Yep, just like when he had that film with Sasha Grey a couple of years ago. Guys everywhere were like SASHA GREY **** YEA, then were treated to a boyfriend/girlfriend breakup movie.

Uh no thanks there's already enough things out there that make me feel ashamed of my own body.

Exactly. That's just Soderbergh's sense of humor too, love it.

Now THERE is a valid reason to not watch.

ROFL

FTR, I'll probably rent it.

Actually, I think women will love this movie because it's part man-ogling, part rom-com, part chick-flick-drama. And compared to the recent similar outings ("The Lucky One", "The Vow"), I bet this one does better business. Girls, gays, and guys hoping to get sex from their wives/GFs after... decent market segment.

I'm not sure anyone characterized it as "creepy". I think rather what you read were men saying "no thanks". Then it became a pissing match about how Soderbergh's work is such that we ought to overlook a bunch of men disrobing and gyrating.

I just don't understand why being okay with staring into Matthew McConaughey's bare chest is some measure of your being sexually enlightened.

You're not gay just for going to see this movie. You're gay if you go to see this movie and put your hand in your pants. There's a difference.

You're giving far too much credit to the average movie-goer for this flick.

I do find it interesting though that women are jumping on the bandwagon to see a flick that objectifies men in the same way that most media objectifies women. If men were lined up to see a movie celebrating female strippers, women would all consider us pigs.

That movie ****ING SUCKED!!!!

This is an interesting point. I think men began getting the same treatment in the media along about the time Brad Pitt first took his shirt off in Thelma & Louise. The difference is that most men hadn't been raised with that in their face as an expectation at the time. As the pressure increases on men, and more boys grow up looking at a more objectified male in the media, who knows if they won't have similar issues to women.

I'm not saying I am sexually enlightened. You're projecting. All I'm saying is that I'm not made so uncomfortable by male bodies that I won't take a chance to see what this film has to say about the human experience.

My original post was in response to a post from Laz that said "doesn't matter what it is or who made it, it's still about men getting nekkid


why in hell would any straight guy want to see guys getting nekkid?"

I perceived a possible creep-out factor, so I posted about it. Laz said he wasn't weirded-out by it. I dropped it...until you started replying to me with various projections.

Reaper you're one of the few posters I respect here at ChiefsPlanet, but you're being intellectually dishonest.

The words "uninterested" and "uncomfortable" are not synonymous.

But to your point, let's suppose I am "uncomfortable"...
What, exactly, is the problem with a straight man being uncomfortable watching another man take his clothes off for the sole purpose of titillating?
We're not talking about the Michelangelo statue of David here. We're talking about men, in leather, grinding the air to turn someone on. Those are two entirely different things.

I didn't intend to single you out. In fairness to you, other people expressed a similar idea. I just despise this notion that straight men ought to be comfortable in these hetero-questionable situations, where it concerns other men, as a measure of their being comfortable in their sexuality.

With respect, that's bullshit.

Personally, I'd rather see Ted.

Exactly.

I agree with the bolded sentence. I have all along in this thread, actually.

Note that my initial response to Laz was mostly about why there might be an angle of interest for straight men to see the film. My line about being weirded-out was not even the focus of that post. Later, I posted about how I object to guys feeling creeped out by the subject matter, but how I don't object to guys meeting the film with a lack of interest.

If this movie were just strip routines then I'd have no interest in it either. To repeat, I'm not challenging the sexuality of people who don't feel like they'd be entertained by this movie. I do really think, though, that uncomfortability is a strange reaction to a male character in a film doing a gyration. Boredom seems like the more reasonable response.

My posting history on this board with respect to LGBTQ issues is well-known; people who have anti-gay politics, even because of their faith, piss me off. I do get upset when men express discomfort with anything that could possibly shaded as queer, so I like to call out irrational uncomfortability with such situations. I do sincerely think that any straight men should be able to watch this film without mental discomfort, just as I think that any reasonable person should be able to entertain and consider an idea that they don't agree with.

But by no means is this movie some kind of required test to prove one's straightness. I have never insinuated that.