MovieChat Forums > sunezno > Replies
sunezno's Replies
Thank you. For the first hour I was just begging for them to be kidnapped already so that something interesting would happen. But even then, it was just obnoxious and annoying in a different way.
Christ, I wish I could take that time back, that was the lamest movie I've seen in years!
Another part that I found stupid (to add to your great list) is that "Josh" kidnaps Amy from the park area, uses her camera to film what he does to her, then presumably goes back to the abduction site to throw her camera in the trash can there? The fuck kind of sense does that make?
If he wanted the cops or her family to see that footage, why not just deliver it to them somehow, or put it online, etc.?
That whole bit made no sense at all.
The only horrifying thing about this movie is that it was even made in the first place. It could've been decent if done right, but instead, it was just a grueling waste of 85 minutes that I'll never get back.
I couldn't agree more. There were many fucked-up scenes throughout, but the whole thing just made me more sad than anything else.
<spoiler>When we first find out that he was drugged, when he beheads the woman while fucking her, I was already thinking, "Man, I would not blame this guy if he killed himself after all of this. I'm sure I would." </spoiler>
And that was before everything else happened...
Also, I had assumed that <spoiler>the two bodies on the bed were the old lady and the young girl that we'd just seen</spoiler>, so that horrific realization (and seeing the guy's reaction) was absolutely heartbreaking.
By the end I was like, <spoiler>"Thank sh!t that he put them all out of their misery!"</spoiler>.
But then there was that last bit...
Yeah, definitely the saddest movie I've seen lately.
And I'm also hoping I don't have nightmares. Might have to watch "Barney" before bed lol
I know I'm a few years late to this party, but "American History X"? I assume just the curb-stomp scene, right? Everything else is pretty tame, violence-wise.
I do want to say, though, that pansexuality isn't a bisexual fetish lol
Pansexuality doesn't just mean, "I like dudes, chicks, and trans people" (because, of course, trans men are men and trans women are women). Most people just think it's another way of saying "bisexual", but it's not that, either.
It's more about being attracted to the person on the inside, <i>regardless</i> of their gender or genitals or physical presentation.
So, yeah, in theory, a pansexual person might be attracted to a trans woman, but not because she's "a chick with a dick", ya know? It's based on personality, not presentation.
I've always understood the difference between bisexual and pansexual as this: bisexual people specifically like men and women. Pansexual people like the person, irrespective of their parts.
Because of course gender and sexuality aren't the same thing, and they don't determine the other, ya know?
But anyway, back to the sociopath thing lol
So for me personally, I would attribute it more to my autism probably. That's not to say that all asexuals are autistic or sociopathic, of course.
And not experiencing sexual attraction on the physical level is also different from being attracted to or connecting with people on an emotional level.
Personally, it's not that I'm unable to form emotional attachments or something. It's kind of similar to the misconception that people with autism are incapable of feeling emotions or empathy. On the contrary, we often feel or empathize <i>too much</i>, and that can be incredibly overwhelming and exhausting (hence often having few close friends-- it's a lot of work).
If I were looking for a relationship, then yeah, I'd obviously care more about personality and common interests and everything, because those things are more important than physical looks.
However, when I'm just looking to get laid, I'm not really caring about the physical looks, either.
Sorry, I feel like I'm just talking in circles and still not expressing it correctly lol
So I definitely don't need to know and vibe with someone's personality in order to fuck them. If I just need sex, then I'd rather be ignorant to their personality so that I'm not inevitably turned off by some trivial thing, if that makes sense.
And the friendship foundation before romantic relationship isn't really an emotional preference or whatever; it's just logical and what makes sense to me, ya know? I can't fall in love with someone I don't truly know, and they can't fall in love with one of my many masks.
Take, for example, farting or picking your nose in front of each other lol Those are things that every human does (whether or not they want to admit it), but when you meet someone with the pretense of dating or whatever, you (most likely) won't do that in front of them, for whatever reason.
But I'm sure you've done those things (and worse) in the company of your best friend, right?
See, with those types of friendships, those little weird things are already out there, so there's no pretending to be something or someone you're not.
To me, that's the kind of level where love can happen. That's not to say that I <i>want</i> it to be that way, it's just that it's the only logical way, in my opinion.
Anyway, that's an interesting question about sociopathy and asexuality. (Obviously I can only answer from my perspective, so we'll see.)
