Porn and Romance-The Twilight Saga

Unfortunately, guys have it tough. We have a double standard put upon us by girls that is impossible to meet. The culmination of that standard would be the Twilight Saga.

First, let me state, I am single. I had a girlfriend a long time ago, that went FUBAR, and so single I've remained, mostly due to cowardice and being pathetic. But still, I am not speaking as someone with no knowledge of women. Nor am I saying that every girl is like I'm about to describe. In fact, most of my female friends hate Twilight, so these generalizations hold exceptions. That being said-Romance is porn. Oh, not all romance is porn, certainly not. True romance is not porn, but the modern idea of it, the type put forth in most movies and television is porn. Sometimes, it's literally porn (I SAW Titanic, and while I'll admit I enjoyed the nude scene, it was still wrong)and other times it is merely what I like to call "girl-porn." Guys look at porn (generally) to look at the ultimate sexual ideal. We LIKE to see Madame Boing-Boing doing things to the faceless guy on the screen that we know will never be done to us. Porn, besides being pathetic, is also WRONG. Once more, our girlfriends will NEVER let us look at it. Heck, I have friends whose girlfriends don't even like them going to a Meghan Fox movie because "they know why guys see those movies." Fair enough. I concede. Guys like to ogle hot chicks, and we like even more to see hot chicks having sex. I'm not saying it's right. It's wrong. And guys, we should control it. However, I think girls should control their desires too. Just as guys look at porn for the ultimate sexual ideal, girls like modern romances because they are looking for the ultimate ROMANTIC ideal. Don't ask me why Cullen qualifies. I've read all four twilight books (I know. I know. Stop looking at me like that!) and I can tell you, the only thing I think Cullen proved himself to be was a melodramatic douche. My friend Nick Taylor published a good literary critique of the books (look in the blogs I follow to find his) so I'm not gonna bother doing that here. However, Cullen is still portrayed as the ultimate romantic ideal.

To girls with boyfriends: Why the hell are you reading crap like this? Love your boyfriend, don't read this bull and get these ideas of what your boyfriend "should" be, but love your boyfriend and learn what real guys are like. And don't bother to say "I can distinguish the boy in the book from reality, I just read/watch Twilight for fun." Bull. You don't do that anymore than I could (could meaning I don't actually do it) watch Girls Gone Wild "Just for fun and distinguish it from reality." Be realistic.

As for girls who don't have boyfriends: seriously, don't set yourself up for disappointment. Just like no guy is going to find a woman as well-endowed, flexible, and willing as some Porno actress, no guy is ever going to be as "perfect" as Cullen, Jacob Black, or any other Romance character. Consciously or not, I guarantee you that it will subconsciously affect you, the same way porn affects guys.

Plus, just to prove a point. Girls, please do not insult our intelligence and tell us that one of the reasons you're seeing Twilight and New Moon is not to see things like this


because all guys know you are. You're only fooling yourselves, and sometimes not even that.

This is terribly, terribly unfair to us guys. I can't watch Buffy without every girl I know pitching a fit (that's hyperbolic. If you're one of my female friends who DIDN'T pitch a fit, don't worry.) Everytime a guy watches a movie with a hot chick, it either gets written off as "a guy thing" or girls freak because we must be mentally cheating on them. Girls, you have a right to worry. Guys should be careful of what we watch and why. I don't watch Braveheart for the ONE scene of nudity in it. I always skip it, and I know a lot of guys who do the same. There's a difference between that and watching, say, "Life of a Pornstar" on HBO. Guys have absolutely no business watching that crap. And neither do girls have any business watching or reading Twilight. It's the same basic principle as pornography, except the ideal is different. As Billy Connolly once said "Women need to feel loved to have sex; Guys have to have sex to feel loved." Our ideals are different. We are practically different species. So it's not fair for you to claim that just because you're idealizing romance where we idealize sex, it's somehow "better." Don't condescend to guys as if we're stupid, or somehow can't see the difference. Don't tell us "it's just a story," because it's no more "just a story," than Debbie Does Dallas is "just a movie." It's the same thing in essence.

