![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cuddles
I'm a touchy-feely, huggy, cuddly person. I suppose it comes from a mix of three main things, I tend to like people a *lot*, I've always been demonstrative, and after the death of my first girlfriend it was important to me that the people I liked knew. Embarrassment at telling a girlfriend, lover or my wife that I love them is less important than them knowing, because you never truly know if you're going to see someone again. It's also why I'm quick to apologise when I realise I've done the wrong thing or been snarly. You don't always get second chances.
So I like cuddles and hugs. I like the opportunity to show someone that I care about them, love the chance (with some people, not all) to breath in their scent, or have that extra-close level of contact with the folks I like. With some people it's just nice to have them so near, with others there's a slight sexual kick to it, though that's the bonus, not the reason for the hugs. I'm a happy guy and I get serious level of delight or joy from holding those I care for.
It's also nice to be on the receiving end of. I don't know if it's true for everyone, but I can feel the difference between what I consider to be the two main sorts of cuddles. The ones that are about the cuddler, and the ones that are about the cuddlee.
On some level you can tell when someone is cuddling you because they want to be close and show you how they feel, and that their enjoyment of it is from having the chance to show you the level of their affection. It goes beyond the physical sensation of being held - you feel the affection coming through.
The other folks are holding you purely for their own comfort/enjoyment. Now I have no problem with that, we all need to be held now and again, to feel loved for who we are, to have the chance to soak that up. But some people are just no good at the balance, at giving as well as taking love and comfort. I don't think it's deliberate or conscious, I just think they miss the subtlety of cuddling. They get so much comfort from it they think holding someone is enough for the other person to feel as they do. I tend to find these sorts drain me fairly quickly, though I'm still willing to hold them, because, well, I like them. And if it makes them feel loved or wanted then that's a good thing. It simply means I can't hold them as long as either of us would probably like.
But nothing beats giving someone you care for a long hug, and feeling them being just as affectionate back. That's a real moment of sharing right there. It doesn't matter if one of you is really needing the attention, there's almost always an echo or reflection of it back to the other.
Good cuddlers give, at least most of the time. I'm fortunate, many of the people who like me show it well with cuddles. Interestingly, the people who are amongst the least sexually interested in me give me some of the best hugs and cuddles. Maybe it's because their hormones aren't getting in the way of their intent to show their genuine affection for me... That said, there are a couple of people that would like to shag me rotten that give me achingly beautiful hugs, with no hint of draining.
I'm quite lucky, for the most part my hormones don't get in the way of my holding someone - I've become fairly good over the years at keeping my overactive libido in check, shunting it sideways when it's attempting to disrupt what I'm trying to achieve with someone. Clothed or naked, most of the time when I'm holding someone that may be uncomfortable if there were a more deliberate sexual subtext to the embrace, my sex drive is not fully present. Nudity is often just a nice way to extend the contact, drop the barriers further. It may be sensual, but that doesn't make it sexual.
A lot of my talking on subjects like this make me sound like some sort of sexual monk. I'm not. I love sex and want to shag thousands of willing partners, I'm a lustful, base, sexual being. It just happens that some of my wiring requires certain levels of intimacy and emotion before I'll get fully sexual. Feel free to try (gently and respectfully) to rewire me into a sexbeast. If you were successful, I wouldn't complain.
And I'd likely be willing to thank you as often and hard as possible *wicked grin*
As much as I like my cuddles to be about showing affection and love over lust, I'm not perfect, and some folks can't help but set my hormones bubbling away. But it's not because they are necessarily gorgeous, or that I fancy them at other times, though both are often true. On the rare occasions when it happens, it's usually because the person in question is giving me so much love and comfort, I actually start to relax fully and drop my guard. If the barriers are down, well it means that my desire has some free reign as well, but usually it doesn't build beyond a mild arousal.
I may be wrong, but I believe I'm fairly good at not letting that disrupt a genuine show of affection. I suppose one of the advantages of being firmly convinced that no-one would ever want to shag you is, you become quite good at removing the possibility from your mind, and better able to work with the affection you are giving/getting. It also means you stop your base urges influencing your actions when it's not appropriate.
If there's no chance they want to sleep with me, but we're both happy holding each other, why potentially spoil it with a kiss or grope?
Of course, this may also be why I've failed to get laid by women I loved deeply, but the fact that I'm fucked in the head is a matter of public record by now :)
Dead Man's Chest
Am I the only person who thought Dead Man's Chest was a highly disappointing, and fairly soulless, film? To the point where the only reason I'll see the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean is to give the writers a chance at redemption?
