Help with the ending
I went to this with my husband but he got sick so we had to leave early. I'm hoping someone can fill me in on the ending. We left just as one of the dinner party couples announced that they were expecting a baby.
Sorry, but you missed almost everything. Spoilers, obviously: They continue to be weird around each other until finally they have a huge fight in which they agree to violate their previous agreement and tell each other what happened. She says she did have sex with someone, he says he didn't and calls her a "slut" (which makes no sense to me). He takes off, she follows him and says she didn't really have sex, she would never do that (even though they agreed it was OK and he's the one in the wrong at this point). They seemingly reconcile. Then, we see a moment that may be a flashback moment in which they agreed to the freebie concept or which could be interpreted as a sort of alternate reality where they talked about the freebie but never went through with it, thus saving their relationship.
shareThanks so much!
shareWhat a "save" ending. If this is a Indie film, I would expect a more daring end. Very disappointing, but good to know. One I don't have to see, then.
share[deleted]
Wow, the writer took the easy way out.
ok so wait, who was who? Never saw it. Just skipped through and went to the message boards. ;p But so it's Katie and Josh D. as the couple and she gets with Dax? Uhm, Dax is good looking but who cheats on Josh Duhamel? ;p
Thanks!
Regards,
Mary
It ain't whatcha write, it's the way atcha write it. - KerouacJack
LOL @ people being almost upset that the film ended with the NATURAL conclusion it REALISTICALLY would have if the two partners are meant to be in love at all (which given reactions to ending revelations seems to be the point).
Truthfully you're all looking for more evidence to jump on the 'open relationships are the saviour of love' BS bandwagon whilst continuing to miss the point because frankly, YOU'RE either A) not in love with your partners anymore, or B) you've gone through a rough patch with previous partners and have decided that your future partners are not allowed to care about your desires to go outside of the relationship all the while expecting them to be entirely in love with you.
Horses***, to put it bluntly.
Open relationships are perfectly fine. They are, however, entirely INCONGRUOUS with 'being in love', and they only work with a partner where it's agreed that you AREN'T in love - just not in such practical terms.
Before anyone points to age old swingers who're still together I'd like to assert that those couples are essentially old friends with benefits. You're not 'in love' with someone if you're letting them screw other people, because that kind of love is SCIENTIFIC possession.
Ugh ... and how many age old married couples are nothing more than essentially old friends with benefits? And yet you'll probably call that "love" ...
BTW, open relationships doesn't have to mean they are swingers or having one night stands every other day. They just don't make such a big fuzz out of it if one of them has a foreign sexual encounter once in a while. They are perfectly normal couples with and passion and years can pass without anybody having an affair but if it does, that won't brake up the relationship, instead it might even strengthen it.
See, what you call "love" has a lot to do with jealousy (the envy part of jealousy!), insecurity and egoism. If you truly love someone, then you should not put your own desires over the ones of your mate.
You are talking of science - scientificly, love has only one function: To make sure people have babies and that those babies grow up safely. That's why we are blind for the partner's faults in the first year and that's also why most marriages and long term relationships have troubles surviving the 4th year, that's because if a child survived the first 3 years of his life, chances are good he will become an adult. All of this is managed with hormones, pheromones and other drugs made by your own body. As you can see, looking at it from scientific point of view isn't exactly romantic but you started it, so here we go.
On the other hand, science will also tell you that it's important for nature to spread your genes because recombination of genes is important for the evolution of your species. The urge to couple with someone else once in a while is planted in you by the same mechanics that you call "love" and it is as strong. Tests have shown that women are more likely to cheat when it's their fertile days during their menstrual cycle.
So, it's perfectly possible to love someone and yet to decide that a ONS won't kill the relationship. You might think that's not really love. I tell you, while it may be true that some of them don't truly love each other, it's also possible that they love each other more than you could ever imagine. Because, as I said, true love means that the well-being of your partner is more important to you than your own. Then again, scientificly, you might now enter the realm of personality disorders, you know, people that never think of themselves etc. ...
