I'm sure I'll see it. I always see movies whose leads I have crushes on. Much like I plan to see the ghastly Catch and Release with Jennifer Garner.
I was going to say that you should have put an ad on CL to see the movie with a chickie and then searched for examples, finding instead this head scratcher.
does 3 refer to 1? I glanced at the Apatow entry at IMDB and haven't like any of the movies;in fact turned them all off. Just not the kind of comedy I like. Kingpin and Very Bad Things are more to my taste.
Heigl? Watched her grow up;she's blonde. Np attraction.
I have seen her in serious roles, she is ok.
I haven't see enough Jennifer Garner to have an opinion. She was in Daredevil? I saw that. Umm, just another indistinguishable slim brunette.
This movie is BLOWING UP. everyone is talking abotu it, and i got my ear to the rail road track of tomorow.
also i can't believe some people prefer brunettes,
can we just talk about how awesome freaks and geeks is.
i cringed writing that because it felt improper, grammatically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIxRdz6a0LI
this is what its like after the apocolyps when i'm eeking out survival by myself.
Latest theory: Men don't have to dress up, because of male privldge. They are trying to signal, "i'm so cool, i don't have to pay attention to how i dress." but this doesn't quite fit reality, because rocks stars and movie stars wear WERID shit. yet, they are at the top of the stack. and wearing fuscia suits is ok for women, because they are taken less seriously. if a dude wore one, they would be violating the 'men are taken seriously' norm.
the enthusiasm!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEQP9T8tz4s
plus then *spoiler*
When he goes and doesn't know how to play any other songs, and yet everyone is giving him such a chance...
Funny, this was one of the movies playing here tonight that made me say "eh, nothing's on, let's not bother with a movie."
i was surprised at how many art house elitists were like 'yeah brah must see'
Just ran thru my On Demand listings to get some idea. I never watch sitcoms; don't watch 99% of TV dramas like Heroes or whatever Garner was in. Tend to watch indies, English & other foreign films.
Whole gang of older actress like Hope Davis (she is blonde) and Mary Louise Parker & Judy Davis. And the obvious ones like Alba and Hewitt.
Younger or less known actresses whose performances I liked or found interesting:Camilla Belle, Evan Rachel Wood, Emmanuelle Chiquri (that kiddy show on HBO), Rachel MacAdams after she went brunette her hair for Red Eye. Natalie Portman, of course.
Orientals like Qi Shu of the first Transporter, Bai Ling, Zhang Ziyi, Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin.
Europeans Etc.
Gotta go. Spike has class on Fridays:Siu nin Wong Fei Hung ji: Tit Ma Lau (1993) tonight.
God this is good, started on the hour. Extreme hardcore wuxia.
The trailers for Knocked Up annoyed me mightily. I realize that without annoying social constraint and gendered expectations, teh comedy dies, which is why all us feminists are so humorless.
I might now be as Michael-style as yoyo always seems to be.
In other news, Yoyo's head was just run over by a train. He was tuned in to tomorrow ahead of the rest, but it's today now.
Movie review:Swift Snake technique always loses to Crouching Crane, and beware the Imperial Fan.
One thumb up, but only because I woke up this morning with the TV on, so I missed the big fight.
Sound was off because every other commercial was Girls Gone Wild.
good fucking thing i'm the two-headed boy, no?
I had rewatched 40 Year-Old Virgin last night to try to get excited for Knocked Up (did people see A.O. Scott's rave? I don't trust him nearly as much as I do Dargis, but it's something) and instead found 40 Y-O V much less funny than I had on previous occasions.
I liked it too. Its undecided earnestness, however, made the fights between the husband & wife a little too familiar to be as funny as I suspected they were supposed to be.
24: This
together they dwell in a paradoxical state in which fulfillment -- two charming young daughters, a big house with a pool, each other -- seems indistinguishable from disappointment.is a really nice line. The rest of the review--not so much.
Anthony Lane also loved it, on basically the same terms as Scott. But I think they both like what it's up to more than what it pulls off.
You mean stuff like this?
" Besides, he has a job to do: there are women out there who badly need men to grow up, and the men really don't want to, so who will referee?"
That's what makes me uneasy about the movie, though my suspicion is that such lines reflect something about the critics rather than the movie. The only more tired cliche in romcom's than "men need to grow up," is "men need to loosen the shackles of adulthood and remember to have fun." (Ex. Old School.) Part of Aptow's charm, at least in Virgin, is his wishy-washiness on these things.
The whole "you're pregnant by a random hook-up so of course you're going to toss your career aside and marry the random schmuck who knocked you up" premise was a bit too reactionary for me to get into.
Yup, like that. Anyway, it's worth seeing, because some parts are really funny. And I don't know what w/d is on about, because 40YOV is still hilarious.
Stras, you least fun person ever, that's not even an accurate summary, but I won't say any more so as not to be spoilery.
Dreyer gets so much rhythm that the notion of a 40 year old virgin is wildly implausible in a way that it no longer is for some of the rest of us.
Wierd thing is, I think I woke up with pink eye this morning.
Tim, did you hate Old School? I was sure I would, but I laughed hard and loud. I wouldn't see it again, but it was worth seeing once, like Wedding Crashers.
I didn't realize you were so kinky, unf. Does your wife know?
31: I admit, that's what I thought it was about after seeing the previews, and it made me annoyed. I am glad to hear it is not so simply done.
Old School was fine, if overpraised. (I'd say the same about Wedding Crashers.)
Well, it's not a totally inaccurate summary...
37: Overpraise I can see. I saw both of them right when they came out, before there was any build-up about them, and I can imagine not having enjoyed them so much if, say, my friends had said, "OMG! You have to see it!" etc. An expectation that I will hate something is often a sure predictor that I'll enjoy it.
31: Well, I'd hate to have such a delightful experience spoiled, but nothing I've read gives any indication why the Heigl character decides not to just get an abortion after one drunken hookup, as any other normal upper-middle-class non-religious American woman would almost certainly do. Reproductive freedom is less "fun" than the wacky sitcom shenanigans of getting chained to Seth Rogen by your womb, but there I go, the fun-killer.
I'm trying to think what is the best comedy from the last ten years that appeals to the same audience. Maybe Something About Mary? I know there have been movies that made me laugh a lot, but I can't really remember the names. I liked Dodgeball a lot, but Rip Torn owns me. And neither are properly romcoms.
