Posts by crimsonmoose3

Daniel Perez6: Thanks for all the examples... 🙂

So, you think the distinction is primarily driven by genre...

It’s a complicated equation because there are so many moving parts at play: release year, the studio involved, censorship hurdles, distribution channels, and production budgets. Then you have to consider the target demographic. If a movie carries an R rating instead of a PG-13, you're looking at a smaller potential box office. Kids and teenagers are the primary drivers of consumer spending...
Take the first Punisher, for instance. It was an 80s production, heavy on the violence and the body count... then you have the 2004 reboot, which was incredibly lukewarm—so sanitized that even kids could watch it without issue. Finally, there was the 2008 version, which actually embraced the brutality. We’re talking villains being tossed into glass grinders, people being impaled, heads being smashed with chairs... that sort of thing.
Netflix doesn't seem to have much of an issue with violence. The Punisher series was pretty intense—it’s been a while since I've seen anything that visceral, like someone dragging their face across a shattered mirror...

Slasher films generally center on serial killers, though there is plenty of variation within the genre. You have everything from the toothless, bloodless flops to the sheer brutality found in something like Hatchet...

Splatter horror comedies have always leaned heavily on excessive blood, visceral gore, and intense violence. They rely on a brand of dark humor that frequently pushes the boundaries of good taste...

Troma films were in a league of their own. Low-budget flicks driven by nonsensical plots, yet packed with excessive violence, monsters, nudity, and pure absurdity. Brains frying in a pan, a woman being born fully grown, a monster lurking in a high school... even that scene in the restroom where the heavy-set guy eats an infected burger. He just jerks off everywhere and emerges skinless and skeletal, screaming, "I'm thin!"...

Action movies have always leaned into violence, but only a handful truly push things into that extreme territory seen in films like The Night Comes for Us or the Raid series. Most 80s action flicks were already pretty heavy on the gore and bloody shootouts... Back then, RoboCop stood out as one of the most brutal entries; that iconic scene where the cyborg shreds the CEO at his desk remains unforgettable...

Planet Terror serves as a final nod to the grindhouse era, leaning heavily into those grotesque, over-the-top visuals. When characters get hit, the blood sprays everywhere like it’s coming out of an abscess... plus there's that scene with Tarantino...

Here we go again... The Lord of the Rings trilogy features plenty of decapitations involving orcs and goblins, yet there isn't a single drop of blood on screen. Then you look at something like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is packed with brutal imagery—hammered skulls, chainsaw killings—and yet, you barely see any actual blood during those moments. They don't even show the blade actually making contact. Despite that lack of gore, the film was banned in the United Kingdom for years before they finally relaxed the rules about five or ten years ago...
The TCM reboots... they were pretty brutal. Some scenes went so far they actually showed limbs being severed by chainsaws...

Adventure movies were never really about being violent or gory. Most of that grit was strictly reserved for horror, action flicks, and occasionally sci-fi...

I agree with that point. This reality applies to sex as well. I can't help but wonder... what exactly is America so afraid of? Why all the caricatures...

Americans are a unique breed... They aren't just a country; they’re an entire continent that dictates the pulse of the global film industry and, by extension, cultural trends. If you tried to release a classic horror flick today where the Black character dies first, there would be a massive outcry... it's exactly what *Scary Movie* was poking fun at. Publicity drives what gets screened, which ultimately drives the box office. The issue is that people who lack any real insight seem to believe their opinions carry more weight than those of anyone actually paying attention. The real problem? These voices are getting louder and more influential by the day. You see it everywhere—people complaining that there aren't enough minority characters in a series like *Chernobyl*, or demanding Asian, Black, or Muslim leads in a show like *The Witcher* set in medieval Europe... It's exhausting...

It really just boils down to ignorance and stereotypes... especially among a generation that seems to think sex works exactly like it does in porn.

