Topics which turn you into an obnoxious elitist
 

Following on from the wars observed in relation the 2014 film (which I haven't been part of), name a topic which you might be snobby and sanctimonious about. For example, Leo656 might be considered by some to be elitist when it comes to Superman & his disdain for Smallville. MsMarvelDuckie might be elitist when it comes to Marvel (not saying she is, just giving an example of what might be like).

For me, it would be the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo. I think he's an overrated fraud and whenever I see someone say he's as good as or better than fellow footballer Lionel Messi I just assume they're clueless and ignore their future opinions on football. To be fair I'm 100% right as only morons rate Ronaldo above Messi. I also have fair reason to think this as Ronaldo seems to have an army of clueless 12 year old sycophantic fanboys who are in love with him and have only been watching football since 2009. There are more holes in their arguments than in an Amsterdam brothel. It certainly doesn't help that Ronaldo himself is a slimy weasel.

So as you can see, I am very elitist when it comes to certain football/soccer debates (although in the case above my view is the correct one). So which subject(s) turn you into an obnoxious pr!ck?

Films for sure. I much prefer serious, foreign language pictures to 99% of anything Hollywood puts out. My favorite would be Persona by Ingmar Bergman.

And here it is:

In terms of real-world stuff I have no interest in politics, sports, or religion...so all the really touchy topics I have no part of. Those topics tend to make people the most defensive simply because everyone can't respect each others personal views.

I also don't really see many movies a year besides the big Hollywood ones, and I don't really listen to music either.

So its just the select few shows and videogames I watch/play but even there its not a big deal.

Dirty Blond - thanks for the link there.

CC - You should take a more active interest in politics because it affects every aspect of your life.

Of this, I definitely agree. They definitely bring out the ugly in people, and I learned long ago to try to avoid those things myself in forums. It's often people doing sanctimonious posts, preachiness, using strawmen, or putting words in another person's mouth and/or generalizing.

Hm, I don't know. Maybe something Japanese? Who knows.I avoid talking about these things in real life, especially politics and relgion, unless I know the person is open-minded and can actually have a rational, adult conversation regarding it.

I'm so so with politics. I know I should be keeping up with more politics on this side of the pond, especially with Abe administration in office. Back home, I semi-kept up with politics because, as it was pointed out, it affects a lot of aspects of your life.

Probably too many to mention. I'm sure y'all know me well enough to know at least a few topics which push my buttons. :lol:

I'm not sure this thread was entirely necessary.

I like you Dave, but this? I don't think anyone was being an "elitist" in the other thread. The word is being used improperly for one, and two it's reinforcing the idea that having standards is snobbish; also a fallacy.

A snob might say that they only watch a certain directors films, and that is all. A snob might forego the regular seating because only Imax will do.
A snob can't wear anything BUT Fendi or Prada, but definitely not Marc Jacobs. That's a snob. they deal only in extremes, and if it's not the ultimate best of the best, it sucks.

We're hardly acting snobbish, at all.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding - I'm not necessarily saying that I personally find it snobbish in there. I'm saying that the subject of elitism has cropped up (rightly or wrongly). I'm using that example of a debate over the issue of elitism on this forum as a simple intro to my thread.

For the record, I can see the views of both sides on the 2014 film and don't have a strong view either way. I certainly don't have anything against you and I enjoy your posts, for the most part.

Oh, & I also agree that the film was very poor. But I generally stayed clear because it didn't feel right for me to tell people that they were wrong to enjoy it, even if it could do great harm to the future of the franchise.

Yeah. I have no interest in any of those three you listed at all either.

For me, well I can't think of anything that I become obnoxious about at the moment. Haha. Oh wait. I think perhaps when I know how a certain character acts/ is supposed to act. Then someone is protraying that character like wayyy wrong, and I feel the need to correct them.
Sometimes I do correct them. >u<

Star Wars, Marvel, and TMNT. I'll correct anyone who mentions something wrong on any of those topics.

Roleplaying.

You're probably not better at it than I am. The roleplay community is full of idiots that don't know their heads from their asses.

Hm. For me it would be history, Gundam, G I Joe, and tons of things nerdy lol named my store after myself lol

Good one, Snake - you just reminded me of one of my major ones: discussing the changes Lucas made to the OT turns me into a frothing elitist. I can roll with some of what he did for the 97 versions, but everything after that... nyyyygh.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8fu3etzdf1r6v7x1.gif

Back to the Future is something I can be very passionate about, and I could go for days discussing various what-ifs within that universe.