First, though, back to the definition of asexuality real quick. From what I've read, I'm pretty sure that most people who identify as asexuals <i>don't</i> have an interest in sex (as opposed to those like me who like sex but don't necessarily experience sexual attraction). So it's still within the umbrella term, but yeah, I think most don't really care for sex at all.
And I agree with you in that (to me, anyway) it's less of a sexual orientation, and more like the <i>lack</i> of a sexual orientation, ya know? So I think it's in with the LGB+ stuff kind of like how the T is in there for trans folks; it's just all-encompassing.
In response to your last bit, that's not really what I mean, but I'm not sure how to explain it, so bear with me.
So I'm definitely not demisexual, in that I need to have an emotional connection with someone before I can feel sexual feelings/urges for them (I think that's what that is, in a nutshell). Because if I'm wanting sex, then yeah, I could fuck a total stranger and that would be just fine. But if I'm just after dick, I don't really want to deal with personality.
(Ideally, I'd have a handful of sex buddies for when the mood strikes, because I hate the ordeal of trying to find a new lay.)
Since I don't really know how to explain it, here's a real-life example: I met this guy some years ago, and he looked like a fun lay.
(Tidbit here: when this happens, where I meet someone new and want to fuck them, I feel like I act weird and just not at all myself until we finally bang. Once that happens, the ice is broken and the sex is out of the way and I don't have to worry about it, then the friendship can commence.)
Anyway, we hung out once at my place, and I was hoping we'd bang, but he just kept going on and on about how he loves DJing and loves EDM and all that shit. Total boner-killer.
We did finally end up banging at some point, like a year later, but it was only so-so. I'm pretty sure that it would've been better had we banged <i>before</i> I learned how boring/annoying his personality was.
I mean, still the same great cock, but it was sullied a bit by previous conversations.
It could be that her husband started off relatively okay/normal but gradually got worse (maybe due to his "survivalist" friends' influence or something). But more than likely, I think he was just a bad guy from the start but was good at hiding it. That's how abusers work. She fell in love with the good side of him, because he was able to hide the bad parts of him at the beginning. Over time, his mask chipped away (and maybe his mental health did decline a bit, too), and the abusive, controlling, piece-of-shit core personality came out.
You say that she would've picked up on the fact that her husband had some issues, but that's not necessarily true. There are plenty of <i>good</i> people who don't trust the government or who prefer to live in solitude/off the grid, etc., so those things alone wouldn't (or shouldn't) be red flags that he's actually an abusive piece of shit.
I know this is a decade late, but I know what you mean, and I agree with you. I've only seen that episode once so far, but I do remember thinking that he seemed to have a lot of mental health problems that needed addressed, as opposed to him just being a sadistic monster. (I'll have to do a re-watch, since it's been a while.)
I often end up feeling bad for the bad guys in a lot of movies/shows, usually in situations where almost everyone else would say that that's absurd, but oh well, I can't help it. Empathy and compassion are good traits to have, in my opinion, and you shouldn't be made to feel bad for having them.
Ya know what, I was about to correct your correction, but then I figured I'd look it up first, just in case.
So thank you, sarahleigh81, for that new bit of knowledge that I might not have otherwise gained. *tips hat*
I was sort of accidentally introduced to <i>Masters of Horror</i>; a friend put that and other stuff on a hard drive for me. I didn't watch it for quite a while, just because I assumed that it would be all jump-scares and unnecessary gore, which isn't really my thing.
Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised when I finally did start watching it.
I mean, in the first episode, I was kind of put off by the creepy bald badguy, as he seemed other-worldly, but I was glad that things turned around a bit with that one.
I also love the anthology aspect of the show. Each episode I went into blind, without any episode summary or anything, and I preferred that. There are many genres of which I'm not a fan, so I wouldn't intentionally pick some of these episodes to watch if I knew what they were about beforehand. But the fact that they're not super lengthy helps in that regard, too.
Anyway, yeah, I loved that it was more psychological than jump-scare.
One thing that was kind of humorous to me (related to that) is how much prison news was on TV there. I'm not sure if that's normal (or was back then?), but it just strikes me as odd. (Not that the show is completely grounded in reality anyway.)
