerk and the heroine's fiancee is an enormously successful and capable man who, unlike said "hero", actually had the sense to see the heroine's worth before she was in danger of being taken away.

*END SPOILERS*

I guess what it comes down to is that we're willing to see likable people together, but GOOD romantic comedies never railroad their audience. You can get away with a certain amount of formula if your characters and their dialogue is well written and we like and identify with them. But heaven help you if the tropes of the genre are pulling in a direction that we don't believe, or worse, don't want to go.

So... Is the writing good enough and the characters likable enough to be worth watching without the unquestionable draw of seeing Anne Hathaway naked?

in response to your "thank you," Bob, you're welcome

AdmiralMemo:

MovieBob:
Love & Other Drugs

This week MovieBob takes a long hard look at Love & Other Drugs.

Watch Video

I'm going to assume when you're saying "all [insert actresses here] movies put together" you're just talking about their romantic comedies, and not including things like Meg Ryan in InnerSpace or Sandra Bullock in [i]The Blind Side[/b].

Bob hates the blind side, thinks it has racist undertones.

Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

gr8 review,
but I won't see the movie,i'm bored to see sth so..predictable..
And what's this f...n' hollywood cliche with the bus,boat,whatever the flowers and the old people applausing the happy couple...BORING!!!!

Comic Sans:

Watch Havoc. Thank me later.

Anne Hathaway in eastide gangland with Channing Tatam? Yes, I will definately give that a go.

Ach, Bob. You said there's more vidceral emotion in The Transporter than in any film with sandra bullock in... BUT SHE WAS IN FUCKING SPEED!!!! Keanu Reeves... I most certainly would.

"Genetical Engineering"! that part made my day !

But I really, REALLY dont want to.

Ive always said that "RomComs" suck but only because I have not seen any good ones, not because it was a "RomCom" but even if this one was based in reality instaed of the lust free dream world its userly set in, surely the fact that its the same basic crap means that its still awful... just not as awful.

Switchlurk:
Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

Towels:

Comic Sans:

Watch Havoc. Thank me later.

Anne Hathaway in eastide gangland with Channing Tatam? Yes, I will definately give that a go.

And she takes her clothes off 3 or 4 times. Which apparently makes for a good movie should this review be believed.

To be fair, I've heard good reviews on this movie elsewhere as well. But using sex as the selling point is kind of silly, given Bob's reputation here. Even if it's true, it won't be taken seriously because he spends a lot of time drooling on the girls as a positive point in a movie. You can say they are more realistic characters without harping on so much about the sex.

PunkRex:

Switchlurk:
Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

Y'know what's also pretty damn offensive? You saying the part I emphasised. You may not be aware of it, but there are people in this world right now, trying their best to please their significant other by having sex with them despite feeling disgusted by sex. It might not be nice, but they're just as much of a natural occurrence as you are. Just like sex is a basic need to most people, the emotional connection and other benefits of long-term relationships are a basic need to them, so it's not like they have much of a choice, especially with everyone and their mother saying that there's something wrong with them for not liking sex so they keep trying.

If you think you have it bad because your mother occasionally gives you smack, try having no choice but to live in relationships where you're constantly expected to take the bullet and do your best to nurture your relationship in a way that makes you feel sick or else be dumped and told that there's something wrong with you and that you're some sort of freak of nature.

Verp:

PunkRex:

Switchlurk:
Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

Y'know what's also pretty damn offensive? You saying the part I emphasised. You may not be aware of it, but there are people in this world right now, trying their best to please their significant other by having sex with them despite feeling disgusted by sex. It might not be nice, but they're just as much of a natural occurrence as you are. Just like sex is a basic need to most people, the emotional connection and other benefits of long-term relationships are a basic need to them, so it's not like they have much of a choice, especially with everyone and their mother saying that there's something wrong with them for not liking sex so they keep trying.

If you think you have it bad because your mother occasionally gives you smack, try having no choice but to live in relationships where you're constantly expected to take the bullet and do your best to nurture your relationship in a way that makes you feel sick or else be dumped and told that there's something wrong with you and that you're some sort of freak of nature.