Id have to go with Superman, Jordans and DBZ

You know, it's been so long since I've seen the original versions of the trilogy that I can't recall what's been added (aside from the obvious) and changed. My family still have the original trilogy on Beta, though. Whenever I go home, maybe I'll ask my folks to dig out the Beta tapes and the Beta tape player and watch them.

Oh yeah, look - there were things that were annoying about the 97 editions... like changing it so that Greedo shot first instead of Han... but then there was also some good tidying up of the SFX and putting in a new song for the ending of Jedi, which I thought was far better than what was in the original theatrical releases. By and large, I have very few issues with the 97 releases - I think anything in them that does bug me is probably just that in some of the additions/changes in those versions, you can see the seeds of Lucas's later histrionics.

However, when you jump forward to the 2006 and blu-ray edits - I cannot roll with the changes he made to the Emperor/Vader discussion in Empire, the addition of the "Nooooooo" in the climactic throne room scene in Jedi and adding in Hayden Christensen and taking out Sebastian Shaw for the end of Jedi. Those just rip me up.

I think adding in Ewoks blinking is stupid, but I could ignore it if he'd just left the stuff with emotional context alone.

The "no" makes me laugh every time, but I hadn't seen the originals in so long, I forgot that it wasn't originally there.

The other stuff you mentioned I knew about (Han shooting scene, for example), the change to the end of Return of the Jedi with whiny PMS Hayden, for instance...OH and the unnecessary junk in the bar. That weird alien singing was so pointless. Maybe enhancing some graphics or improving sound or adding in a deleted scene (like Han talking with Jabba, as they had the technology to include it) is okay. Ewoks blinking is stupid. For the 1000th re-release, we'll hear Chewbacca taking a piss offscreen or something. -_-

Anyway, what was changed in the conversation with Vader and the Emperor?

Overall the 97 versions are my favorite, but I'm biased because those were the first ones I'd seen in order all the way through. Little things like the Han/Greedo shot and that song and dance in Jabba's palace I could live without, but the cleaning up of the SFX and picture quality make it an even trade-off for me. The DVD versions, that flash they added every time lightsabers hit each other is the most annoying goddamn thing ever. It's so obnoxious and it's really noticeable in the first movie since the original effects were so low-key by contrast.

In "Empire", didn't Lucas just fix it so it was actually the guy who played Palpatine in the scene, instead of the old lady done up in robes? To me that was a decent change made in the name of internal consistency, I don't have any problem with it. I mean it wasn't a problem originally, but originally Palpatine was a minor character you didn't see until the series was over. Once the prequels came out and he was a huge part of the plot of all the films, the fact that he was noticeably played by someone else in "Empire" is the kind of thing that would stand out a lot to new viewers. I thought that was acceptable and kind of necessary. Unless you meant something else about that scene.

And I'm pretty obnoxious regardless of topic.

He actually altered the dialogue, which I think is sh*tty on several levels as 1) it made no sense and was unnecessary, and 2) it was the last script Leigh Brackett co-wrote on before she died, so I think it's hella disrespectful.

The dialogue is changed to:

DARTH VADER: What is thy bidding my master?

EMPEROR PALPATINE: There is a great disturbance in the force

DARTH VADER:I have felt it.

EMPEROR PALPATINE:We have a new enemy, the young rebel who destroyed the death star. I have no doubt this boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker.

DARTH VADER:How is that possible?

EMPEROR PALPATINE:Search your feelings, Lord Vader, you will know it to be true. He could destroy us.

DARTH VADER:He's just a boy. Obi-Wan can no longer help him.

EMPEROR PALPATINE:The Force is strong with him. The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi.

DARTH VADER:If he could be turned, he could become a powerful ally.

EMPEROR PALPATINE:Yes, he would be a great asset. Can it be done?

DARTH VADER:He will join us or die master.

I mean, it was stupid - there was no need to change it. "How is that possible" - WTF, they said in the opening crawl that Vader was obsessed with finding Luke. It's referred to all through the movie - his reason for sending troops down to Hoth is because he knew Luke was there; he even specifically says "That is the system, and I'm sure Skywalker is with them." He cannot honestly be dumb enough to think that hey, this kid in the Rebel Alliance just happens to have the same name.