I'm not so sure about that... I always find myself thinking back to that particularly prolific year:

Blue Is the Warmest Color [2013]
Nymphomaniac: Vol. I [2013]

I haven't seen the first one yet, but yeah, Nymphomaniac.... I completely forgot how much those posters stirred up a storm. The films aren't bad, they're just far too long. And that ending to the second part certainly didn't help matters... It’s that classic clash of the sexes played out through caricatures. There will always be a certain crowd that finds offense in every single detail involving race, women, LGBTQ+ issues, or religion...

Most of the movies on this list wouldn't even be allowed to screen, let alone reach a full release.

Amanda Robinson4 said:Violence and sex in American movies really walk a fine line. It’s basically just entertainment designed to give certain audiences exactly what they’re looking for. Of course, it’s not always like that—sometimes there's a real reason for it, or it just fits the genre perfectly (like crimsonmoose3 was saying)

But hey, here’s a little food for thought. We have two different versions of Oldboy. The original and the American one.

In the original, all that violence—driven by pure revenge—really ties back to the culture it came from. There's this specific symbolism where everything boils down to pride and honor based on those Eastern traditions. Everything happening feels earned... you actually sympathize with the characters, the drama makes sense, and the logic of how things unfold holds up. Plus, there's this almost romanticized vibe to the whole thing (I mean, if you've seen it, we could talk about that for hours)...

But then you look at the American version... and none of that is there. It feels like a remake made just so the local audience wouldn't have to deal with subtitles. When you take the same themes and stories and drop them into a totally different culture, the logic just falls apart. So, besides the plot itself, even the violence feels empty. My impression? It's only impactful because the original was...

Just my two cents on this one.

Exactly, Oldboy... 🤔
Well written. I’ve seen the original several times now. It isn't so much the violence that hits you, but rather the storytelling. Top-tier acting, pacing, action, dark humor, and that ending... It manages to be controversial while remaining perfectly watchable.

Another remake... It’s like watching someone swing a rubber mallet at their opponents. Zero acting, zero plot. Just one more unnecessary movie...

Jessica Morris6 said:Start with this one —> Guinea Pig
If you end up digging that you actually enjoy it, there's supposedly a sequel that's even more brutal, though I can't say for certain since I haven't sat through it myself...
Do some digging into the behind-the-scenes trivia too, because there are some pretty wild stories floating around about the production. Apparently, there's even a connection involving Charlie Sheen somewhere in the mix...

Yes, the sequel is longer and more violent. It was essentially that era of "fake" snuff films. There are three or four sequels, but they're mostly just trash at that point. Americans even made their own version of the Guinea Pig series about five years ago...

Right, Charlie Sheen reportedly stumbled upon it thinking it was actual snuff. The directors had to prove the girl was alive, which actually helped the film gain notoriety. People watched it in droves...

Is violence in cinema merely a spectacle, or is the intention actually to provoke an emotional response—specifically, empathy for the victim?...

It really depends on the films in question. The Evil Dead trilogy is essentially pure entertainment centered around violence, whereas French horror aims to provoke deeper emotional responses—like when a deranged woman hunts a pregnant survivor... Exploitation flicks like Ilsa were clearly tailored for audiences who crave gore and controversial themes. That French film, however, leaves an indelible mark by shocking the viewer with a brutal assault and the subsequent cycle of revenge triggered by it...
Death Wish used that same nauseating rape scene just to manipulate the audience's emotions, all while the protagonist plays vigilante on the streets... yet he never actually tracks down the rapists.
Hostel was less about pure shock value through violence and more about being an actual entertainment experience...
Funny Games is a film made specifically for the audience. Two strangers, lacking any real motive, attack a family and torment them right in front of the camera simply because that’s what the viewers want to see. It's a brazen move, especially with how they break the fourth wall to confront the spectator directly...

It’s interesting to consider how much culture dictates the portrayal of intimacy in cinema, specifically when comparing European or Asian films to the way things are handled in the US. American movies often feel strangely detached from sexuality; two characters share a glance, they head to the bedroom, and the scene cuts... leaving the audience to guess everything that happened. In contrast, European and Asian cinema tends to be far more explicit, showing much more on screen and allowing the viewer to engage with the moment rather than just being told it occurred...

