Category Archives: Celebrities and Celebrity Culture

My Ideal Romance Movie (And Why It Will Never Get Made)

When it comes to things men avoid with their lovers, going to a cheesy romance movie ranks right up there with cleaning a clogged toilet. Going with your girlfriend to see a generic love movie is almost a rite of passage for a couple, acting as proof that you’re willing to inconvenience yourself just that much in order to see her naked.

Some men actually do like romance movies, but most won’t ever admit it. I did recently when I highlighted my favorite romance movie of all time, “Crazy/Beautiful.” I might be undermining the status of my man card, but I could care less. I get enough weird looks from other men when I say I find Hugh Jackman sexy. If they think less of me because of that, then that’s their problem.

In talking about my favorite romance movie, though, it occurred to me that there haven’t been a lot of quality romance movies lately. I’m not saying every one of them have been garbage, but I can’t recall too many that really stood out or weren’t the sub-plot of a superhero movie.

At the moment, romance movies are almost like westerns in that they’re out of style. Unlike westerns, though, some romance-heavy movies are making an impact, namely the “50 Shades of Grey” franchise. Say what you will about those movies, and many have, but it did make money. That’s the only excuse Hollywood needs.

There will always be a market for romance, to some extent, because we’re a romantic species. We all seek love in our lives. Romance, despite what the bitter dispassionate cynics may say, resonates with all of us and it should. That’s part of why I write romantic sexy novels.

So rather than spend too much time trying to find another romance movie that appeals to me like “Crazy/Beautiful,” I’m going to try something else. I’m going to create a list, of sorts, to describe my ideal romance movie. Like I’ve done with other movies, I’m going to keep it simple and concise.

I’m not smart or successful enough to write an entire script for the perfect romance movie. I can only offer tips, concepts, and a general framework for such a movie. For the sake of shameless branding, I’m going to call them my “Passion Rules.” Since I emphasize passion so much in my novels, I might as well embrace that brand.

With that in mind, here are Jack Fisher’s unofficial rules for making the perfect romance movie. If any Hollywood producer wants to strike the right chords and soak the maximum amount of panties, then these simple passion rules will help in that effort.


Passion Rule #1: The Romance Must Be (Unapologetically) Sex-Positive

This is the most important element of any powerful romance movie. That’s not to say that it has to rely entirely on sex, sexy scenes, or sex-centered plots. That’s what porn is for. By sex-positive, I mean that in the tradition of superheroes like Deadpool and Starfire.

Sex and physical intimacy can’t be the center of the relationship, but it can’t be an afterthought either. In the real world, people express their love through sex. Priests, mullahs, rabbis, and monks may hate that, but that’s what’ people do. It’s fun, intimate, and enjoyable on so many levels. A good romance movie should not shy away from that.

The romance doesn’t have to exist because of great sex. The great sex needs to exist because of the romance. It shouldn’t be a complication, an issue, or an obstacle. There are enough nerdy coming-of-age stories about horny teenagers trying to get laid. In a sex-positive romance, the sexy parts complement the passion.

That also means those parts aren’t pornographic, but they aren’t heavily censored like a 50s sitcom either. They should be willing to show breasts, butts, and genitals in all their glory. If you want sexy, romantic love, you can’t and shouldn’t censor it. Granted, that may earn this movie an R-rating, but given the box office returns of the “Deadpool” movie, that doesn’t have to be a deal-breaker.


Passion Rule #2: The Romance Must NOT Rely Or Depend On A Love Triangle

This is only a rule because love triangles are so inherently toxic that they might as well be the romantic equivalent of a spastic colon. I’ve gone on record as saying that love triangles are an affront to romance in both the real world, the fictional world, and any other kind of world. As such, they have no place in an ideal romance movie.

It’s not just because love triangles require that one character get screwed while the other two come off as assholes. The very concept devalues the romance itself, creating the impression that these two characters have to be together just because another romance didn’t work.

