I mean character-wise, not power. Seems kinda... Brie Larson, Romantic Comedy Star with Hand Blasts...

I mean for all the poo-pooing the Internet did over Gal Gadot's physicality being un-Wonder Woman, Gadot really nailed the character.

I guess I have a hard time imagining Brie Larson, Cosmic Ass Kicker. I'll watch the movie before I decide if I like it, but I'm ambivalent.

But they're fantasies, Bill ; watching action movies don't mean you have a deathwish, watching horror movies doesn't mean you're secretly a psycho, and watching a romantic comedy doesn't make you okay with presumptive, pushy men.

Congratulations! Your video, Bill Burr - Love scenes in romantic comedies, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!

Your video, Bill Burr - Love scenes in romantic comedies, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

I can't get over the timing, as pointed out by the Onion.
So after looking things up,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trapp_Family
was a *German* movie from *1956* in which this story was first turned into a musical romantic comedy.

So to translate that to my times, that would have meant that Al Quada would have produced a musical about 9/11 in 2012. I can't even...

Have you watched True Detective? I pretty much tagged him for cringetastic romantic comedies until then.

Aaaaand *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/He-Said-She-Said-un-romantic-comedy

The video does not work, I only see black. Try this instead: http://www.cracked.com/video_18380_the-dark-secret-behind-quirky-romantic-comedies.html

Just one of dozens of reasons I 'hate' romantic comedies.

Meh. She ugly.

>> ^bareboards2:

Not misogynistic -- just reflective of our culture that demands women look a certain way.
That woman isn't ugly. She just isn't. She's in the normal range of humanity, and she is making faces. Faces that you label as "ugly." But she isn't a barbie doll, controlling her face to meet cultural expectations. Like Japanese women, who cover their mouths when they laugh.
I don't really want to get into a big kerfuffle here. I have learned in my tenure here on the Sift that the vast majority of men on the Sift are not attuned to the cultural environment they live in, how women's images are controlled to meet certain expectations.
I mean honestly -- think about all the David Spades and Kevin Jameses and even George Costanzas there are out there in the media -- just normal guys, looking normal. The ranks are legion. Now name for me women who match their general attractiveness.
I mean, really. Next time you watch any movie or TV show. Pay attention to the relative diversity allowed in shapes and sizes for the men, and how limited the palette is of women.
Exhibit #1. http://videosift.com/video/He-Said-She-Said-un-romantic-comedy
Neither of those guys are particularly attractive, and certainly the heavy set guy is even less so, on any objective scale. The women? Much much much better looking than the men. This happens all the time, everywhere in the media.
I love the way that woman looks in this vid. She is lively, alive, with a point of view that has nothing to do with "looking good" for male consumption.
Anyway. Blah blah. Sorry to go on.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I suspect.

>> ^budzos:
I hope you're not trying to say my comment was misogynistic. I'm talking about the one woman... she is ugly and makes it worse with her faces. The other women look fine. The woman is particularly ugly. The men, not so.
The whole video is about daggering in cartoon world so I guess that's why every single movement is sexual.
Here's the other Major Lazer video from the same director, where he makes explicit his fetish for really ugly women:

Not misogynistic -- just reflective of our culture that demands women look a certain way.

That woman isn't ugly. She just isn't. She's in the normal range of humanity, and she is making faces. Faces that you label as "ugly." But she isn't a barbie doll, controlling her face to meet cultural expectations. Like Japanese women, who cover their mouths when they laugh.

I don't really want to get into a big kerfuffle here. I have learned in my tenure here on the Sift that the vast majority of men on the Sift are not attuned to the cultural environment they live in, how women's images are controlled to meet certain expectations.

I mean honestly -- think about all the David Spades and Kevin Jameses and even George Costanzas there are out there in the media -- just normal guys, looking normal. The ranks are legion. Now name for me women who match their general attractiveness.

I mean, really. Next time you watch any movie or TV show. Pay attention to the relative diversity allowed in shapes and sizes for the men, and how limited the palette is of women.

Exhibit #1. http://videosift.com/video/He-Said-She-Said-un-romantic-comedy

Neither of those guys are particularly attractive, and certainly the heavy set guy is even less so, on any objective scale. The women? Much much much better looking than the men. This happens all the time, everywhere in the media.

I love the way that woman looks in this vid. She is lively, alive, with a point of view that has nothing to do with "looking good" for male consumption.

Anyway. Blah blah. Sorry to go on.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I suspect.



>> ^budzos:

I hope you're not trying to say my comment was misogynistic. I'm talking about the one woman... she is ugly and makes it worse with her faces. The other women look fine. The woman is particularly ugly. The men, not so.
The whole video is about daggering in cartoon world so I guess that's why every single movement is sexual.
Here's the other Major Lazer video from the same director, where he makes explicit his fetish for really ugly women:

Yes it will most likely suck but will still be better than any regurgitated romantic comedy/drama or lowbrow mook buddy comedy that people blindly throw money at as if they are getting something new each time.

Opposition to the slaughter of animals is an emotional reaction. Either you feel it or you don't. It may be that working in a slaughterhouse for a day would shock people into feeling differently about it. However I don't think we can embrace that as an omnivore hypocrisy test for two reasons.

1) If they stayed at the job for 6 months, they might get over their shock and resume their earlier belief that killing animals for food is perfectly acceptable. There was a time when 95% of the western population had killed an animal for meat, and there was no mass conversion to veganism.

2) More fundamentally, all humans are emotional beings. In a jarring situation, we can all be manipulated into feeling some way that we didn't feel 10 minutes earlier. Go watch some tough guys crying at the end of a romantic comedy. Do they believe Reese Witherspoon has found true love? No, but Hollywood has figured out that if you play swelling violin music, people get emotional, no matter how contrived the story is. I don't think we can consider the reactions to such shocks, particularly as a result of deliberate manipulation, as a true insight into a person's character. Instead, we should see how they feel when they've had time to step back and reflect on the experience.

The video author might decry this as "rationalizing" our emotional failings. However, emotions are beyond our control. It's impossible to feel the wrong way, because there is no choice in the matter. You feel how you feel. It's a good thing that humans have mechanisms to construct their identities apart from their emotional reactions. Otherwise we'd be even more enslaved to them and more easily manipulated than we are now. Is examining and selectively discarding our spur of the moment emotional reactions cognitive dissonance? If so, we should be putting cognitive dissonance in the water supply, like fluoride.
>> ^grinter:

consider what the reaction of Sift omnivores would be if they were forced to slaughter their own meat. Even those claiming they feel no moral imperative to respect the suffering of other animals might wince just a bit as that calf calls for it's mother in its last moments of consciousness.

So who was who in it's natural habitat there?

We need another Australian guy being videotaped and then commenting about the both of them so we can get a better understanding. Then finally a Discovery helicopter overhead showing us the calamity caused by the hypnotoad.

It can't be too bad; the guy filming was slipping on the rain soaked ground every-time he got caught in the headlights, or it was a girl with high heels. You never can tell with those neighbors.


All glory to his presence. #1 in sci-fi, comedy, drama, news, sports, and romantic comedies!