Even if Vader was pretending that he didn't know - I mean, come on; the Emperor's not stupid. If Vader's out there cruising around in a Star Destroyer searching for him, name-dropping the kid to his commanding officers, it's not exactly subtle.

Oh yeah, I can't rag on the 97 versions too harshly as I never would've gotten into Star Wars without them - they were the first ones I saw as well.

I should clarify, I dropped right out of the fandom for an extremely long time after the prequels - I can't stand them and I can't handle them as canon; no offense to those who do, it's my personal hangup and I fully accept that. :lol:

I rewatched the OT after the release of the new trailer and it got me thinking about how much the later edits still, to this day, piss me off.

Oh, another sucky change to Empire (from the 97 version) - having Luke scream after he tosses himself down the shaft in Bespin. Because why leave a self-sacrificing scene as is when you can throw in a Goofy-esque yodel as he flings himself to almost-certain death?

*deep breaths*

I am calm. :D

Hm, I actually forgot about that one line change. Good call, definitely looks like they didn't think that one through.

Not gonna lie, I probably forgot because that scene happens right about the point in Empire where I start getting fidgety. I know it's "Everyone's Favorite" SW movie but it's not mine. Of all the original trilogy, that one seems really padded for length, despite Luke's entire Jedi training being condensed into a long weekend. I like it just fine but I've never understood the idea it's "So Much Better" than the others; other than by being "Dark" because the Bad Guys Win, there's really nothing much special about it. It's very much the Second Act of a Three-Act play, where long stretches of time passes with "nothing" happening or simply moving characters into place for the endgame. As its own self-contained piece it kind of drags. Maybe because they put the big action set piece at the beginning, and everything else that happens is kind of an anti-climax. Luke finally confronting Vader face-to-face at the end is neat, but the fight itself is so one-sided and laughable that it makes the scene kind of painful to watch, and I mean Luke is such an overconfident punk at that point you're half-hoping for him to get his ass kicked. And you know you've kind of lost control of your story when viewers are rooting for the villain over the protagonist.

I'unno, it's a good movie it's just got a lot of problems, and I think people over-elevate it a little. Like, yeah, a third of Jedi is rehash, and the Ewok stuff is kind of silly, but on the whole it's much more "fun", and the movie itself feels much more "lively" and less "sterile", so I prefer it to Empire.

I like the prequels, but I can forgive anyone for not. Personally, I think there's a lot going on in them that changes certain scenes in the original trilogy for the better. For example, whereas Luke originally was just a whiny brat for huge chunks of the films, it's a *little* more forgivable when you can see how he's acting parallel with Anakin's behavior in certain spots. Like, when you see for yourself how rash and impulsive Anakin was, a lot of Luke's behavior makes a lot more sense. Pretty sure that was on purpose. There's a lot more good things that I think those movies add to the overall series, but the acting and dialog on the whole was pretty awful and there was much too much CGI, so I can understand why some people would want to avoid them. They're fine with me.

I'm not sure I totally understand the question.

If we're talking about controversial topics, I'm adamantly against circumcision and will talk down to anyone who tries to defend it as being a good thing (but that's just me). I might alone on that one, though.

If we're talking about nerdy stuff, then definitely Pokemon. I'll hear someone bitch about Rock Blast missing because "it has 95 accuracy", when it actually only has 90. But then I realize there's that "socially acceptable" level of nerdiness, so sometimes I hold back on correcting them... :tgrumble:

That's an interesting hang-up, the circumcision thing. What's your basis? Feel free to discuss it privately if you'd rather, I'm just curious.

I've heard people theorize it traumatizes the kid but I have some really vivid memories going back to really early and that's not one of them, so I kind of call BS on that theory. Again, just curious.

LOL, the competitive battling aspect of Pokemon annoys me greatly, especially the elitists over at Smogon. I don't know how those guys memorize stats, EV traits, pokemon movesets, mathematical equations between which is better than which, etc.

They turn what a fun RPG is into some elitist competitive battling nonsense.

Nah, it's got nothing to do with traumatizing (I highly doubt anyone who was cut as a baby remembers it - if they do, it's a rare case). Speaking non-religiously, the whole argument for having the operation done is that it's supposed to be cleaner. Statistically, dudes who are cut vs. uncut have a minimal difference in that department, because all you need to do is wash yourself. It might take more work with the extra skin, but hey, that's better than getting it snipped off permanently, if you ask me. It does have its benefits.