Know what would be awesome? A romantic comedy about Jews in 15th century Spain who have to convert to Christianity to avoid the inquisition. Wackiness ensues!
but nothing I've read gives any indication why the Heigl character decides not to just get an abortion after one drunken hookup
Because the movie would be 10 minutes long?
42: I too like Python, but that's hard to pull off.
I do often wonder if married people just have a big fat agenda to get everyone else married and babied up. I can think of no other life decision (I'm going to be a doctor!) that one makes and then insists that absolutely everyone in the world "just hasn't grown up" or "just doesn't know what they want" if they don't also make. A.O. Scott's review rubs me the wrong way in that way.
as any other normal upper-middle-class non-religious American woman would almost certainly do
This is false. The one person I know who got knocked up from a drunken hookup with a guy she met that very night kept the baby. She had a good job, wasn't religious, etc. And I've talked to women in similar circumstances who said they'd keep a baby if they got knocked up, regardless of their feelings for the guy. Staying with the guy is a different issue...
Stras, you haven't even seen the movie? Oh, for crying out loud. And I agree with Tim, the premise in 42 sounds pretty funny, but would be hard to pull off.
Dreyer gets so much rhythm that the notion of a 40 year old virgin is wildly implausible in a way that it no longer is for some of the rest of us.
I don't think Joan of Arc was 40 years old in Dreyer's film.
Mel Brooks demonstrated its possibility in History of the World. "Ya can't Torq 'em ada anything!"
The "who are you to tell a woman she should get an abortion just because you don't want to raise a kid yourself" thing that comes up in the 'why should men be allowed to sign away child support obligations' threads seems somehow related here.
She does consider an abortion in the movie.
This might be the closest we're going to get in finding an existing comedy set during the Spanish Inquisition.
Alternately, maybe if you watch this movie while imagining Turturro as his character from "Brain Donors".
44: Python could pull off a Spanish Inquisition comedy, but I'm specifically calling for a feel-good Spanish Inquisition romcom, not a black comedy. Think "chattel slavery date movie."
And ogged: I realize you like Apatow, but there's something deeply squicky about a movie that in some way looks fondly back at a time when abortion was unmentionable and pregnancy was an unalterable condition that forced women to marry up. Men have used pregnancy to control women for ages, and the fact that plenty of women - even women who don't identify as religious, but have certainly been influenced by a religious culture, a la 46 - have accepted this control, isn't cause to applaud this control or chuckle at it as if it were something innocuous.
What do you mean, "fondly back"? I don't think I've ever seen a television show or popular movie in which abortion as a path is broached, let alone chosen.
You haven't even seen the movie, s. jones, so how would you know what it "in some way looks fondly back at"?
The movie makes it clear that it's her decision, and whether to continue seeing the guy who fathered the child is her decision too. I think you're wrong.
She does consider an abortion in the movie.>
On their second date, Alison tells Ben she's eight weeks pregnant, and, this being a mainstream movie in which the word abortion literally cannot be uttered--when Ben's pal Jonah briefly invokes the procedure, he says it "rhymes with 'shmashmortion' "--she needs to know whether Ben's onboard for the whole fatherhood thing.
Now, it's entirely possible that you and Dana Stevens have seen entirely different films, both directed by Judd Apatow and starring Seth Rogen called "Knocked Up." But I'm more willing to think this is some sort of Rashomon-like phenomenon going on here. So: for how long, and at what point in the movie, does Heigl's character actually consider an abortion, and why doesn't she get one? I really don't care about spoilers.
So anyway, it seems like "Knocked Up" isn't as great as "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", and "Hot Fuzz" isn't as great as "Shaun of the Dead", but both show encouraging signs that their creators will be making good movies frequently and for a long while to come.
54, 58: And High Fidelity, and Godfather Part II.
I think the cute but cheap Dana Stevens missed the point of that, then. AO Scott gets it right that that scene is "knowing" and funny: it's making a joke about the fact that he can't mention abortion. The adjacent scene is of Heigl's mom repeatedly telling her to "get it taken care of" and to "take care of it." Both very funny scenes.
I don't think I've ever seen a television show or popular movie in which abortion as a path is broached, let alone chosen.
Scrubs begs to differ.
So why doesn't she get an abortion?
In GII, it's presented as a bad thing that's done to the man. You could make the same, if weaker, argument about HF.
64: Huh. Did she get the abortion?
The Cider House Rules and Vera Drake are recent extremely pro-abortion movies.
58: girl that kind but nerdy boy has crush on has unsatisfying sex with "cool" kid, gets pregnant, "cool" kid claims he'll come up with money for abortion but fails to do so, forget how money is found, girl lies to not-entirely-sympathetic-as-a-character-brother to get a ride to clinic...
...wait a second. You've never seen it? What are you, on dope? Go watch that shit. It's a legitimate classic, featuring Sean Penn when he's 22.
I wouldn't have thought it could possibly be true, but I've got to watch more movies and tv.
Claire had an abortion in Six Feet Under.
In GII, it's presented as a bad thing that's done to the man.
I don't really see that at all, but I guess I can see how you could come away with that impression.
Because she decides not to.
This is not terribly helpful.
In Baby Boy it's depicted as something that makes sense for the woman, and the father doesn't care one way or the other.
This is not terribly helpful.
Maybe you should ask the character, then. Or the screenwriter.
In all seriousness, someone should write the abortion movies up and send it on to slate and/or The NewYorker; I'm surprised that the subject has been discussed/depicted/whatever as much as it apparently has been; I thought it was like (until recently) interracial dating: accepted but not seen, suggested but not discussed.
73: Come on, someone's deciding not to get an abortion is not some deep paranormal mystery. Whatever ideological beliefs one may have about the tyranny of the womb, it's quite common for people in real life to not in fact take getting an abortion lightly and to prefer other options first. Not even "reactionary" people, just people.
Everyone should see Fast Times. You could make an evening of it by also screening Modern Times, Chuck Bronson's Hard Times, and The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg, although none of these have Mr. Hand or Phoebe Cates.
Not even "reactionary" people, just people.
But people who are living in a very conservative, very patriarchal, very misogynistic society. Look: if someone happens to decide that they want to have a child after getting randomly impregnated, then fine. If they believe that personhood is mystically invested in a zygote at the moment of conception, there's probably very little I can do to disabuse them of that notion. But I'm betting there's a lot of women who don't fall into either category who decide not to have an abortion anyway, and suffer a lot of nontrivial consequences as a result, simply because they live in a patriarchal society which has told them, repeatedly, that having children is the default destiny for women, and that going against this is wrong, and that Abortion Is Not To Be Taken Lightly.
