Yes I know it's a TV show, but there are so many scenes where Charlie and a woman, or a different guy and a woman are panting after having sex at the beginning of a scene, and the guy never ever has any kind of boner at all and his boxer fronts are visible. It's not a very realistic show.
shareThat's what set off your realism flag? Not the women still wearing stuff during and immediately after sex? It was boners or the lack thereof that did it for you?
And do tell us - if you're going to single out this show as unrealistic for a dearth of boners, which sitcoms DO show boners after sex? As someone who doesn't carefully go over each sitcom sex scene to make sure there's a boner visible, I'm now very curious to know if other sitcoms are more realistic to you and the rest of the Boner Patrol, and if not why you're singling this show out.
Since the show has so much sex in it, even more than 2.5 men, I'd expect some sort of realism.
Yeah the clothes on right after sex isn't realistic either. I'm not singling this out, because this forum is just for this show. Mostly this was an attention thread. But still why pant if you aren't horny? Like ok.
If you really want to talk realism, let's talk about the show Scorpion! It's so bad. I'm a computer nerd and I want to throw stuff at my laptop when I'm watching it.
Magnum PI kicks butt, very nicely done
No argument regarding Scorpion, I agree with you completely. The show is beyond awful. From the description you get in the opening credits the show starts to fall apart already - if they have a behaviorist on the team, why do they even need a waitress to translate the world for them? The show is awful.
shareBlindspot might be worse. As I've never seen scorpion I can't tell
shareI've seen both. Blindspot is bad, it's horribly cast (Jaimie Alexander is pretty good, but everyone else other than the CIA bad guy in the show strikes me as a bad casting choice), but Scorpion is beyond awful. Worse than NCIS LA and New Orleans, which is saying a lot.
sharePerfect answer. :-)
shareThere are SO many way more unrealistic things about these types of TV shows, I find it absurd to focus on THAT.
There should be about 800 points to be made before that kind of thing even becomes slightly relevant. A boner can disappear surprisingly quickly after ejaculation sometimes, and you can pant after intense sex for a long, long time, so it's not even unrealistic necessarily.
Women never show boobs after sex, although in a realistic situation, they absolutely would, because what kind of sex would it be if boobs aren't even making an appearance? And if they are, why would they be hidden right after the sex ends? It makes no sense. Once a woman reveals her naked body to you, there's no reason for her to cover it anymore, because you already know what it all looks like, and she wouldn't care anyway, because she chose you to see it.
As I mentioned, there have to be zillion TV tropes better deserving of attention than THIS particular one (in Two and a Half Men, they didn't even show the lower part, and they usually had a blanket in there somewhere as well).
Also, maybe Charlie has a really sm.. well, maybe better not go there.
You judge a show's realism by looking at their crotch. Since I'm straight, I need to examine the perkiness of the nipples more, as that is a sure sign a woman is horny.
shareIt's a TV show and one that many find too offensive already. If you're allowing yourself to get hung up on these things, then stop.
shareMy main complaint is the lack of jizz. There can be no happy ending without a little bit of jizz!
shareI've always thought that they were cuddling heavily. Which is why they have clothes on and are panting with no visible boner or baby gravy.
I think they should show the penetration to assure viewers that they indeed just had sex.
Otherwise no one would know.
--
Is that pistol an automatic?... I want that. - Dottie Underwood
whats a boner? i was married for 21 years, so i dont know
share