What a pompous dick! He slept went Maggie behind Rose's back, and then tried to come up with a lame excuse to why he did it when he was at the wedding reception. I don't think he loved her at all.
shareI don't think their affair was about love to begin with. Either way, you're right about what a pompous dick he was.
The future is just a f-ing concept that we use to avoid being alive today.
In the book, he did love her but had issues with sex and impulse control. You don't get his perspective in the movie really, but in the book there's a part from his perspective where he's reflecting on how scared and out of control he feels around women, and how there's something about Rose that clutches at his heart and makes him want to be a stronger man. Of course he fails, but when reading In Her Shoes he's seen as less of a jerk and cad and more someone deeply psychologically flawed and always worried that the people around him will find out how screwed up he is.
shareThanks for this.
shareEven Rose admitted she really liked him, not loved.
I don't think she was really in love with him, but hoped she would be.
Maggie was being a pretty dumb bitch about it too. I mean, it takes two tango. I know Jim was being a dick but Maggie was her sister and should've known much better than some guy that Rose started having sex with.
shareSeriously, who is more to blame here?
A man who is seduced by his girlfriend's (incredibly hot) party-slut sister?
Or the party-slut sister that disregards her sister's feelings - the same sister that is letting her LIVE IN HER HOUSE to begin with - and decides to seduce/screw her sister's boyfriend?
Or how about the woman who knowingly lets her boyfriend and her crazy-slut sister meetup without supervision?
Seriously, I cant see how you would push all the blame on the man here - the woman was AT LEAST as much to blame, if not moreso. And her actions were at LEAST as despicable, if not - infact, probably - moreso.
Jim's a successful dude that likes sex and is in a relationship with a relatively dowdy/boring successful woman (from a sexuality perspective). Said woman isnt smart enough to keep her whore-ish sister away from her boyfriend, and the two end up scewing - on her bed - and getting caught.
This just seems like a big pile of "Wow, youre an idiot/slut", with everyone havng an equal share; and, infact, this whole movie could be described with that one sentence.
Oh, so Jim is just someone who "likes sex" but Maggie is a "whore-ish" "crazy-slut"?
What a ridiculous double standard. If Maggie is a whorish slut, then Jim is a whorish slut too.
"And then he started cheating...especially at magnetic travel scrabble."
He is a man while she is a woman. You are supposed to have double standards for different things.
What? You assess your car on the exact same basis as you assess your morning coffee?
What? You assess your car on the exact same basis as you assess your morning coffee?This is an awful analogy. Doesn't work at all.
Seems straight forward enough. Cars and coffee are different, hence they are assessed differently. Maybe you just don't get it.
shareThe difference between a beverage and a machine is nothing like the difference between a man and a woman. They're both human beings, with similar thoughts, feelings, desires. You're not "supposed to" have double standards for them because there's no one way to be a man or a woman.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
There is no one way to make coffee and cars as well. But we do not allow this to stop us from determining a average benchmark against which to assess them.
Men and women have certain inherent differences, simple as that. Manifest truth against which it is unreasonable to argue. Now, where you choose to judge / deem these differences is subjective opinions, based on personal values. But I trust that no reasonable person will claim that men and women are literally exactly the same.
Coffee and cars are entirely different things. Men and women are not. They have different genitalia, but their sexual behaviour is determined by religion, culture, past experiences, individual nature, etc. If Maggie is a whore for having lots of sex then so is Jim, which is what thenyes was saying. It's not okay to imply that because she's a woman, different standards should apply to her.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
That is exactly what I am stating. That because she is a woman, different standards should apply to her.
I assume we both agree that this applies at a minimum to other aspects. That is to say, you do agree different standards for women is appropriate for certain aspects / items, yes?
No. I could not possibly disagree more.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Then you must therefore hold the position that women should be treated exactly and literally the same as men in every single aspect to an absolute extent, correct?
shareI'm going to say yes, so that you can share the clunky, poorly thought out comparison you have prepared.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
No. If you believe in your position, you should have the moral courage to speak out for your beliefs.