80: Perhaps, but the circs. are bit like the ones to which someone pointed to in her post about why we can't know if women are raving sex addicts: that's the society we presently live in. I can't tell if you're saying that Aptow should have made an explicitly political movie centered on the subject of abortion.
80: they live in a patriarchal society which has told them, repeatedly, that having children is the default destiny for women, and that going against this is wrong, and that Abortion Is Not To Be Taken Lightly.
False consciousness isn't the only kind of consciousness, even for women.
Phoebe Cates is now 44 and completely SFW.
Stras, if I got pregnant from a random hook-up now, I'd have the kid. Not because it is my default destiny or because Abortion Is Not To Be Take Lightly, but because I really want kids, and I don't know that an optimal situation for having kids (well-planned in a financially secure, supportive household) is going to come along, and it isn't like I have a long line of men hoping to get me pregnant in a long-term situation, so I would look at an unplanned pregnancy and think: this IS a chance, and I might not get a better one.
There would be all sorts of hard decisions about the father, but deciding to have the kid would be the easiest part.
Man, I thought this "negatively review the political connotations of movies you haven't seen" thing was mostly for Republicans, anymore. Good to know it's not.
I don't think Stras is saying that Apatow should have made Citizen Ruth, I think he's saying that the setup is inherently sexist. (I don't particularly agree, but I think you could look at a broad swath of American comedies and get a sense where he's coming from.)
I hadn't really been interested in seeing this, but A.O. Scott's review made it sound like the women in the movie are vastly more believable human agents than you would normally expect to find in a guy-centric comedy. Now my curiosity is piqued.
Before I skim it, does this thread have spoilers?
91 - At the end, it's revealed that American society is deeply sexist and Ogged doesn't really hate women, just fears them.
91: It was all a dream. A horrible dream partaking equally of the complexes of H.P. Lovecraft and Richard Nixon.
I think he's worried that their make-up will rub off on him and he'll look clowny.
Megan, if you already want a kid, then that's not an issue (as I tried to convey in 80). The situation presented in this movie, as I understand it, is pretty different.
Sifu, I don't think it's utterly beyond the pale to judge a movie's premise without actually seeing that movie. Fundamentalist Christians would have found Last Temptation of Christ pretty objectionable if they'd actually seen it, for the same reason they found the premise of the movie objectionable; similarly, a lot of people on the left decided Mel Gibson's The Passion would probably piss them off if they actually saw it, and they were probably right, too.
I love Freaks and Geeks more than I can express.
I love it more than I love eating a sno-cone while driving on country roads and Don Williams comes on the radio and the sun is setting. THAT MUCH!
99: be careful watching it, though: if you drop the sno-cone you could cause an accident.
If I drop the sno-cone and swerve off the road and thus miss t-boning the stalled semi right behind the hairpin turn, I could prevent and accident.
That's right, you did say the part about wanting a kid. That would put me in your first category.
I wouldn't want anyone who doesn't want a kid to not get an abortion because of the things a patriarchal society has told them, either.
"pregnancy was an unalterable condition that forced women to marry up. Men have used pregnancy to control women for ages, and the fact that plenty of women - even women who don't identify as religious, but have certainly been influenced by a religious culture, a la 46 - have accepted this control, isn't cause to applaud this control or chuckle at it as if it were something innocuous."
There's also the idea that women use children, which they kinda wanted, to make a relationship take the 'next step.' maybe not too common, but i had a recent friend who thought he was going to break up with a girl, realize she got pregnant, she was planning on keeping it, and he had to call off that for a while, until she had a miscarriage. i'd say waht you're refering to is more 'old people in the community' policing young people to get into marriage more then men to women specifically.
Also, Last American Virgin has an abortion scene that is mostly pro-abortion.
The semi is "The Cable Guy," I take it?
You know what's seriously fucked up? Thomas the Tank Engine. All sorts of weird sentient-trains-as-slave-race dynamics going on, right down to weird intra-train-type (diesel vs. steam engine) conflict.
This comment brought to you by my daughter, who dragged her dad out of bed at oh dark thirty this morning.
If I couldn't criticize movies I don't watch, I couldn't criticize any movies at all. Where's the fun in that? Sifu is oppressing me.
Reading a review here and there is cheaper and quicker than seeing the stupid things.
79:"The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg" ??
I hadn't heard of this movie. I must see this movie. Hank still holds the record foe RBI's, IIRC and played with Charlie Gehringer, which I always thought was a neat name.
85: I would have had Cates in my list of brunettes way above at comment 16, but I always considered leering at Cates as child porn. At 44, she still looks illegal.
As far as the rest of the thread, I agree with stras 159%, but have stayed away for fear I might inadvertently mention the Honk Kong movie I saw recently that used chopped aborted fetuses in dumplings as a plot device. It was a black comedy, so may not count.
I love watching trailers. It's the perfect amount of a movie you don't actually want to see. And sometimes I get excited about movies I didn't know I wanted to see.
Overall, I don't really like movies though. At least ones that are longer than 1 1/2 hours. And I love how you get to know characters so much better through a TV show.
My grandma dated hank greenberg.
110: So cool. Extra points for you!
"Overall, I don't really like movies though"
I've been realizing this is true for me, too. I think I like movies, I like to read about movies, I like to talk about movies, but as far as actually seeing them I mostly can't be bothered.
All my entertainment needs are filled by unfogged and MANDOM!
You know what's seriously fucked up? Thomas the Tank Engine.
Yeah! The early episodes where the Fat Controller uses Thomas and Percy as scabs to crush Gordon and Henry's strike is a classic. The servile attitudes of the engines and their desperate desire to be "really useful" has to be seen to be believed.
There are two big added weirdness bonuses: (1) No female presence in the early series, except Annie and Clarabel, who are Thomas's chattel. (2) In the American version of the DVDs, there is a series of changes made so as not to offend American sensibilities. Chief amongst these are the fact that the Fat Controller can never be referred to as the Fat Controller, and is known as Sir Topham Hatt instead, and also a classic Christmas episode that is reprocessed as Thomas getting ready for "Thanksgiving," despite the glaring shots of decorated Christmas trees and presents and decorations in the episode.
