Re: Real Life WAS OK i am confused

March 22, 2006

In a message dated 3/22/2006 2:38:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

On the subject of horror movies (since it keep cropping up) not all are full of violence. Some of the older horror movies are very atmospheric and lots of suspense with little to no violence or swearing in - occasionally you get the odd good one with modern ones too. I quite liked 'Others' and 'Sixth Sense' - I really dislike all the 'Blade' movies that just seem over the top with action and violence.

This is true. A lot of the ones from the 1950's and earlier relied a great deal on suspense. Many of those were pretty good. What I am referring to is more the sub-genre of the "slasher" film.

March 22, 2006

- " Secretary " is a good romantic comedy/drama about BDSM. Kajira

-- In , " Inger Lorelei " <inglori@...>

wrote:

>

> :

> > Stories about war rarely glorify violence. Instead, they simply

show that violence is a part of war and that it is a terrible thing.

However, war is sometimes necessary, just as it is sometimes

necessary to defend oneself from attack. That doesn't mean you have

to like it, it is just something that may happen.

>

> > A good war story focusses on the people involved just like any

other good story. The violence is part of the background, a reality

of the war. If it becomes the focus, then it becomes a bad story.

>

> > I'm really getting tired of arguing this point because there is

obivously a difference in frame of reference. Inger doesn't like

there stories on principle and won't watch. That means she hasn't

seen how the characters are handled in these movies, which as I have

said several times, is the real point of the story, not the violence.

>

> Then you know how frustrated I feel when you claim a lot of things

about BDSM without actually having ever done it, or seen more of it

than some crude stuff on the internet. Yes, it can be base and

disgusting in the extreme - or it can be incrediby intimate, subtle

and loving. It all depends on what you make of it, and with whom.

>

> Just like films about war and fighting can be either crude

wallowings in gratitious violence, or very touching stories that just

happen to be centered in times of war.

>

> I just remember another GOOD film about war, btw. Branagh's

version of Henry V! I found that incrediby inspiring and felt

uplifted for hours afterwards.

>

> > I've read a romance novel or two and found them pitifully done

and formulatic in the extreme. I've read crime novels, detective

novels, and others. They were better than the romance stuff, but many

also feature violence.

>

> I totally agree.

>

> > Anyway, because of this, I don't see the point in continuing to

discuss this.

>

> I think we have both made our points, and you HAVE made me see the

difference between a good war film and a lousy crime story story or

sleazy romance novel. (Of course, there are also lousy war films and

good crime stories - like I Robot - but I got your point and respect

your taste.)

>

> Inger

>

March 22, 2006

- " Secretary " is a good romantic comedy/drama about BDSM. Kajira

-- In , " Inger Lorelei " <inglori@...>

wrote:

>

> :

> > Stories about war rarely glorify violence. Instead, they simply

show that violence is a part of war and that it is a terrible thing.

However, war is sometimes necessary, just as it is sometimes

necessary to defend oneself from attack. That doesn't mean you have

to like it, it is just something that may happen.

>

> > A good war story focusses on the people involved just like any

other good story. The violence is part of the background, a reality

of the war. If it becomes the focus, then it becomes a bad story.

>

> > I'm really getting tired of arguing this point because there is

obivously a difference in frame of reference. Inger doesn't like

there stories on principle and won't watch. That means she hasn't

seen how the characters are handled in these movies, which as I have

said several times, is the real point of the story, not the violence.

>

> Then you know how frustrated I feel when you claim a lot of things

about BDSM without actually having ever done it, or seen more of it

than some crude stuff on the internet. Yes, it can be base and

disgusting in the extreme - or it can be incrediby intimate, subtle

and loving. It all depends on what you make of it, and with whom.

>

> Just like films about war and fighting can be either crude

wallowings in gratitious violence, or very touching stories that just

happen to be centered in times of war.

>

> I just remember another GOOD film about war, btw. Branagh's

version of Henry V! I found that incrediby inspiring and felt

uplifted for hours afterwards.

