It's a train pass. Back in '90 I could catch any train, anywhere in the land utilising said device, part of my collection 'old twat pre-lobotomy,' etcetera. Your theory is better..
I don't mind them at all. They're pretty cool. While I don't desire to see them naked, much less in my bed, I don't have a problem with them. And yes, I do take a sneak-peak at their abs and pecks if they're buff enough.
So you're defining romance and sex as potentially separate? If you're talking platonic romance, sure. But if someone is in a relationship relationship isn't it sexual? If it's of a sufficiently non-straight element then it has to be sexual. Human sexuality is based off sex. Sex is how biology functions. That kind of love is based of the need for reproduction, merely more fancy. In fact, a lot of why we are such romantic beings "I would do anything for my girlfriend" is because of our breeding strategy, which is to take close care of our young. The other way is to spawn lots and not care and that's not our model. Anyway, the point is what exactly are you really talking about? And what point is this purely a definitional argument? Because if is, common understanding is the key to language, in which case if is non-platonic it's sexual because that's we use the words for.
No you are not. I just don't see what relevance it has to the story to warrant it being an issue. Whether she is romantically inclined to a man or a woman makes no difference to the story.
But it makes a difference to the people who watch the movie. Which is the only reason for telling a story in the first place: connecting with the real people who will watch/read it. I've never heard an LGBT+ person say this in my life, so I'm going to assume that you're straight. If basically every mainstream fictional story went out of it's way to cram in a gay romantic plot while treating heterosexuality as being fundamentally Abnormal™ (if not outright perverted), would you be saying the same thing that you are now? Would you say that you don't care if people like you are acknowledged by the world at large as being real people?
If it makes no difference to the story, then either approach can be used equally and without criticism.
I missed this until Simpson responded. Of course it makes an immense difference to the story. I don't see how you can say that it doesn't. Of course, if it makes no difference to the story for you, I assume that you wouldn't object the least little bit if she IS romantically inclined to a woman? You don't mind that, other people want that, everybody wins.
Exactly. Elsa gets to bone a lady, and we're one step closer to sexual equality. Come on, let's sing it out: Do you wanna fall in loooooove, With a pretty girl, Elsa? A girl from your dreamlaaaaaand, Who will make all your wishes come truuuuuuuue??
Yes I do (thank you Google). The difference being that Basic Instinct was (again, thank you Google) an erotic thriller, and Hicks wanted it to be about lesbian sex more than about straight sex. And to not be a "piece of shit," he said that a lot. Are you saying that Elsa falling in love with a woman would be more "sexual" than Anna falling in love with a man, or are you saying Frozen was a "piece of shit"? I'm not entirely clear on this.
The latter lol but its only a joke. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with a kids film doing something like that if it is relevant to the story. I only watched Frozen once (wasn't a fan) and I can't remember seeing anything that made me want to know the answer to that question. It seems like adults have created an issue in a kids film that doesnt need to be there.
Wasn't one of the major selling points of the film that a girl went off on her own to rescue the princess, or whatever she is, without a mans help. With the way the story was told, a straight relationship is pretty essential to get the female indepence angle in. Who is Elsa supposed to fancy anyway, isn't the other female her sister. Was there another female character?
Because she had to leave the man behind to go off and find her sister, that could have been a friend or a rival but since most films have a love interest in there somewhere that was the most logical thing to do.
Eh? She could go rescue her sister with or without a love interest to leave behind, and if there was a love interest, they could have been man or woman.
The criticism actually goes to show why giving Elsa a female love interest is important to the story. The idea that defaulting to a male love interest needs no justification, but having a female love interest requires one demonstrates, in and of itself, that the decision is an important one. The story exists both within its own context and within society. Even if the sex of the love interest has no impact on the substance of the story, per se, the treatment of that same-sex relationship as a norm within the world of the story is significant when it comes to the greater context of the story in society. If it weren't, no one would raise an eyebrow over it.
The love inerest is a pretty standard thing in film and if it had been a woman then the whole selling point of the girl taking the lead from the boy would be gone. Doesn't matter to me who any of them fancy. Just giving an argument for why Anna having a male love interest benefits the story. Elsa having a female one, in the first film, would have had little impact. Second film may be different.
I really didn't see that as the selling point. At all. I don't mean I resisted it, I mean that it never occurred to me. Was it emphasized in the ads or something? I find it fairly weird that a woman's accomplishments are apparently only relevant in the context of a man, or the absence of a man, or something.
