Abrams Moves On To Next Project

[T'Bonz]

Actually, while doing the news article, I looked up the scant information available on this fine film to come:

"Hot" is a "Superbad"-like story of a high school senior who sets out to have sex with his teacher before he graduates.

So no, I didn't assume. But your point is taken. Nowadays, anything could go and it could have well been a male teacher and females swarming after him.

Except - this is Hollywood. If I hear "Hot for Teacher" as a movie title, I'm reasonably sure it's some geeky, gawky, loser of a young man trying to get laid, usually with the cheerleading section of his other geeky, gawky, loser friends egging him on.

[Pioneer]

T'Bonz wrote:

---

Actually, while doing the news article, I looked up the scant information available on this fine film to come:

So no, I didn't assume. But your point is taken. Nowadays, anything could go and it could have well been a male teacher and females swarming after him.

Except - this is Hollywood. If I hear "Hot for Teacher" as a movie title, I'm reasonably sure it's some geeky, gawky, loser of a young man trying to get laid, usually with the cheerleading section of his other geeky, gawky, loser friends egging him on.

And you find this "bleccch" because you're a girl? What's wrong with a person trying to get laid? What I find wrong is that "getting laid" always seems to be such a struggle in this hung-up puritanical society. Is it just a stereotype that girls are always looking for a "meaningful relationship" and guys are "just" trying to "get laid" or is it human nature? I don't know. What do you think?

[Star Treks]

If you read The Decameron, you'll find that the stereotype was pretty much the opposite. In fact through at least several hundred years ago, women were generally depicted as the sex addicts.

To me this suggests that it's basically societal, stereotypical, cultural, and not part of human nature.

In other words, yeah the stereotypes are dumb and annoying.

[Pioneer]

Star Treks wrote:

---

If you read The Decameron, you'll find that the stereotype was pretty much the opposite. In fact through at least several hundred years ago, women were generally depicted as the sex addicts.

To me this suggests that it's basically societal, stereotypical, cultural, and not part of human nature.

In other words, yeah the stereotypes are dumb and annoying.

I was more interested in talking about reality rather than fiction. Also, I wanted to get a girl's opinion. Unless you're a girl but I have no way of knowing since there is no gender info in anyone's profile. But one thing's for sure: gender really seems to matter in matters of opinion, especially around here. T'Bonz?

Oh, and why is it "dumb and annoying"? Really. Why?

[T'Bonz]

Pioneer wrote:

---

]And you find this "bleccch" because you're a girl? What's wrong with a person trying to get laid? What I find wrong is that "getting laid" always seems to be such a struggle in this hung-up puritanical society. Is it just a stereotype that girls are always looking for a "meaningful relationship" and guys are "just" trying to "get laid" or is it human nature? I don't know. What do you think?

Because first of all, I don't think it's something in which friends need to be involved. And I'm old-fashioned. I kinda link sex with a loving relationship. Usually in those types of movies though, it's SCOOORRRRE! Get the hawt girl!

And to add insult the injury, they're not only socially inept, but young, immature and not hawt themselves.

There ya go.

[Lindley]

I avoid such movies for similar reasons. I find the sex-as-and-end-in-itself mindset extremely distasteful.

[Pioneer]

T'Bonz wrote:

---

Because first of all, I don't think it's something in which friends need to be involved. And I'm old-fashioned. I kinda link sex with a loving relationship. Usually in those types of movies though, it's SCOOORRRRE! Get the hawt girl!

And to add insult the injury, they're not only socially inept, but young, immature and not hawt themselves.

There ya go.

Yep. You're "old-fashioned". I get it. But not everyone is, you know. Cheap, low-brow humor seems to sell in the US. Me? I just don't see it as such a big deal. No "bleccch". No "wow". Just "Meh". But that's just me. So there you go.

[Pioneer]

Lindley wrote:

---

I avoid such movies for similar reasons. I find the sex-as-and-end-in-itself mindset extremely distasteful.

Let me guess. You're a girl, right? Am I wrong?

[Lindley]

You're wrong.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Pioneer wrote:

---

What's wrong with a person trying to get laid?

If getting laid is wrong I don't wanna be (etc etc you know the drill...)

[T'Bonz]

Pioneer wrote:

---

Yep. You're "old-fashioned". I get it. But not everyone is, you know. Cheap, low-brow humor seems to sell in the US. Me? I just don't see it as such a big deal. No "bleccch". No "wow". Just "Meh". But that's just me. So there you go.

Understood. And I've never called for such movies to be banned/not done. I recognize that others enjoy them, just as inexplicably people enjoy American Idol and such.

I just don't waste my dollars on them.

[Pioneer]

Starship Polaris wrote:

---

If getting laid is wrong I don't wanna be (etc etc you know the drill...)

Thank You!

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
-- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956), U.S. journalist.
From: A Book of Burlesques, "Sententiae" (1920).

[Pioneer]

Lindley wrote:

---

You're wrong.

Gay then?

[T'Bonz]

That's enough of that, thank you.

So it's gay to want sex in a loving relationship as opposed to trying to score with one's friends cheering one on?

Gotcha.

And no, I think sex is great (lest I get something thrown at me. ) But I need the emotional component to go with the physical. Having sex for the sake of sex is not enough.

[Lindley]

And no in any case.