DMC relies on people's love of the first, and of the leads, over storytelling.
The first one had a story and was internally consistent. It was a film about undead pirates, had all manner bizarre moments and conceits, but never once was my suspension of disbelief challenged. The story, and its construction, were solid enough to do the job well. In fact to anyone who wants to write films, I'd recommend the writer's commentary on Pirates, it's brilliant.
Maybe DMC suffers because it's the middle film, maybe it'll be one of those films that I'll rewatch in a few years and say, "Wow, why did I hate that?" But unlike the first film, I've seen it once on the big screen, I haven't rented it, and unless I really like the third, I won't be buying it. I also have no intention of rewatching it before I see the third, I just can't be bothered, I'd get more enjoyment out of four episodes of the George Reeves Superman series than I would spending two hours watching DMC again. If I enjoy the At World's End enough, I may pick up the second to be completist, once I see it around for $10.
What's criminal is that characters I loved in the first film, I didn't care about in the second. Captain Jack was just as amusing to me, but I no longer cared about him. He, like the others and the film itself, was by-the-numbers. That can be fun if the numbers have interesting calligraphy, these didn't. It felt like a reasonable piece of fan-fiction, something readable, but not something I'd recommend.
I expect more from a feature film. Sorry.
I think the second biggest crime of DMC was that it broke my suspension of disbelief, and once shattered I found that I couldn't get back into the film. The point at which this happened was the start of the water wheel sequence. When they ended up on the roof on the mill, that exists on an otherwise deserted island for no apparent reason, it was rickety, rotting, and sagging. It looked like it would give way the moment they were on it. It didn't. Fine. Then they jump onto the water wheel.
*snap*
A piece of wood as thick as my chest just breaks off. The rest of the wheel remains intact, even as it rolls around over all sorts of rocky surfaces, suffering way more stress than it would have copped with the weight of the guys on it, or that it was built for. In an action sequence suffering from a bad case of Wachowski-excessius, the scene goes from amusing to overlong fairly quickly. The thing is, from this point on, I couldn't get back into the film, which is unusual for me.
I have excellent suspension of disbelief, I'm a Doctor Who fan, for cryin' out loud!
The reason this single inconsistency did so much damage to my watching is simple - the film had only barely engaged me. Oh it's fun and silly, but it has neither the heart nor cleverness of the first. It's not an awful film, but it's mundane enough that I have no excitement or desire to see the third. I will, but it'll take some pushing. I may even wait for DVD, since I don't have access to a cinema screening $5 films anymore.
I also feel that they've tacked the start of the third film onto the end of the second, to the detriment of both. The second film should have ended with the characters deciding they were going to save Jack, but with no idea how. Yes it's downbeat, but given that this film already relies on the third to save its arse in terms of storytelling, at least work to make it interesting.
The sequence at the end goes on too long, to give us the finale we know is coming, the appearance of Barbosa. There's no surprise to it, his name is on the fucking poster! You could have made it a surprise, had a flashbacks to the days on the Black Pearl with Jack and Barbosa, let the audience think that was the appearance. Make the flashbacks a part of the film that actually inform the story. It would have given Rush more to do, for a start.
And how about this for the end? Jack is lost, everyone despairs, the film is over. Someone says they should save Jack but no-one knows how or believes he can be saved. They return and have a wake for Jack at a pub. Someone proposes a toast to Jack's memory, the door slams open and there is a figure silhouetted in the doorway. Everyone thinks it's Jack. The figure steps forward into the light and it's Barbosa.
"Do I take all this to mean you've no interest in savin' your dear Captain Jack then?"
Thanks to Dead Man's Chest I have no desire to see At World's End... How sad is that?
I'm a touchy-feely, huggy, cuddly person. I suppose it comes from a mix of three main things, I tend to like people a *lot*, I've always been demonstrative, and after the death of my first girlfriend it was important to me that the people I liked knew. Embarrassment at telling a girlfriend, lover or my wife that I love them is less important than them knowing, because you never truly know if you're going to see someone again. It's also why I'm quick to apologise when I realise I've done the wrong thing or been snarly. You don't always get second chances.
