I really don't get this need to train guys on sexual harassment and rape. Maybe the harassment side, but rape? Really? What is it about "No" that isn't "No"? What happened to just being a gentleman? Drunk or not.
If a girl is too drunk to make a decision, make it for her, err on the side of caution. Walk, the hell, away! Come back another day when she is fully involved in her decision to have sex with you. Feel like a jerk if you are trying to get sex and she isn't into you. Even if she is taunting you or being a complete bitch, be a Man for God's sake (for your's and for her's).
Isn't having sex with a girl, too drunk to move, kind of like necrophilia? What's next? You going to ask (more likely pay) a girl to lie in a tub full of ice and then have sex with you while not moving and barely breathing?
Not to mention, have you advanced to using date rape drugs yet? So basically, you're into having sex with dead girls. Are we experiencing a rash of spawning necrophiliacs?
Yes, your actions do define who and what you are.
Being a "Man" doesn't mean getting sex ANY way possible. It means taking the high and more difficult road tempered with some degree of class and manners. It means giving her an environment and experience where she enjoys it (and you), so much that she WANTS to have sex with you. See, SHE gets to enjoy it too; not just you, you jerk.
All that being said, Ladies, when you say No and you mean yes, you are setting yourself up. Be damn sure you know you both know, just what's going on. This "No-for-Yes" thing really is best with someone you're in a relationship with, Right?
I've experienced this one myself and it can be pretty frustrating. What the hell DOES she want? Let's face it, it takes acting to convey that meaning clearly and some people just aren't that good of an actor, regardless what they want.
But what percentage are we looking at in this for overall rapes,, the No-for-Yes" thing. Very little I'm pretty sure.
Yes there certainly are women who claim rape later on, when really it wasn't at all. But I suspect in all the alleged rapes, those are far fewer than the reality of real rapes (no not "legitimate" rapes, I'm actually talking about actual or not actual rapes). When a woman yells rape and she knows very well it's not, that is not a real rape, okay? That's what I'm referring to here.
Still, I suspect we do need some kind of sexual harassment training for women too, not just for men, and obviously not the same kind of training because from a woman's point of view and position in life, they have a somewhat different set of rules to deal with.
Though it's obvious that there are many more male abusers, let's not ignore a viable complaint just because of that. There actually are things women do (could not do, or could do to help things) that could alleviate some of these issues. But those are minor things compared to out and out rape. I'm afraid that one, is on the guys doing it.
Rape as we all know is really about control, about power issues. There are always going to be some rapists just do to their own physical limitations in how their brains work. But that doesn't mean we can't learn and make changes to decrease the amount of men who obviously can't handle their situation and so rape out of a need or desire that shouldn't be there in the first place.
It takes practice and a foundation to know what to do rather than rape someone. So it would seem that there are many men who are being raised in an environment, or culture, that trains them in such a way, or allows them the thoughts that they can alleviate their discomforts by way of controlling and sexually abusing a woman. When you see groups as we've seen recently in India, it becomes quit obvious there is more going on here than someone's brain composition or home environment. It's a cultural thing.
Perhaps we really need the men being given sexual harassment training to share those classes with women. Not to humiliate the men but to open their eyes. We need to grow compassion in them, somehow. But that really is something that needs to start as a child.
Families need to empower their children. Some communities need to be less restrictive and punitive. And religions are always going to be a problem and a burden for their restrictions that simply for many of them, are unrealistic in these open times.
Dear America, liberals, progressives, and abusive conservatives weaponizing these issues against those people... please do not conflate communication and proximity issues with those of sexual abuse and predation.
As it actually is in Donald Trump, and so many actual sex abusers so frequently exposed on the conservative and religious side of things where it shouldn't exist according to their own professed beliefs.
Don't be a Trump who actually is the things he accuses others of being in calling THEM lars, or stupid, or in being abusive so he dilutes the meaning of those things for when he does them in his attempts to normalize and obfuscate. For his own benefit.
.
We're better than that or we should be and we need to be smarter than that. Save your anger for the real situations.
Frottage can be disgusting but it is not date rape or violent rape. Even more distant issues are not those of frottage or rape.
If we don't keep that appropriately in our minds and social discourse, we're going to cause a lot more problems that we really don't want to see in the first place.
Even at times where it does not exist.
I worry as do others about this proximity issue, about the range of sexual harassment or unwanted sexual intention, or unwanted proximity.
There ARE degrees.
From what I've seen and heard, the Joe Biden and even Al Franken issues are not the Donald Trump or a rapist on campus issues,
Perhaps we shouldn't look at this as sexual situation unless they definitely are. Even in some rape situation while there is no issue of sex being involved there is one of consent and understanding, or can be.
Sex, magnifies everything.
But what much of this really is, is about communication.
Women are tired of communications, especially sexual communication being a one-way street where they either have no say in it historically, or they are supposed to be quiet about it.
When all they really want is a say in a social dynamic between two (or sadly at times) more people.
Because communication is a two-way street and they are reasonably quite tired of it being their job of being the silent receiver, especially in situations where one has power over the other as in a boss/employee dynamic. Where one has power and the other is instantly in a precarious position and unable to speak up.
Because seeing this as a communication issue would eliminate some of the confusion in some of these situations as it doesn't put the woman on a shaky standing and if a man (or other) doesn't abuse him either, if that happens to actually be the situation.
We obviously haven't been communicating properly and it's time to be sure about that and readjust our dynamic.
Look, some people are just abusive. Donald Trump comes to mind. Rapists in and out of prison also.
But then there is an entire group who simply have poor communication skills and to claim sexual harassment when it is not
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Monday, April 8, 2019
Monday, October 2, 2017
Attraction and Eroticism
Which, is the more pleasurable? Attraction? Or Love?
Attraction is definitely the stronger of the two in my mind. After all can one not love another yet have a love affair with still another they are attracted to, against all vows and promises?
Has this not been shown over and over throughout the ages, in song, literature, movies and plays?
Is therefore Attractiveness the all important piece of the relationship puzzle? Does a relationship begin to dissolve once Attraction disappears? When there is no Attraction, is there not soon in its place, repulsion.
In much the same sense that physicists speak of the magnetic or the electrical, do people not use terms like magnetic or electric for someone they feel Attracted to?
Not Beauty... but Attractiveness.
The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition says of Attraction:
1. The act or capability of attracting [this tells us nothing]. 2. The quality of attracting, charm [Charm], 3. A feature or characteristic that attracts."