Sex is as important as being emotionally invested in someone. It's 50/50. Sex is not more or better than having an emotional relationship, but it's equal to it. If you're not sexually compatible then it's obvious you guys are not meant for each other. Sex is very important, just like having an emotional investment with the person is. I'm baffled at the comments here. I would have never thought The Escapist would attract so many sexually conservative people, or should I say sexually dissatisfied individuals. I was in school a couple of hours ago and showed my friend, who is a 23 year old girl, some of the comments here and she can't believe some of the comments posted. She wonders if any females commented on this forum.

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

370999:

AdmiralMemo:

MovieBob:
Love & Other Drugs

This week MovieBob takes a long hard look at Love & Other Drugs.

Watch Video

I'm going to assume when you're saying "all [insert actresses here] movies put together" you're just talking about their romantic comedies, and not including things like Meg Ryan in InnerSpace or Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side.

Bob hates the blind side, thinks it has racist undertones.

Not going to deny that, but think about this: it was based on real life. Real life people have racist undertones. Therefore, according to Bob's logic from this video, it should be good because it's like reality.

It's kind of hard to do a movie that depicts people doing racist things without the movie itself being called racist.
The movie itself is not racist. It's about real people, some of whom are racist, doing real things.

VenusInFurs:

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

Venus,

I believe what the person you're responding to was refering to (and I welcome a correction if I am mistaken) was not a "lack of compatability" or "experience;" but rather "ASEXUALITY" - i.e. people who do not have what you'd call a "sex-drive." Basically, they are otherwise healthy and simply have no biological impulse toward or desire for sex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

Unfortunately, it's a widely misunderstood identity - but the folks who've brought it up here are quite correct: It's very real, and it's every bit as natural and normal as most other forms of human sexuality. There's nothing "wrong" with it, in other words.

Verp:

PunkRex:

Switchlurk:
Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

Y'know what's also pretty damn offensive? You saying the part I emphasised. You may not be aware of it, but there are people in this world right now, trying their best to please their significant other by having sex with them despite feeling disgusted by sex. It might not be nice, but they're just as much of a natural occurrence as you are. Just like sex is a basic need to most people, the emotional connection and other benefits of long-term relationships are a basic need to them, so it's not like they have much of a choice, especially with everyone and their mother saying that there's something wrong with them for not liking sex so they keep trying.

If you think you have it bad because your mother occasionally gives you smack, try having no choice but to live in relationships where you're constantly expected to take the bullet and do your best to nurture your relationship in a way that makes you feel sick or else be dumped and told that there's something wrong with you and that you're some sort of freak of nature.

Ok, I agree. Your right its a two way street. Its not fair for these people to be looked at like freaks as much as it is for me to be seen as shallow.

I apologise for the way I put my previous comment (at least the last bit) as it is a tad preachy and it was twatish of me to focus in on only the negative, sorry. Its just the way you put how what MovieBob focused on as speeching volumes about him as this has been something constantly cramed down my throat. Ive had stick from my friends as well on this matter were theyve tried setting me up with girls in the past and ive said no because I did not find them sexualy attractive. I still enjoyed hanging out with them in a group I just did not want a relationship with someone I did not find attractive and I refuse to accept that this makes me some sort of pig.

I understand that there is a deeper connection required for a good relationship and one of these is the ability to understand what makes your "other half" tick and weather or not you tick the same boxs e.g. sex drive or as you mentioned a lack of. Everyones different and its just a massive annoyance to me when people judge but as I sort of did this in my previous post all I can do is again apologise for sounding so righteous.

VenusInFurs:

Verp:

PunkRex:

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

Y'know what's also pretty damn offensive? You saying the part I emphasised. You may not be aware of it, but there are people in this world right now, trying their best to please their significant other by having sex with them despite feeling disgusted by sex. It might not be nice, but they're just as much of a natural occurrence as you are. Just like sex is a basic need to most people, the emotional connection and other benefits of long-term relationships are a basic need to them, so it's not like they have much of a choice, especially with everyone and their mother saying that there's something wrong with them for not liking sex so they keep trying.

If you think you have it bad because your mother occasionally gives you smack, try having no choice but to live in relationships where you're constantly expected to take the bullet and do your best to nurture your relationship in a way that makes you feel sick or else be dumped and told that there's something wrong with you and that you're some sort of freak of nature.

Sex is as important as being emotionally invested in someone. It's 50/50. Sex is not more or better than having an emotional relationship, but it's equal to it. If you're not sexually compatible then it's obvious you guys are not meant for each other. Sex is very important, just like having an emotional investment with the person is. I'm baffled at the comments here. I would have never thought The Escapist would attract so many sexually conservative people, or should I say sexually dissatisfied individuals. I was in school a couple of hours ago and showed my friend, who is a 23 year old girl, some of the comments here and she can't believe some of the comments posted. She wonders if any females commented on this forum.