That's not to say I'm anti-romance per se. True, I hate Romanticism, and a lot of modern romance strikes me as silly and fake. I had a friend who was always romantic with his girlfriend. True, it was about...maybe a month? before he'd get a new one, but he was always ROMANTIC with her, whoever she was. To me, a lot of modern romance is just a justification for premarital sex, so that the woman can feel loved and the guy feel like he's not using her. My half-genetic half-trained cynicism tells me, quite rightly, that that view of romance is (to use a british/aussie term) bollocks. However, my view of romance is that it is the icing on the cake, where most people seem to think it's the cake itself. If you eat too much icing, you'll throw it up. I've done that, by the way, and it is absolutely revolting, to this day I'm not an icing fan. I think that if you love someone, you'll be romantic, in your own way, to them. Romance, real romance, is not chocolates and flowers. Neither is it defying death to save your loved one. It most certainly is NOT trying to kill yourself because of a girl/boy. I've had two friends kill themselves over their girlfriends/boyfriends leaving them. That is the most stupid, immature, F***ed-up thing you can do, and I'll admit, it's one of the points of New Moon I hate the most. Don't give me the bullshit about Edward "loving Bella so much he couldn't live without her." Trust me, go to the funeral of a friend who did that, you won't be singing that tune. Romance is different to every person. Some people are very romantic by nature (by romantic, I mean the good kind.) Some people are more down to earth about it. I would say therefore, that I am very much a believer in love, and not very much at all in romance. If you want a good example of what teenage love tends to be, I'd read Harry Potter. Love is awkward, and full of mistakes. I find myself more "touched" by what I see in "Everybody Loves Raymond" between Ray and Debra than anything I saw in Titanic or The Notebook (I saw those back to back. Let it never be said I never did anything for love.) I consider the "love" you see between married couples like Ray and Debra infinitely more realistic than the romantic bullcrap you see in Twilight.

To sum up. Twilight and indeed, most romance, is simply girls' version of porn. Girls, if you want to be able to indulge in that, then your boyfriend should be able to watch Girls Gone Wild without any complaint or resentment from you. Stop living in this dream world and looking for the ultimate romantic ideal in a creepy 100-something vampire loving a girl less than 1/10 his age, and learn to be content with what guys are really like. Just like no guy is ever gonna find a girl like he'll see in a porno, you are NEVER EVER going to find a boy actually as perfect as Cullen. Welcome to reality.

Most Influential Rock Bands

I keep reading, and Time and Rolling Stone are always so &^%$ political when they choose the most influential bands. Race and personal taste should have nothing to do with it, it should be based on their actual influence and talent. Thus, I have assembled my own list of the ten most influential rock bands.

1. The Beatles
As much as I loathe them, and think that they suck to the highest heaven, it must be admitted that the Beatles influenced and continue to influence thousands of musicians, from Alice Cooper to Blink-182, and this far reaching influence demands that they receive the first place.

2. The Ramones
I am not going to say that they were talented. I'm outraged that Johnny Ramone was above Angus Young on Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time." However, the Ramones pre-punk sound, which not only started the Punk movement, but much of the 80's New Wave and hardcore movements. The Ramones influence is still very much alive today in bands like Green Day, Blink-182, Socratic, in more popular bands like The All American Rejects and Avril Lavigne, and in more surprising bands like Children of Bodom

3. Black Sabbath/Ozzy Osbourne
Basically, Ozbourne started metal as we know it. Though Tony Ioammi certainly deserves a high rating as an excellent and inventive guitarist, it is Osbourne's voice and composing that truly made metal. Everyone from Nightwish to Dragonforce owe Ozzy Osbourne, and "the prince of darkness" is responsible not just for the many varieties of metal, but also a lot of hardocre, post-hardcore, and even emo music.

4. The Rolling Stones
Screw Led Zeppelin. The Stones started Rock, plain and simple. They were there first. Everyone else on this list owes their existence to the influence of the Stones. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards may look like walking corpses, and I personally don't care for a lot of their songs, but if Led Zeppelin are the "godfathers of rock" than The Stones are definitely the daddies.

