Movies and TV Magic Mike

Micjones · 06-29-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

**Reaper16** · 06-29-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

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.

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.

Micjones · 06-29-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

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.

I prefer not to dive headlong into a debate about LGBT acceptance or legitimacy. That's a debate neither of us currently has time for.

I think you took a jab at the men who seem to be uncomfortable about the idea of this film when you suggested they have "issues".
That's a quick way to make any such conversation confrontational.

You can't on the one hand tout your comfort level with seeing such a film as a badge of honor while you simultaneous sew a scarlet letter on the chest of the men who'd rather not see it. That seems...well...elitist.

I think the best way to get to the other side of the bridge is to recognize and respect the fact that "each is his own."

**Reaper16** · 06-29-2012, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

I think you took a jab at the men who seem to be uncomfortable about the idea of this film when you suggested they have "issues".
That's a quick way to make any such conversation confrontational.

It was/is confrontational. I would very much like to confront any guy who is grossed out by male strippers (but not grossed out by female strippers). They definitely have issues of some kind. Preferably, those issues would be aspects of their sexuality that they have a hard time accepting. But the issues, most likely, are that the person is just a terrible human being.

Micjones · 06-29-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It was/is confrontational. I would very much like to confront any guy who is grossed out by male strippers (but not grossed out by female strippers).

Sexual orientation be damned? That's asinine.
This is an entirely emotional argument you're making.

Quote:

They definitely have issues of some kind. Preferably, those issues would be aspects of their sexuality that they have a hard time accepting. But the issues, most likely, are that the person is just a terrible human being.

That's my cue.
Good day sir.

**Reaper16** · 06-29-2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Sexual orientation be damned? That's asinine.
This is an entirely emotional argument you're making.

You're damn right it's an emotional argument. I wear my Ally bias on my sleeve.

**Fire Me Boy!** · 06-29-2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

It was/is confrontational. I would very much like to confront any guy who is grossed out by male strippers (but not grossed out by female strippers). They definitely have issues of some kind. Preferably, those issues would be aspects of their sexuality that they have a hard time accepting. But the issues, most likely, are that the person is just a terrible human being.

Let's call this a rain check.

**luv** · 06-29-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

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.

He's saying that there's more to the movie than that, and that, just because there are men stripping in it, doesn't mean a guy shouldn't go see it. I'm not sure how on earth you keep complicating this.

**Fire Me Boy!** · 06-29-2012, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

He's saying that there's more to the movie than that, and that, just because there are men stripping in it, doesn't mean a guy shouldn't go see it. I'm not sure how on earth you keep complicating this.

luv, Micjones. Micjones, luv.

Now you've met.

Micjones · 06-29-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv

He's saying that there's more to the movie than that, and that, just because there are men stripping in it, doesn't mean a guy shouldn't go see it. I'm not sure how on earth you keep complicating this.

I'm not complicating anything.
The fact that the film will obviously contain other situations was never up for debate.
And that's a clever way to move the goalposts.
The question stands.

And, please, let's not pretend that male stripping isn't part and parcel of the film's premise.

Lastly, Reaper (and don't misread this) can't be the arbiter of whether or not my reasons are legitimate/illegitimate. That's for me to decide.

The point is simply, if it's okay for him to see, it's okay for me to abstain.
And we walk away reading nothing into either of those decisions.

**luv** · 06-29-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

I'm not complicating anything.
The fact that the film will obviously contain other situations was never up for debate.
And that's a clever way to move the goalposts.
The question stands.

And, please, let's not pretend that male stripping isn't part and parcel of the film's premise.

I'm guessing you're a regular in DC, aren't you?