It’s true that sex tends to stir up more controversy than violence these days. Take Mass Effect, for instance; back then, including sex scenes was actually quite rare. They were shot much like an American film—plenty of focus on bare skin, nothing more. I remember watching this talk show where a guest claimed the game was practically overflowing with pedophilia, rape, necrophilia, and God knows what else. The host just looked at him and asked, "Have you even played the game?" His response: "No..."

I used to be fascinated by this particular topic—trying to figure out why sex stirs up more controversy than violence—but I never quite landed on a definitive answer... 🕺 I recall a certain film—some erotic drama that caused quite a stir because of a scene where the female lead performs oral sex on her partner. It was a remarkably realistic moment; the man wasn't even fully erect, yet the critics went wild, comparing it to pornography and whatnot... Things haven't improved much since then, especially here in the States.

To wrap things up, Margot Robbie claims that audiences are more shocked by onscreen sex than they are by violence. It’s an interesting take, considering we aren't exactly lacking either one in the real world...

I suspect it really just comes down to culture and how open-minded a society is. Social values and morality play a massive role here. In Japanese adult media and cinema, women are predominantly portrayed as victims. Meanwhile, traditional religious views often suggest women exist solely to serve their husbands and bear children. You have to consider the era in which these films were produced; the prevailing social morals and collective values dictate the content. There is a significant difference between the 1950s and today, especially now that modern sensitivities regarding sexuality have essentially taken over the film market...
People are just impossible... One crowd will lose their minds over a bit of cleavage, another will erupt because of a five-second shot involving a nipple, and a third group will start a crusade over a scene featuring oral sex. Honestly, it’s been ages since I’ve seen anyone actually make a fuss about sex in movies. Even the most iconic, heavily parodied moments—like that famous scene where Sharon Stone crosses her legs—caused an uproar, even though you don't actually see anything explicit... It’s all just noise...

The Japanese are lightyears away from us anyway. You see plenty of scenes in teen anime or manga that would cause an absolute uproar here, like certain shots involving underwear or sexual undertones. Over there, it’s just standard fare, like lolicon...

Man, I’ve really let my tastes slide into nothing but sex and violence lately, ever since the golden age of splatter horror wrapped up...

Since this theme surrounds us, it inevitably bleeds into cinema. What I’m curious about is whether the portrayal depends entirely on where the film was produced. How will violence and sexuality be presented within European, American, or Asian cultures? Will the approach be literal or more metaphorical? If you have specific examples, please share them...

Obviously, it depends...
Americans certainly have their fair share of violent cinema and distinct eras: grindhouse, exploitation, splatter, slashers, and the heavy-handed stuff... Their approach to violence tends to fluctuate between spectacular displays of gore, like the Saw series, and dark comedy, such as Braindead...
In Toxic Avenger, the guy basically mashes his opponent into pulp, rolls them into a ball, and plays basketball with the corpse...
Braindead featured that scene where the baby’s head is split open from the inside, along with zombies being mowed down by a lawnmower amidst endless gallons of blood, guts, and viscera...
The series featured some almost spectacular violence that the audience clearly relished. There was that one trap where a character is suspended in mid-air, facing massive ice blocks intended to crush his skull, while another is set to be electrocuted if the protagonist makes a wrong move or fails to act in time...
The Friday the 13th series was always defined by its relentless streak of violence... Think about it: characters being strapped to trees by their heads and tightened until they literally burst, or the constant dismemberment of limbs and heads... It was brutal...
The Hatchet trilogy certainly didn't pull any punches when it came to the gore, ranging from dismemberment by hand to full-on evisceration...
That Elm Street stretch has the most iconic scene, where Johnny Depp falls asleep only to crash straight through the bed into a room flooded with gallons of blood...
Rambo IV isn't exactly a horror movie, but it definitely belongs on a list of the most brutal films out there. We're talking limbs being torn off, bodies getting absolutely shredded, and people being turned into literal mush under heavy machine gun fire...
The Feast trilogy features these small, frenetic creatures that tear through people, ripping limbs right off. It covers everything from total bodily disintegration to heads being devoured, and even that sequence where the remains are expelled through the monster's anus...
Evil Dead II features scenes like a character sawing off his own hand after being possessed by a demon, jamming a chainsaw into a giant demon's eye, and even splitting a head in half with a chainsaw...
Scanner had that iconic scene where he just obliterates someone's head using only his mind...