That’s part of why I deemed the Cyclops/Jean Grey/Wolverine love triangle in X-men the worst love triangle of all time. It makes every character involved look bad. It also creates the impression that these characters have to be in love, rather than actually wanting to. Short of dead animals and poop jokes, I can’t think of anything less romantic.

For any great romance movie to work, it cannot be the product or catalyst for a love triangle. There can be ex-lovers involved. There can even be a few broken hearts along the way. However, the story cannot revolve around two people loving each other despite or because of other romantic entanglements. It’s both counterproductive and frustrating to everyone involved.


Passion Rule #3: There Must Be Time, Energy, And Depth To The Romance

In many other movie genres, from over-the-top action movies to psychological thrillers, there’s usually some sort of romantic sub-plot. From the “Transformers” franchise to “Erin Brockovich,” there’s usually an effort to squeeze a little romance into a larger plot.

There’s nothing wrong with this and I totally support it. However, if you’re trying to make a real romance movie, you can’t use the same approach that Michael Bay uses in movies with giant robots. In those movies, the romance has to be wedged in between the scene where cities are blowing up and aliens are invading in order to keep the plot concise within a two-hour movie.

If the goal of the movie is to craft a compelling romance, it has to replace those invading aliens with the kind of time, energy, and depth that goes into making a romance work. It can’t always work like “Titanic” and unfold in the course of a few days. There has to be a sense of progression and effort for both characters.

It’s not enough to just meet in a bar and find each other attractive. Each character has to have a particular motivation that fully complements the other. That’s how strong romances form in real life. In a movie, those same elements can be pushed even farther by Hollywood magic. If you don’t think that has any appeal, then you haven’t seen “Magic Mike.”


Passion Rule #4: The Obstacles The Romance Faces Must Not Be Forced Or Contrived

This rule is related to the previous one in that it it’s a natural byproduct of romance being wedged in between alien invasions. Again, I’ll reference the “Transformers” movie because they do everything right and wrong with respect to these tropes.

The primary romance in the first two movies, Sam Witwicky and Mikaela Banes, is entirely built on a foundation of running from killer robots. That’s how they come together. That’s how their relationship progresses. That’s really the only obstacle we ever see them facing together.

In a sense, their romance is forced by circumstance, namely an invasion of killer transforming robots. That’s not exactly a catalyst for meaningful romance. A romance built around the adrenaline rush that comes with fleeing from killer robots is not a romance that’s built to last.

Every romance faces obstacles. Not all of those obstacles have to involve running from killer robots. They have to be stressful, meaningful, and even a little dangerous. More than anything else, though, they have to be something that both characters seek out together. By making it a shared journey, the romance becomes that much more epic.


Passion Rule #5: The Lovers Must Not Be (Entirely) Dependent On Each Other

This is one of those subtle rules that you don’t really notice until you scrutinize a romance. In some respects, it’s Disney’s fault for making the concept of the fairy tale romances so damn popular. As a result, we don’t always realize when a romance is less a romance than it is a dependence.

It’s something that plays out in cheesy love songs as well, the idea that someone loves another person so much that they need them. It’s not just that they want to be with them. They need to be with them or they’ll die. That may make for a good song by a generic boy band, but in terms of meaningful romance, it’s downright unhealthy.

I’ve talked about the thin line between love and obsession. Some movies do lousy job of walking that line, creating relationships where the characters can’t stand on their own two feet. It’s even more apparent in shows like “The Big Bang Theory” and “True Blood.”

Too many characters depend on others to be interesting. It makes the romance feel less genuine and the characters more bland. For any romance movie that looks to check the right boxes, it has to establish that this is not that kind of relationship. The characters should be individuals seeking to make each other better and sexier. That’s the core value of any great romance.


Passion Rule #6: The Little Things In The Romance Have To Matter

Related image

The most epic romances in movies, TV, and sexy novels like the ones I write all involve some sort of epic journey where two people come together in a powerful, meaningful, and hopefully sexy sort of way. That’s a big part of what makes romances like Romeo and Juliet, Jack and Rose, or Superman and Lois Lane so iconic.