... but that's why I prefer to keep science and love seperated. Things just get ugly when you look at it too closely. The more you do that, the more you realize that love, relationships and marriage has egoistical, sick or outright sinister motifs, so I'll leave it at that and prefer to keep love shrouded in mystery and to believe in magic.
[deleted]
puschit-1
As is my point, that's not romantic love. If you're comfortable with your partner having sex with other people, you're like friends in a relationship. You have no desire. You're not in love anymore because that's what being in love is - intense desire for a person, and you sure as Hell would not let someone you had intense desire for sleep around. It is by science and nature and 'magic' and whatever the Hell else, possession.
This is what I love about the (almost pro) infidelity argument - you always go on about how 'insecurity' is a 'bad' thing, but never concede how it is a logical thing that is BOUND to happen in such circumstances, and is just as natural as anything else. Better yet, you make it out to be that insecurity is almost worse than the infidelity. If your partner's wanting to screw someone else, you have a reason to BE insecure because you ARE insecure in your relationship. Insecurity is a state of potential loss. Not an immature reaction. Insecurity does not equate paranoia.
Sorry but if I'm in love with you, and you have an affair behind my back you will strengthen one thing only - the resolve that you're not worth my time and I will DROP YOU like a sandbag. I won't give a crap about your wellbeing from a relationship stand point for a single second afterwards; I will just freeze over. I might still have compassion for you as a living thing, but that's it. You are gone...
Save your 'Ugh'. Conversely I find the notion that people do not have the stomach for actual monogamy to be far more pathetic. Agree to what you can maintain, instead of being selfish inside a committed relationship. It's that simple. If someone is honest to God INCAPABLE of being completely loyal in ANY relationship offered to them, then... Jesus... where's the Evolution you speak of there? Might as well be a primate.
Speaking of the old timers, if someone is INCAPABLE of being loyal to their supposed 'soulmate', then what the *beep*? Honestly.
Aries, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions on what you would do if your loved one had an affair.
My poignant account: My fiance of 17 years had a three-month affair with a woman 18 years younger than me; yes, he has money, but we've been together since before the money; she was looking for security, a fact he knew. The discovery absolutely devastated me; numbed emotions for about two weeks, then anger and pain; we talked every night, but I refused to see him; we have a two-year-old grandaughter, so we had to hide that when she was with us together (we maintain separate residences); he said she meant nothing other than satisfying his craving for his own youth, to remember what it meant to be youthful; I cannot provide that youth, so my own self esteem didn't take a nose dive, but I suddenly faced a life without my own youth. That was hard.
I didn't demand he stop seeing her or I was out, I simply told him if that is what he chose, I do not want that for myself. He stopped seeing her immediately, but she didn't stop trying to see him; she kept asking if it was over, saying what a *beep* up thing it was to do to her, to just stop talking (let alone what he was doing to his family); anyway, I could not walk away so quickly because of the love we share, nor could he; he didn't want to go to counseling, so we fought through the issue until the pain was gone, and the hope that we could save our relationship took its place.
Truth: I still can't trust him, and it's been 18 months since he broke it off; she is no longer in the picture, having moved on; I'm rebuilding that trust, but this is what happened to him: his guilt caused him to be angry with me, for surely it was my fault that led him to an affair; the guilt of causing me pain surely has to be my fault, so he picked on me constantly; I am smart enough to be aware that he was hurting, too, and willing to help him through it also. He started becoming suspicious of where I was going, what I was doing, why I didn't answer the phone; this was the legacy of his affair for him.
Now: We are still together, but I no longer want to marry; if we can't make a go of this from this point, I am okay with it, I gave it all to save it, and truly so has he; but something has been lost, we can feel it; though we didn't part right away, there is the potential to do so, because trust has been lost, and thought I am in love with him, it might not be in my best interest to stay, always wondering if it will happen again.
Future: I don't think I'd get into another serious relationship again, just have a boy toy every now and then when I feel like it; I am a busy person; I work full time, I counsel part time, I crochet gifts for my family and friends, I write books that I don't publish (yet), and I love to walk my dogs.
I once thought just like you, that if it ever happened, GONE. I realized about myself that something so dear to me cannot be cast off with such abandon so quickly.
Rambling now, so peace to all.
