MovieChat Forums > ProductionNow > Replies
ProductionNow's Replies
I know women some do; I was just pointing out the pretension/generalization on the board which would likely never be tolerated if the gender-roles were reversed
Women pretend to want the sensitive intellectuals for show (and/or men who they can lead around with a leash and collar), while they get hot and fantasize over the Sean Connerys in reality.. Good that you know what other women want, or not.
How disgusting of you to blame him over the c+m-guzzler who chased after him for sex..
Yes, the "running away" cliche, real intelligent of you.
And I see a pattern with your accusations of being insulted; that's indicative of someone who thinks they are too superior, and interprets any opposition as an "insult". Double-bye.
I already expressed my opinions on the board, if that's what you are implying by "tail tucked". You couldn't rise to the challenge if you were sitting on it. (gee, the formally educated McQualude is using "lol") Nice try, sport.
You did it again: stated something like it's a fact. You do not know how educated I am. (must be my lack of pompous, verbose grammar that would make you judge). And never "insult" or be rude to you you're too above it all. Also, you're ''schooling'' was merely memorizing facts from textbooks, not innate-intelligence. Bye.
The fact that you state an important subject as a fact and not an opinion may have something to do with it.
A tulip? I suppose that's better than being a pansy,
I may not have been clear. I didn't mean that most gay men are in prison. But please don't tell what I need to think about, I know what a prison is like. I was using the reciprocal of a man who is 100% gay, and unlikely turning to women for sex if he was desperate and isolated enough (even though realistically he would not be in a women's' prison)
With the exception of bisexuality, I don't understand how the cause=affect applies regardless of the isolated desperate environment, since sexual=preference is separate from the actual physical pleasure--and that sexual-preference cannot be changed no matter how much effort you put into trying. People are not animals either, and would just hump their prison-roommate because they exist in the same cell.
. What you presented has been covered a lot in media, and I feel it's B.S. to equate sexual preference with how desperate you supposedly are. If sexual is only about how pleasurable it feels--and not about which gender you're having sex with-- it's meaningless. (if the person is schizophrenic and doesn't know the difference, then that would be different) Rape, by the way, is about both sex and violence, not just violence.
I disagree, or that would mean 100% gay men would turn to females out of desperation. Certain sexual preference(s); gay/ bi/ straight have a meaning; and the theory is that sexual preference cannot be changed. Sex is supposedly not just about how the pleasurable sensation, but WHO (gender) you are having sex with.
I don't know if you mean that literally, but I'm just replying based on the black & white extreme words you're using. An average person with a few singing lessons doesn't mean they can, therefore, sing. A person can take 1000 lessons and still not be able to sing or "just be in key" What you mean is how well you thought he sang or the fact you don't like his style--not that he "could not" sing.
Exactly, his voice was charming at times. Sounds like it's just fashionable to degrade his voice because it's "Desi Arnaz". And the OP's extreme-word "amazing" has never cropped up about him. He was a fine singer. ..and even had a vibrato!
yeah..we should all have such pain for being cast as pal or buddy in such a fortunate profession. Most actresses are elated to be cast at all. You are writing the script of her feelings based on your fixated-sentiment (like the Marilyn Monroe board) Let us form our own objective opinions..remember.
Being numb and hollow (and pompous) is also a poorly designed social construct Not everyone who values marriage is religious or has even read one page of the Bible. Because you cannot relate to ''fall in love, make love, follow your heart, true love'' doesn't mean you're the norm.
To answer, I understand the comparison you are making with unconventional families (though I don't feel it's the same). I didn't mean to imply that the children are being conditioned as in "recruited". I tried to convey what effect is has on society, but..
For what it's worth, you're one of the nicer tactful posters on the site, who takes time listening, with something interesting to say.
Your argument is just to keep saying "You still haven't provided a single argument". And with your roommates comment, those couples may have something to say about how you perceive them.
Because Miss Catbrooks
.. if you see my reply to sslssg just now, it might answer your question.The point is: it's not always what affects YOU and YOUR life.
I meant "tangent" since the core of the topic is the marriage itself with children being a result from the marriage. You said you're on the side of science and facts. So you must not believe transsexualism is a truism , since science (DNA) refutes it. Or is this where we flip-flop on "science", so people can have it both ways.
And when people keep saying and asking how it affects me, it tells me they are not getting the bigger picture. Something does not need to directly affect me personally throughout the course of my day; I am not just concerned about my-self. We are speaking about the affect it has on society as a whole. I could just as easily ask how gun control personally affects you, when it may not. Or how climate control affects you, when it may not. Why debate anything then, if it does not affect you personally. And going back centuries to debate what marriage was like is not now. You don't really wish to live as things were 5000 yrs ago, I wouldn't think.
This calls for more blunt talk: regardless if it's a happy=peppy household, children will indeed be watching their gay parents being intimate on some level. There is nothing abnormal with homosexuality, but the children are being conditioned to something they do not understand. And yes, they have to understand that homosexuality is not the norm in society. It does not need to be the norm for consenting homosexual adults, but children are not adults. Children will then go into the world with notions that do not coincide with the cold hard truth that awaits them in society. Some things come with limitations, and it's arrogant and narcissistic to not care or deny it. People today are living in some fantasy-land where they expect (or demand) that everything is spread all nice & evenly. That is not the real world (it never has been and never will be)
People need to get some perspective: homosexuality is still not accepted by all of society (or downright condemned), much less expecting gay marriage. It's moving way too fast
This topic is like trying to define the word "innate".
You're speaking abstract rhetoric..have no idea what you're saying. Anyway, hetero-couples live together without being married and have children, so I dont' know what type of "union" you'd label that, if any. No kudos.