How brutal a movie actually is depends entirely on the film in question. Tarantino’s work tends to lean more toward an artistic style. Take the finale of *Django Unchained*—it’s a bloodbath, walls drenched in red. Then there’s *The Hateful Eight*, where the ending leaves literal gallons of blood on the floor. In any realistic scenario, most of those characters would have succumbed to infection long before the credits rolled. Movies like *Evil Dead II* or *Braindead* definitely fell into that splatter category—heavy on the gore, violence, and dark humor. Yet, the actual violence is rarely shown directly. You see a character intending to slice through their own arm with a chainsaw, but the camera cuts away to their face as it gets splattered with blood. It's similar with *Scarface*; that infamous chainsaw scene earned it a notorious reputation, but much like *Evil Dead II*, the shot shifts to the victim as they're covered in their friend's blood...

The *Hatchet* trilogy is a masterclass in pure brutality. It offers zero censorship, just a massive brute tearing characters in half with his bare hands... The *Saw* series belongs in that same category of visceral violence, whether it’s limbs being ripped out by traps or acid dissolving chests. Even the scenes where heavy walls crush bone belong there. Then you have the *Piranha* films, which featured those absurdly gory moments involving mutated fish attacking survivors...

It brings to mind those space soldier flicks that always seemed to cast up-and-coming young actors, featuring soap opera plots interrupted by graphic scenes of soldiers being torn apart by alien insects—and vice versa. It was always quite detailed... even RoboCop had that infamous sequence where the villain ends up in a trash compactor, showing his skin peeling right off his body...

For them, violence is mostly just spectacle. Take the *Death Race* franchise, for example... The only ones that really crossed the line were exploitation flicks like the *Ilsa* series, which featured explicit scenes of torture and such...

Across
European filmmakers launched a wave of horror that was significantly more brutal and heavy-hitting than anything coming out of the States. *High Tension*, *Inside*, *Martyrs*, *Frontier*... *Inside* is particularly disturbing, a grueling watch about a woman stalking a pregnant woman, filled with explicit violence and a "realistic atmosphere" that makes you feel like it could happen to anyone...
That German necrophiliac who had sex scenes with a corpse
*Aftermath* is presented as a short snuff film featuring the torture and rape of a female corpse
*Cannibal Holocaust* is one of the most famous Italian horrors, boasting a realistic vibe since it was shot like a documentary. It was convincing enough to cause a massive scandal in Italy. Even though it features several violent sequences, like a group rape by savages, which caused quite a stir back then
The Mexican film had a nauseating atmosphere, a scene involving the rape of an infant, and a final climax. That movie also caused an uproar, though today it likely ends up forgotten as a film that uses heaps of violence and sexual assault to mask "false" critiques of the state and society
*The Life and Death of a Porn Gang* included an explicit scene where a man's head is crushed with a sledgehammer as he sacrifices himself to feed his family
*City of the Living Dead* featured a somewhat less nauseating scene involving a drill being used on someone's head, which was unthinkable at the time
The *Demons* series also featured excessive violence, leaving audiences in theaters surrounded by demons
*Adam Chaplin*—an Italian surrealist horror where a character seeks revenge for his girlfriend's death and becomes a demon. Faces turn to mush, limbs are torn off, blood sprays everywhere...

