One-Night Stands: A Rough Guide

[Peikko 1,575]

Desperate Housewives is funny and not at all about sex. I can't imagine why you would compare it to a one night stand or even reading about it. I realise it's not everyone's cup of tea - that's not my point, you don't have to like it but to compare it as titilating sexually, well, all I can say is you haven't watched it.

Oh, and I totally agree with Marilyn, just because you enjoy watching a show, it has no bearing on whether you would want to live the kinds of lives that the people in the show lead.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I think you're all on crack

Bless you, Charles.

one of my recent photobucket additions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

nope, never had a one night stand... don't plan to either

Me neither. It's all about living vicariously through other's misdeeds. Why else do people watch 'Desperate Housewives?'

I don't watch that show.. it looks too silly

I'm using it as an example. Any movie or show we watch...we live vicariously through the characters, no?

sometimes, depends on the show I guess..

but I usually watch a show because it is entertaining not because I want to live those peoples lives....

I would argue that all stories, whether it's a romantic novel or a movie, moves us because we live vicariously through the characters. It's human nature.

Hmmm... I agree that's what stories *should* do.

But then you have movies like Transformers and TV shows like 24. I can't see anyone living vicariously through those characters...

[Jenn! 918]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

[natty bumppo 297]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

[Jenn! 918]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

[natty bumppo 297]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlet Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I just quickly read the part about the "A" on Steven's back, looked at the thread topic, put the two together, and tossed on the emoticon ...

If the guess is wrong, could I at least get credit for creativity?

Edited November 14, 2008 by Natty Bumppo

[Jenn! 918]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlet Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I just quickly read the part about the "A" on Steven's back looked at the thread topic ... put the two together and tossed on the emoticon ...

If the guess is wrong, could I at least get credit for creativity?

No I think you're right. I'm just saying that I don't see the great backlash for posting the thread.

[natty bumppo 297]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlet Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I just quickly read the part about the "A" on Steven's back looked at the thread topic ... put the two together and tossed on the emoticon ...

If the guess is wrong, could I at least get credit for creativity?

No I think you're right. I'm just saying that I don't see the great backlash for posting the thread.

maybe jinky hasn't seen the thread yet?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I was taking a little artistic license...for dramatic effect.

My point is that there is very little difference, IMO, between some TV shows and porn - the fantasy mechanism works the same. While the former seems to be reviewed as clearly not real while the latter is regarded as real. Some feel comfortable watching 'Sex and the City' but are uncomfortable with watching porn.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I was taking a little artistic license...for dramatic effect.

My point is that there is very little difference, IMO, between some TV shows and porn - the fantasy mechanism works the same. While the former seems to be reviewed as clearly not real while the latter is regarded as real. Some feel comfortable watching 'Sex and the City' but are uncomfortable with watching porn.

I came into the convo a little late - so I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't see how those things are really comparable, given that you don't seem to draw any distinctions in terms of audience.

Sex & The City isn't p0rn. The only comparison is that there's some sex in it - but then surely this could be applied to pretty much anything that has a sex scene in it.

There are a few experimental indie flicks that feature real sex scenes in a dramatic narrative (more so than the usual - "Mr Plumber, my pipes are blocked - will you service them?"). But pretty much all of those type of movies walk a very fine line - in terms of how that content can be justified on the merits screenplay. I've yet to come across one that isn't exploitative.

But again - these are very far outside the mainstream.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I was taking a little artistic license...for dramatic effect.

My point is that there is very little difference, IMO, between some TV shows and porn - the fantasy mechanism works the same. While the former seems to be reviewed as clearly not real while the latter is regarded as real. Some feel comfortable watching 'Sex and the City' but are uncomfortable with watching porn.

I came into the convo a little late - so I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't see how those things are really comparable, given that you don't seem to draw any distinctions in terms of audience.

Sex & The City isn't p0rn. The only comparison is that there's some sex in it - but then surely this could be applied to pretty much anything that has a sex scene in it.

There are a few experimental indie flicks that feature real sex scenes in a dramatic narrative (more so than the usual - "Mr Plumber, my pipes are blocked - will you service them?"). But pretty much all of those type of movies walk a very fine line - in terms of how that content can be justified on the merits screenplay. I've yet to come across one that isn't exploitative.