>

> > I've read a romance novel or two and found them pitifully done

and formulatic in the extreme. I've read crime novels, detective

novels, and others. They were better than the romance stuff, but many

also feature violence.

>

> I totally agree.

>

> > Anyway, because of this, I don't see the point in continuing to

discuss this.

>

> I think we have both made our points, and you HAVE made me see the

difference between a good war film and a lousy crime story story or

sleazy romance novel. (Of course, there are also lousy war films and

good crime stories - like I Robot - but I got your point and respect

your taste.)

>

> Inger

>

March 22, 2006

Right. :-)

Maggie Gyllenhaal was very Aspie in that one.

Inger

Re: Real Life WAS OK i am confused

- " Secretary " is a good romantic comedy/drama about BDSM. Kajira

-- In , " Inger Lorelei " <inglori@...>

wrote:

>

> :

> > Stories about war rarely glorify violence. Instead, they simply

show that violence is a part of war and that it is a terrible thing.

However, war is sometimes necessary, just as it is sometimes

necessary to defend oneself from attack. That doesn't mean you have

to like it, it is just something that may happen.

>

> > A good war story focusses on the people involved just like any

other good story. The violence is part of the background, a reality

of the war. If it becomes the focus, then it becomes a bad story.

>

> > I'm really getting tired of arguing this point because there is

obivously a difference in frame of reference. Inger doesn't like

there stories on principle and won't watch. That means she hasn't

seen how the characters are handled in these movies, which as I have

said several times, is the real point of the story, not the violence.

>

> Then you know how frustrated I feel when you claim a lot of things

about BDSM without actually having ever done it, or seen more of it

than some crude stuff on the internet. Yes, it can be base and

disgusting in the extreme - or it can be incrediby intimate, subtle

and loving. It all depends on what you make of it, and with whom.

>

> Just like films about war and fighting can be either crude

wallowings in gratitious violence, or very touching stories that just

happen to be centered in times of war.

>

> I just remember another GOOD film about war, btw. Branagh's

version of Henry V! I found that incrediby inspiring and felt

uplifted for hours afterwards.

>

> > I've read a romance novel or two and found them pitifully done

and formulatic in the extreme. I've read crime novels, detective

novels, and others. They were better than the romance stuff, but many

also feature violence.

>

> I totally agree.

>

> > Anyway, because of this, I don't see the point in continuing to

discuss this.

>

> I think we have both made our points, and you HAVE made me see the

difference between a good war film and a lousy crime story story or

sleazy romance novel. (Of course, there are also lousy war films and

good crime stories - like I Robot - but I got your point and respect

your taste.)

>

> Inger

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

March 22, 2006

Good point, Ender!

Did you see the film Frances with Lange (about the 50's actress Frances Farmer who got lobotomised for refusing to be compliant)? THAT was scary to me, since it was based on a real story.

(Joe Kennedy had the same thing done to his somewhat slow daughter and made her a vegetable for life.)

Inger

Re: Re: Real Life WAS OK i am confused

One of the "scariest" movies I've seen had no gore in it until the end when the "bad guys got "exposed" for what they were..."Flowers in the Attic" What made it scary was that it was completely believable... "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" is scary for the same reason...Many of the "slasher" genre movies or comic (IMHO) morality plays... people that "do bad things" have "bad things happen" to them... The "Friday 13th," "Nightmare on Elm Street" films follow that basic theme... Teenagers that have sex, drink, do drugs, etc get chopped in to little pieces when they least expect it... Like the "Three Stooges" what happens is so absurdly over the top they can't be taken seriously... Better examples of that "black comedy" genre were the Price "Dr.Phibbs" movies and "Theater of Blood" My point is that (for me at least) fake blood and gore isn't scary... what is scary is "Man's inhumanity to man." EnderAt 12:32 PM 3/22/2006, you wrote:

In a message dated 3/22/2006 2:38:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

On the subject of horror movies (since it keep cropping up) not all

are full of violence. Some of the older horror movies are very

atmospheric and lots of suspense with little to no violence or

swearing in - occasionally you get the odd good one with modern ones

too. I quite liked 'Others' and 'Sixth Sense' - I really dislike all

the 'Blade' movies that just seem over the top with action and

violence.This is true. A lot of the ones from the 1950's and earlier relied a great deal on suspense. Many of those were pretty good. What I am referring to is more the sub-genre of the "slasher" film.