European films tend to be more "realistic" regarding violence and atmosphere. Their brutality isn't portrayed as entertainment the way American films often do; instead, it’s designed to shock the public, much like the Mexican film or *Cannibal Holocaust*

And the Japanese are a whole different story...
Over there, genitals are a taboo subject, but everything else is fair game. Their films frequently push into extremes, ranging from the *pink violence* genre to *pink eiga*. I forget the exact definitions, but *pink eiga* usually refers to films where women are tortured and sexually assaulted (like the *Flower and Snake* series), whereas *pink violence* is the opposite—women fighting back (*Sex and Fury*)

*Story of Rick* is a combat film where the protagonist gets a cut on his hand, stops the bleeding using his teeth and his own veins, and the main villain ends up in a meat grinder

*Entrails of a Beautiful Woman*—A tortured and raped young girl mutates into a penis-headed demon and mutilates her captors

*Hellsing Ultimate*—an anime that includes an explicit scene of the protagonist scraping a female villain's face against a wall until only half remains... The rest is classic stuff: tearing limbs, dismemberment, splitting bodies in half, showing entrails...

*Tokyo Gore Police*, *Machine Girl*, or *Meatball Machine*—Japanese splatter horror with cyberpunk elements... Ranging from grotesque scenes of decaying flesh to metamorphoses and people merging flesh with technology

*Entrails of a Virgin*—Members of a film crew making a softcore porn are dismembered by a demon in a warehouse

*Ebola Syndrome*—not Japanese, but from Hong Kong. It’s about a psychopath who snaps at the start, kills people, and pours gasoline on a young girl to set her on fire. The film included a scene where he rapes a Black woman in Africa, causing his penis to get stuck inside her, leading to him contracting Ebola and spreading it through the city... All wrapped up in black comedy

*Ichi the Killer*—Takashi Miike is essentially a Japanese Tarantino. They used to hand out bags for vomiting in theaters during his screenings. The film itself includes scenes like a severed piece of a face sticking to a wall and slowly sliding down. It's a love story about a lonely figure obsessed with schoolyard abuse who, when overwhelmed by emotion, goes feral and kills people with razor blades hidden in shoes... plus some sadomasochism

*Battle Royale*—teenagers end up on an island, and only one can survive. An absolute deluge of violence

It seems Japanese creators have developed an extreme obsession with violence lately. It’s more artistic, especially in manga. *Berserk* stands out as one of the most brutal examples, utilizing incredibly detailed and visceral imagery to depict carnage. A recurring theme is the victimization of women, often involving sexual assault. You see similar patterns in *Devilman*, whether it's the male or female versions transforming into demons. Even their 80s anime were notorious for explicit violence—think giant monsters tearing people apart like insects—with a heavy emphasis on rape scenes. Then there's *Violence Jack*, a post-apocalyptic animated film where male gangs are split into various factions, all driven by the desire to assault women.

They’ve produced countless genres with names too bizarre to even conceptualize. The only real distinction is that they face zero restrictions regarding the depiction of violence... As if it’s all perfectly normal to them, ranging from the harmless fetish of licking corpses to the graphic sight of a tiger devouring a regenerating woman who is then used by her family for torture... Or a woman being sliced in half, only to engage in sex with herself...

Daniel Kim15 said:SPOILER!

Regarding Hellboy's origins, they stay true to the comics. He's a descendant of King Arthur...

Thanks for the reply. 🙂 I'll check next week if the library carries any Fibrin editions. 🙏

People are certainly tearing into the CGI, though personally, I didn't find it as bad as the last The Thing. The sheer brutality at the end was unexpected. It's a shame the finale was even weaker... I was expecting some epic showdowns to close things out.

Deckard, those previous versions worked because they actually respected the comic—everything from the atmosphere to the characters and the mythology...

As for this reboot, it looks like the studio finally killed the movie by trying too hard to cater to today's generation. Hellboy is pretty bad; he comes across like a giant red toddler bickering with his dad, plus he lacks any real sense of being a monster hunter.
The Resident Evil vibes are the best part of the film, but the point is lost. They crammed way too many characters and subplots into a two-hour runtime. And I highly doubt this ghost fighter or Ananga ever showed up in the comics.
There's some political correctness at play, visible through decent acting that feels thrown in just for the sake of having it. That pig character, who barely gets five or six panels in the comic, didn't work for me at all.
The scene from the comic involving the baby is pure tragicomedy.
The only redeeming quality is the level of violence—brutal stuff in the style of the anime Devilman, where people are ripped in half quite explicitly. The action is solid. The old hag is the only interesting villain. Everything else suffers from cheap humor, poor dialogue, and a weak ending. I’ll have to read up on the Hellboy origin story, but I suspect it's just more of their nonsense...