As a feminist, do you not have the strength of character to stand behind your faith boldly, instead of hiding behind such disclaimers?
Yep. I absolutely do. Now what?
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
So do you therefore hold the position that women should be treated exactly and literally the same as men in every single aspect to an absolute extent?
Just to be clear, both of us understand that this is an extreme absolute position. If you affirm this position, do kindly have the moral courage not to subsequently backpedal and claim misunderstandings.
Yep. Carry on.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Ok. I will do the easy ones first then.
Different medical standards should be applied to women, as opposed to men. Similar in concept as for races. From a medical viewpoint, we know that such distinct groups have different trends and accordingly should be treated differently.
Do you continue to disagree? [Obviously, the implications of such medical differences will spill over into our cultural and societal interactions. As do just about any differences, really. That being the nature of life]
What on earth are you talking about? Different medical standards? For students of medicine or patients?
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Patients.
shareThis is already proving to be tedious What trends are you talking about?
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
You can review a listing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health#Non-reproductive_health
Feel free to leave in defeat anytime you please. I did not invite you here. Don't bitch and whine, nobody is forcing you to stay.
Either defend your position. Or don't.
You are using a lot of words that don't add up to anything. What is your actual point?
You are person who thinks it is okay to judge promiscuous women more harshly than promiscuous men. What does that have to do with women's health? What does this Wikipedia article have to do with double standards? Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Kindly do not deflect. Based on the link and its citations, do you admit that women should be treated differently and held to different standards from men on at least some aspects?
Yes or no?
How the hell can I deflect when I have no idea what your point is? Am I supposed to read a Wikipedia article the length of my arm in order to decipher what it is you're trying to say? Speak plainly or stop wasting my time.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Sigh. Perhaps an example may help.
Apparently, women are more susceptible to lung cancer. Given that this is so, women should therefore be held to higher standards when it comes to not smoking, by their doctors and otherwise. Basically, their doctors would push them more than for men.
Yes? Sounds reasonable?
"Held to higher standards"? That is a health problem, not a morality problem. Doctors should advise all patients not to smoke, regardless of gender, because smoking is bad for people. And if they're talking to a woman of course they are going to mention that the risks for them are higher. Just like the risks of dying of heart disease are higher in men.
So is that your point? Women who smoke and have a lot of sex are somehow morally reprehensible. But men who smoke and have a lot of sex are fine? Honestly, this exactly the kind of nonsense I anticipated 10, 000 posts ago. You're trying to connect things that don't connect. Like coffee and cars.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
But men who smoke ... are fine?No, because smoking kills both men and women. But more fine than women.
But men who ... have a lot of sex are fine?Yes (assuming protection is used). More fine (assuming protection is not used). Since men do not bear the biological costs of procreation, and women historically do (and still do, to a certain extent, in the modern era).
How is it more harmful to one gender? STDs and pregnancies affect both. You're trying to push some tautology that doesn't exist. You are a sexist, closed-minded prude but fortunately for me, and every other woman that likes to fck around, your kind is going the way of the dinosaurs.
Thanks for wasting my time with your non-existent argument. I'm done.
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Sure, you can run away like a little coward. I don't object. Run along then, little girl, run along.
Can't deny that you are wrong on the factual aspects, but lack the moral courage to confess being wrong. So bold and sassy back then, so cowardly now.
pregnancies affect both [genders]
https://media.giphy.com/media/hYJMvSpmgkt2M/giphy.gif
"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."
Run along, little girl, run along.
Guess you can't stand up to a real man huh (on the merits of your content). Figures. 😂
Really. Little girl like you can hardly stand up to the real world as you are. Might want to think about taking on a real man (or woman, for that matter) to handle things.
Or I suppose you could continue to cut and run whenever things go south on you. Gutless moral coward that you are and all. :)
Lol, for a moment he actually seemed all right when he went to bring her (Rose) flowers after seeing she was hurt about him cancelling the Chicago trip. buuut then it all went downhill...
share[deleted]