TL+ToHG is an excellent movie, although a lot of the anecdotes about the anti-Semitism Greenberg faced will be familiar if you know anything about him. Also, Heebie's grandma wins the thread.
109 - Last month I saw this awesomeness, which clocked in over three hours and was in French. Movies should be short or (rarely) really long.
I saw a Hong Kong movie once (1983) which centered on the attempts of a group of nice ghosts to defeat a Christian sanitary napkin magnate who secretly was part of an international counterfeiting ring. Best movie ever. Stereotypical Japanese, a mushroom cloud, a horrible old-lady ghost sitting on the toilet with he panties around her ankles. a slasher movie, a Woody Allen type Caucasian lead, and a romantic subplot involving a teenager who talked to her stuffed animals.
Killer of Sheep is playing this weekend (only!) in the District. I'm pretty damned excited about that. I'm also seeing Knocked Up, though.
Oops—I meant to throw a link in there.
the Fat Controller can never be referred to as the Fat Controller, and is known as Sir Topham Hatt instead
I didn't know there was another name for the character, but that guy is fucking creepy--overseer vibes all over the place.
120: Yeah, but if in America, don't call him fat!
In the UK/Australia version there are occasional swipes at the Fat Controller, as the lower classes snipe back. These are also eliminated from the U.S. version.
105: Sicker than the family dynamics in Rudolf the Suffering From Stockholm Syndrome, Differently-Abled, Woefully Mistreated, and Exploited Reindeer?
I saw the "knocked up" movie. I liked it. It was very funny. The female characters were more well rounded than usual for such stupid comedies.
However, if someone was to tell me the story as one that happened to a friend of theirs, my conclusion would be that the man entrapped the women into being with him by getting her knocked up. The man has no job, no money, and is boorish and unattractive. The women is a very attractive TV reporter. The man knows that she is out of his league and doesn't wear a condom during a one night stand. They have a baby and the man ends up in a relationship with the women.
Overall, I don't really like movies though. At least ones that are longer than 1 1/2 hours.
I do like movies, but I have a real bee in my bonnet about the length of modern movies. If you are Lawrence of Arabia, you are allowed to be over three hours long. If you are Spider-Man 3, you should be under 100 minutes.
Apparently, if you are Spider-Man 3, you also don't deserve the italics that dignify greater films.
Hey, joeo: spoilers suck. See 91.
Think of it as indicating emphasis. "Spiderman, Schmiderman. Now Lawrence of Arabia, that was a movie!"
You know what is really great? Lounging around the house in a cotton halter-top dress and drinking a delicious cold beer out of the bottle as the house slowwwwly begins to cool off from the heat of the day.
Killer of Sheep is playing this weekend (only!) in the District.
I hadn't heard of that, looks intriguing. The story behind it is interesting.
I liked Spider-Man, but if someone was to tell me the story as one that happened to a friend of theirs, I would have to say the radioactive spider entrapped Peter Parker.
I think I'll have a beer, too.
126: That's a pretty broad definition of "spoiler." See the rest of the thread.
I just went on kind of a ridiculous dress-buying spree where I bought three versions of essentially the same dress so that I could wear them all the time. Unfortunately I can't really wear any of them to campus because they're too low cut to be work-respectable, but the rest of the time: dresses and beer 4eva.
If I couldn't criticize movies I don't watch, I couldn't criticize any movies at all.
That speaks for me perfectly, as--like others--I don't like movies (actually I don't care much about criticizing them either, but I still do it sometimes.) I find them oppressive, both as an art form and their role in society (got nothing to do? Go see a movie! Blah.)
That said, The Last Temptation of Christ isn't the best example to use to demonstrate that someone might legitimately criticize based on its premise without having seen it. Catholic neocon Carol Iannone made the case for LToC years ago in First Things. Not a fundie, but to the point, I think. Though I don't much care about this argument either way.
132: I actually didn't read 126. I just got a vibe and averted my eyes. I ask for forgiveness.
I SAID I was sorry! Jeez, spoiler-nazi-alert.
So much for any joke I was going to make. He'll be missed.
80: If they believe that personhood is mystically invested in a zygote at the moment of conception
I appreciate your concerns, but it's actually possible to regard abortion as an ethically serious choice without believing any such thing, so maybe it's not that helpful to decry all moral complexity as false consciousness or capitulation to the Man. Also probably good to keep in mind that putting every film you encounter through an ideological strainer can turn you into a progressive version of CAPalert, which presumably isn't something you want to be.
138: Fuck. I suppose it's not too surprising given how sick he obviously was, but still... fuck.
"Offense to God (O)
The Bowler Hat Guy calls one of the characters a "Fool!" Jesus advises us in the Book of Matthew that doing so is unacceptable [Matt. 5:22]. Further, since Jesus informs us that no man can know the future, the time travel in this film is counter-Scripture. [Eccl. 8:7, 9:12]"
I have also been buying up ridiculously un-work-safe dresses. But then, inevitably, I talk myself into wearing them to work.
I am about to go put one of them on for date #2. If there's anything more nerve-wracking than a first date, it's a second date after a successful first. (Do I go more casual? More dressy? Do we spend more time talking before having sex? Will we discuss the prospect of an Actual Relationship?) He is apparently feeling this anxiety, too, having emailed to ask whether I thought stubble was cute or if he should shave.
Wrap dresses are my downfall -- they always look acceptably modest and business casual when I try them on, and then I realize my tits are hanging out at work. I've basically given up on them.
Just explain that your tits finished at least half of the bar exam on their own and you can't really practice law without them.
146: I am aware that it will end in humiliation and misery like everything else, John, but I am condemn'd to Hope's delusive mine.
No, I meant "Are you soliciting malicious advice again?"
I appreciate your concerns, but it's actually possible to regard abortion as an ethically serious choice without believing any such thing
Okay, then: if a fetus isn't a person, how does it have moral value? And if it doesn't have moral value, how is it that abortion is any more ethically serious a medial procedure than, say, hip replacement surgery?
And the hilarity of CAPalert aside, I see nothing problematic about judging a work of art from an ideological standpoint. I doubt that we disagree that there exist movies whose premises are genuinely ideologically objectionable; our disagreement is about whether the premise of this particular movie is objectionable. So please don't pretend that objecting to works of art one finds offensive is some beyond-the-pale act of prudery here.
