here’s another explanation, more mechanical than my sensitive-guy ramblings

glad you asked. good sex is not about “this pleasure” or “that pleasure”— it’s about deep empathy and communication. empathy takes sensitiviy— to the other person’s emotions, reactions, temperature, secretions, etc etc.

not really. sensitivity is a two-way street.

I think the “fetish” thing is misguided advice and actually kinda offensive/reductionist.

for starters, the foreskin is home to a bazillion nerve endings.

you’re right and i’m sorry for having said something stupid in that regard in another post. i’ve redacted it.

She could try dating men who weren’t raised in the US as a start. You don’t necessarily have to go to the fetish level. There are plenty of foreigners who are uncut.

...and the Enquirer is the largest circulated American newspaper. Still not credible.

Speaking as a Brit, he’s completely right though. The Daily Mail is an awful, awful paper.

Drives me absolutely bonkers! Thanks for pointing that out.

Typo: “Christopher Reeves” should be “Christopher Reeve.” Common mistake, but it ends up being a bit of a hybrid of his name with previous Superman George Reeves.

For me personally Superman: The movie is so critical for Reeves performance. He did not just change his delivery of dialogue or attitude when he changed between characters in the film, he physically changed his bearing, posture and such. You could literally watch him physically become a different character, this is…

Or just simply get the name right in the first place. I mean, when I reference you, I at least show the common decency in getting your name right...Asshole. So, Asshole, have a pleasant evening.

I recently rewatched it because I barely remembered it, and had seen Superman II and was surprised at how much I didn’t like that movie, so I expected to not like it much. Nah it held up really well for me. Even the dumb Luthor stuff was fine. The speed force thing is soooo awful it really messes brings it down, but…

Christopher Reeve was perfect as Superman. And Superman 2 was terrific. Don’t judge either 1 or 2 by today’s standards. Feel free, however, to mock the one with Richard Pryor mercilessly.

“Get off your high horse”...Christopher Reeve...classy. Maybe you should put the Internet down for the day.

To the multiple people who can’t get a simple thing right, It is:

I can appreciate that the film looks somewhat dated now, but at the time (as a kid) I was completely blown away.

Superman: The Movie is very much a product of its time. As much as Donner reworked the original train wreck of a script, there is still a certain film making ethos from that era that permeates the film and dates it.

Having said that, I still love the film.

I don’t agree but I respect your opinion. Also I ma probably older and grew up with the movie. The most important thing the movie did was Make Clark Kent the main character. This gets over looked a lot.