And of Attractive: 111. Having the power to attract [again, this tells us nothing].
2. Pleasing to the eye or mind [Mind]; charming." [Brackets added by the Author]
Pleasing to the eye decries surely, that aesthetic appeal which so many disparage mentioning. What is that but: Beauty?
Surely however the "pleasing to the mind," description does not explain it. Something that pleases my mind? All of it? Or most of it that can be acquired, accessed by another. What is the negative appeal in this?
An Attractive person is one that attracts your attention by way of stimulating (or "titillating," perhaps too sumptuous a word?) many separate areas of a person's mind. Obviously, the most powerful ones would be affected first: those of Beauty (sight?), Sexuality (movement? smell?), Aesthetic Demeanor (attitude?), as well as Productive Characteristics.
But is that misleading? "Productive Characteristics"? What does that mean?
A mundane example....
Porno movies are Productive.
In a sense they are or else they wouldn't exist, would they? They show us sex, raw and forced visually and audibly into our consciousness. The really good ones would also gain access to our other states of consciousness, as true art penetrates to and through many layers of consciousness and intellect. But not for the immature, the unsophisticated.
Are they productive in a way to truly "turn one on?" I think most would agree not, actually. Though many people do get a kick out of them, just how productive are they, considering their original purpose? That of stimulating one sexually. Surely they only achieve whatever they do by way of being so single mindedly obtuse. Brutal, in a sense. Overkill.
Why is Eroticism generally considered productive according to its purpose? Unless of course, it overpowers and preoccupies one. But this usually only happens to those with truly addictive/ compulsive personalities to begin with. People who needed help from the start. Is this so different from and far between the more raw, projected sexuality of most kinds of pornos? Is it because it is so very hard to achieve?
After all, it does require a certain kind of. . .Class. Of Charm (in other words, I would say, a "need" to be Attractive) in order to be truly sexually stimulating. To any satiating or at least a satisfying degree. This is something that requires a lot of complementarity. To give that to a diverse group of consumers, it "appears" to require debasing it to the point of utter ludicrousness. Thus your run-of-the-mill porno movie. Cheap. Raw. Typically unrehearsed. Poorly thought out.
This happens to us upon a paraphrase of a theorem of the late Media Prophet Marshall McLuhan (see his cameo so aptly put in the "standing in line at the cinema" scene in Woody Allen's, ANNIE HALL).
It proffers the degree of the intellectual level of a medium for any given audience, decreases in proportion to the number of individuals contained in that audience. Thus, so the theory goes, Public Broadcasting produced/sponsored shows, should have a higher quality content than that of the mass media offerings of prime time TV sitcoms.
A porno movie may indeed raise a penis to its full extension, a clitoris to its full engorgement. But is it the raw-nerved throbbing, full bodied mindfulness, experienced in near-orgasm? And no, I do not mean climax. A climax is merely a pleasant spasming of muscles. An orgasm is a much fuller experience and brings in much more of the body/mind experience.
A mere climax can leave the pelvic area congested, which is the way the body sets up sexual arousal: engorgement of the pelvic veins and nerves, irritating the organism's metabolic system to seek decongestion.
Typically, orgasm does not leave the body in this congested state, which is the more healthy (and more popularly desired) form of relief. Repeated congestion of the pelvic region without resolution, especially in women, can be medically unfavorable and lead to complications. And not just emotional ones.
This ideal indeed comes only with true eroticism. And that only comes through ... Attractiveness. See? One has to be attracted to (say...), the people on the screen in a porno, in order to experience this. Or the scene they are playing their charade out in. The projected circumstance. One could be attracted to oneself, or a preconceived idea, which then uses a porno only for confirmation and orientation in order to more fully solidify what was already in one's mind.
But true eroticism is no easy thing to achieve. In part because as has been pointed out by others long ago, it is in the nature of the human experience that one can even erotisize, raise to the level of a fetish, even that of a rock.
It is in essence, the Charm, the Quality, the Classiness (even anti classy, as in eroticizing a sense of the aesthetic of the ugly and finding sexual attraction in it, that is to say in being turned on by the gross and disgusting) of the viewing and not the view itself that does the real work.
This is one reason why pornos do indeed work for many people. For do they not primarily focus on the quality of the viewing and not the actual view being watched? Which brings up the potential for the individual to be pre-experientially inclined for an intense release, in which case one could watch a wall and find the same intensity.
It is the bare fact that the person the viewer is with (even if that be themselves), in the circumstance they are in, is the stimulating factor. It is the Attractiveness, the Charm, and the Class, as well as the Company they are keeping.
It is not as many do claim, that everyone is simply different in their tastes and therefore it is much too hard and expensive for a scene to be made which will please most anyone. Although it is indeed NOT easy to do this, I believe it is for another reason. Rather I believe it is a difficult thing to produce because of the innate need for Attractiveness. Something that requires a kind of Class, of Charm, to be truly sexually stimulating. And not necessarily in the classic sense of the words.
This is why viewing naked is sexually inspiring, but less-than-naked is Erotic. Thus, the high sales of special undergarments with orientations toward sexuality. This is also why hardcore porno is merely stimulating, while softcore tends more easily to be erotic, more fully... engaging. However, many will note that since softcore does not show it all, many viewers (mostly male) feel cheated and so do not find it in the end erotic. Once again, this reflects back onto the appetites of the individual viewer.
This is a mere misconception on the individual viewer's part. Often they find after seeing it all, that this does not satisfy after all. Nor does it satiate. Is it such a fine line for most people between the sexual excitement achieved through hardcore porno and the more fully erotic elements exercised by the way of Love, Aesthetic Appeal, or Attractiveness?
It has been said that true sexual fulfillment only comes from one being in a deep relationship. However, cannot the opposite be said in that a stranger that arouses, can also lead to an intense and deep satiation? Or does one actually satiate and the other simply inspire more desire? Which, is the most desired in that case?
Does this distinction so easily become blurred? Isn't it more like the case of a glass of fine wine is lost on a wino because he is looking for the strongest "kick." A motivation so unlike the Attraction a wine connoisseur finds for that same glass, prior to the wino having drunk from it.
The True Seeker finds instead of the wino's "kick," the connoisseur's aesthetic explosion of appreciation. One that comes up from deep within, through many levels. What is actually a cascading of mental appreciation through various regions of the brain and various levels of one's mind.