I can honestly think of zero legitimate benefits from being circumcised, to be totally honest. My biggest gripe is that the parents have all the say and the kid has none. It's true that the guy probably won't remember it (or the pain) if it's done as an infant, and that's probably the parents' logic a lot of the time. But, if he's older and actually has the option himself of whether to do it or not, odds are he won't do it. I mean, if you're born with it, it must not be a total burden, right? (trying very hard to avoid ranting...)

Heh, yeah, it's startin' to get that way for me, too, unfortunately. :tanime: I'm definitely at the point where I pay attention to natures, EVs, IVs, what have you. And I basically know the power and accuracy of every single move. So I can't honestly complain about Smogon without being somewhat of a hypocrite.

((Shrug)) I've heard there's slightly less infection risk and that on the whole, it's just easier to clean when you're circumcised, but that it's not major either way. I've also read that it makes your gear look bigger, so hey, F*ckin' A. :lol:

For sh*ts and giggles, I'll just say, I'm no pecker-checker, but as a straight guy who's seen his share (and your share, and their share, and that guy's share... A LOT, basically) of porn, and therefore of wang, if it were up to me it'd be mandatory. Non-circumcised penises look far too much like the sandworms from "Beetlejuice", and I can't abide that sh*t at all. :lol:

I get the "kids have no say" argument, but to me it's still no big deal. It's like someone of age getting a piercing or a tattoo; no, it's probably not going to make things better or worse either way, and a strong case could be made against it, but at the end of the day it won't hurt anything and it's just for aesthetics.

Anyways, thanks for sharing. Pretty sure we've grossed out a good 90% of those viewing, and I'm always down with that. :lol:

Personally, I found Anakin to be a totally unlikeable douche (whereas Luke was actually likeable), but YMMV. I'm just very against the OT being changed to make it match the prequels. As I said, I've no beef with those who do enjoy them - I know that a big part of the problem lies with me, because the prequels were never going to measure up to what I had imagined in my head and the way I saw the characters' backstories, motivations, alliances etc; even before Lucas said he was going to do the prequel trilogy, I had my own take on stuff. I think where backstories are concerned, you're never going to make everyone happy for precisely that reason - not everyone is going to like what you come up with when you're dealing with already-established and much-loved characters.

I mean, I hated Wolverine's origin story in the comics as well, so it's not like it's a one-off.

I'm in total agreement re the circumcision thing; I think if someone wants to do it as a teen or adult, go nuts, but don't make the decision for an infant. I don't even like it when adults pierce their kids' ears - I think it's messed up to permanently alter someone's body without their permission for cosmetic reasons. If someone's foreskin doesn't roll back far enough, that's another story but just making the decision because "hey, it looks better and if we don't do it, girls won't want to f*ck him and other kids will laugh at him in the changing room"... that's just messed up, yo.

I will agree that cut looks more visually appealing, but really, we're conditioned to think that, the same way we're conditioned to think that women who don't shave are unattractive. Beauty standards are a social construct. My partner's not cut, so given that I've been up-close-and-personal with sea-cucumber for the last 10 years or so, I may have a certain perspective on the issue that others don't, but yeah. Cut or uncut has never made any difference in my sexual pleasure, I'll tell you that much, so the whole "girls like it better" thing really is reduced to just a question of aesthetics - and as I'm not down with women permanently altering their bodies solely to appeal to the opposite sex because they're told that what they have naturally is gross, so the reverse should hold true - guys shouldn't have to mangle their junk just because some girls are squicked by it. I'm in favor of leaving kids' junk alone until they decide what they want to do with it. In the meantime, teach him to clean himself properly and it's not a health issue.

Excuse me while I try to stop laughing... :lol: Hey man, if we gross people out, so be it.

I'd say 90% of the people I have this conversation with (who are on the opposing side) mention that it makes your package look bigger as part of their argument. Aesthetically, it might look longer circumcised (not necessarily "bigger"), but it also makes it thinner; and a foreskin accounts for a large portion of a shlong's nerve endings, so the pleasure aspect is far greater if uncut. I think that's much more of an upside than just having it look subjectively bigger. Plus, the tip (glans) is biologically designed to be covered up and moisturized most of the time; otherwise, if it's constantly exposed, it rubs against everything and gets all dried out, which also takes away from that glorious feel-good moment.