I wish it had been at least fun, like Hansel and Gretel, but mostly I just felt indifferent toward the film. It’s a shame; it had potential. They even left the door open for a sequel.
I’m putting this in the same category as the new Predator: I’m going to pretend these movies don't exist.

If there are any other hypersensitive individuals on this forum, I’d appreciate it if you reached out. Your lived experience and perspective on navigating life would be incredibly valuable to me. Specifically, I’m looking for practical advice on managing stress and finding ways to unwind... Send me a private message. Thanks.

Male, 33. Living in Savannah, keeping things low-key. People around me constantly tell me I’m "unadjusted." Honestly, my anxiety stems from being too empathetic and perhaps a bit naive. How do I put it? I’ve seen enough of life that very little shocks me anymore. What I can’t stand, though, is the constant whining, the self-pity, the frustration, the hate, and the envy. A colleague—the only one I really talk to—put it bluntly: these are people who don't read, don't watch films, don't educate themselves, and just recycle the same tired grievances. I've dealt with types like that at work for ten years. The repetition, the prejudices, the forced opinions... it's exhausting. When a problem arises, I face it and deal with it.
I also have a brother who lives with a 100% disability; because of him, I learned patience, tolerance, and empathy. I tend to be emotionally transparent. If I'm struggling, I show it. If I'm in high spirits, I'm genuinely cheerful and engaging.
The reason people claim I’m not "adult" enough or that I live in a fantasy world—and why I feel no need to prove myself to them—is my passion for movies, books, comics, and gaming. That's what I do when I'm off the clock. When I have responsibilities, I handle them. Otherwise, I love nature, walking, gardening, and being outdoors during the spring. And yes, I enjoy long-form writing. I have zero interest in perfectionism, Instagram stories, clout, or the curated lives of celebrities. I'm too much of a realist for that. My inspiration comes from reading and imagination. I gravitate toward fictional characters who believe in love, friendship, peace, and helping others. Don't worry, though; I don't actually believe in ghosts, vampires, or ancient curses. It's just a hobby...
People think I'm withdrawn, but how do I explain that I simply don't want to be a nuisance? I dislike having to pull words out of people. Then again, I've met plenty of strangers where we end up talking as if we've known each other for a century.
I have my own burdens, and I have no intention of suffocating you with them. Your problems don't bother me; I'll help however I can. I'm an understanding person, but please, if you've just escaped a long marriage or a relationship, or if you find it difficult to talk about yourself because you're lonely, don't reach out. I'm not the type to shut myself away in four walls. I can handle almost anything on my own, no matter how tired I am.
Through this, I'm looking for a man or a woman for companionship. I'm not seeking a relationship, just friendship. I'm based in Savannah, so I'm looking for someone local, though Washington, D.C. is also accessible. We can start by messaging to get to know one another. Age isn't a factor for me; I care about character. I still believe in people, despite everything, and surely there is someone out there looking for relaxed company. Someone I can learn from. Someone I can debate with. You can decide for yourself afterward whether I'm truly unadjusted or just deeply feeling...