An explosion that warms, that comforts, that nurtures and lingers, sometimes for days afterward. For drinking a very fine wine can produce in a Connoisseur, an orgasm-like (though perhaps, very temporal) response. This is far indeed from what a wino experiences in his drugged, "climatic" deliriums.
So one has to ask: What is meant by having Productive Characteristics? Is it "climax?" Or, is it "orgasm?" Aesthetic Appeal (the single glass of a very fine wine), or total inebriation (a five liter box of cheap fortified Thunderbird wine in the hands of a wino)?
Is Attractiveness simply physical Beauty, or something else, something...more?
I will leave it up to you. The next time you see someone who draws your Attention to them without their even trying, from across the room, attracting you from across a bar, or through the curious air at some party, consider just what it is that is drawing you.
Consider just what it means to you. To the both of you.
I think you will find that the pleasures in Life will be better for you if you do consider it. Just like the fine wine in the hands of a Connoisseur.
Attraction is definitely the stronger of the two in my mind. After all can one not love another yet have a love affair with still another they are attracted to, against all vows and promises?
Has this not been shown over and over throughout the ages, in song, literature, movies and plays?
Is therefore Attractiveness the all important piece of the relationship puzzle? Does a relationship begin to dissolve once Attraction disappears? When there is no Attraction, is there not soon in its place, repulsion.
In much the same sense that physicists speak of the magnetic or the electrical, do people not use terms like magnetic or electric for someone they feel Attracted to?
Not Beauty... but Attractiveness.
The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition says of Attraction:
1. The act or capability of attracting [this tells us nothing]. 2. The quality of attracting, charm [Charm], 3. A feature or characteristic that attracts."
And of Attractive: 111. Having the power to attract [again, this tells us nothing].
2. Pleasing to the eye or mind [Mind]; charming." [Brackets added by the Author]
Pleasing to the eye decries surely, that aesthetic appeal which so many disparage mentioning. What is that but: Beauty?
Surely however the "pleasing to the mind," description does not explain it. Something that pleases my mind? All of it? Or most of it that can be acquired, accessed by another. What is the negative appeal in this?
An Attractive person is one that attracts your attention by way of stimulating (or "titillating," perhaps too sumptuous a word?) many separate areas of a person's mind. Obviously, the most powerful ones would be affected first: those of Beauty (sight?), Sexuality (movement? smell?), Aesthetic Demeanor (attitude?), as well as Productive Characteristics.
But is that misleading? "Productive Characteristics"? What does that mean?
A mundane example....
Porno movies are Productive.
In a sense they are or else they wouldn't exist, would they? They show us sex, raw and forced visually and audibly into our consciousness. The really good ones would also gain access to our other states of consciousness, as true art penetrates to and through many layers of consciousness and intellect. But not for the immature, the unsophisticated.
Are they productive in a way to truly "turn one on?" I think most would agree not, actually. Though many people do get a kick out of them, just how productive are they, considering their original purpose? That of stimulating one sexually. Surely they only achieve whatever they do by way of being so single mindedly obtuse. Brutal, in a sense. Overkill.
Why is Eroticism generally considered productive according to its purpose? Unless of course, it overpowers and preoccupies one. But this usually only happens to those with truly addictive/ compulsive personalities to begin with. People who needed help from the start. Is this so different from and far between the more raw, projected sexuality of most kinds of pornos? Is it because it is so very hard to achieve?
After all, it does require a certain kind of. . .Class. Of Charm (in other words, I would say, a "need" to be Attractive) in order to be truly sexually stimulating. To any satiating or at least a satisfying degree. This is something that requires a lot of complementarity. To give that to a diverse group of consumers, it "appears" to require debasing it to the point of utter ludicrousness. Thus your run-of-the-mill porno movie. Cheap. Raw. Typically unrehearsed. Poorly thought out.
This happens to us upon a paraphrase of a theorem of the late Media Prophet Marshall McLuhan (see his cameo so aptly put in the "standing in line at the cinema" scene in Woody Allen's, ANNIE HALL).
It proffers the degree of the intellectual level of a medium for any given audience, decreases in proportion to the number of individuals contained in that audience. Thus, so the theory goes, Public Broadcasting produced/sponsored shows, should have a higher quality content than that of the mass media offerings of prime time TV sitcoms.
A porno movie may indeed raise a penis to its full extension, a clitoris to its full engorgement. But is it the raw-nerved throbbing, full bodied mindfulness, experienced in near-orgasm? And no, I do not mean climax. A climax is merely a pleasant spasming of muscles. An orgasm is a much fuller experience and brings in much more of the body/mind experience.
A mere climax can leave the pelvic area congested, which is the way the body sets up sexual arousal: engorgement of the pelvic veins and nerves, irritating the organism's metabolic system to seek decongestion.
Typically, orgasm does not leave the body in this congested state, which is the more healthy (and more popularly desired) form of relief. Repeated congestion of the pelvic region without resolution, especially in women, can be medically unfavorable and lead to complications. And not just emotional ones.
This ideal indeed comes only with true eroticism. And that only comes through ... Attractiveness. See? One has to be attracted to (say...), the people on the screen in a porno, in order to experience this. Or the scene they are playing their charade out in. The projected circumstance. One could be attracted to oneself, or a preconceived idea, which then uses a porno only for confirmation and orientation in order to more fully solidify what was already in one's mind.
But true eroticism is no easy thing to achieve. In part because as has been pointed out by others long ago, it is in the nature of the human experience that one can even erotisize, raise to the level of a fetish, even that of a rock.
It is in essence, the Charm, the Quality, the Classiness (even anti classy, as in eroticizing a sense of the aesthetic of the ugly and finding sexual attraction in it, that is to say in being turned on by the gross and disgusting) of the viewing and not the view itself that does the real work.
This is one reason why pornos do indeed work for many people. For do they not primarily focus on the quality of the viewing and not the actual view being watched? Which brings up the potential for the individual to be pre-experientially inclined for an intense release, in which case one could watch a wall and find the same intensity.
It is the bare fact that the person the viewer is with (even if that be themselves), in the circumstance they are in, is the stimulating factor. It is the Attractiveness, the Charm, and the Class, as well as the Company they are keeping.
