Crotchwood cropped in UK...
- Thread starter Lonemagpie
- Start date
I gotta laugh because I was thinking the same thing watching that scene lol.
I guess intercutting with a more traditional sex scene was interesting in the implication that it was just as normal.
I saw Barrowman on G4's comic-con coverage and he said while Jack is omnisexual if you just watched Miracle Day you'd just say he was gay. It's funny but in a T-shirt and jeans he looked way younger and hotter than on Torchwood. (I may to hand in my straight card if I ever say another comment like that lol)
Interracial sex intercut with steamy gay sex. We're back to the early, juvenile Torchwood.Message to the writers: You're not being controversial/progressive or whatever you were going for. Just lame.
Wouldn't have minded to see a Jack/Ianto *love* scene back in Children of Earth, but this feels just cheap somehow.
It's very cheap.
Jack walks into a bar. Jack flirts with bartender for, oh, two seconds. Jack pushes bartender down to his crotch. You see bartender on top of Jack, thrusting away with his you know what you know where.
So, no gyrating Jack. Jack was on the receiving end of things.
And with everything going on, people not dying, being hunted, etc., Jack finds it necessary to peel away to go get blown-n-boned.
It was entirely pointless. If it's cut, the ep will be better, IMO.
I'm all for the idea of the "omnisexual" Jack, that he's from such a far distant future, with so many aliens and races, that conventional definitions and ideas about sexuality just don't apply and are too limiting. But if the writers/creators/producers think they're being so avant garde/progressive/liberal/advanced with showing stuff like in this ep, they're mistaken.
Can't help but think if there were commercials, there wouldn't have been time for such a pointless sidetrack. It would've been cut for time.
I'm glad it wasn't just me who thought that. I gues it makes some sense though.
I took it that the bartender was sitting on Jack. The joke about not being impaled, but, you should've seen the other guy would make no sense otherwise
Well, that's a new one. In his relationship with Captain John Hart, Jack was the husband and Hart was the wife. Or at least Jack claimed so.
I'm not understanding. When someone uses Husband and Wife to label sexual roles in a Gay relationship, that usually means the one labeled as "Husband" is the one doing the impaling or pitching, which is exactly what I was saying about this event, the Bartender would be considered the "wife" in this instance or catching
Well, that's a new one. In his relationship with Captain John Hart, Jack was the husband and Hart was the wife. Or at least Jack claimed so.
However, none of that precludes the possibility that some days Jack likes to serve either role depnding upon the his mood
^^
The bartender is clearly on top of Jack. At least at the end of the scene (they had switched positions). Jack's the one with the black time-travelling device around his wrist.
Not that it matters much, I suppose. What matters is that he probably came so hard that he forgot where he was.
The bartender is clearly on top of Jack. At least at the end of the scene (they had switched positions). Jack's the one with the black time-travelling device around his wrist.
Not that it matters much, I suppose. What matters is that he probably came so hard that he forgot where he was.
Yea, that's exactly what I keep saying, the Bartender is on top in that part, doing the same thing a woman would be doing on top. And yes, this is after they switched from Missionary position. Their roles never changed, only their position did. Jack was always pitching, and the bartender was always catching
LOL on the Owen reference
Starz shows are jam packed with pointless sex scenes, in fact sex scenes in cable TV shows are almost always entirely superfluous.
I find it interesting that these criticisms of "oh, they aren't doing anything progressive, it's just crowbarred in for the sake of showing something gay" arguments always pop up when it comes to gay sex scenes. Explicit gay sex scenes are hardly ever crowbarred into mainstream entertainment, so it is progressive whether you like it or not. Hetero sex scenes are routinely crowbarred into mainstream entertainment, and nobody ever bats a fucking eyelid, but do the same with a gay sex scene and suddenly everybody is up in arms.
I'd like to point out, I've been complaining about the crowbarring of hetro sex scenes in cable shows for a long time... Cos I'm a moaning bastard.
Well, I didn't mean nobody literally, I was just observing a general disparity between reactions.
It was the comment about it being a failed attempt at progressiveness that got me. It's just a sex scene, it's there for titillation. But people automatically assign an agenda to it, because it's same sex, not hetero.
Well, I didn't mean nobody literally, I was just observing a general disparity between reactions.
It was the comment about it being a failed attempt at progressiveness that got me. It's just a sex scene, it's there for titillation. But people automatically assign an agenda to it, because it's same sex, not hetero.
Yeah, but this is the internet, everything has an agenda to people on the internet. Gay Agenda, Liberal Agenda, Space Lizard Agenda. There's a lot on the agenda we better get round to sorting that out of there won't be enough time to get through it all.
Similar threads