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

Sorry if I miss understood your comment guy but I think you may have misunderstood Verps a little. He was not saying that those with no sexual compatability should try to relate on a deeper level and be happy with that, he was saying that there was another side of MY argument that I ignored. I think I may be the one at fault here, I think my previous comment may have been to focused on the negative side of the argument.

You are right, it is split down the middle for most however there are those who are fine with either one or the other. I had a friend who dated several overweight ladies and when I asked weather or not he was attracted to larger girls he said no. He said he did not really see the difference which is healthy (I assume) but he still made a point about their sex. I suppose there are different outlets for different emotions.

VenusInFurs:

Verp:

PunkRex:

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

Y'know what's also pretty damn offensive? You saying the part I emphasised. You may not be aware of it, but there are people in this world right now, trying their best to please their significant other by having sex with them despite feeling disgusted by sex. It might not be nice, but they're just as much of a natural occurrence as you are. Just like sex is a basic need to most people, the emotional connection and other benefits of long-term relationships are a basic need to them, so it's not like they have much of a choice, especially with everyone and their mother saying that there's something wrong with them for not liking sex so they keep trying.

If you think you have it bad because your mother occasionally gives you smack, try having no choice but to live in relationships where you're constantly expected to take the bullet and do your best to nurture your relationship in a way that makes you feel sick or else be dumped and told that there's something wrong with you and that you're some sort of freak of nature.

Sex is as important as being emotionally invested in someone. It's 50/50. Sex is not more or better than having an emotional relationship, but it's equal to it. If you're not sexually compatible then it's obvious you guys are not meant for each other. Sex is very important, just like having an emotional investment with the person is. I'm baffled at the comments here. I would have never thought The Escapist would attract so many sexually conservative people, or should I say sexually dissatisfied individuals. I was in school a couple of hours ago and showed my friend, who is a 23 year old girl, some of the comments here and she can't believe some of the comments posted. She wonders if any females commented on this forum.

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

It's NOT 50/50, it's anywhere between 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the individual.

To you it may be 50/50, to your friend it may be 50/50, and to everyone you personally know it may be 50/50, but you and those people are not everyone or even the majority of people. On the extreme end of the spectrum there are romantic asexuals who only crave the emotional side of a romantic relationship and on the opposite side of the spectrum there are aromantic sexuals who pretty much only need the sex. Most people are located somewhere between and as a bonus, there are people like me who fall outside the spectrum altogether: people who crave a solid ratio of 0/0 when it comes to sexual intimacy and romantic intimacy, collectively known as aromantic asexuals.

Try to get it through your head that generalisations like "Everyone wants this and this is how much they want it compared to this" do not work no matter what you're talking about, whether it's romantic relationships or the ratio of milk to coffee.

Also, I'm not sexually conservative, I'm very liberal about sex. I think everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their sexual lives as long as the participating individuals (if living) consent to it and no expectations should be forced down anyone's throat. The truth is though, the expectation that everyone likes sex and values it all the same is a misconception, a harmful one, because it simply isn't true and it will never be true.

AdmiralMemo:

370999:

AdmiralMemo:
I'm going to assume when you're saying "all [insert actresses here] movies put together" you're just talking about their romantic comedies, and not including things like Meg Ryan in InnerSpace or Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side.

Bob hates the blind side, thinks it has racist undertones.

Not going to deny that, but think about this: it was based on real life. Real life people have racist undertones. Therefore, according to Bob's logic from this video, it should be good because it's like reality.

It's kind of hard to do a movie that depicts people doing racist things without the movie itself being called racist.
The movie itself is not racist. It's about real people, some of whom are racist, doing real things.

Never saw it so I can't comment

Why is everybody getting so hung up on this? Bob didn't say that the ONLY reason why a movie is good and realistic, is if the characters are going at it. He simply said that these kinds of movies usually suck because they pretend that sex doesn't exist. And that's exactly what they do. It's in a way the exact opposite of porn, where sexual desires is all that exists, with total lack of emotion.