Greetings. 33-year-old male here. I’ve been living in Savannah for about a month now. I'm an IMDb enthusiast, a gamer, and a collector. My interests are varied—puzzles, gardening, nature, road trips, walking... you name it. I'm looking for friends, ideally local to Savannah. I have no prejudices and consider myself quite tolerant. I am a serious, communicative, and patient individual. I enjoy going to the cinema, taking walks, or heading out on excursions. While I'm perfectly capable of doing most things solo, some company for decent conversation would be welcome. Just a heads-up: I tend to write long messages; if that bothers you, just say so. Depending on my mood, I'll either talk about myself or dive into specific topics. I actually have some ideas for starting a film club or something similar, but we can discuss that later.
If you're only interested in messaging, that's fine. If you need someone who will simply listen, that's also fine. Regarding personal issues—everyone has them. Mine are mine, and there's no need to burden you with them. However, it would mean a lot to have someone to build a sense of closeness and trust with, someone to talk to when things get difficult. I offer the same in return.
I’d love to share experiences, much like my trip from the Appalachian Mountains down to Newport. To exchange stories, hear advice, and learn. There is always something new to grasp. As for problems, I'll help where I can. But experience has taught me that we ultimately have to solve our own issues. The worst thing is repeating mistakes without moving forward. I don't consider myself complicated; I'm just cultured, serious, and a fan of horror. I enjoy life, I stay positive, and having moved past plenty of obstacles, I keep moving. I value people who work on themselves, who appreciate what they have, and who either live every day to the fullest or know how to simply relax and take time for themselves.
P.S.
Location isn't an issue for me. I've spent years navigating public transit and I love traveling. If you're in Washington, D.C., no problem. If you're near the coast, great—I enjoy a cold beer by the ocean. Everything is negotiable. And if you just want endless texting, that's your call.

boldnomad45 - you hit the nail on the head. Honestly, the whole thing with sexual impulses is what really gets to me; even if he has his own way of managing it. It was incredibly awkward at first... but who’s to say things won't escalate as the years go by? I've heard much worse stories from people who have dealt with individuals like him.

For instance, I get home today and find he's smashed the light switch with his fist just because a bulb burned out again. And then he tries to explain away why he did it, acting like he has no clue. Look, it's not like we're struggling financially, but it's still a waste and definitely not the first time. Now I'm stuck having to set aside money every single month just to cover the damage he causes because he simply "lost control"...

I appreciate everyone's input and understanding. 🙂

Brandon Lopez6 said:I'm not really following those parts in bold. 🤔

There's no need to take it literally. We spend our whole lives saying we don't have the will to "listen" to someone, even when they're communicating through gestures rather than words. It’s technically an incorrect way to phrase it... but people communicate in ways that are almost primal, much like an animal...

Morgan Cooper34 said:First off, that part really stung when I read it. Honestly? I suspect they’re more tethered to him because of his struggles with self-care and social skills. He’s the one who actually needs them, whereas you’ve managed to hold your own and build a functional life. Have you actually sat them down to talk about this?

Second thing—listen to me: nobody, not even your own parents, has the right to demand you sacrifice your entire life to look after your brother. On the flip side, I think you're stressing too much about whether he’ll become a burden to you or your future family. Nobody has a crystal ball; we don't know what tomorrow holds.

How old are your parents, and how is their health holding up?

They're between 55 and 57. Generally healthy, nothing major, just some age-related memory issues.

Yeah, I've tried talking about it, but I eventually gave up. It always turned into an argument because they always end up taking his side...

I didn't actually intend to drop him off at the facility, so it slipped my mind. I’m hoping there’s an institution out in Denver rather than just being limited to Chicago. Regardless, I made a promise to my old man—that I'd take him to rally races across the States regularly. It's really the only thing he lives for.

Bryan Taylor9 said:Look, crimsonmoose3, I’ve gotta ask—why can't he just live on his own?
It doesn't strike me as being totally helpless; he should be able to manage some basic self-care, even if it's limited. The real question is the money side of things. Is he eligible for disability benefits? If he isn't, that’s where you step in to help out—and again, I mean helping within your own means.

On top of that, there's the option of having a social worker check in (you'll need to look into how that works). That way, someone with a disability can stay in their own home while the Social Security Administration handles the oversight and helps make sure the bills and stuff actually get paid.