148: Not really. I only have half an hour before I have to leave, and I'm pretty set on what to wear. Actually, after all the haranguing about appropriate breakfast foods, I did buy coffee and Gruyere, as tea and goat cheese are not the expected breakfast things. I appreciate the good common sense, even if some of you are crazy fucks.
64: Thanks for the reminder that I am a bad, bad person for not keeping the faith watching Scrubs. oh, I do miss it!
coffee and Gruyere
More lactonormativity. Damn honkeys.
Anyway, it's all about the underwear at this point, AWB.
stras, you're doing good work here. i agree with everything you say.
i just want to tell you, though, that if you are making a play for being the least fun person here, the most moralistic, anti-art-for-art's-sake, judgemental, kill-joy, then i'm going to fight you for it.
i've earned that title on earlier threads, and i'm not giving it up without a struggle.
152: Really? I'm glad you said something, because I was just now wondering whether these gray-and-pink-lace ones were kinda dingy looking. I know it's not a dealbreaker, but he's been very forthcoming about liking me and I don't want to look like I'm phoning it in.
Hmm, I don't have underthings strategies. No holes or stains.
He is apparently feeling this anxiety, too, having emailed to ask whether I thought stubble was cute or if he should shave.
That's nicely defusing/encouraging, I think. I hope it all goes well. Sounds good from here.
I'm glad I'm not alone in the work-cleavage difficulties, too. I look forward to continuing frock talk in the future.
Fancy bras are one thing -- a nice thing! -- but fancy underpants really elude me. They seem like they are designed to require a lot of... bodily maintenance, of multiple sorts.
He likes you, he thinks you're attractive, so unless you wear something completely inappropriate, the clothes don't matter so much. But since it's a good bet that you'll be getting it on, the underwear can be a nice treat. (But even that's not so important.)
I had a friend who only wore matching bra-and-panties sets. That always seemed like a gigantic pain in the ass to me.
149: "Abortion Is Not To Be Taken Lightly" because deciding whether or not to commit the next 20 years of your life to raising a child is important. Also, Battleship Potemkin is way overrated.
I think it would be disappointing to a date if he found me in ratty old Hanes Her Ways with holes in them, but it's nice when they're kind of cute. It shows one has put thought into the evening. Okay, I'm off to go do this. Whew!
Isn't there an underwear code, like the legendary bandanna code?
So, question to the guys-- do you actually notice the underpants? I kinda always figured once you got to the the point where you might notice, you basically were at the point where your focus was elsewhere.
Also, going way, way, way upthread -- who has an abortion in GFII??? I thought I knew the movie, have told people I love it, and can't for the life of me recall an abortion theme. If this is really obvious, I'm blaming the wine. But now it's going to bug me!!
163--
speaking as a guy, but a very, very old one--
no, i cannot imagine caring about my lover's lingerie. if i loved her, and were passionately entangled, the last thing i would be checking would be the label or the logo.
awb's concern on this score seems misplaced.
but then i last dated under the, hmmm, carter administration?
the last thing i would be checking would be the label or the logo.
There could be other things wrong. What if she was wearing Underoos?
163: The Diane Keaton character has an abortion.
i should also say that this incuriosity extends in my case to over-clothes as well as under-clothes. i find many women attractive. it is not affected by what they wear.
which is all to say--i'm giving you my opinion, but it's probably not representative of the people whose opinions you care about.
But since it's a good bet that you'll be getting it on, the underwear can be a nice treat.
I had no idea that Spike TV still existed. Anyway, you're watching too much of it.
What if she was wearing Underoos on top of a wrap-dress?
165--
those are for tots, right? in that case, if they were appropriate to her age, i would not be. but there probably would have been clues prior to that, e.g. her calling me 'gramps', that sort of thing.
165: Hawt.
169: Nawt. (Rfts and I watched Get Carter last night and I was pleased to hear an authentic Northerner pronounciation of "nought".)
I don't believe I've ever seen Spike TV. When I was a boy, I thought as a boy, and agreed with you that underwear didn't matter, then a lady of my acquaintance wore some hot, hot booty shorts and I was converted. Not necessary, but like I said, a nice treat.
So, question to the guys-- do you actually notice the underpants? I kinda always figured once you got to the the point where you might notice, you basically were at the point where your focus was elsewhere.
I think you notice through maybe your mid-, maybe late, twenties, when sex is the meal rather than the dessert.
165, 169: The really sad thing here is I can still remember feeling very deprived as a child because all the other kids had underoos and all I got was fruit of the loom or something.
163: Gah! That sounds plausible, but I just can't remember it at all. I like wine more nowadays.
So, question to the guys-- do you actually notice the underpants?
Sure, but who's going to get that far and call the whole thing off if the underwear isn't to one's liking? It has to be clean, of course. As do you.
Tawt would imply nawt, but were she less legally frawt?
As long as dad's nawt around so you don't get shawt.
176--
even if it's the mormon kind? that might be grounds for calling the whole thing off.
(or if she says "potahto", either.)
I definatly care about underpants, but i'm pretty sure i care more about clotehs than 99% of dudes.
172: Gawd, I do love the booty shorts, though. Hmm. I've changed my mind, I think. I'm still not sure I want to think (realize?) "nice treat"; I think I'd have to be able to pretend she wore them all the time for comfort, etc.
160: Potemkin is overrated only in that it's treated as cinematic holy writ. It really was revolutionary. Alexander Nevsky, however, is way overrated, despite the great music.
I'll note I wouldn't discontinue an already initiated sexual encounter because of the underwear, but it might cause a no-calls-in-the-future situation.
Victoria's Secret had $5 billion in sales last year (see the first table on page 17), so clearly a not insignificant number of people care about underwear, or at least care because they think that other people care.
it might cause a no-calls-in-the-future situation
I don't believe that for a second.
Don't listen to those wet blankets Tim and Bitzer.
Ogged gets it right. Not necessary, but fun.
186: Are you saying you're not going to wear your purple briefs tonite?
185: That just proves VS has convinced alot of women that people care about their undies. Good marketing, but not exactly the marketing I was asking about...
187: I changed my mind! I was convinced by rational argument!
It's similar to how many women like to see their male significant other in a suit. People enjoy their mates in flattering attire.
I don't believe that for a second.