March 22, 2006

One of the " scariest " movies I've seen had no gore in it until

the end when the " bad guys got " exposed " for what they

were...

" Flowers in the Attic "

What made it scary was that it was completely believable...

" One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest " is scary for the same

reason...

Many of the " slasher " genre movies or comic (IMHO) morality

plays... people that " do bad things " have " bad things

happen " to them... The " Friday 13th, " " Nightmare on

Elm Street " films follow that basic theme... Teenagers that have

sex, drink, do drugs, etc get chopped in to little pieces when they least

expect it... Like the " Three Stooges " what happens is so

absurdly over the top they can't be taken seriously... Better examples of

that " black comedy " genre were the Price

" Dr.Phibbs " movies and " Theater of Blood "

My point is that (for me at least) fake blood and gore isn't scary...

what is scary is " Man's inhumanity to man. "

Ender

At 12:32 PM 3/22/2006, you wrote:

In a message dated 3/22/2006 2:38:41

AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

On the subject of horror movies (since it keep cropping up) not all

are full of violence. Some of the older horror movies are very

atmospheric and lots of suspense with little to no violence or

swearing in - occasionally you get the odd good one with modern ones

too. I quite liked 'Others' and 'Sixth Sense' - I really dislike all

the 'Blade' movies that just seem over the top with action and

violence.

This is true. A lot of the ones from the 1950's and earlier relied a

great deal on suspense. Many of those were pretty good. What I am

referring to is more the sub-genre of the " slasher " film.

March 22, 2006

One of the " scariest " movies I've seen had no gore in it until

the end when the " bad guys got " exposed " for what they

were...

" Flowers in the Attic "

What made it scary was that it was completely believable...

" One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest " is scary for the same

reason...

Many of the " slasher " genre movies or comic (IMHO) morality

plays... people that " do bad things " have " bad things

happen " to them... The " Friday 13th, " " Nightmare on

Elm Street " films follow that basic theme... Teenagers that have

sex, drink, do drugs, etc get chopped in to little pieces when they least

expect it... Like the " Three Stooges " what happens is so

absurdly over the top they can't be taken seriously... Better examples of

that " black comedy " genre were the Price

" Dr.Phibbs " movies and " Theater of Blood "

My point is that (for me at least) fake blood and gore isn't scary...

what is scary is " Man's inhumanity to man. "

Ender

At 12:32 PM 3/22/2006, you wrote:

In a message dated 3/22/2006 2:38:41

AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

On the subject of horror movies (since it keep cropping up) not all

are full of violence. Some of the older horror movies are very

atmospheric and lots of suspense with little to no violence or

swearing in - occasionally you get the odd good one with modern ones

too. I quite liked 'Others' and 'Sixth Sense' - I really dislike all

the 'Blade' movies that just seem over the top with action and

violence.

This is true. A lot of the ones from the 1950's and earlier relied a

great deal on suspense. Many of those were pretty good. What I am

referring to is more the sub-genre of the " slasher " film.

March 22, 2006

I'm not sure if I saw it but I do know the France Farmer story... That

the Kennedy clan would do sometime like that isn't surprising...

people that are potential embarrassments to the family seem to have

limited life expectancies. That is one of the theories of how

Marilyn Monroe died among others...

Another interesting story is " on Bergeron " by Kurt

Vonnegut Jr about a time when the ideas of " Politically

Correct " and " No Child Left Behind " have gone terribly

wrong and notion that " All men are not created equal. It is the

purpose of the Government to make them so. " is law... There's a 1995

movie with Aston as the title character... (not a bad film)

Again what makes it scary is that it is believable...

