Exactly... most of those topless sunbathers are just older ladies in knee-high socks who probably shouldn't even be allowed to strip down by law. It actually reminds me of an ordinance I read about in a small town over in Italy a few years back, where they actually banned older, heavier women from sunbathing topless 😁 👍
That’s fine by me 👍 If I'm looking for someone topless, I want someone young and beautiful—a perfectly tanned Venus 🙂 😁 not some 65-year-old lady 👎
Hot... almost every other scene... where exactly are you even going with this? 😬 The fact that there's sucking isn't even the biggest issue here; what really bothers me is that blatant, hypocritical morality. There’s nothing wrong with showing violence, torture, intimacy, or beatings in a movie... yet we reach this absurd point where a film features 53 deaths, 89 injuries, and at least 40 beatings, but somehow women can only have sex while wearing bras 😵
But top-free culture is, unfortunately 😢 😬 almost extinct over the last few years... I remember back in the 90s... you'd see people sunbathing topless practically everywhere 😁... lately, 🙂 it’s become quite rare, and even then, it’s usually just at some secluded beach or maybe an older woman 😢 👎
Sure, it isn't exactly a shock to see nudity these days (probably hasn't been for at least 30 years), 🤷but people still act like there's some deep philosophy behind it or that it's this "terrible thing." A bare breast 😱 will supposedly corrupt the morally upright 🤣 youth, or even adults for that matter.
Personally, I find sex scenes in movies a bit much... have you noticed how, especially in American films, 😁 women often engage in sex while still wearing bras? And they use those strange blankets where men are covered up to their stomachs while women are covered up to their necks 😬 😂
As for breastfeeding in public... I don't have a strong opinion on it, though I did have one awkward experience once. A friend of mine ended up in the hospital (nothing serious), and his wife came over to my place because she needed me to run an errand for him (she couldn't leave the baby). So we're sitting in my living room just chatting, and all of a sudden she says, "The baby is hungry." I 😬 fully expected her to grab a bottle or something, but instead, she pulls out the baby, and boom—she starts breastfeeding 😁 and the little one just goes for it. Man, it was so awkward; she acted like she was just using a bottle. I honestly had to leave the room until she was finished... Before she had the baby, she certainly wasn't exposing herself like that. 😬 🤣
It all comes down to how you approach the core issue... We are constantly bombarded by Hollywood productions, many of which are complete garbage or mindless blockbusters designed solely to squeeze out a few extra bucks. On the flip side, whenever a film from Europe or Asia makes its way to us, they tend to be genuinely high-quality pieces of art. This leads us to idolize almost any foreign cinema, conveniently forgetting that European and Asian films aren't immune to nonsense, trash, or pure stupidity either. If we watched as many non-American films as we watch American ones, we would likely stumble upon just as much idiocy... 🤷
Chloe Palmer2 said:The movie is a bit of a mess, I suppose. The concept is actually quite clever. Shia LaBeouf is great, and Megan Fox is wonderful until they suddenly zoom in on her hand in that truck—that's when everything just falls apart. Personally, I found the sequel slightly worse than the original.
The sequel is just plain terrible... it's rare for me to feel like walking out of a theater halfway through, but with T2, I actually had to force myself to sit through that mess until the end.
If the first film was made "for all generations," 😁, the sequel clearly targets some half-witted American kids between the ages of 6 and 12... 👎 What really set the first one apart for me was the humor... in the second one, there isn't a trace of it left... Furthermore, the "new" robots are absolute garbage designed for children... especially that one that looks like an ice cream truck or something. 👎
It's been a long time since I watched the sequel (I don't think I could ever bring myself to watch it again), so much of it has faded from my memory, but I still remember the impression it left on me, which was 👎 🙂 😢
It seems to me that psychopaths are primarily driven by ego, willing to go to any lengths for their own gratification without a second thought for anyone else... which is why I don't find it surprising or contradictory at all that they would collect trophies 🤷
I watched the movie and found it to be 👍 yet at the same time, the newspapers were reporting that the film is somewhat of a "romanticized version" of what actually happened, suggesting the motive was almost entirely greed... claiming there was no sexual assault involved, contrary to how it was depicted in the film and so on...
Even if only 1% of that were true, it would still be far too much. It’s a fact, but... the real issue lies in the falsification of documents and the coercion of witnesses to say whatever they're told. That kind of thing was happening even hundreds of years ago, and honestly, it still happens today...
According to recent research, neither Caligula nor Nero—the ones we "know" to be proven lunatics—were actually as insane 😬 as public opinion suggests. There were times when it served certain interests to portray them that way, but the truth is quite different.
Here is another "interesting fact": many serial killers were actually part of an investigation in one way or another—long before they were ever caught—yet the police cleared them from the suspect list for various reasons. This can likely be attributed to their high intelligence or simply because the department has such a massive pool of suspects that they can't possibly give everyone the attention they deserve. Sometimes, however, it really just comes down to police negligence, a mistake, or a simple oversight...
A while back, after watching a movie about Ted Bundy (one of the worst serial killers in history), I did a bit of digging into the subject. Now, it’s been quite some time and much of it has faded from my mind, but...
Yes, as you have noted, the vast majority of serial killers are men... and they generally kill out of "passion" 😵 and/or a desire for power... whereas women most often kill for material gain.
Furthermore, most come from dysfunctional families... whether it's a dominant, possessive mother and a weak father (or no father at all), sometimes the situation is reversed, or perhaps the parents struggle with alcoholism, leaving the child neglected or often cruelly punished... there was even one case where a mother forced her son to act like a girl, even sending him to school in women's clothing... It also happens that they come from strict households of religious fanatics, raised to believe that sex is something evil, dirty, or low... that women should be avoided, blah, blah, blah... It is interesting that a large majority of serial killers were under heavy maternal influence...
