xhonzi

That book?  It should have gotten much more abuse out of sheer respect for other books which are actually good.

I read comics and I'm married- so I have this conversation with my wife all of the time.

Here's a typical conversation we have:

She: Why do the women have to be practically naked?
Me:  They're not all practically naked.  Look, this one is covered head to toe!
She: Yes, but everything she is wearing is skin tight!  She might as well be naked.
Me: The men are wearing just as much skin tight clothing as the women.
She: But it's different.  All of the women have huge boobs-
Me:  And all of the men have a 12 pack and massive biceps on their biceps.
She: But it's not the same- because breasts are "sexual" and the biceps aren't.
Me: The biceps are just as 'sexually attractive' as the breasts.
She: ... (Yes, she's an anime character.)
Me:  Okay, maybe not "just as" sexually attractive- put it's part of it!

Having had this conversation about 10 times a year, I have had some refined thoughts on it.  They go like this:

Our sexual instincts are designed to ensure survival of the species.  Men are attracted to women so that the species can survive.  Women are attracted to men so that the species can survive.  (And then there's Rob, but that's another subject)  In this way, men and women are the same.  However, a man's role in the survival is different than a woman's.  Obviously we have physical differences.  Traditionally- men have been providers of physical needs and protection and women have been bares of the babies, providers of emotional nourishment and washers of the dishes.  ;)  In our post-modern world, I have heard of women that earn the money and men that wash the dishes- but that's not what our natural instincts are tuned towards.

So, to mid-cap- women are sexually attracted to men who appear to be good physical providers and men are sexually attracted to women who appear to be capable of taking care of babies.  Are we all on the same page?

So, a healthy and fertile looking female is sexually attractive to us. on the most basic level.  Obviously not everyone will agree on which females are the most healthy and fertile looking, but most of us men share the basic concept (hint: it's boobs)- and not a lot has changed over the years. 

Women, however, seem to be very confused when presented with the current situation.  Their most primal of primal instincts tells them that a very strong and muscley man will be best at hunting wild game and protecting her and their children from danger.  However, most of us don't hunt game to put food on the table and our modern society makes physical danger a lot less likely than it used to be.  So, how now to judge which male is best capable of furthering the species with her?  Well, I think the first thing a lot of women look for is a guy that will stick around and be a father to the children- that's probably always been the case.  But how will the father provide?  Meaning- what is his potential to earn money?  Is he smart or funny or hard working, etc?  That will earn him money.  Or- how much money does he already have?  Surely, that is some clue as to how good of a provider he will be.

Now those thugs with lots of money hanging out with beautiful women makes all sorts of sense.

Women are torn between their primal instincts and their modern understanding of what it means to be a provider.  This confusion is good for us guys because they might be so confused that they end up with us: A guy who is neither muscley or rich!

In conclusion, a womans perceived fertility (again: boobs) are the prime source of their "sexual attractiveness" to a man and a man's variety of qualities that a woman may or may not correctly attribute to his ability to provide are those that make him sexually attractive to a woman.

So, in an action movie- a man shooting guns and otherwise being an action hero is on par as a foxy lady getting some foxy foxy screen time in terms of how they are being portrayed as the epitome of sexual attaction to the oppoiste sex.

Bingowings said:

 

(only there is one Bond per film and more girls).

Except for Casino Royale 1967.  ;)

Bingowings further said:

In Casino Royale Daniel Craig's body gets much more screen attention than Eva Green's.

 True, but she shows TONS of cleavage as does the brunette from the first half of the film.

Boost said:

I was 17 when it came out, and I had a man thing for Natalie Padme.

Now I'm 29...

You aged 12 years in 10.75 years?

And-

The Most Beautiful Girl (in the room) by Flight of the Conchords just went up this morning.  I know what I'll be doing when I get home!

I forgot to mention- sort the list at the above link by "Added" and it will show you all of the newest stuff at the top.  Otherwise- the list is too long to be of much use to anybody.

http://www.rockband.com/music/songs

So, the number of RockBand DLC songs exploded this weekend (+116) with the unveiling of RockBandNetwork.  There are song releases nearly daily.  This ^ is so far the only site I've found that's staying up to date with all of the additions.

My harddrive crashed once about 15 years ago... I lost a lot of really important stuff... That was the day I was hoping to be able to reload and do over.

http://www.freewebs.com/moviecardmodels/starwarszardoz.htm

Wow, I never knew this stuff existed!  Very cool.

I made a lifesize Guy Fawkes (V for Vendetta) mask yesterday.  I printed out the stuff for R2-D2, but I haven't started on the cutting yet.

TV's Frink said:

xhonzi said:

you'd have the vote and the "thrown" all sewn up, my friend.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Hello-all-Im-back/post/391314/#TopicPost391314

(for those who might have missed this reference)

Frink, you're like an automatic footnote-a-phone.

C3PX said:

I mean, who wants a Don who is a Full House fan?

 Not me, that is who.

Now, if you could reveal that Gaffer's avatar has been photoshopped and that she's not really that good looking in real life... you'd have the vote and the "thrown" all sewn up, my friend.

C3PX said:

Don't you love it when a day starts out well and ends perfect? There should be more days like that. I wish there were save states in real life, just save it and reload it whenever you want to experience it again.

 I've often had that same thought.  So many things I would undo (not do again) if I could just find my save from yesterday.  :(

And if you have someone with which to discuss it.

We might suppose it was under the order or Jacob.  No one's really sure they've seen him after all...

C3PX said:

In fact, we've seen and heard all of them doing far worse things than we have ever seen Darth Locke or his followers do.  

 Did you see Tuesday's episode?  DL shows up to the temple, a place where people are seeking refuge, offers a "join me or die" ultimatum and then proceeds to kill everyone still there.