My wife and I have been together for 19 years, married for 10, love each other madly, spend 23 hours a day together, can't imagine being with anybody else, and guess what? She *beep* other guys, I *beep* other girls, and we come home and fall asleep in each other's arms. And by the way our sex life (with each other) has never been better.
In my opinion the difference is honesty. I NEVER did anything behind my wife's back but I don't judge those that do since sexual monogamy leads people to do some pretty twisted things.
Go ahead and judge us, but I promise you we're happier than most couples.
That's not love. That's just cowardice and selfishness in not wanting to end something that probably died long ago but afraid to start over. If you have to go elsewhere to satisfy your physical needs and your partner is okay with that, you're probably in a relationship of convenience.
For those who really think they're in love, they probably tolerated infidelity in fear of losing the debaucher they love.
You know that sex and love aren't always connected right? What if your long-time spouse fell into a medical condition in which you become more of a caregiver than partner, and your spouse was sexually unavailable to you for years... Is it better to get those sexual needs elsewhere and be able to stay in the relationship to care for them? Or simply divorce them and abandon them?
shareWhy don't you let them keep their dignity and leave them? You think your wife/husband wouldn't be getting a big chunk out of a divorce settlement anyway? What makes you so special that no one else would be able to care for them? I'd much rather tell someone that they aren't meeting my needs anymore than give them mixed signals (and also treat them as a means rather than an end). Either you do without sex or peace the *beep* out if you can't do without it. I don't see how it could be made any simpler.
I'm not sure where this idea that we're entitled to both a secure relationship and sexual fulfillment came from, but it's probably one of the worst (and most delusional) expectations that you can have for intimate relationships.
[deleted]
It seems to me, having read the entire thread, that you are equating love with sexual fidelity.
Isn't love more complicated than that? Isn't it possible to be in love--truly IN LOVE, not just infatuated--with someone and not have any sex? Or have sex with lots of people? Why is sex the be-all, end-all of love? Love is so much more than what happens with out genitals.
One poster asked about having a partner who becomes incapacitated and can no longer have sex. If they are in love (and probably took vows to be there through sickness and health) they stay together. In my view, the partner who becomes the caretaker should be willing to forego sex, and partner who is ill should be willing to let the caretaker have sex someplace else. That's what two loving people should do for each other in that situation.
Where this discussion fails, and frankly one of the failings of the movie, is that nobody has yet discussed the impact on anyone outside that particular couple. Don't we owe it to our fellow human beings not to use them for physical pleasure just to abandon them? I'm sure the bartender didn't have any problem with a quicky in the bathroom, but I'm also sure that he eventually pays an emotional (if not physical) price for living that type of lifestyle. And does anyone believe the barista would be perfectly OK being someone's one night stand? Unless she had an awful time (and since Dax was such an unbelievably selfish prick, that is a strong possibility), she would want to pursue a relationship.
If I am wrong--if people can have meaningless, relationship-less sex without consequence, then marriage is a dinosaur waiting to die and we must re-invent how we couple and raise children. Perhaps that evolution is exactly what is happening today.
But I believe there are consequences to our actions, and the movie does a good job showing the consequences to the couple. Well, at least until the editors decided to add the "Hollywood" ending that made no sense. But the movie utterly fails to consider the impact on anyone else.
its actually a more complex ending than that. as the audience you never get the full story of who went through with it or didnt. all you know is what they tell each other. its more the interactions than what was said. i highly recommend watching it.
but Katie and Dax are the couple who agree to do the Freebie night
i'm sure there was a dog in here
as the audience you never get the full story of who went through with it
well, 'we' saw her in the bathrooom with her 'date'.... and yet, with him all you saw him do was touch her breast and say something like 'you have big breasts'... we don't actually see him do anything... unless i blinked.
"Nobody move....... I've dropped me brain" share
Wait, Josh D is in this? I think my internal vapid school girl just decided I will watch this... even though the ending sounds horrid! But the trailer makes it look so damn interesting... at least it won't be another Crush lol.
"Brendon, I AM Vegas. It is half of who I am!"- Rachel BB12
[deleted]
i took the slut thing as the fact that she did it in the bathroom
share