Additionally, they are characterized (though one cannot generalize, it is true for most) by emotional coldness, a total lack of empathy, and egocentrism... they are mostly socially isolated, lacking friends, possessing poor social skills, and having little to no success with the opposite sex... or, to put it simply 😁—they are oddballs. Most began by torturing and killing animals during adolescence.
Moreover, and this is almost a rule, they collect either body parts of their victims, their clothing, or they record their deeds... they say this is done to "reminisce" 😵 and relive the crimes. Cases of cannibalism are not uncommon either. Similarly, the murders almost always become increasingly frequent... the tempo accelerates.
The victims are most often people whose disappearance won't be noticed quickly, or who aren't being heavily searched for... prostitutes, the homeless, or various people living on the fringes of society... though that isn't always the case. Victims often share connections... whether through status or other similar characteristics. Often the victims are of the same gender, but even that isn't a rule. Certain serial killers target both men and women. Take Ted Bundy, for example... he primarily killed young boys, but he also killed girls...
Furthermore, many serial killers have a high IQ, though there have certainly been some "low-functioning" ones as well...
Anyway, that is basically what stuck with me 😁; if you want to dig deeper online, there really is a massive amount of literature on the topic...
Aaron Anderson72 said:Speaking of women, nobody mentioned Elizabeth Bathory. She was this Canadian countess back in the 1500s who used to kill young girls—probably around 13 to 17 years old, given the era. She actually drank their blood because she thought it would keep her looking young.
It all started when she hit one of her maids and saw the blood splatter on her skin. She honestly thought her skin looked younger right there, so she killed the girl on the spot and bathed in the blood. She even designed torture devices, like this spiked coffin where she’d put a girl underneath so she could shower in the blood.
Or, during the winter, she’d take a naked girl outside and pour freezing water over her until she froze solid.
The crazy part is that they found a list on her desk with the names of the girls she murdered, and it had 650 girls on it.
Such a fascinating and terrifying case to me... I feel like people don't talk about it enough, especially considering that number. That might just be the list; the actual total could be way higher.
She's known as the "Bloody Countess," and there's even a movie about her, though I think it might be an American production or something, I can't quite remember.
Anyway, if anyone's curious, you can find everything on Wikipedia.
But then again... things aren't quite that simple. Recent research suggests that the so-called Bloody Countess wasn't nearly the monster she's been made out to be. Some even argue the entire legend was manufactured because certain powerful circles wanted to smear her reputation and ruin her family's legacy. And now... only God knows what the truth really is. 🤷
Lisa Hernandez3 said:To rephrase my question—what specific set of values is homophobia actually tied to?
With a set of values consisting of nothing but absolute nonsense and shouting "Go Yankees, Go Yankees, GO YANKEES! 😁
It’s obvious just from looking at the lyrics... they aren't singing about some random vulgarities; instead, they're acting like an intolerant, hateful parent. 🤣 They really feel the need to bring up different biological organs 😬 just to make a point.
So, you're a straight woman with some unconventional tastes... back where I grew up, we didn't bother with fancy 🤣 English terms when there was a perfectly good old-school American word for it... Degenerate 😁 👍 I suppose "queer" sounds a bit more sophisticated to some than calling someone a "total degenerate," 🤣 but that's just how it is 👍
I’m still waiting on an answer regarding your orientation... you mentioned being queer, but that’s such a broad term. Come on, I’m genuinely curious. 🙂
Daniel Wilson5 said:Personally, I couldn't care less about all this talk regarding "rights"—I don't fully wrap my head around the whole debate anyway. In my view, marriage shouldn't be equated with same-sex unions because marriage was established as an institution between a man and a woman. Maybe same-sex partnerships could just call it something else... I’m simply saying that homophobia is essentially masked aggression—a refusal to accept gay people that manifests as negative pressure on that community. That is a plain fact. I am not talking about special privileges or perks, but rather the fundamental human rights of gay individuals, which remain under threat regardless of anyone offering "support" from the comfort of their couch. By the way, Gay Pride really isn't my cup of tea; what is with all that tacky, over-the-top trash? Not that I can stop it, though. What am I supposed to say? Hey guys, maybe tone down the aesthetic a bit and find some actual style for the gay identity?
So, if I want to equate marriage between a man and a woman with a same-sex union, but you don't, then suddenly I'm the homophobe.🤣
Daniel Wilson5 said:Get lost, hehe, I have breasts, you absolute caveman!!! You're basically just saying this whole topic is pointless 😂😂
I really couldn't care less about your breasts when, based on your orientation, I won't even get the chance to touch them in the first place... 😁, 🤷 As far as I'm concerned, you can have natural anti-gravity 5. 👍 It makes no difference to me...
You have to accept the reality that most straight people feel alienated by what they perceive as "your" agenda and "your" fight for "rights." You can't change that mindset through these tactics; if anything, you’re just making things worse. As long as things stay this way, it's fine, because the bigots are still in the minority. Any kind of hate—especially when it's irrational—is narrow-minded, primitive, and backwards. Most people see right through it. That goes for all kinds of irrational hatred and prejudice, whether it involves religion, nationality, or sexual orientation... If you start attacking "those types" of people, you might just end up facing some very justified 😉 resentment...
People are generally comfortable. Sometimes people don't even have the energy to fight for their own rights or interests, so it's completely unrealistic to expect them to step up for someone else's causes...
Look, I’ll admit I have a bias against militant activists 😁 just like I do with any kind of militancy... whether it's militant pacifists 😵 or militant defenders of bluefin tuna and Swedish fjords 😂
As long as you aren't coming after me, 😁 do whatever you want. From the comfort of my armchair, 😁 I am fully behind you. 👍