Seriously, even dirty, dingy, holey, big-ass, old-lady undies wouldn't make you reconsider? What was it you wrote the other day about ratcheting your standards back up?
149: Okay, then: if a fetus isn't a person, how does it have moral value?
Oh, man. I really don't have time to get into this whole argument now. Let's just say I find it regrettable that this kind of debate hasn't diffused more extensively through the pro-choice movement by this point.
our disagreement is about whether the premise of this particular movie is objectionable.
And... neither of us have seen the movie. If you can't establish that the mere presence of a-woman-not-having-an-abortion makes it sexist tripe -- and I don't think you can -- that becomes kind of an important step. (Yes, relying on reviews is all very well, but they often do get it wrong or phone it in.)
163: So, question to the guys-- do you actually notice the underpants?
Only if they have skidmarks.
"No brown stains". I believe that we've established that much.
even dirty, dingy, holey, big-ass, old-lady undies wouldn't make you reconsider?
That would give me pause, but I was thinking of more realistic scenarios.
What about funny George "Bush" undies?
I was convinced by rational argument!
Booty short love transcends reason.
I go to the extreme only to clarify the point, mon ami.
What if she were wearing...a ticking time bomb...?
Make it fast, and don't stay for breakfast.
The heavy work bras that are the color of dishwater and radiate nawt but Soviet functionality can be turnoffs, I'll admit.
And... neither of us have seen the movie.
And again, I don't think it's necessary to see the movie to judge the basic premise of the movie. "Woman hooks up with man, woman gets pregnant, shotgun marriage ensues" does not read like a plotline that was scripted in the 21st century; it scans like a story someone came up with before the advent of widespread birth control, much less legalized abortion. Hence the "reactionary" label.
*****SPOILER TO MAKE STRAS DROP IT ALREADY*****
They don't get married, for crying out loud. He proposes, she says no.
******THANK YOU*******
196: Link? I can so see buying those...
205: "Woman hooks up with man, woman gets pregnant, shotgun marriage ensues" does not read like a plotline that was scripted in the 21st century
It also doesn't read like the plotline of the movie, FWICT. There can be a certain point where, if you don't know how the plotline is carried out, you don't really know what the premise is.
"Shotgun parenthood," then? "Shotgun relationship"? I honestly don't care about the semantics.
******Still spoilery******
Stras, the semantics are the details, which are what matter. The whole movie is about how they negotiate their relationship, and how attractive various competing options seem.
Why am I arguing with no-funso? You know I'm only nice to you because you're part Palestinian, right?
163: See 166. It's not a major plot thread, so it's understandable you would forget it. But it's also pretty much the only reason Diane Keaton is in the movie. Via IMDB: "Oh, Michael. Michael, you are blind. It wasn't a miscarriage. It was an abortion. An abortion, Michael. Just like our marriage is an abortion. Something that's unholy and evil. I didn't want your son, Michael! I wouldn't bring another one of you sons into this world! It was an abortion, Michael! It was a son Michael! A son! And I had it killed because this must all end!"
FUcking CHRIst Ogged, everyone saw that. fuck you and your psoilers.
"It's similar to how many women like to see their male significant other in a suit. People enjoy their mates in flattering attire."
This creeps me out. ITs like they want their boy replaced by bot number 24534.
oh well.
but still, if you want to spolier, put enough lines between teh "SPOILER ALERT" sign adn the actual spoiler so you don't take all the text in. nobody past 4th grade reads text line by line outloud in their head.
No, it's like they think suits are flattering. Suits aren't identical, you weirdo!
Also, The Godfather Saga is on Bravo at this very moment, so take your opportunity to brush up.
Well, if you spend lots of money, they aren't identical.
Because, you know, it's so rarely on television. Like Office Space and The Breakfast Club.
how many men have suits other than 2 button charcoal and navy, with possible pinstripes.
Oh, and to somebody way, way up-thread: nobody had an abortion on Scrubs, but they did spend an episode seriously considering it. Has anybody on network television had an abortion since Maude?
An experiment with spoilerizing:
THE BUTLER DID IT!!!1eleventy.
If that worked, you should be able to highlight the empty white space to reveal a fascinating secret.
Some might say, "try preview!" But those people are just fuddy-duddies.
I just bought a summerweight gray suit from Brooks Brothers for an afternoon outdoor wedding in New York later this month, because the thought of standing outside in black wool made me cry.
There's always ye olde spoiler-hiding technique, otherwise known as ROT13.
Leet Key is a Firefox extension that lets you do the ROT13 transform via your edit menu.
I think Firefox has ROT26 baked in.
213, 217: Thank you! That refreshed my recollection -- but I will now figure out what channel Bravo is and study up to avoid similar embarassing lapses in the future.
Are "booty pants" the same thing as "boy shorts"?
"boy shorts"
which would explain why ogged found them so irresistibly hot.
Sorry, "booty pants" s/b "booty shorts," obviously.
To which empty white space was rfts referring in 2 * 111?
She was trying to use a <span> tag to make the text font white, but the army of hamsters that powers Unfogged stripped it out.
To which empty white space was rfts referring in 2 * 111?
The one she didn't create, because her span tag was stripped out. If it had worked, the butler revelation would have been white-on-white text.
i thought booty shorts were slightly bigger.
The Godfather Saga
I believe it was Janet Maslin who referred to GF3 as 'A Night at the Opera.' Which was brilliant.
234: I was just trying to do a similar thing with the answer to one of Sylvia's riddles from this evening but it was not working out for hamster-related reasons.
Speaking of hamsters: Does everybody else besides me get their ligatures converted to pairs of letters when they try to slip one into a posted comment? Or is this pure Clownae-directed malice from B-Wo?
Is this the real Alth/ouse? (Read the comments.) Seriously, is something wrong with her in a neurochemical rather than a mere social sense?
Like over in the damnation thread, McQueen just successfully used an ae ligature.
No one here has asked the obvious question, though: What does ogged have against Stephen Hawking?
221: They terminated a pregnancy on House. Of course, it was a "save the life of the mother" situation, so the story wasn't likely to cause ire except among the hard-core forced-pregnancy set.
True, no one had an abortion on Scrubs, but in that episode it was revealed that a character had had one in the past. (Naturally, the revelation was tinged with regret.)
I'm bummed to be late to the underwear discussion, but I'll just chime in to say that of course we notice the underwear (top and bottom) but I can't imagine not having sex with someone based on their underwear choice, assuming everything else was in order.