I don't think he meant that a movie necessarily needs to feature sex scenes to be realistic, rather than the characters not being completely unaware of sex and sexual attraction. Even if a character were asexual, I'd think they'd be very aware that sex exists and also very aware and afraid, that the person they love might not feel the same way about it and maybe wants to have sex one day, a need that they can't please. So yes, not everybody feels that sex is a very important part of a relationship. Sure, not every love is based on physical attraction. But sex exists and while it's nice to actually care about someone's personality and even nicer if that's more important to you than appearance, we all know that the physical part is still an important one of a relationship and even if you don't particularly like it or want to practice it, you are at least well aware of it's existence.

So what Bob critizises, is not lack of sex and nudity but lack of realistic behavior. The character's missing sexual drive is not an actual part of their personality or the script, but either (or a combination of) bad writing and basicly a forced inconsistency, simply there so they can also collect the money of those people, who are so afraid of sex and children, who aren't supposed to know about it anyway (or at least only know of it as a pure technical thing to reproduce, but sure as hell not that it could be fun).

It's not new, that business decisions tend to harm the quality of a movie and since RomComs are built around relationships, they're messing with the core of the movie which is pretty damn harmful, I'd say. Still, that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy these movies, it just means that they aren't particularly good or believable.

Verp:

VenusInFurs:

Verp:

Y'know what's also pretty damn offensive? You saying the part I emphasised. You may not be aware of it, but there are people in this world right now, trying their best to please their significant other by having sex with them despite feeling disgusted by sex. It might not be nice, but they're just as much of a natural occurrence as you are. Just like sex is a basic need to most people, the emotional connection and other benefits of long-term relationships are a basic need to them, so it's not like they have much of a choice, especially with everyone and their mother saying that there's something wrong with them for not liking sex so they keep trying.

If you think you have it bad because your mother occasionally gives you smack, try having no choice but to live in relationships where you're constantly expected to take the bullet and do your best to nurture your relationship in a way that makes you feel sick or else be dumped and told that there's something wrong with you and that you're some sort of freak of nature.

Sex is as important as being emotionally invested in someone. It's 50/50. Sex is not more or better than having an emotional relationship, but it's equal to it. If you're not sexually compatible then it's obvious you guys are not meant for each other. Sex is very important, just like having an emotional investment with the person is. I'm baffled at the comments here. I would have never thought The Escapist would attract so many sexually conservative people, or should I say sexually dissatisfied individuals. I was in school a couple of hours ago and showed my friend, who is a 23 year old girl, some of the comments here and she can't believe some of the comments posted. She wonders if any females commented on this forum.

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

It's NOT 50/50, it's anywhere between 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the individual.

To you it may be 50/50, to your friend it may be 50/50, and to everyone you personally know it may be 50/50, but you and those people are not everyone or even the majority of people. On the extreme end of the spectrum there are romantic asexuals who only crave the emotional side of a romantic relationship and on the opposite side of the spectrum there are aromantic sexuals who pretty much only need the sex. Most people are located somewhere between and as a bonus, there are people like me who fall outside the spectrum altogether: people who crave a solid ratio of 0/0 when it comes to sexual intimacy and romantic intimacy, collectively known as aromantic asexuals.

Try to get it through your head that generalisations like "Everyone wants this and this is how much they want it compared to this" do not work no matter what you're talking about, whether it's romantic relationships or the ratio of milk to coffee.

Also, I'm not sexually conservative, I'm very liberal about sex. I think everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their sexual lives as long as the participating individuals (if living) consent to it and no expectations should be forced down anyone's throat. The truth is though, the expectation that everyone likes sex and values it all the same is a misconception, a harmful one, because it simply isn't true and it will never be true.

What part of " If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well" you didn't understand? I never said he was a "freak" or insulted him. My problem is that he stated his opinion as fact. Also, asexual are a minority. I've met them. They do exist, but it's not a majority. Humans are animals. We're sexual animals with needs. Did you know that humans are the only animals that can have sex for more then two minutes? There is a reason for that, but I digress.

VenusInFurs:

Verp:

VenusInFurs:

Sex is as important as being emotionally invested in someone. It's 50/50. Sex is not more or better than having an emotional relationship, but it's equal to it. If you're not sexually compatible then it's obvious you guys are not meant for each other. Sex is very important, just like having an emotional investment with the person is. I'm baffled at the comments here. I would have never thought The Escapist would attract so many sexually conservative people, or should I say sexually dissatisfied individuals. I was in school a couple of hours ago and showed my friend, who is a 23 year old girl, some of the comments here and she can't believe some of the comments posted. She wonders if any females commented on this forum.