But again - these are very far outside the mainstream.

Well I'm arguing on the premise that our brains respond to what we are watching or reading as if we are the protagonist and some pretty interesting studies have shown that parts of our brain draw no distinction from ourselves and what we are observing. This is true when watching sports - the heart rate increases, blood pressure, endorphins....which explains why we are so drawn to sports as spectators. So I think if someone watches a TV show that has fictitious characters engaged in one-night stands, but feel comfortable with enjoying the show because it's not real, but would be uncomfortable about watching porn, they're kidding themselves. The fantasy mechanism works the same in both instances. I could understand if it's a matter of graphic comfort level, but not a judgment call that one is less real than the other.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I was taking a little artistic license...for dramatic effect.

My point is that there is very little difference, IMO, between some TV shows and porn - the fantasy mechanism works the same. While the former seems to be reviewed as clearly not real while the latter is regarded as real. Some feel comfortable watching 'Sex and the City' but are uncomfortable with watching porn.

I came into the convo a little late - so I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't see how those things are really comparable, given that you don't seem to draw any distinctions in terms of audience.

Sex & The City isn't p0rn. The only comparison is that there's some sex in it - but then surely this could be applied to pretty much anything that has a sex scene in it.

There are a few experimental indie flicks that feature real sex scenes in a dramatic narrative (more so than the usual - "Mr Plumber, my pipes are blocked - will you service them?"). But pretty much all of those type of movies walk a very fine line - in terms of how that content can be justified on the merits screenplay. I've yet to come across one that isn't exploitative.

But again - these are very far outside the mainstream.

Well I'm arguing on the premise that our brains respond to what we are watching or reading as if we are the protagonist and some pretty interesting studies have shown that parts of our brain draw no distinction from ourselves and what we are observing. This is true when watching sports - the heart rate increases, blood pressure, endorphins....which explains why we are so drawn to sports as spectators. So I think if someone watches a TV show that has fictitious characters engaged in one-night stands, but feel comfortable with enjoying the show because it's not real, but would be uncomfortable about watching porn, they're kidding themselves. The fantasy mechanism works the same in both instances. I could understand if it's a matter of graphic comfort level, but not a judgment call that one is less real than the other.

I would say that depends a lot on how immersed you are in whatever you're watching.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.

Scarlett Letter ...

Where has that occurred in this thread.

I am totally lost again.

I was taking a little artistic license...for dramatic effect.

My point is that there is very little difference, IMO, between some TV shows and porn - the fantasy mechanism works the same. While the former seems to be reviewed as clearly not real while the latter is regarded as real. Some feel comfortable watching 'Sex and the City' but are uncomfortable with watching porn.

I came into the convo a little late - so I might be misunderstanding you here, but I don't see how those things are really comparable, given that you don't seem to draw any distinctions in terms of audience.

Sex & The City isn't p0rn. The only comparison is that there's some sex in it - but then surely this could be applied to pretty much anything that has a sex scene in it.

There are a few experimental indie flicks that feature real sex scenes in a dramatic narrative (more so than the usual - "Mr Plumber, my pipes are blocked - will you service them?"). But pretty much all of those type of movies walk a very fine line - in terms of how that content can be justified on the merits screenplay. I've yet to come across one that isn't exploitative.

But again - these are very far outside the mainstream.

Well I'm arguing on the premise that our brains respond to what we are watching or reading as if we are the protagonist and some pretty interesting studies have shown that parts of our brain draw no distinction from ourselves and what we are observing. This is true when watching sports - the heart rate increases, blood pressure, endorphins....which explains why we are so drawn to sports as spectators. So I think if someone watches a TV show that has fictitious characters engaged in one-night stands, but feel comfortable with enjoying the show because it's not real, but would be uncomfortable about watching porn, they're kidding themselves. The fantasy mechanism works the same in both instances. I could understand if it's a matter of graphic comfort level, but not a judgment call that one is less real than the other.

I would say that depends a lot on how immersed you are in whatever you're watching.

Yes...I agree.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I'm still lost about who put an A on Steven's back and what it stands for.