Booty shorts. I sort of can't believe the extent to which you are all going for this.
Yes, indeed, the last man I was utterly hot for, might and soul, woulda been a bonus if he'd worn, well, what, speedos? Hell fucking no. He'd have been ridiculous, he wore an old-fashioned nightshirt to bed, damnedest thing I ever saw. Nekkid pure and simple is best.
That sounds like an analogy, parsimon. Total turn-off.
Ogged, it's really hard sometimes not to say Fuck you. You're going to have to define analogy more closely if you want to say that bootywear differs as worn by women as opposed to men.
If I remember correctly, the question was the extent to which one -- one! -- should be concerned about one's underwear when embarking on a date-like thing.
You just analogized booty shorts to speedos. Fuck me? Fuck you!
Actually, the question was, "question to the guys-- do you actually notice the underpants?"
248, 249:
People, people, "Fuck you? No, Fuck you?" ??!!?
Can't we just all fuck each other?!?!? Where is the love?
Hold on, let me put on some enticing underwear.
249: I don't know what the proper analogy from booty shorts on women is to men. Booty shorts on men? There's a thought.
And gswift is right, that was the question. I got side-tracked.
250: To which one answer yet unmentioned is that lack of underpants is sometimes a nice surprise as well.
255:
I've found that a fair number of women I've got out with went commando. Surprising. Pleasantly.
255: Lack of underwear goes unmentioned because it goes unmentioned most of the time. Some people think it's a bad thing, whether done by men or women.
to ogged, I don't know what to say. No harm.
258:
After elementary school, fighting is not the way to flirt with girls.
Parsimon not withstanding, booty/boy shorts are awesome.
256: Delightfully and/or alarmingly common around here.
After elementary school, fighting is not the way to flirt with girls.
So wrong. This can work even into junior high.
Awesome. I'm totally going to go out and pick a fight with a junior high girl.
no fighting definalyt works well into the 20s
I used it successfully as an undergraduate.
And, since this is the closest thing to open thread at the moment: Go Cavs!
A couple of years ago I spent a while in the pacific northwest, in a place that was very outdoorsy, shall we say. At an outdoor cafe of sorts, sitting at a nicely-designed picnic table, reading the paper with some people I'd never met, we opined upon a few things: here's this Chris what's-his-name, guy from Coldplay, turns out he's a Tony Blair fan. Ha.
Anyway, contemporary urban wear came up. There's a fashion in east coast cities among some young people, wear the waistband of your boxer shorts turned out over your pants. Fashionable.
In this very remote pacific northwest place (B.C. Canada), my compatriots at table said with the most mild intonation: I don't wear underwear. The guy who said that was a traveller from Maui.
I said with a mild grin: So do you wear socks? You can turn your socks down over your shoes, then you can be cool!
Snickers all around.
255/ 257:
"'Unmentionables' uses to mean underwear. Now the unmentionable is -- no underwear at all. Could the decline of our civilization be shown more succinctly?"
Paging Rod Dreher! Gotcher slam-dunk column idea for you right here!
Must the boy shorts be all lacy to be thrilling, or do opaque ones also charm?
Personally, I find the opaque ones hotter, but you're going to have to ask your man.
Sure, sure, I'm just curious about what counts as "hot underwear" for the (slightly) larger sample of opinions.
So send some pics along and we'll let you know.
Rfts can shift for herself, I'm sure.
Must the boy shorts be all lacy to be thrilling, or do opaque ones also charm?
Prefer not-lacy, myself. Doilies scare me, for some reason.
w-lfs-n, "unpreferred" is intentional.
The commission of a crime is not made excusable by its having been done intentionally.
What??? Of course it is.
Dear Diary,
I bought these really hawt lacy underpants, to turn on my boyfriend? And boy they cost a lot and I had to buy like 3 different ones to be sure of a fit? And, like, now I have this rash, like, on my butt?
Man, I wonder about this stuff sometimes.
I'd just like to fill everyone in that I have found the one guy on earth who simply does not care about breakfast. I got up and did some work for a few hours and let him sleep in before he coaxed me back into bed for quite some time, and then, suddenly, he says, "Wow, I've just been lying here for a long time. I should go." He gets dressed, kisses me, and is gone.
So fine, I just made a cherry-tomato and Gruyere omelet with hash browns and coffee and juice and toast for myself. I keep wanting to tell him my apartment isn't a national park; you can, like, turn the air conditioning down and leave dishes to be washed and stuff. I thought the second date would be more nerve-wracking for me, but I think it was actually far more nerve-wracking for him. He was trying way too hard to be gentlemanly and not-annoying.
I wouldn't expect to have breakfast in the house of someone I hardly know. It wouldn't feel like home yet.
Also, congratulations.
my apartment isn't a national park
It does have bears in it, so you can see how he'd be confused.
Yeah, I think New Guy is clearly pacing himself with teh intimacy, which, oddly, freaks me out a lot more than if someone just ate up all their welcome in a few sittings.
In some cultures, if a woman cooks for a man they're married. Where is this guy from?
Sleeping with someone you barely know does contribute to confusion.
Where is this guy from
"Wow, I've just been lying here for a long time. I should go." He gets dressed, kisses me, and is gone.
So white, so American.
I mean, you have to ask yourself: Is this a sexbot relationship or what?
285, 287: Yes, Ohio.
286: Usually it's all so clear! But that's more when you sleep with someone you barely know under no confusion about the prospect of longevity. Everything's very easy then.
Don't be a scold, parsimon. The kids are wacky these days.
Saw Knocked Up last night. Stras isn't wrong: the abortion discourse in the movie is more than just a device to keep the plot moving. It also frames Katharine Heigl's mother, the most serious proponent of "taking care of it", as unpleasant and steely for her advocacy of a choice which makes all the sense in the world for that character.
It's a non-stop funny, funny movie. The thing I found a little saddening and conservative about it was its unswerving allegiance to dudes-are-like-this/chicks-are-like-this ideology. It really never allows for the possibility that relations between the sexes could be anything other but the inevitable but sad civilizing of men by women. I realize that this allegiance is at the heart of many of our nation's greatest romcom's, but a movie this brilliantly and surprisingly funny on the little things should be able to demonstrate a little imagination in this regard.
Who's scolding? I just don't see why there's any surprise. I mean, (god, I said that above), it seems like there needs to be a conversation here. Between AWB and Guy. About the thing. You know.