5. The Sex Pistols
Noone ever remembers them, but these guys made punk what we know it to be today. Yeah, alright, the Ramones started it, but the Pistols gave it attitude. Johnny Rotten's distinctive voice coupled with Steve Jones's catchy guitar riffs set the stage not only for musical political activism beyond "peace is nice," but also injected the harshness and attitude now seen throughout a lot of punk and hardcore worlds. Every 80's punk band draws inspiration from the Sex Pistols, and so do the more modern bands. Spiking your hair? Yeah, you can thank the Pistols for that. And unlike the Clash, the Pistols never lost their attitude or spunk.

6. AC/DC
Again, magazines seemed to have conspired to have stolen the glory from where it belongs. The real hard rock tycoons are famous for their ill-will against the magazine "Rolling Stone," who decided to give the glory to Aerosmith instead. Unlike Steve Tyler's ridiculous stage antics that call to mind homosexual stereotypes, and the band's famous bad attitude, AC/DC is known for it's more professional demeanor, coupled with the wild showmanship. Plus, Angus Young could take on Joe Perry and Brad Whitford with one of his hands behind his back. AC/DC started the Hard Rock revolution that produced such artists as Guns and Roses and Motley Crue, and and they deserve a helluva lot more recognition than anyone ever gives them.

7. Pearl Jam
Another band that was given the short end of the stick. While not completely screwed over, Pearl Jam definitely deserves the place in the sun that was given to Nirvana. They not only had the grunge drive that people loved so much in Cobain, but possessed infinitely more talent and variety, and were just as influential as Nirvana in the Grunge movement. Unfortunately, none of their members committed suicide, so they do not have the advantage of a "dead rock god" such as Nirvana does. Even so, they deserve a place amongst the greatest, and history will hopefully vindicate them.

8. The Cure
It has always puzzled me, even when I was hard into my Goth phase (thank god no pictures exist of me from then) why The Cure is considered the ultimate Goth band. Alright, sure, Robert Smith is a Goth by dress, but The Cure's lyrics are always so happy. That's not to say they don't have their depressing songs, almost the whole album "Bloodflowers" is sad, but generally The Cure are a relatively happy sound, even if that happiness is a thoughtful kind of happiness. A lot of modern Indie and alternative pop draw influence from the Cure, in musical style if not in fashion sense.

9. Blink-182
Credit where credit is due. Blink are the "godfathers" of pop-punk. The funny thing is, they're pretty good. Their distinctive mix of immaturity and potty humor with a little hint of the serious is what has made every one of their albums strong. Everyone from Good Charlotte to the All American Rejects to the Jonas Brothers are tied to Blink-182. That may not be a good legacy, but it still counts for something, and to be fair, its not their fault. For starting a movement that now dominates the music charts and radio, Blink deserves recognition.

10. U2
I don't like them. At all. Oh true, some of their songs are catchy, and I even enjoy "40," "Vertigo," and "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me." However, generally, their lyrics are complete nonsense and Bono's voice makes Axl Rose sound like a baritone. The Edge is an amazing guitarist, but still. However, their influence and greatness cannot be denied, and U2 are still major players in the Rock world, known for their lighter, faster sound and more upbeat feel.

I confess, this list wasn't easy. I wanted to put more artists I love and listen on here, but that would make me as bad as Rolling Stone. Certainly other bands should be recognized, like Queen (who I hate), Aerosmith (eh), Smashing Pumpkins (awesome), Metallica (which true enough is metal, but still...), Social Distortion (best band ever),...the list goes on and on. But that's my top ten.

Defense of the Saints

"And Shepherds we shall be, For Thee, My Lord, For Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patri, Et Filli, Et Spiritus Sancti, Amen"

Over the last two months, I have discovered a new thing for me to obsess over; the Boondock Saints movies. On October 31st, the most impressive fan-based movie was released since 2005s Serenity, which I also loved. However, instead of being a follow-up to a popular sci-fi tv show that Fox screwed over, "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" was the follow up to a barely-released 1999 movie which was in theaters for a grand total of 4 days. Over the next ten years, "The Boondock Saints" has made millions of dollars and as many fans from dvd and video sales. The new movie is drawing out both the fans and the critics.