Ender

At 01:49 PM 3/22/2006, you wrote:

Good

point, Ender!

Did you see the film Frances with Lange

(about the 50's actress Frances Farmer who got lobotomised for refusing

to be compliant)? THAT was scary to me, since it was based on a real

story.

(Joe Kennedy had the same thing done to his

somewhat slow daughter and made her a vegetable for life.)

Inger

Re: Re: Real Life WAS OK i am

confused

One of the " scariest " movies I've seen had no gore in it until

the end when the " bad guys got " exposed " for what they

were...

" Flowers in the Attic "

What made it scary was that it was completely believable...

" One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest " is scary for the same

reason...

Many of the " slasher " genre movies or comic (IMHO) morality

plays... people that " do bad things " have " bad things

happen " to them... The " Friday 13th, " " Nightmare on

Elm Street " films follow that basic theme... Teenagers that have

sex, drink, do drugs, etc get chopped in to little pieces when they least

expect it... Like the " Three Stooges " what happens is so

absurdly over the top they can't be taken seriously... Better examples of

that " black comedy " genre were the Price

" Dr.Phibbs " movies and " Theater of Blood "

My point is that (for me at least) fake blood and gore isn't scary...

what is scary is " Man's inhumanity to man. "

Ender

At 12:32 PM 3/22/2006, you wrote:

In a message dated 3/22/2006 2:38:41

AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

On the subject of horror movies (since it keep cropping up) not all are full of violence. Some of the older horror movies are very atmospheric and lots of suspense with little to no violence or swearing in - occasionally you get the odd good one with modern ones too. I quite liked 'Others' and 'Sixth Sense' - I really dislike all the 'Blade' movies that just seem over the top with action and violence.

This is true. A lot of the ones from the 1950's and earlier relied a

great deal on suspense. Many of those were pretty good. What I am

referring to is more the sub-genre of the " slasher " film.

March 23, 2006

In a message dated 3/22/2006 2:57:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, ender@... writes:

Another interesting story is "on Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr about a time when the ideas of "Politically Correct" and "No Child Left Behind" have gone terribly wrong and notion that "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so." is law... There's a 1995 movie with Aston as the title character... (not a bad film)

I remember on Bergeron quite well. I don't think we will get quite that bad, but we could get very close.

Willam

March 24, 2006

So, Inger, are you saying that if someone strangles or cuts or whips

you you don't experience it as pain? Or not as much pain as there

would normally be? But the body is still being hurt. If you come away

with bruises, cuts, and whatever strangling might do, isn't that

damaging to the body? And can you be so sure that because you were

born that way, it's normal? What if the pain/pleasure center in your

brain has been damaged? How is it different than people who are born

without nerve sensation and have to be watched carefully so that they

don't hurt themselves? A friend of ours who is paralyzed just

suffered third degree burns on his hand because he accidently had his

fingers in a hot meat pastry and didn't know it because he didn't

feel it.

> " Yet you defend non-sexual violence, just because YOU happen to

enjoy it. I

> don't see the logic in that. "

>

> Raven:

> > Where is the logic in hurting another living being?

> Keep in mind that my people believe that above all else, do no harm

to any

> living thing.

>

> Then I completely agree with the belief of your people.

>

> What you and do not seem to understand is that in BDSM you

are NOT

> harming the recipient party, you are giving them pleasure, not

pain. Just

> because YOU may not enjoy a good flogging, that doesn't mean that

others

> won't.

>

> It's like with hugging. MOST people enjoy hugging, and therefore it

is

> assumed that ALL people should enjoy it. But for some, hugging is

like what

> a flogging would be to you, and a lovingly administered flogging

like a

> loving hug might be to a non-autistic.

>

> Doing it to anyone who does NOT enjoy it, and who has not

consented,

> however; that is only assault, not BDSM. (And that goes both for

the hugging

> and the flogging.)

>

> Get it?

>

> Inger

>

March 24, 2006