It is not as many do claim, that everyone is simply different in their tastes and therefore it is much too hard and expensive for a scene to be made which will please most anyone. Although it is indeed NOT easy to do this, I believe it is for another reason. Rather I believe it is a difficult thing to produce because of the innate need for Attractiveness. Something that requires a kind of Class, of Charm, to be truly sexually stimulating. And not necessarily in the classic sense of the words.
This is why viewing naked is sexually inspiring, but less-than-naked is Erotic. Thus, the high sales of special undergarments with orientations toward sexuality. This is also why hardcore porno is merely stimulating, while softcore tends more easily to be erotic, more fully... engaging. However, many will note that since softcore does not show it all, many viewers (mostly male) feel cheated and so do not find it in the end erotic. Once again, this reflects back onto the appetites of the individual viewer.
This is a mere misconception on the individual viewer's part. Often they find after seeing it all, that this does not satisfy after all. Nor does it satiate. Is it such a fine line for most people between the sexual excitement achieved through hardcore porno and the more fully erotic elements exercised by the way of Love, Aesthetic Appeal, or Attractiveness?
It has been said that true sexual fulfillment only comes from one being in a deep relationship. However, cannot the opposite be said in that a stranger that arouses, can also lead to an intense and deep satiation? Or does one actually satiate and the other simply inspire more desire? Which, is the most desired in that case?
Does this distinction so easily become blurred? Isn't it more like the case of a glass of fine wine is lost on a wino because he is looking for the strongest "kick." A motivation so unlike the Attraction a wine connoisseur finds for that same glass, prior to the wino having drunk from it.
The True Seeker finds instead of the wino's "kick," the connoisseur's aesthetic explosion of appreciation. One that comes up from deep within, through many levels. What is actually a cascading of mental appreciation through various regions of the brain and various levels of one's mind.
An explosion that warms, that comforts, that nurtures and lingers, sometimes for days afterward. For drinking a very fine wine can produce in a Connoisseur, an orgasm-like (though perhaps, very temporal) response. This is far indeed from what a wino experiences in his drugged, "climatic" deliriums.
So one has to ask: What is meant by having Productive Characteristics? Is it "climax?" Or, is it "orgasm?" Aesthetic Appeal (the single glass of a very fine wine), or total inebriation (a five liter box of cheap fortified Thunderbird wine in the hands of a wino)?
Is Attractiveness simply physical Beauty, or something else, something...more?
I will leave it up to you. The next time you see someone who draws your Attention to them without their even trying, from across the room, attracting you from across a bar, or through the curious air at some party, consider just what it is that is drawing you.
Consider just what it means to you. To the both of you.
I think you will find that the pleasures in Life will be better for you if you do consider it. Just like the fine wine in the hands of a Connoisseur.
Friday, February 24, 2017
Sex or Violence? Choose.
It seems really weird, a kind of stunted child development of our legislators that sex and weed are the devil's tools, but guns are God's gift to humanity. Is it really true that sex and nudity are obscene but violence is not? We are seeing many abuses of Americans and our government on the Trump Republican side of things.
This bleeds over into the conservative agenda of pushing guns on America but maintaining that legalizing cannabis is bad when it has been shown clearly to be good for America, lessening crime, cutting out Mexican and other drug cartels from drug trade in America and yet we have not yet legalized cannabis all across the country out of ignorance and ideologies.
Why is violence a God to conservatives? And sex (and weed) the tools of the Devil or something? The Trump administration is now floating the idea of cracking down on legalized Cannabis. There go state's rights after all their talk about them.
Guns good. Weed bad. Really? Alcohol good, weed bad? Behaviors that harm are good, but getting stoned, watching TV, eating munchies is bad? But carrying guns literally anywhere is good?
So a kids watching two people showing love and kindness and say walking on a beach naked is utterly horrible but watching people blown apart with guns is okay and fine? How did we ever get to THAT point?
I guess because the former gives you liberals and the latter, conservatives?
Then I vote for the former if we have to choose. Why is it bad for conservatives in their mind? Because fear. Because what if we go to war. Because we set up and cause so many environments requiring war all around the world. What if we used diplomacy and an agenda of setting up people for success rather than invasion and death?
How messed up is that?
Nudity and sex in films and frankly, even in life, is bad, horrible (so we should force women to wear full body bags and only show their eyes or we might get what, a twinge in the crotch?). Grow up guys, Be a real man, be responsible for YOUR own actions.
Yet violence, people being blown away from gun shots, heads torn completely off, people blown up with bombs, even cannibalism is good clean fun. Well yeah, I'd agree to a degree.
Make believe violence is so much more preferable than real violence and yet so many people don't seem to get that.
Why? Is it because conservatives just can't seem to understand things that are counter-intuitive, but true?
Regardless, WTF people?
This bleeds over into the conservative agenda of pushing guns on America but maintaining that legalizing cannabis is bad when it has been shown clearly to be good for America, lessening crime, cutting out Mexican and other drug cartels from drug trade in America and yet we have not yet legalized cannabis all across the country out of ignorance and ideologies.
Why is violence a God to conservatives? And sex (and weed) the tools of the Devil or something? The Trump administration is now floating the idea of cracking down on legalized Cannabis. There go state's rights after all their talk about them.
Guns good. Weed bad. Really? Alcohol good, weed bad? Behaviors that harm are good, but getting stoned, watching TV, eating munchies is bad? But carrying guns literally anywhere is good?
So a kids watching two people showing love and kindness and say walking on a beach naked is utterly horrible but watching people blown apart with guns is okay and fine? How did we ever get to THAT point?
I guess because the former gives you liberals and the latter, conservatives?
Then I vote for the former if we have to choose. Why is it bad for conservatives in their mind? Because fear. Because what if we go to war. Because we set up and cause so many environments requiring war all around the world. What if we used diplomacy and an agenda of setting up people for success rather than invasion and death?
How messed up is that?
Nudity and sex in films and frankly, even in life, is bad, horrible (so we should force women to wear full body bags and only show their eyes or we might get what, a twinge in the crotch?). Grow up guys, Be a real man, be responsible for YOUR own actions.
Yet violence, people being blown away from gun shots, heads torn completely off, people blown up with bombs, even cannibalism is good clean fun. Well yeah, I'd agree to a degree.
Make believe violence is so much more preferable than real violence and yet so many people don't seem to get that.
Why? Is it because conservatives just can't seem to understand things that are counter-intuitive, but true?
Regardless, WTF people?