I can understand two murders in two weeks being reported on, or that an inmate has escaped, because those are kind of big things. But there are so many things that the prisoners learn about via the news, as if the station is dedicated to only prison-related happenings.
Like I said, it's hard for me to fully wrap my head around all of it, let alone figure out how to word it so that it makes some sense to others lol
The first guy I dated was around 320 lbs when we started hooking up. It just started as friends drinking and banging, and then it went into more of a relationship from there. (That's also how my next relationship started lol).
I do find that personality can determine for me whether or not I find someone attractive, so when it comes to an actual relationship, movie taste is more important than physical appearance.
And some people are objectively attractive, but if their personality is shit, then I'm not into them.
So when it comes to the times where I just need to get laid, I'd rather not drag looks or personality into the mix because they might ruin it; that's where the anonymous sex part comes in handy.
Anyway, on a different note, if a pretty woman in yoga pants walks past me in a parking lot, I'm the only guy not checking out her ass; I'm oblivious. If I do happen to notice her ass, though, and if I decide to stare at it, I'm not thinking sexual thoughts. Most likely I'm just admiring the shape and curves and form.
I'd considered that maybe I'm just gay, but really I only sleep with guys because they're easy.
I'm honestly not really sure how to explain it, or if "asexual" is even the right word. At first I felt that "pansexual" was the best fit, because I don't care about gender or genitals. But then reading up on asexuality more (as an umbrella term, since some asexuals do enjoy sex), I feel like that one fits better. But, again, I'm not even sure how to word whatever it is that I've got going on lol
Basically, I like sex, but I don't care for people. They're kind of a means to an end, in a way. If I could go down on myself or fuck myself in a way that feels like it does with another person, I'd be set. Sometimes I just want to lick or play with certain parts, not necessarily for the sexual satisfaction of myself or the other person, but just because of the tactile sensations of it. Kind of like how it feels good to squish my toes in mud, ya know? But that I can do on my own; there aren't just cocks and clits on the side of the road to play with (unfortunately...)
I'd love to play with boobs again (it's been a while), because of the squishy squish of them and their jiggles and stuff, but unfortunately I can't just go to the store and buy some. I'd need to first make friends with the owner of them, and that's a pretty huge undertaking as it is, but especially with my social difficulties.
Anyway, I just realized one day while browsing FetLife that I was the only person commenting non-sexual things on sexual pictures, and that got me thinking about it. I appreciate some people's shapes, in an aesthetic way. Not really sure how to explain that one.
I've never had a "type", either. If we click, we click. I'm the opposite of you in the falling-in-love part; for me, any romantic relationship needs to start out as friendship, so that there's that foundation of truth and honesty in our interactions. "Regular friendship" Me is different than "Romantic relationship" Me (as I'm sure it is with everyone), and actual love (either direction) isn't possible if we're both acting.
I'm so glad that I didn't see the show when it came out, because if this had been my first time seeing J.K. Simmons, he probably would've been ruined for me as well. Thankfully I'd seen and loved him in many other things first, so while this character is a drastic shift from what I'm used to, at least I've got that baseline of liking him from those things. Such an amazing actor!!
Each time I watch it, O'Riley's mind games and manipulation make me go, "Damn, he's an evil genius!" But then I remember that, yes, part of it is him being very smart, but a lot of it is also everyone else being kind of stupid. Most of the time, instead of giving some thought to or trying to verify any of what he's said, the other inmates just act on impulse and go kill whomever they're now mad at because of what he's said.
No one stops to think and realize that he's got an agenda.
I absolutely agree, sexual acts by way of coercion is definitely still rape.
If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Fuck me or die" (which is essentially the ultimatum here), and you make the choice to live, that doesn't mean that you wanted sex with that person; it just means that you didn't want to die. That's an example of rape. It's not always by brute force.
In the case of Robson and Cutler, Robson knew that without protection from <i>someone</i>, he'd surely be killed. He didn't want to die, so he was forced to make that horrible decision to submit to Cutler, because it was simply a matter of survival.
I can't imagine being in that position and having to make that choice, but I'm sure the majority of us would prefer to live. Robson did what he had to do to survive.
When he made him lick the spoon, that was a kind of dominance display, but also probably a control/humiliation thing since he then raped him with the spoon that Robson had just lubed up with his spit.
I haven't looked up the actor yet, but the model thing makes a lot of sense; he's like a beautiful sculpture.