People also seem to have this unanimous opinion that it looks ugly the natural way. But when it's erect, it looks fine. In the long run, it might not "hurt anything" to be cut, but I just find it totally unnecessary. Not one of those "this has to stop immediately!" types of things, but still not ideal in the slightest. Not from my perspective.

I can see why some guys prefer to be cut. Sometimes when you go out in the rain you wanna wear a coat but nothing on your head - it feels good to get wet without a hood. I imagine it's the same for some men when fvcking.

I'unno, I've actually thought about it and I'm glad I was cut on. Because it's definitely what I prefer, and there's NO way I'd have the stones to actually have that procedure done as a fully functioning and aware adult or semi-adult. Just the THOUGHT of anything sharper than a set of teeth going near there makes me nervous, so I'm kind of glad I didn't have to make that decision. Dead serious, I more feel like my parents did me a favor. But I can see how people would come to the opposite conclusion... I just think there's a little bit of over-thinking involved.

As far as sensitivity issues, I've never had any. I'd imagine that's probably another issue where the Pros and Cons of it are pretty slim either way.

Someone I'm friends with raised a similar issue on FB with another friend a while back about having your kids baptized, and I kind of feel the same. They raised the same issue, "Your kids had no choice in the matter", but I'm like, so what? I was baptized, I really don't know what my beliefs are in general, but I can't say on the whole I'm upset or anything by having that "decision" made for me. I figure, if there's no God, it won't matter anyways, and if there is, then great, they wanted to make sure I was "covered". At the end of the day, I got wet and got a certificate with my name on it, and I fail to see how that could ever be a huge problem. (And actually, just having that Baptismal certificate is going to help me with some legal problems I'm having on account of an erroneous birth certificate, so yeah, they actually DID do me a huge favor by removing my freedom of choice. That's why there's a thing called Circumstances. :))

I mean, I get it, but I don't get it, you know? I get why these are issues to some people, who are ostensibly thinking about the welfare of the child, but at the same time, I do think people kind of over-think things, sometimes. I never heard a child themselves complain that they were or weren't circumcised, or baptized, or pierced, or anything else, and if they came back and complained about it like 20 years later, then that person has much deeper issues. :lol: I do get the "child gave no consent" angle, I do... but if it were up to a child, they'd eat nothing but ice cream 6 meals a day, so it's not like their judgment matters regardless. It's not like we're deciding at birth if they're being indoctrinated into the Klan or anything, we're just talking about snipping some loose skin and saving them a little time in the shower later on. I just don't see it as being worthy of a crusade or anything. :lol: S'just me though.

The conversation really gets better around here when the lights go out.

In all honesty, I've always come across mothers having a circumcision performed on their infants for hygienic reasons and making it easier to keep the area clean. I don't think I've ever heard a parent say, "Yeah, we had our kid circumcised because it looks better"...but that's just my experience.

It's a pain in the balls to clean as well. Well, a pain a little further away than the balls, to be more precise. Surely I can't be the only guy who finds pulling it back very painful.

Like Leo, I've seen lots of c0cks though as I too have seen way too much porn, especially really niche, weird porn. Cut doesn't necessarily look better imo.

This has been a revelation for me - I'd actually never consciously thought about the merits or not of circumcision until Gunpowder mentioned the issue.

Btw, I was under the impression that most American men were cut. Is that wrong?

:lol: We talkin' stuff with midgets, Dave? Because I'll see you two Midgets and raise you a Granny. :lol: (My father's Porn Closet... contained horrors.)

I don't think guys often get a chance to discuss the matter of circumcision. I feel it's considered "impolite", or something they're Not Supposed To Talk About. I've actually had friends who didn't know what a circumcision was until they saw porn, or else they weren't but every one they'd ever seen was, and they had never had it explained to them so they thought they had something "wrong" with them. I don't know, it doesn't come up a lot and I'm not entirely sure why.

I couldn't give you statistics, Dave, but I think at one point it was a "standard" procedure that started falling out of favor in the late-70s or so. Like, it's often thought of as a Jewish thing, but my family's Catholic and it's just the universal thing. I think at one point it was an "Everybody's doing it!" kinda thing, but then someone published a theory that it could cause trauma and after that it started getting scaled back. So it's less common than it was, but I'd wager it's probably still a majority. Just a guess though, never took a survey. :lol:

How about an amalgamation? Midget grannies? I've seen gloryholes, bukkake, watersports, BDSM, you name it. Not something to crow about but yeah, I'm depraved. I have to admit I like older women and dwarves are very sexy in those clips.