292: What thing? The relationship potential? I surely hope neither of us has any idea where this is going. About breakfast, I think we should have a conversation.
So white, so American.
You Persians have something against efficiency, don't you?
292; But they've just started, and the chemistry and good manners are apparently excellent. This is the cheeriest date-blogging I think we've ever seen here.
AWB is about to be ravened by a slime.
297: This is what I expect to occur. Cheer comes before a slime.
No! Ravened by a slime. As I just wrote for a seminar: At least not if the pencil were to be fearful \textit{qua} pencil, and not for some other reason, such as that proximity to a pencil is, in the fiction, a reliable sign that one is about to be ravened by a slime.
Way to go, AWB! Now I wish I had some Gruyere.
293:
What thing? The relationship potential? I surely hope neither of us has any idea where this is going. About breakfast, I think we should have a conversation.
eh. A conversation about anything. Would be a good idea. I haven't read your blog, maybe you've said more about how this is going.
Um, usually when starting a relationship with someone I have a few exchanges about what we each think is happening.
I have a few exchanges about what we each think is happening
You might be even less fun than I am. And isn't the answer in the early stages usually "who the fuck knows?"
And isn't the answer in the early stages usually "who the fuck knows?"
Of course it is. Go with the flow people.
ogged, cut it out. "Who the fuck knows?" is a fine answer. Still, a few exchanges. They don't need to be deep heart-to-hearts. Usually I'd just be wanting to discover if it's supposed to have potential or not. This seems like an important thing to figure out, particularly if the answer is "no, no."
304: We have had conversations. I am not confused about whether he likes me (he does) or if he wants a relationship (he does). I am confused about why he doesn't want breakfast. I guess I've made it clear that I am pretty skittish and claustrophobic about relationships, and he's trying not to inspire those feelings in whatever ways occur to him.
Obviously, cooking is one of those weird things. For me, it's a good way to get other things--more sex, a nice atmosphere for morning conversation, etc.--and he's probably concerned that being around to be cooked for would be assuming too much. Hence the need for a conversation about breakfast.
"Hey, ya wanna get married or are we just banging? Also, eat your goddamn breakfast. That's the least you could do after I worried about it for a week."
He may be someone who doesn't eat breakfast, though that would prevent him from sitting around and talking.
309: It is true, he has claimed not to be much of a breakfast eater. I just assumed that was a weekday morning thing. He hasn't lived in the city long enough to realize that Sunday morning post-coital brunch is pretty much a law here.
Obviously, cooking is one of those weird things. For me, it's a good way to get other things
AWB, you're a weirdly acquisitive person.
I could be wrong, AWB, but a person who doesn't care about post-coital brunch or post-brunch coitus seems like a profoundly uncaring person.
312 makes no sense at all and is insulting given the total lack of knowledge we have of this guy.
Perhaps he's a food autist and incapable of a normal relationship with breakfast.
O Cryptic One, 312 might have been a wee bit facetious. Or it might have been in deadly earnest. I've had neither brunch nor coitus today, so I'm not sure.
Dear god, people. I can't believe that the argument with stras is, "well, the character decides not to have an abortion all on her own, so the movie isn't reactionary."
Now, I haven't seen it. And had I gotten knocked up while single, I'd probably have had the kid. But, I mean, cultural criticism 101, people: the plots that we choose do kinda mean *something*. It's not like the writers made the "does she choose abortion or no" decision by throwing darts blind at a dartboard. Presumably part of the humor--and it may well be knee-slappingly hilarious--is based in the kind of "reactionary but true" stereotypes that this blog loves to argue about.
Anyway. That was after reading the first half of the thread. After reading the second half, I gotta say, yeah, boy/booty shorts are hot--they really emphasize the ass curve. *And*, as it happens, they're perfectly comfortable to wear everyday. Win/win.
316: This is what finally made me decide the movie had addressed it in a reactionary way.
317: Sure, if you have an ass curve. Go ahead, mock those who don't.
318a: Isn't that kind of implicit in the very concept of a romantic comedy about an unexpected pregnancy?
318b: I'm not mocking. I'm just saying. If you have a non-ass, then, you know, don't bother. I have stumpy legs, so I don't try rocking the miniskirt with over-the-knee socks thing, but that doesn't mean it's not hot on other people.
Mike White "called out" Judd Apatow for turning towards a comedy of the bully, rather than the bullied. My own feeling is that Apatow is wonderfully perceptive of the deep sense of shame felt by his characters, and draws great humor for that, but his empathy for the real pain of characters whose social suffering doesn't really go much deeper than high school exclusion blinds him to the situation of educated, middle-class white men in relation to the rest of the world.
Parsimon, you seem to be taking the most negative possible view of AWB's anecdotes. What's up with that?
Then again, it seems not to be bothering Ms. Bear, so who am I to say anything.
The triliteral should stick together, mrh.
True. Drop your last name, brother, and join us!
316: I can't believe that the argument with stras is, "well, the character decides not to have an abortion all on her own, so the movie isn't reactionary."
I can't believe that either, since it wasn't.
And I guess now I'm going to have to see the movie. Curses.
Parsimon, you seem to be taking the most negative possible view of AWB's anecdotes. What's up with that?
Nothing's up with it except that I can't understand the scenarios she finds herself in half the time. Don't understand the lexicon. So I say dumb things along the lines of: huh?
It's good enough to leave it at that.
Fast Times is playing on tv right now; I don't think I've ever watched the second half.
321: I recognize that if I'm going to look for advice here, I'm also going to get a lot of shit for being myself and wanting what I want, from both men and women. Part of why I ask for advice here is that I don't really understand what's likely to be going on with people, or if there are signals I'm not reading right, and I can't decide whether it's because I'm weird or the people I'm interacting with are weird. It's a given that some of you are also weird, or at least sympathetic to the weird, but some aren't. How can I be bothered by that, when it's potentially a positive and socializing force? No one here is particularly nasty to me, just baffled sometimes.
327--
well i for one have no intention of giving you a hard time. i don't have much *useful* advice for you either, but i certainly find it fascinating to read what you crazy kids are up to these days. i could go on about my life, but it would be highly uninteresting, and not provide any news you can use about how to solve the dating blues.
the entire ethos and range of expectations is so utterly different from when i was a punk. a younger punk.
This seems like something Unfogged would enjoy.