Monday, March 30, 2015
Seduction and sex as positive relationship and life skills
As Jane Langton says (below in her TEDx video), we need to be able to laugh at ourselves and we need to have fun in life and in relationships. One more thing before we get started. If you have a pet, when you walk by it at home, do you smile at it?
When you see something pleasing, do you take a moment to smile about it? Do you smile enough throughout your day? Even if you have little to smile about, if you try to find things that are lighter throughout your day, that has a lot to do with enjoying life. If you think about how often the number 23 comes up in life, once you consider that, you tend to start to notice that number. The same can be true about other things. Like beauty and humor, compassion and affection.
Okay, let's start by watching the first minute of this video from a TEDx with Chen Lizra on seduction. Watch at least the first thirty seconds. There will be a few TEDx videos shared in this blog today just for support and background, and for further (and better) explanation of the specifics of the overall topic.
But not to worry. They are are pretty short, interesting, entertaining, educational and very useful. If you don't know TED or TEDx, they are pretty awesome. TED stands for "Technology, Entertainment and Design" and the "x" is for the independently community versions of these.
"TED is a global set of conferences run by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, under the slogan "Ideas Worth Spreading". TED was founded in 1984 as a one-off event; the annual conference series began in 1990." -Wikipedia
I've been surprised by two things first and foremost in this area. One is how this is abused by some in the public sphere to get ahead and that is fine, but sometimes it does get out of hand. The other is how they will use it in their public and professional lives, but not at home with the person that is their partner in life and the one most central to their life.
This goes for both men and women but I've seen it more in my life obviously (being male) with women. Once in a relationship, they seem to think it's wrong to use it on their mate. Why is that?
I suspect it is because they know how they use it in public and they may not want to bring that into the privacy of their home, for whatever reason. That it is in some way, disingenuous, questionable to use on someone close to you, or simply unfair in some way. It's not, if you have both of you in mind.
This also has to do with self image, how one views oneself.
And in America, how self conscious we are, how we associate sex with everything but then disassociate it from so much where it really should be associated. We are a curious tribe, mixed and varied as we are. We seem mostly to associate sex in negative ways (advertising, reactions to it, pornography, etc.), but is it sometimes not used in ways we may mistakenly consider it to not be positive, where we really should be using it?
We're twisted sometimes, and not in a good way. And not in ways we think, making it somewhat counter-intuitive for many.
We are at times stunted by our over Puritanical, over religious ways and, we need to get over ourselves.
Of course there are other issues, as Tracy McMillan points out in her TEDx. Tracy McMillan is a television writer (Mad Men, United States of Tara) and relationship author who wrote the book "Why You're Not Married".We need to marry, or to be in a relationship with the right person. First and foremost that person needs to be, you.
This brings us to the next issue once we are in a relationship as explored in the Sex Starved Marriage by Alisa Vitti. You can watch the video, but one of the things to consider is that sometimes you just need to have sex, even when you don't really feel like it. Remember the comment above about smiling? Similar issue.
And not just even sex. If your partner just wants to be with you but the frustration, or anger, or the bitterness keeps you from wanting to also, well....
When you see something pleasing, do you take a moment to smile about it? Do you smile enough throughout your day? Even if you have little to smile about, if you try to find things that are lighter throughout your day, that has a lot to do with enjoying life. If you think about how often the number 23 comes up in life, once you consider that, you tend to start to notice that number. The same can be true about other things. Like beauty and humor, compassion and affection.
 |
| Chen Lizra |
But not to worry. They are are pretty short, interesting, entertaining, educational and very useful. If you don't know TED or TEDx, they are pretty awesome. TED stands for "Technology, Entertainment and Design" and the "x" is for the independently community versions of these.
"TED is a global set of conferences run by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, under the slogan "Ideas Worth Spreading". TED was founded in 1984 as a one-off event; the annual conference series began in 1990." -Wikipedia
I've been surprised by two things first and foremost in this area. One is how this is abused by some in the public sphere to get ahead and that is fine, but sometimes it does get out of hand. The other is how they will use it in their public and professional lives, but not at home with the person that is their partner in life and the one most central to their life.
This goes for both men and women but I've seen it more in my life obviously (being male) with women. Once in a relationship, they seem to think it's wrong to use it on their mate. Why is that?
I suspect it is because they know how they use it in public and they may not want to bring that into the privacy of their home, for whatever reason. That it is in some way, disingenuous, questionable to use on someone close to you, or simply unfair in some way. It's not, if you have both of you in mind.
This also has to do with self image, how one views oneself.
And in America, how self conscious we are, how we associate sex with everything but then disassociate it from so much where it really should be associated. We are a curious tribe, mixed and varied as we are. We seem mostly to associate sex in negative ways (advertising, reactions to it, pornography, etc.), but is it sometimes not used in ways we may mistakenly consider it to not be positive, where we really should be using it?
We're twisted sometimes, and not in a good way. And not in ways we think, making it somewhat counter-intuitive for many.
We are at times stunted by our over Puritanical, over religious ways and, we need to get over ourselves.
Of course there are other issues, as Tracy McMillan points out in her TEDx. Tracy McMillan is a television writer (Mad Men, United States of Tara) and relationship author who wrote the book "Why You're Not Married".We need to marry, or to be in a relationship with the right person. First and foremost that person needs to be, you.
This brings us to the next issue once we are in a relationship as explored in the Sex Starved Marriage by Alisa Vitti. You can watch the video, but one of the things to consider is that sometimes you just need to have sex, even when you don't really feel like it. Remember the comment above about smiling? Similar issue.
And not just even sex. If your partner just wants to be with you but the frustration, or anger, or the bitterness keeps you from wanting to also, well....
Two things to consider here.
One is that doing is practicing doing, and not doing is practicing not doing. Our reality guides our future.
The other thing is something she mentions about those (mostly women in her therapy experience with clients) who finally do have sex when they didn't at first want to and, that once those women have had sex, usually she says that they report that they actually did in the end enjoy it after all.
This is somewhat similar in many ways to the suicidal bridge jumper who leaps from a bridge and then three quarters of the way down decides that they really do want to live after all. Or if they were stopped from jumping, years later are then so glad that they didn't kill themselves after all, even though they had badly wanted to at the time.
Sometimes we just have to do what we don't want to do, in order to realize what we really did want to do, or that we would later be glad we didn't do something irrevocable, like death.
The other thing is something she mentions about those (mostly women in her therapy experience with clients) who finally do have sex when they didn't at first want to and, that once those women have had sex, usually she says that they report that they actually did in the end enjoy it after all.
