Do you think sex is important in a relationship?

Gingham_R

How could I have forgotten Amber Benson? She was just glorious as Tara.

I agree about the men. The worst offender was an old Boots 17 ad - suggesting that girls don't want various types of men and instead really want 'hunk' types. I tried to google it but it turns out Boots have made another recent campaign that's being slated as sexist against men.

Not good.

Lotus-eater

Anyway, back to the original question, is sex important in a relationship?

If you're interested in sex, then yes it is, if you're not, then no it isn't.

System

Gingham_R wrote: »

How could I have forgotten Amber Benson? She was just glorious as Tara.

I agree about the men. The worst offender was an old Boots 17 ad - suggesting that girls don't want various types of men and instead really want 'hunk' types. I tried to google it but it turns out Boots have made another recent campaign that's being slated as sexist against men.

Not good.

Although if you watch the musical episode where she's dancing between two of the other female characters, you notice just how much bigger than them she is! :eek:

ETA: Are you talking about the man flu campaign? Just googled it, and I agree it's sexist. The silly thing about this type of advert is that it just reinforces gender stereotypes on both sides, but more subtly so it's allowed. Showing a women as getting on with things while a man sniffles and moans in bed isn't female empowerment. It just furthers the belief that women are expected to take care of the house etc. (or, in the case some of the adverts in the article I linked to, the belief that childcare/housework/cooking are jobs for women).

zagfles

Gingham_R wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the women are there only to be 'sexy'. With a few exceptions, Daphne was never provocatively sexual (the glockenspiel episode being one of the best episodes ever.) I'm saying that women in Hollywood are sexy. Not that they are only there to be sexy.

The girls in Friends always had lots of interest from men and 2 of the boys were decidedly hopeless in that area is what I was saying.

That's another feature of Hollywood - men are generally either God's gift or completely useless with women. And in either case, with an ego larger than the breasts on Baywatch :rotfl:

The girls' characters may or may not be what you find attractive. The girls' appearances are all of the traditional 'attractive' template. That's my point.

None of what has been said contradicts anythign I'm saying. If anything it highlights my point. People see this as completely ordinary, deny it, pick small issues that look like they disprove my point (like not being attracted to a particular actress) and seem to be generally oblivious to the overt sexualisation of women on the screen and paper media.

It's not a case of being oblivious to it or denying it exists, it obviously does, as I've already said. But it's not the be-all and end-all of womens' portrayal on TV or the media.

I think you've been concentrating too much on Hollywood stuff - I've watched 3 British programmes on TV tonight and there were around 20-30 women in them in total. None were overtly sexualised, only one played a "sexy woman" role which was perfectly in keeping with the part, ie it wasn't gratuitous. The rest of the women were normal women you'd meet in everyday life, some old, some fat, some average looking.

zagfles

x-caitlin-x wrote: »

Although if you watch the musical episode where she's dancing between two of the other female characters, you notice just how much bigger than them she is! :eek:

ETA: Are you talking about the man flu campaign? Just googled it, and I agree it's sexist. The silly thing about this type of advert is that it just reinforces gender stereotypes on both sides, but more subtly so it's allowed. Showing a women as getting on with things while a man sniffles and moans in bed isn't female empowerment. It just furthers the belief that women are expected to take care of the house etc. (or, in the case some of the adverts in the article I linked to, the belief that childcare/housework/cooking are jobs for women).

Exactly!

On a similar note, there was a programme on a while ago called something like "Can you live without your wife". Basically it was a set-up where they whisked the wife off to a luxury hotel for a week and had a laugh at the husband's inability to use the washing machine etc. The implication of which was that husband ought to be able to everything his wife does, and if he can't, he's useless and we'll have a giggle.

But the roles weren't reversed. The wife wasn't expected to do all that the husband did! Do his job, service the car, fix a leaky tap, put up shelves, and other such "manly" things.

The implication of which is that a man should be able to everything a woman does, and if he can't he's useless. But a woman shouldn't be expected to do whatever a man does - ie what women do any fool can do, but what men do requires skill and brains.

determined_new_ms

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Anyway, back to the original question, is sex important in a relationship?

If you're interested in sex, then yes it is, if you're not, then no it isn't.

(said in a tongue in cheek way ) would have thought you would have wanted to weigh in on the !!!!!! issue LE, seeing as you came across as the poster boy for !!!!!! on another thread at the weekend! :rotfl:

Dunroamin

zagfles wrote: »

But the roles weren't reversed. The wife wasn't expected to do all that the husband did! Do his job, service the car, fix a leaky tap, put up shelves, and other such "manly" things.

The implication of which is that a man should be able to everything a woman does, and if he can't he's useless. But a woman shouldn't be expected to do whatever a man does - ie what women do any fool can do, but what men do requires skill and brains.

What on earth gives you the idea that it's the man who does these things in most households?

In addition, domestic life doesn't fall apart if nobody puts up shelves, unlike if the shopping/cooking isn't done.

Lotus-eater

determined_new_ms wrote: »

(said in a tongue in cheek way ) would have thought you would have wanted to weigh in on the !!!!!! issue LE, seeing as you came across as the poster boy for !!!!!! on another thread at the weekend! :rotfl:

Not trying to provoke me at all then?

It's a boring subject here, it goes so far off the subject, it makes no sense.

I don't know about the poster boy for !!!!!!, that sounds a bit silly, just trying to point out the obvious to some people who didn't want to listen. Bashing my head against a brick wall is fine for a while, but gets a bit much after a while.

If some people choose to not watch or let their OH watch !!!!!!, why should it bother me? I don't care.
When I'm attacked by bitter, twisted women on here, for saying that !!!!!! has it's place and childish insults start raining on men who use it to make up for a lack of intimacy in a relationship, or for pure personal pleasure. Then it's obvious we aren't going to have much of a dialogue going that's going to help anyone.

BugglyB

Yes Lotus eater I did feel sorry for you on that other thread. Almost like you were being compared with a rapist for really giving a very rational explanation of how I think most men and a lot of women feel about masturbation and pornography.

determined_new_ms

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Not trying to provoke me at all then?

It's a boring subject here, it goes so far off the subject, it makes no sense.

I don't know about the poster boy for !!!!!!, that sounds a bit silly, just trying to point out the obvious to some people who didn't want to listen. Bashing my head against a brick wall is fine for a while, but gets a bit much after a while.

If some people choose to not watch or let their OH watch !!!!!!, why should it bother me? I don't care.
When I'm attacked by bitter, twisted women on here, for saying that !!!!!! has it's place and childish insults start raining on men who use it to make up for a lack of intimacy in a relationship, or for pure personal pleasure. Then it's obvious we aren't going to have much of a dialogue going that's going to help anyone.

Just trying to get a friendly rise on a dull Monday morning provocative? Yes. With malice? None at all my friend, just playing with you. Hope you took it in the spirit it was meant, and if not then pls accept my apology