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

It's NOT 50/50, it's anywhere between 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the individual.

To you it may be 50/50, to your friend it may be 50/50, and to everyone you personally know it may be 50/50, but you and those people are not everyone or even the majority of people. On the extreme end of the spectrum there are romantic asexuals who only crave the emotional side of a romantic relationship and on the opposite side of the spectrum there are aromantic sexuals who pretty much only need the sex. Most people are located somewhere between and as a bonus, there are people like me who fall outside the spectrum altogether: people who crave a solid ratio of 0/0 when it comes to sexual intimacy and romantic intimacy, collectively known as aromantic asexuals.

Try to get it through your head that generalisations like "Everyone wants this and this is how much they want it compared to this" do not work no matter what you're talking about, whether it's romantic relationships or the ratio of milk to coffee.

Also, I'm not sexually conservative, I'm very liberal about sex. I think everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their sexual lives as long as the participating individuals (if living) consent to it and no expectations should be forced down anyone's throat. The truth is though, the expectation that everyone likes sex and values it all the same is a misconception, a harmful one, because it simply isn't true and it will never be true.

What part of " If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well" you didn't understand? I never said he was a "freak" or insulted him. My problem is that he stated his opinion as fact. Also, asexual are a minority. I've met them. They do exist, but it's not a majority. Humans are animals. We're sexual animals with needs. Did you know that humans are the only animals that can have sex for more then two minutes? There is a reason for that, but I digress.

... What have you been smoking? There are lots of animal species that can have sex more than two minutes at a time. There are animal species that have dozens of frequent, separate short sessions for hours and then there are some, like tortoises and rhinos, who really, really take their time with just one act. Hell, even something like a dragonfly mating takes longer than that, which is why they need to be able to take off and fly even during mating.

VenusInFurs:

Verp:

VenusInFurs:

Sex is as important as being emotionally invested in someone. It's 50/50. Sex is not more or better than having an emotional relationship, but it's equal to it. If you're not sexually compatible then it's obvious you guys are not meant for each other. Sex is very important, just like having an emotional investment with the person is. I'm baffled at the comments here. I would have never thought The Escapist would attract so many sexually conservative people, or should I say sexually dissatisfied individuals. I was in school a couple of hours ago and showed my friend, who is a 23 year old girl, some of the comments here and she can't believe some of the comments posted. She wonders if any females commented on this forum.

I don't want to sound mean, but what the fuck is wrong with you people? It's very obvious a lot, not all, have had little experience in this department.

Again, it's all about sexual compatibility. If you are not compatible with that person then it's more than a good enough reason to leave, or live a miserable life like you stated. If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well. Also, it's pretty obvious you're talking about yourself.

It's NOT 50/50, it's anywhere between 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the individual.

To you it may be 50/50, to your friend it may be 50/50, and to everyone you personally know it may be 50/50, but you and those people are not everyone or even the majority of people. On the extreme end of the spectrum there are romantic asexuals who only crave the emotional side of a romantic relationship and on the opposite side of the spectrum there are aromantic sexuals who pretty much only need the sex. Most people are located somewhere between and as a bonus, there are people like me who fall outside the spectrum altogether: people who crave a solid ratio of 0/0 when it comes to sexual intimacy and romantic intimacy, collectively known as aromantic asexuals.

Try to get it through your head that generalisations like "Everyone wants this and this is how much they want it compared to this" do not work no matter what you're talking about, whether it's romantic relationships or the ratio of milk to coffee.

Also, I'm not sexually conservative, I'm very liberal about sex. I think everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their sexual lives as long as the participating individuals (if living) consent to it and no expectations should be forced down anyone's throat. The truth is though, the expectation that everyone likes sex and values it all the same is a misconception, a harmful one, because it simply isn't true and it will never be true.

What part of " If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well" you didn't understand? I never said he was a "freak" or insulted him. My problem is that he stated his opinion as fact. Also, asexual are a minority. I've met them. They do exist, but it's not a majority. Humans are animals. We're sexual animals with needs. Did you know that humans are the only animals that can have sex for more then two minutes? There is a reason for that, but I digress.

MORE THEN TWO MINUTES!!! I better practice more...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here