This is somewhat similar in many ways to the suicidal bridge jumper who leaps from a bridge and then three quarters of the way down decides that they really do want to live after all. Or if they were stopped from jumping, years later are then so glad that they didn't kill themselves after all, even though they had badly wanted to at the time.
Sometimes we just have to do what we don't want to do, in order to realize what we really did want to do, or that we would later be glad we didn't do something irrevocable, like death.
This is also very much about achieving: losing weight, starting a new project, cleaning the house (maintaining a relationship), or whathaveyou. It is that first step that we are so unmotivated to do, that we most need at times, to do.
One of the things some women (and men) have problems with are issues with it their own bodies.
Between advertising, male oriented just about everything, and puritanism (or religious diatribes against things like healthy sex), women (and some men though that's not as much the issue), need to feel comfortable in their own skin, with their female sexuality and related body parts, as Jane Langton explains in her own TEDx video where she says masturbation is the basis for all human sexuality.
Masturbation. Especially, female masturbation, is important.
Familiarity basically is the issue. To know yourself, to know what you want, what you want your sex partner to do to you, really does help.
In Loving your lady parts as a path to success, power & global change (yes, that is the title), by Alisa Vitti at TEDxFiDiWomen, she says there are many women who need to learn that, in order to move outward to their relationships with others.
In order to make sex what it should be for them and their partners. Life, is not just something you start out in and can expect it to be what it can be. That only happiness through luck and good decisions, knowledge and trial and error. Information certainly enhances our success rates and decreases unnecessary risks.
Then we have to consider, Is it lust or love, a TEDx by Terri Orcuch. This, is an important one in maintaining relationships. So many relationships dissolve because one is in a love relationship with someone who is in a lust relationship with them. And there are other issues about this. Is one partner seeking love through sex? Are both? Because that is only going to eventually fail.
Finally, Make Love Not Porn (makelovenotport.com) from Cindy Gallop at TEDxOxford. This relates to the premise that porn is sanitized and idealized and not real life sex. Because of that and because some people watch it and think it's real or watch it so much they expect reality to reflect that, it has become (long ago really) a consideration and with her web site, she has done something about that.
I lied. Finally we have, Making Sex Normal, by Debby Herbenick | TEDxBloomington. Sex, is normal. We should treat it as such. We should have some ethics about it and we should treat it like a benefit and certainly not as either a weapon or something to be used lightly and without any thought about it. If you ever use sex as a tool or a weapon, use it with you and your partner both in mind and not just yourself.
What are you doing to make sex normal?
Here's the thing (summation) and it's really fairly simple. We have a wide variety of things available to us in our lives as human beings that we need to know about, to think about, to address correctly and to incorporate properly into our lives.
Live your life, enjoy your life but make it work for you, not against you. Because not infrequently, we are our own worst enemies.
And it just doesn't have to be that way.
#sex #love #seduction #relationahip #TED #TEDx
Between advertising, male oriented just about everything, and puritanism (or religious diatribes against things like healthy sex), women (and some men though that's not as much the issue), need to feel comfortable in their own skin, with their female sexuality and related body parts, as Jane Langton explains in her own TEDx video where she says masturbation is the basis for all human sexuality.
Masturbation. Especially, female masturbation, is important.
Familiarity basically is the issue. To know yourself, to know what you want, what you want your sex partner to do to you, really does help.
 |
| Alisa Vitti |
In order to make sex what it should be for them and their partners. Life, is not just something you start out in and can expect it to be what it can be. That only happiness through luck and good decisions, knowledge and trial and error. Information certainly enhances our success rates and decreases unnecessary risks.
Then we have to consider, Is it lust or love, a TEDx by Terri Orcuch. This, is an important one in maintaining relationships. So many relationships dissolve because one is in a love relationship with someone who is in a lust relationship with them. And there are other issues about this. Is one partner seeking love through sex? Are both? Because that is only going to eventually fail.
Finally, Make Love Not Porn (makelovenotport.com) from Cindy Gallop at TEDxOxford. This relates to the premise that porn is sanitized and idealized and not real life sex. Because of that and because some people watch it and think it's real or watch it so much they expect reality to reflect that, it has become (long ago really) a consideration and with her web site, she has done something about that.
 |
| Debby Herbenick |
What are you doing to make sex normal?
Here's the thing (summation) and it's really fairly simple. We have a wide variety of things available to us in our lives as human beings that we need to know about, to think about, to address correctly and to incorporate properly into our lives.
Live your life, enjoy your life but make it work for you, not against you. Because not infrequently, we are our own worst enemies.
And it just doesn't have to be that way.
#sex #love #seduction #relationahip #TED #TEDx
Monday, March 16, 2015
Are we destined to fall in love with our robots?
If we could look into the near future, would we see some people who normally would perhaps be single, instead living in a love relationship with human created non-human, basically in love with a personal robot?
We see the elements now a days that if put together, indicate one thing. That we will one day in the not to distant future be seeing those who are in love with their personal robots and it doesn't even need to be a fully anthropomorphized bot, but simply a digitized personal assistant on one's phone as exemplified in the film, "Her".
 |
| From Svedka Vodka ad |
As many reading this may know, a few years ago I published a short sci fi story myself about just that issue. By the way, feel free to download and read a free copy. It's titled, "Simon's Beautiful Thought" (if you would prefer to pay for a 99 cent copy, it's also available on Amazon and thanks for the support in downloading either copy). There's also a video trailer for it if you like.
My story came out a couple of years before Spike Jonze and Joaquin Phoenix's film, "Her". I should say here that although my story came out a couple of years previous, the film was in the works for over ten years. Although I had never heard about the "Her" project until I saw the film's promos, I just felt the Zeitgeist that it was time for this story to be written. Most likely again really, as I'm sure someone sometime previously had already written one like it; but it's all about the timing.
In my story entire families are sent to a planet in Earth's first generational space ship in order to save humankind whereas in "Interstellar", a team is sent to explore a similar need, but they have more time than Earth does in my story. Two very different stories based in the same need and offering questions if not answers to specific issues.
We need to examine these things ahead of time, to think about them before it's too late to do anything about it. That's where things like science and speculative fiction and Futurism come into play. And speaking about that, allow me to inject here an article titled: "20 Crucial Terms Every 21st Century Futurist Should Know". It's good to at least be aware of these things and at most, it's a fascinating field to get involved in.