So I like cuddles and hugs. I like the opportunity to show someone that I care about them, love the chance (with some people, not all) to breath in their scent, or have that extra-close level of contact with the folks I like. With some people it's just nice to have them so near, with others there's a slight sexual kick to it, though that's the bonus, not the reason for the hugs. I'm a happy guy and I get serious level of delight or joy from holding those I care for.
It's also nice to be on the receiving end of. I don't know if it's true for everyone, but I can feel the difference between what I consider to be the two main sorts of cuddles. The ones that are about the cuddler, and the ones that are about the cuddlee.
On some level you can tell when someone is cuddling you because they want to be close and show you how they feel, and that their enjoyment of it is from having the chance to show you the level of their affection. It goes beyond the physical sensation of being held - you feel the affection coming through.
The other folks are holding you purely for their own comfort/enjoyment. Now I have no problem with that, we all need to be held now and again, to feel loved for who we are, to have the chance to soak that up. But some people are just no good at the balance, at giving as well as taking love and comfort. I don't think it's deliberate or conscious, I just think they miss the subtlety of cuddling. They get so much comfort from it they think holding someone is enough for the other person to feel as they do. I tend to find these sorts drain me fairly quickly, though I'm still willing to hold them, because, well, I like them. And if it makes them feel loved or wanted then that's a good thing. It simply means I can't hold them as long as either of us would probably like.
But nothing beats giving someone you care for a long hug, and feeling them being just as affectionate back. That's a real moment of sharing right there. It doesn't matter if one of you is really needing the attention, there's almost always an echo or reflection of it back to the other.
Good cuddlers give, at least most of the time. I'm fortunate, many of the people who like me show it well with cuddles. Interestingly, the people who are amongst the least sexually interested in me give me some of the best hugs and cuddles. Maybe it's because their hormones aren't getting in the way of their intent to show their genuine affection for me... That said, there are a couple of people that would like to shag me rotten that give me achingly beautiful hugs, with no hint of draining.
I'm quite lucky, for the most part my hormones don't get in the way of my holding someone - I've become fairly good over the years at keeping my overactive libido in check, shunting it sideways when it's attempting to disrupt what I'm trying to achieve with someone. Clothed or naked, most of the time when I'm holding someone that may be uncomfortable if there were a more deliberate sexual subtext to the embrace, my sex drive is not fully present. Nudity is often just a nice way to extend the contact, drop the barriers further. It may be sensual, but that doesn't make it sexual.
A lot of my talking on subjects like this make me sound like some sort of sexual monk. I'm not. I love sex and want to shag thousands of willing partners, I'm a lustful, base, sexual being. It just happens that some of my wiring requires certain levels of intimacy and emotion before I'll get fully sexual. Feel free to try (gently and respectfully) to rewire me into a sexbeast. If you were successful, I wouldn't complain.
And I'd likely be willing to thank you as often and hard as possible *wicked grin*
As much as I like my cuddles to be about showing affection and love over lust, I'm not perfect, and some folks can't help but set my hormones bubbling away. But it's not because they are necessarily gorgeous, or that I fancy them at other times, though both are often true. On the rare occasions when it happens, it's usually because the person in question is giving me so much love and comfort, I actually start to relax fully and drop my guard. If the barriers are down, well it means that my desire has some free reign as well, but usually it doesn't build beyond a mild arousal.
I may be wrong, but I believe I'm fairly good at not letting that disrupt a genuine show of affection. I suppose one of the advantages of being firmly convinced that no-one would ever want to shag you is, you become quite good at removing the possibility from your mind, and better able to work with the affection you are giving/getting. It also means you stop your base urges influencing your actions when it's not appropriate.
If there's no chance they want to sleep with me, but we're both happy holding each other, why potentially spoil it with a kiss or grope?
Of course, this may also be why I've failed to get laid by women I loved deeply, but the fact that I'm fucked in the head is a matter of public record by now :)
Dead Man's Chest
Am I the only person who thought Dead Man's Chest was a highly disappointing, and fairly soulless, film? To the point where the only reason I'll see the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean is to give the writers a chance at redemption?
DMC relies on people's love of the first, and of the leads, over storytelling.
The first one had a story and was internally consistent. It was a film about undead pirates, had all manner bizarre moments and conceits, but never once was my suspension of disbelief challenged. The story, and its construction, were solid enough to do the job well. In fact to anyone who wants to write films, I'd recommend the writer's commentary on Pirates, it's brilliant.