When I was young (very young, 17 or 18 ) a mate and me actually masturbated together watching a porn movie. I felt pretty uncomfortable if I'm being honest, and it's not something I can imagine doing again. I did see that he was uncut through and didn't keep himself 'tidy' down below. Sometimes I watch these porn films and see women sucking lots of tools at once, and I wonder how these straight guys can stand to have another man's tool rub against theirs, or another guy's sperm on their **** as it drips from her mouth.

The above might sound homophobic but I don't really think so. I'm a straight man so i really don't get how other supposedly straight men don't mind another guy's bell rubbing against theirs. Fvck that.

Yeah, this post has been filthy, but the topic has turned to penises so fvck it.

Gross.

:lol: HAH just wanted to see if you were paying attention. That's twisted, and you're funny.

My "tastes" are more standard, though I know what you mean because I have a preference for watching the Group stuff myself. The same thought has crossed my mind, because you see guys "crossing swords" quite a lot just out of space limitations and all that. :lol: I guess you just have to be really secure in yourself to do that stuff, and when it came down to it, the breeding urge can override the "ick" urge. Like, if me and another guy were both gonna get it on with, I'unno, Nina Hartley in her prime, and in the heat of the moment, "Oops, they touched!", would I be more overcome with the fact that "that" happened, have to go collect myself, need therapy to assure me I'm as hetero as I ever was... or would I immediately ignore it and move on with Business because, Holy Sh*t, I'm about to nail Nina Hartley? If I'm being honest, it's the latter. :lol:

Ninja Hartley is the business.

:lol:
I know what you mean. On reflection I pondered my alleged heterosexuality. I mean I was watching porn and I stopped focusing on the female to think about the guys' ***** crossing paths? Maybe I'm not as straight as I think I am :lol:

For a while I had this bizarre fixation with male stripper porn. I'm not talking about that clearly staged sh!t like Dancing Bear, I'm talking about some of the British stuff like The Loverboys. Now, obviously they employ some fluffers, but it's clear and well-known that many of the women who attend these shows are just regular people with partners etc. Yet in these videos they're sucking off the strippers. It's obviously morally reprehensible but I couldn't help but be fascinated at how regular housewives could do that sort of thing without a hint of guilt. Imagine being a guy browsing for that sort of thing and seeing your gf sucking some buff stripper's knob :lol: :lol: Like I say it's ethically fvkced up but the sheer slutty nature of it really does it for me. These guys have the best job in the world after footballers, although most of the strippers are probably gay anyway.

Bukkake is my favourite though. I like to see 'em get totally drenched.

This has gone way, way too far. The under 18s should be banned from the topic. And man, Plastroncafe is gonna have a field day with this objectification of women, A fvcking field day!

How have we gone from Star Wars to circumcision and then bukkake? Only the internet :lol:

(for the record, I'm not cut, but that's pretty much the norm in the UK, and the American girlfriends I've had, have commented... they kinda preferred it that way for multiple reasons heh)

Old lady?! :lol:

It was a bloke (Ian Revill) in heavy make-up, in the same way it was Ian McDiarmid in heavy make-up for RotJ. I do agree in the context of things, changing the hologram to be McDiarmid in Empire was a better choice. Maybe not quite changing the voice of Fett though, because even a clone wouldn't necessarily end up with the same voice as his father...

Lightsabers.

Ah, yeah, I seen some of that stuff you mentioned, Dave. Had some of the same thoughts. I know there's places where if you're a chick getting married you can actually sign up for that, go like on a cruise with a bunch of your girlfriends, have an "interactive" male stripper show, and have the whole thing recorded basically as a source of revenue for their website (which is like WHY would you want that as a souvenir? Especially when, as you said, that stuff can come back to haunt you later on). Some of it's clearly staged as you said but yeah, you can tell the difference. I mean any normal person with the money can sign up to take part in that, which boggles my mind. I mean, sure, fun to watch, but as you said, pretty degenerate behavior on the whole.

A girl I knew was talking about doing that for her bachelorette party and seemed dead serious. ((Shakes head)) I'unno whatever happened with that, but after hearing her enthusiasm for the idea, I'd never let MY wife attend any of her social functions without me if they were friends, let's just put it that way. If that's how she planned the party before her wedding I'd hate to see what she would plan for her inevitable divorce. :lol: