Thursday, December 10, 2009

Only a Little Rant I promise ;-)

*Begin rant*

Okay, rant and rave time! LOL (I don't ever really rant and rave--just have things that annoy me and make me roll my eyes to the heavens or that I don't understand) This next peeve is one of those eye rollers for me big time!

The thing for me at the moment is characters in books/movies who can shape-shift/transform into something like a werewolf/dragon/whatever and when they change back are fully clothed! Okay, when they change their clothes rip off, do whatever it is they need to do, and low and behold, clothes are back on when they return to human form (I'm looking at you New Moon movie as a recent example) If a character loses his/her clothes, then why would they gain them back?--clothes don't magically appear!

ARGHH! If a character is naked, lets see him/her naked? Why cover them up in an obviously weak attempt to dilute the plot to perhaps please a more general audience? Double ARGHHH! So bad.

One movie lately that kept their character naked, was Dr. Manhatten in the Watchmen. Good stuff. He was naked for a reason and they stuck to that, even in the movie. Although, pity he was circumcised. Then again, the setting was supposed to be the 1950's so that would be historically accurate for the place and time the story was set in. Those who know me know I am an intactivist (google that if you're unsure--you may be surprised) Why mutilate boys and girls? I don't understand. (but this is a topic for another post. I'm getting side tracked...see...peeves really annoy! *giggle*)

Another example of inacturacy that peeves me off is the opposite to what I have just said. If characters are naked, make sure clothing doesn't suddenly appear. I was reading a well known author and a popular book the other week and in it a young couple were getting hot and heavy in the forest. They take each other's clothes off, get all steamy--the scene is great.

Then a couple of pages after that, the author says that 'she pulled his cock out of his pants' or words to that effect! Say what? Unless they were making love near a farm and a rooster wandered into his trousers that had been thrown down in a fit of passion beside them, then really the poor guy is suffering from detachable penis. And we all know how bad that can be. Finding one's penis can be a real chore--they have a mind of their own, those things!


So if a character is naked, keep him/her that way until you clothe them. If they transform, make sure they come back as a human in a logical way. And if characters are getting naked, don't add clothes without good cause. That's all.

*Rant over*


Tierney O'Malley said...

I'll be honest. I've never heard of a word intactivist. :D Here's what I got from Google--Circumcision Controversies. Okay, so you don't believe in circumcision? How about ear-piercing? Some people think it barbaric.

Mark Alders said...

Your google is broken! LOL

And when you pierce your ear you don't cut it off, do you?

Thanks for the comment :-)



MK Mancos/Kathleen Scott/Kate Davison said...

I have two words for why women don't dig uncircumsized penises: Covered Wagon.

Why drive a Conastoga when you can drive a convertable?




Mark Alders said...

Who says women don't?

And Intactivism covers FGM and MGM

Think about it...

Tierney O'Malley said...


FGM and MGM?
Do you really need the part that the doctor cut off to reach your destination? :o)


Gracen Miller said...

Like Tierney, I had to google intactivists. But my google isn't "broken" and gave me the correct definition. lol

I'm not a big fan of the Twilight series anyway *dodges hecklers* but I was forced to endure the show so that my 12 year old could go see it. There were a lot of things about that show that bothered me, but I can definitely feel your irritation on this one.

As for the cock statement...roflmao. That's just so wrong on many different levels. lol


Wicked Thorn and Roses © 2008. Design by :Yanku Templates Sponsored by: Tutorial87 Commentcute
This template is brought to you by : Blogger Templates