Maybe DMC suffers because it's the middle film, maybe it'll be one of those films that I'll rewatch in a few years and say, "Wow, why did I hate that?" But unlike the first film, I've seen it once on the big screen, I haven't rented it, and unless I really like the third, I won't be buying it. I also have no intention of rewatching it before I see the third, I just can't be bothered, I'd get more enjoyment out of four episodes of the George Reeves Superman series than I would spending two hours watching DMC again. If I enjoy the At World's End enough, I may pick up the second to be completist, once I see it around for $10.
What's criminal is that characters I loved in the first film, I didn't care about in the second. Captain Jack was just as amusing to me, but I no longer cared about him. He, like the others and the film itself, was by-the-numbers. That can be fun if the numbers have interesting calligraphy, these didn't. It felt like a reasonable piece of fan-fiction, something readable, but not something I'd recommend.
I expect more from a feature film. Sorry.
I think the second biggest crime of DMC was that it broke my suspension of disbelief, and once shattered I found that I couldn't get back into the film. The point at which this happened was the start of the water wheel sequence. When they ended up on the roof on the mill, that exists on an otherwise deserted island for no apparent reason, it was rickety, rotting, and sagging. It looked like it would give way the moment they were on it. It didn't. Fine. Then they jump onto the water wheel.
*snap*
A piece of wood as thick as my chest just breaks off. The rest of the wheel remains intact, even as it rolls around over all sorts of rocky surfaces, suffering way more stress than it would have copped with the weight of the guys on it, or that it was built for. In an action sequence suffering from a bad case of Wachowski-excessius, the scene goes from amusing to overlong fairly quickly. The thing is, from this point on, I couldn't get back into the film, which is unusual for me.
I have excellent suspension of disbelief, I'm a Doctor Who fan, for cryin' out loud!
The reason this single inconsistency did so much damage to my watching is simple - the film had only barely engaged me. Oh it's fun and silly, but it has neither the heart nor cleverness of the first. It's not an awful film, but it's mundane enough that I have no excitement or desire to see the third. I will, but it'll take some pushing. I may even wait for DVD, since I don't have access to a cinema screening $5 films anymore.
I also feel that they've tacked the start of the third film onto the end of the second, to the detriment of both. The second film should have ended with the characters deciding they were going to save Jack, but with no idea how. Yes it's downbeat, but given that this film already relies on the third to save its arse in terms of storytelling, at least work to make it interesting.
The sequence at the end goes on too long, to give us the finale we know is coming, the appearance of Barbosa. There's no surprise to it, his name is on the fucking poster! You could have made it a surprise, had a flashbacks to the days on the Black Pearl with Jack and Barbosa, let the audience think that was the appearance. Make the flashbacks a part of the film that actually inform the story. It would have given Rush more to do, for a start.
And how about this for the end? Jack is lost, everyone despairs, the film is over. Someone says they should save Jack but no-one knows how or believes he can be saved. They return and have a wake for Jack at a pub. Someone proposes a toast to Jack's memory, the door slams open and there is a figure silhouetted in the doorway. Everyone thinks it's Jack. The figure steps forward into the light and it's Barbosa.
"Do I take all this to mean you've no interest in savin' your dear Captain Jack then?"
Thanks to Dead Man's Chest I have no desire to see At World's End... How sad is that?
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
1. It's practically a two-act rather than a three-act film, and that hurts it on a structural level.
2. While I don't despise the Ewoks like most SW fans seem to, they aren't necessarily who you want around for the final chapter of a six-movie epic.
3. The good guys win without having to lose anything, which is just bad mythic writing on George's part. There's no sacrifice involved. The one I've heard was apparently considered at the time was Lando and the Falcon not making it out of the Death Star, which would have been perfect.
From:
no subject
2. Yep, the ewoks themselves don't bother me, it's their use that is the issue. A lot of ewok screen time is to devoted to them being comic characters, which automatically makes it harder to take them as a serious threat against the Empire.
1. I got nothing to add... just didn't want to waste the 1.
From:
no subject
II. It's also the final insult to the abilities of the Empire that an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops can have their asses handed to them by the Muppets.
I. Yeah, I've got nothing either. I do remember seeing a TV doco once where Dean Devlin was raving about how clever Return of the Jedi was for being all climax and no story. Kind of explains the plot structure for the Stargate movie.
From:
no subject
It's been interesting re-watching it today in the light of that - I'd forgotten how bluntly they foreshadowed the Falcon's destruction when Han loaned it to Lando mid film. That never made much sense before.