Myself, I definitely qualify for the first category. I saw the first movie at the end of September, and have watched in almost 30 times since. I downloaded the soundtrack of the first movie and saw the second movie twice in theaters. Why is it that Boondock Saints is so appealing? Is it perhaps the violence or the language? Certainly, with 246 uses of the "F-word" in the first film, it has plenty of language. There's also certainly no shortage of violence in both movies. That can't be it, though, because if one simply wants violence and language, there have been no shortage of movies that possess ample amounts of both. Boondock Saints contains just the right amount of violence, levity, thoughtfulness, and plain wackiness to attract people from all walks of life.

Myself, I find the premise of the movies interesting. The two McManus brothers, Connor and Murphy (Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus) receive a vision from God telling them to "destroy that which is evil, so that which is good may flourish." I don't believe in Divine visions, or at least, that they occur anymore, but I do believe that if God talked to people today, it is more likely that his message would be more along those lines than simply "I'm coming again soon, I'll protect the church" and every other thing he's already said in the scripture. I also am, as a libertarian, quite open to the idea of vigilantism in certain instances. The brothers' primary targets are mafiosos and other prominent, rich criminals who, due to their money and charisma, effectively are untouchable by the law. The entire idea of killing slime like this off, slime who are all-too-real, quite appeals to someone who believes vigilantism a form of civil rebellion when the government is being derelict in its duty.

The actors are also quite a varied lot. Neither Flannery or Reedus are particularly well known, Flannery's most prominent role being that of Young Indiana Jones and Reedus's most prominant role being Murphy McManus. Balancing these two relative unknowns are British comedy giant Billy Connolly as their father and Willem Dafoe, of "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Clear and Present Danger" fame. Connolly's role as their father is minimal in the first one, restricted mostly to quotations of both scripture and vengenace-themed prayers. In the second, Connolly becomes more involved, cementing his character as the ultimate "old-dude" badass. His six-gun holster is probably one of the most realistic, yet inventive, movie props that I've seen in a while. Dafoe's character is simply genius. A homophobic homosexual FBI agent, Dafoe brings the right mix of genius, arrogance, and neurosis to his character, enough to steal the show from the Irish twins. Comedian David Dela Rocco plays a version of himself that is essentially a stereotypical buffoon-with-a-good-heart, but he brings such a flair to the character to make it believable and simultaneously amusing. His charisma is such that I remember his two minute cameo in the second movie more vividly than the rest of the nearly two-hour film. Other relatively minor characters, like the three Irish cops who assist Dafoe's character, or the Mafia boss Joe Yakavetta are plaid with enough flair to make you remember them despite their lack of screentime.

The action is, quite simply, over the top. This is why I like it. Being a weapons aficionado, I have not yet seen a realistic action movie. The movie is almost a homage to Tarantino and John Wu, but contains enough originality to make it unique. True, the famous "firefight" scene is ridiculous, but did not defy the suspension of disbelief I bring to any action movie, unlike Reservoir Dogs or Grindhouse did. The violence is satisfying without being gratuitous, humorous, or "artsy." The one exception to the humor rule would be the death of Rocco's girlfriend's cat, which was so hysterical I had to pause the movie to laugh.

The dialogue is also one of the strong points of the movie. Most of it is believable, but contains enough wacky moments to raise an eyebrow. A good example would be the bartender from the beginning of the film's mixing popular proverbs together; "people in glass houses sink ships." The only downfall of the dialogue is a use of the f-word which outdoes even mine, and I have a mouth like a sailor. Though not quite as strong in the second, the f-word is present, which doesn't offend me due to my frequent use of it, but might bother people of a more sensitive nature. The strong point of the dialogue is that almost every part of it is quotable. It's a giant quotes movie, where most of the quotes are original, which is refreshing after Tarantino's pop-culture ridden movies like Kill Bill. Especially epic is the prayer of the saints, which I quoted at the top, and Connolly's pseudo-religious snippets heard throughout the movie.

To sum it up: I was entertained. Movies are not there to be an "artform," but to entertain us. I was entertained, I was amused, I wished to see the movies again. True, the movies have their downsides, as does every other movie, but all in all, I would rate both Boondock Saints movies A+, for the dialogue, premise, and characterization.