Wanton Murder is pretty bad in my book.  Pretty hard to forgive.

Take it back!  The Hurley Bird is the single most important piece to the puzzle!

vote_for_palpatine said:

This is - by far - my favorite Frink repost. The original poster had a serious hard-on for dinosaurs.

 Yah, I'm going to put it in my signature.

That's not my gramma!! That's just Taft in a dress!

TheBoost said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Now i'm not sure i agree with the point of cameron siding with our enemies, he is just pointing out that innocents and civilians are all killed in war.

 Oh. So you're intepretting "Avatar" as an Iraq War analogy?  I think that's stretching the material a bit.

Really?  I have no doubt that Avatar was meant, by Cameron and most other people involved, to be an Irag War analogy.

No doubt whatsoever.

Hulu then.  It's less French as well.  ;)

Yeah, had Jack stood there- able to help her yet refusing to ensure that the bomb went off... that would give Sawyer a little more reason for hating Jack.

And I agree that not every character will find redemption... but I think Sawyer sort of sticks out to me as the character who most deserves it.

vote_for_palpatine said:

xhonzi said:

...but would they seriously trade-in their immortal soul?

If they don't believe in the concept, then why not? None of those three strike me as religious people. Well, Sayid was attending mosque, but that may have been part of his cover.

I meant immortal soul in a non-religious way- probably bad choice of words.  I guess I should have said, "go to the darkside" or "become a bad person" or something... maybe even "betrayed themselves" but I went with "trade-in their immortal soul".

Especially Sawyer.  He's been such a good egg- responsilbe leader of the 1974 Losties for 3 years.  The "badboy" image he tried so hard to cultivate after the crash (and probably before) was a charade and once Kate and others forced him to reveal his true noble, yet tortured and a bit misguided, character... he's been one of the good guys.  Yes, I know Juliet's death would have been hard on him.  Yes, I get that he, in a moment of rage, would take it out on Jack.  But I can't see him joining MIB, or taking more permanent action against Jack and the "White team".

Sawyer has been the most mishandled character on the show. He was a true dark character from the start of the show, but my best guess is they softened him up for two reasons:

1. The viewers like the character/the actor
2. They didn't want lost to turn into some Lord of the Flies type of thing from the start, with Jack leading the good guys and Sawyer leading the bad guys. Looks like it's going to end up that way anyway.

They can play with his emotions right up to the finale and I won't care.  If in the end they don't let him find his redemption on the island, what is the point of the whole show?

... Crusty doll tries to kill Homer because it was accidentally switched from "good" to "evil.")

 You meant "Krusty".

 Of course!  I knew it looked wrong...

 

oo5:

    The frogurt is also cursed?

 frink:

That's bad.

But it comes with a free topping!

White Guilt by Shelby Steele is a good look at modern racism.  What it is and what it isn't.  http://www.amazon.com/White-Guilt-Together-Destroyed-Promise/dp/0060578637/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267732860&sr=8-1

I'd like to take credit for it, but one of my OT.com ignoring friends from IRL actually pointed that out.  We reminisced on the Saved=Loved troupe and how well that normally works.  A little danger and a little "saving" would go a long way to making Padme's affection for Anakin believable.

I'm having hard time believing that Sayid, Claire, and Sawyer would actually join the Dark Side of their own free will.  Yes, I know that they've all lost the person they cared for most in the world.  Yes, I know that they blame people on the other team (Sayid blames Ben, Claire blames Kate, Sawyer blames Jack) but would they seriously trade-in their immortal soul?

My wife reminded me that Claire and Sayid have been affected by the Man in Black and maybe they're not fully in control of their actions- maybe they're not all there, really.  I guess something like that is

1) required to make me believe that these people would make these kind of decisions
2) LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME.

It's just like any most other characters that turns to the Dark Side long term- The moment they actually turn the corner rings a little false. 

Especially Sawyer.  He's been such a good egg- responsilbe leader of the 1974 Losties for 3 years.  The "badboy" image he tried so hard to cultivate after the crash (and probably before) was a charade and once Kate and others forced him to reveal his true noble, yet tortured and a bit misguided, character... he's been one of the good guys.  Yes, I know Juliet's death would have been hard on him.  Yes, I get that he, in a moment of rage, would take it out on Jack.  But I can't see him joining MIB, or taking more permanent action against Jack and the "White team".

(Also, when Dogan told Sayid that his scale had tipped to "evil" it reminded me of the Treehouse of Horror episode where the Crusty doll tries to kill Homer because it was accidentally switched from "good" to "evil.")

I wanted to return to my thoughts here, now that VINH and I have kissed and made up.

I probably need to rebaseline, so let's try this: forget the EU and specifically Dark Empire for a moment.

Is it believable that the Dark Side of the Force can give an advanced user the means to transfer his dark soul into the body of another person in the hope to achieve a form of immortality?  This seems quite in line with the type of thing Black Magic and the Dark Arts are capable of in other fantasy stories.

If there is cloning in the Star Wars universe, wouldn't it stand to reason that it would form a convenient basis on which to create your "All Palpatine, All the Time" immortality plan?

Generally speaking, we don't think that clones would inherit the mind, personality, (accent) or soul of the original.  In fact, to avoid the problem I laid out in the original post, I think the clones themselves would have to be so mindless to the point that they're really not that affective at all.  They're almost not worth the trouble... so they are determined to not be cost-effective and by the time the OT rolls around, you CAN swing a dead rat and not hit a clone.  HOWEVER, if instead of using a clone as a zombie like servant soldier that may or may not do your bidding according to your master plan- you used Dark Side magic to transfer your Dark Soul into the weakminded, but physically perfect copy of your younger self...?

Doesn't this make a fair bit of sense?