Exactly, that's my point. I'll have to see how things play out since there's still time to figure it all out.
As for whether he can actually function alone, I honestly don't know. It's not that he's physically incapable of getting hurt, but frankly, he used to be able to make his own sandwich or brew a cup of tea without help. Then his parents started coddling him, and over time, they turned him into a spoiled kid who can't even slice deli meat. He just waits for someone else to do it for him. He won't even do basic chores like cleaning up after himself because that's how he was raised, and unlearning those habits is difficult... So, if I'm working a 7 to 3 shift and not getting home until 5 or later due to overtime, someone needs to ensure he has a meal or at least check in on him. Otherwise, he'll end up in a bad state when left alone for too long...

gentlesailor25 said:I mean, I think it’s kind of wild to expect you to just bring your brother along for the ride when you move in with a girlfriend.🤷 You’ve gotta find some other way to handle that situation, because honestly, that sounds like a total recipe for disaster.
Why can't he just stay with his parents?

He can, I was just thinking about what happens when they're gone, or when they get too old to manage him...

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this. If the moderators think it belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it.

I need some perspective here. My brother is 30, but mentally he’s stuck at 13, if not older. According to his diagnosis, he’s autistic, has an intellectual disability, and is deaf-mute. It’s all due to a genetic mutation he was born with. When we were kids, we actually got along, despite the usual sibling bickering. Once I hit high school, his condition didn't bother me as much; I had grown used to his behavior over the years—the constant bragging that he was better than me, the teasing, and things like that. We still hung out and played together. But after high school, during a long stretch when I was unemployed, things shifted. He became exhausting to be around, and physical altercations started happening frequently. Most of them were triggered by me, because he would never just attack someone out of nowhere unless he felt he was defending himself.
Once I finally landed a job, I moved into my own room so I wouldn't have to share space with him anymore. His habits are impossible—he'll stay up until 1:00 AM glued to his computer while I have to be up at 5:00 AM for work. Over the years, I've drifted away from him emotionally. It is draining to listen to his daily obsessions with bodily fluids and filth, or his constant talk about women, followed by him spiraling when he develops a crush only to have the girl move away or get pregnant. One time, he just snapped, and it nearly ended in a tragedy within our family; he’s been on medication for years since then. Now, it’s the same routine every day, and he's getting lazier. He won't even take a plate to the sink; he just leaves it there. He's messy, to say the least. I eventually got into huge arguments with my parents regarding how he was being raised, and eventually, I just gave up.

As time goes on, I can't help but feel that my brother will simply become a lifelong burden. My parents want me to be the one to look after him, even though my only opinion is that he should be placed in a specialized care facility. They lose their minds when I suggest that, so I don't bring it up anymore. But now, as I start planning a serious life for myself, I realize that if the time comes when I have to introduce my partner to my parents or to her personally, I just won't feel "comfortable." To be honest, I feel embarrassed by how he behaves in public, at the dinner table, and everything else. The only thing I don't feel ashamed of is his obsession with hygiene, which is equally intense.

I don't hang out with him anymore. We don't communicate—well, he doesn't speak, he uses sign language—and I don't really "experience" him as a person anymore. There is just coldness. I find myself thinking that if he ever had to live with us, he would be a constant weight on my shoulders; I can already imagine the chaos and the stress. Besides, he can't be left home alone without supervision for a single day. And given my current work situation, it seems like a professional facility is the only real option.

My parents have always prioritized him over me, giving him special treatment and putting up with everything, naturally. So, should I feel guilty for simply wanting him to be in a facility where he can actually receive proper care? When I ask others about this, plenty of "smart" people judge me, asking how I could do such a thing or why I won't step up to care for him. None of them actually know what it's like to live with someone like him...

Fullmetal Alchemist. Such a solid character. 😁

brighttinker17 said:Thanks... 🙂
Of course I’ll watch it. It’s a great movie, though that ending was a total letdown. Honestly, I'm feeling pretty disappointed right now... 😢

I wouldn't say that. It’s a black comedy, after all... more of a cautionary tale about a failing marriage, really. It all comes down to that final lesson DeVito gives the young man who was looking to get a divorce... 😁