One of those things we should be aware of and explore are the proposed Laws of Robotics. A set of very useful things to have as protection against some very bad things possibly happening. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to see how robots or AIs and humans will have very close relationships.
Ones that may very well easily transition into situations where there is little difference in the experience between "normal" interhuman relationships and inhuman or transhuman ones. So we really do need to consider various elements in the topic. Basically, how robots will relate to us, how we will relate to robots and, how we will relate to one another and treat one another. Treatment of robots is another topic that was first explored in "I, Robot" by Asimov.
I see these relationships as going one of two ways. Mostly people will get along with their "tool" and that will be the end of it. But for some, the love interest will grow and seem to be rewarding and useful, or it will become dark and destructive. I think the orientation in my story was a bit more realistic considering what these assistants will be designed for and then the film, "Her" took the other more popular \ entertaining (salacious?) if not more sensationalist view.
Science fiction and speculative fiction should tell a good story, but they should also point out realistic possibilities to give us a good view into the future so that we can be more prepared for what is to come. Much of science fiction has turned dark to show us the negative effects of technology on humanity, but it's not realistically all going to be dark. Dark is just more fun and offers more of a roller coaster ride experience in entertainment.
Some examples of this are the following. The excellent 1979 film, "Alien" which was a reaction in a way to the 1977 more positive film, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". Alien scared the hell out of many people. The reaction to that film was another Stephen Spielberg film in 1982, "ET The Extraterrestrial" which had a far more positive effect. There was also of course Start Trek and Star Wars but those dealt more really with overall societal issues, such as war and galactic federations.
We have heard much of late from famous and great thinkers about Artificial Intelligence and the dangers it poses if we do not pay attention now, first and foremost to some very necessary things. To follow on that progression by the way, we have the first of the "The Terminator" film franchise that started in 1984, an iconic year (considering the George Orwell book of the same name) and was itself a reaction against the ET and for that matter.
Terminator and its SkyNet were prime examples of the worst that could come from AI if it is allowed to run unabated. 1970's, "Colossus The Forbin Project" was a much earlier example of this with its echoes back to Kubrick's 1968 film based on Arthur C. Clark's short story "The Sentinel" and titled, "2001: A Space Odyssey" with its demented and destructive HAL 9000 computer AI.
SPOILER, it wasn't HAL's fault but politicians in Washington DC as uncovered in the 1984 film, "2010" based on another 1982 Clark book, "2010: Odyssey Two".
Terminator and its SkyNet were prime examples of the worst that could come from AI if it is allowed to run unabated. 1970's, "Colossus The Forbin Project" was a much earlier example of this with its echoes back to Kubrick's 1968 film based on Arthur C. Clark's short story "The Sentinel" and titled, "2001: A Space Odyssey" with its demented and destructive HAL 9000 computer AI.
SPOILER, it wasn't HAL's fault but politicians in Washington DC as uncovered in the 1984 film, "2010" based on another 1982 Clark book, "2010: Odyssey Two".
Some of those who have raised the question of control and protections for humanity regarding digital autonomous beings are none other than Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and Elon Musk, both very concerned about the power that AIs might end up with and a very real need for us to control them before we give them too much control over us or too much autonomy.
By the way, while we're talking about all this: "The first use of the word Robot was in Karel Čapek's play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) (written in 1920)". Writer Karel Čapek was born in Czechoslovakia (Czech Republic) and I read his play many years ago.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
- 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
This is further explored in the article, "Do we need Asimov's Laws?" The reader's comments below that article are also interesting and one offers a counter argument to the usefulness of the laws in, "Why Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics Can't Protect Us."
Well that's all very interesting and these are things we need to consider, but let's get back to the point of this article....
As I saw in the film "Her", the AI didn't follow the laws to a logical conclusion (for me), whereas in my story, "Simon's Beautiful Thought", they were. Is my story better? That's for the readers to decide and my tale was merely a short story, but in my view, they are in some ways equal. Both give the readers or viewers a good projection into two very different and possible futures.
I read a short sci fi story when I was younger about a guy on another planet who was a top robot field handler. He could handle up to the considered limit of nine which very few could do. If I remember correctly these were like clones with attached appliances so that someone could wear an appliance himself and thereby control the cybernauts in the field to do manual labor too grudging for humans to do.
So not only was it a fake "hooker\john" relationship, it had no bearing in the realm of "relationships" whatsoever. Except to himself. Is that what we really want? It may even in some ways for some sound desirable, but unless you have a personality problem, I don't think that is actually the case.
For some more background on the topic there is a Huffington Post article on the robot paramour paradigm:
Also for a quick survey of sci fi and our obsession with sex and robotics:
While many of us will not "fall in love" with our digitized assistants, there will most definitely be those who will fall fast in love with their non human entity or entities (as some will have multiples). The near future is going to be an odd place indeed.
Considering people now fall in love with things like toasters and electrical appliances residing on the street, some are now falling in love with their RealDolls (life sized sex dolls appropriately weighted and articulated) with no animation at all to them. They cost around $7,000 and some people have more than one of them. These types of objectivists will most certainly become bonded to their purchased non-human "toys" that may be either inanimate, animated, interactive or eventually, both.
Is it a matter of time then that those who would now be against gay marriage will one day welcome the old days of when that was their only concern? Will they have to consider those who want to marry their dolls, or their AI or full cybernaut manufactured device?
My concern with all this isn't that people have a diverse array of things they can explore. More power to them in that; mostly. We have after all only scratched the surface of what it means to be human.
Humankind is a mere adolescent in it's development and there is much, much more to come. Not the least of which is our own physical and mental development. Once we have AIs freely available they will alter and further develop us in ways we can now only imagine, just by their mere existence and our interacting with them a on regular and long term basis.
But we have to imagine it all now, before it's too late.
Humankind is a mere adolescent in it's development and there is much, much more to come. Not the least of which is our own physical and mental development. Once we have AIs freely available they will alter and further develop us in ways we can now only imagine, just by their mere existence and our interacting with them a on regular and long term basis.
But we have to imagine it all now, before it's too late.
My concern in all this isn't so much that people might fall in love with autonomous individuals, even if digitally created. We do that now with naturally organically created individuals in relationships.
My concern is in how people might fall in love with themselves, at least in the beginning, before robots become sophisticated enough to have their own mental / personality kernels with their own ID\Ego|Superego if you will to use an old Freudian paradigm.
At that point, it will be no different than a real human relationship.
My concern is in how people might fall in love with themselves, at least in the beginning, before robots become sophisticated enough to have their own mental / personality kernels with their own ID\Ego|Superego if you will to use an old Freudian paradigm.
At that point, it will be no different than a real human relationship.
I see that as a far greater threat to humanity and our overall development, than I do an AI taking over the world as in SkyNet in the Terminator film franchise, taking over the world. That might be a better ending for humanity that for us to turn into the narcissistic mental midgets that we are seeing in the media now a days all around us. "Selfies" are rampant, entertainment news media is all about those who it is "all about".
We have in point of fact, become enamoured with ourselves. For more on this see: "Psychogenic Photopenia-A New Disorder?"
If given the ability to further develop in that direction, how many may choose perceived perfection in a relationship over that of the more problematic and rich ones we receive from our fallible human beings in one to another?
There are many and varied, new and novel things in our future and I look forward to them all. To explore them, to consider and become involved in many of them. Still, we do need to consider looking before we leap as a species and consider well, our new paths before us.
And now, this....
Rise of artificial intelligence is changing attitudes on robot romance
And, this....
The Washington Post | Love in the time of bots
April 9, 2015
Source: The Washington Post — March 17, 2015 | Dominic Basulto
Artificial intelligence thought leader Ray Kurzweil has suggested that a real life human & AI romance might be possible in as little as 15 years.
In his review of the 2013 Spike Jonze film Her, Kurzweil said he expected similar types of advances by the year 2029, “Samantha herself I would place at 2029, when the leap to human level AI would be reasonably believable.”
Kurzweil says your romantic partner might not need a physical body, as long as there’s a “virtual visual presence.” Kurzweil sees this happening via virtual reality experience.
“With emerging eye mounted displays that project images onto the wearer’s retinas and also look out at the world,” he said, “we will soon be able to do exactly that. When we send nanobots into the brain — a circa 2030s scenario by my timeline — we will be able to do this with all senses, and intercept other people’s emotional responses.” [...]
Saturday, February 14, 2015
50 Shades of Sadness for Romance? Not really.
Happy St. Valentine's Day! A great day for some (those happy in a relationship) and a miserable day for many (those in a bad relationship, or the rest of us single people).
What to do, what to do on this famous date day\night, right?
The book "50 Shades of Grey" has had amazing success for a book so questionably written and which has produced a much better film (see review). Which is saying only so much. The film is to be released today on St. Valentine's Day.
What to do, what to do on this famous date day\night, right?
The book "50 Shades of Grey" has had amazing success for a book so questionably written and which has produced a much better film (see review). Which is saying only so much. The film is to be released today on St. Valentine's Day.
Odd choice, you might think. Lust over romance? Odd? Really? Then again, it may be an interesting choice for date night. On the other hand there are various boycotts for it to either not be released (good luck on that one as everyone is getting on the marketing bandwagon for this, from jewelers to lingerie companies), or for individuals to boycott it for a variety of reasons descending into the nutty.
Especially should more negative feelings arise from viewing of the film. Should one or the other take offense and I'd think that would be the woman on the date (or the guy if he's trying to be disingenuous and if she is into it, maybe you should just shut up and see where the ride takes you). If she can ignore the psychic abuse and take it all superficially, it could be arousing.
Apparently it was for a lot of female readers, but will that translate to the same when seeing what their minds imagined when reading it? It's a mixed bag, though the actors and directing gloss over the poorly written parts making it, perhaps, more glamorous? That needs to be left up to each individual viewer.
For either way, it could still evoke licentiousness and actions appropriate to a good time (even if not in the BDSM vein). From what I understand, it's not true BDSM in the story as he (SPOILER) contracts her to be his partner in this. Which destroys the entire concept of using one's mind in all this.
It makes him basically a punk and bully and her simply a victim (dumb enough to adhere to the contract, or is she just enjoying it all?). Having a contract removes any mental sparring, control issues, and brings it all down to a child's version of BDSM, making her a mere toy and less a partner in the endeavor. BDSM for kindergarten players, where one, really isn't.
But, putting all that aside.... this isn't Pretty Woman.
Apparently it was for a lot of female readers, but will that translate to the same when seeing what their minds imagined when reading it? It's a mixed bag, though the actors and directing gloss over the poorly written parts making it, perhaps, more glamorous? That needs to be left up to each individual viewer.
For either way, it could still evoke licentiousness and actions appropriate to a good time (even if not in the BDSM vein). From what I understand, it's not true BDSM in the story as he (SPOILER) contracts her to be his partner in this. Which destroys the entire concept of using one's mind in all this.
It makes him basically a punk and bully and her simply a victim (dumb enough to adhere to the contract, or is she just enjoying it all?). Having a contract removes any mental sparring, control issues, and brings it all down to a child's version of BDSM, making her a mere toy and less a partner in the endeavor. BDSM for kindergarten players, where one, really isn't.
But, putting all that aside.... this isn't Pretty Woman.
Sometimes getting riled up over matters of sexuality can and do lead to an interesting and rather intense exercise of the behavior. Perhaps not in the ways projected int he film but even only in the missionary position. If however one or the other is observed during sex to have a somewhat out of character resolution to the experience, then we know. Don't we?
That isn't to say that next time you should pull out your Christian Grey costume and devices, but you do know the mental buttons to push (just gauge that correctly or you may be surprised at the negative and possibly volatile reaction from your partner).
One does have to wonder if in nine months from that viewing day there won't be a small baby boom from its previous viewers' nocturnal, post viewing experiences. Something perhaps that viewing the film over reading the book, would surely more easily lend itself to.
Regardless of what you think about all this, whether you decide to take a date to see it today, or couldn't care less, use your own mind and make your own decisions. Yes there may be some nut cases out there (guys most likely) who will want to entertain the Mr. Grey delusion and simply can't pull it off. Someone may indeed regret being alone in a room with him.
So think about who you're with and where they may decide to go, or take you along. Willingly or not. Other than that...
I think it's really just not that big of a deal. Hype for hype's sake, abuse for abuse's sake. Where in the end after all, there's a lot of corporate money to made riding this bandwagon.
By the way? Probably not a first date movie....
It seems that Slate has a review on the film now: "Fifty shades of...beige?".
By the way? Probably not a first date movie....
It seems that Slate has a review on the film now: "Fifty shades of...beige?".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)