However, that epic journey is just one side of the coin. The other, which many movies ignore, are the little things that make a romance great. Those are the same little things that help some couples stay together for decades. It’s those subtleties between the characters that make their romantic journey feel meaningful.

Now, I’m not saying my ideal romance movie has to dedicate a full half-hour to two characters listing all the quirks they love about each other. Those quirks should reveal themselves throughout the journey that the story takes them on. They can’t just love each other when they’re at their most passionate. They also have to share that love when they’re at their most dispassionate, as well.

This might be the hardest element to incorporate into a movie. Then again, we have movies about stoners losing their car and snakes on a plane. If Hollywood can make movies about that crap, then they have no excuses when it comes to romance.


I hope that got hearts racing and panties moistening to all those who read it. Even for those who claim to not care for romance movies, I hope this offers some intrigue. We all need love in our lives. A good romance movie is like a free piece of cake. It inherently makes our day better.

Now, here’s why a movie like this will never happen. First and foremost, it has never been cool or manly for men to like romance movies. I’m sincerely trying to change that with my novels, but it probably won’t change much within my lifetime. Since the 18 to 35-year-old male demographic is one the most sought-after demographics in the economy, we can’t expect Hollywood to ignore them.

A romance movie like this, which actually emphasizes romance, would have limited appeal, if only because it wouldn’t translate as well to international markets as giant robots. It also couldn’t be watered down to a PG-13 rating, which every movie seeks these days to appeal to the most people possible.

A movie like this would also struggle to find the necessary actors and actresses. As I’ve pointed out before with the flaws in creating quality erotica/romance, most of the Hollywood elites are reluctant to take their clothes off and get too sexy. There’s still a stigma against getting too sexy, even if movies like “Deadpool” and “50 Shades of Grey” are changing that.

At the moment, there are too many forces working against a movie like this. A lot would have to change, both in terms of the movie industry and the attitudes of movie-goers, for something like this to ever happen. Then again, if a movie like “Crazy/Beautiful” can still work, then maybe I’ll live to see the day when a movie this romantic and sexy happens. I may not be able to inspire it with my novels, but I’m sure as hell going to try.

Leave a comment

Filed under Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Jack Fisher's Insights, Marriage and Relationships

Being Right Vs. Winning An Argument Vs. Ben Shapiro

There’s an old saying that I just made up a few seconds ago, old being a relative term.

“You can either win the argument by merit or be right in principle, but only one matters in the long run.”

It sounds cynical, but it’s something I think most people realize at some point in our lives. The truth is a harsh mistress and it’s rarely the sexy kind. Truth is the kind of mistress that has no safe word, never offers any lube, and rarely gives overt warnings. When she wants to whip us in our most sensitive areas, she’ll do so without asking for permission or a second thought.

I’ll ease up on the BDSM terminology because I’m trying to make a serious point, one that’s a lot more relative in the era of “alternative facts” and “fake news.” More and more, we’re learning the hard way that our caveman brains aren’t equipped to seek truth. Survival and reproduction are our primary imperatives. Truth is optional, at best, and an afterthought at worst.

Image result for fake news

It’s for that very reason that public debates or major speaking present a false sense of perspective that exploits our caveman brains. It gives the impression that the truth can be presented in a slick, concise, and easy-to-digest message that helps us make sense of the world. That kind of certainty in an world of cheap knock-offs and practical jokes is more valuable to our psyche than gold, diamonds, and good Wi-Fi.

I say that as someone who finds a lot of entertainment value in debates. For a time, one of my favorite things to do was to look up debates between scientists and creationists, which always seems to bring out the best and worst of our caveman brains. They nicely highlight how real, functioning human beings can hold such radically different viewpoints, as well as the excuses they’ll make to cling to those viewpoints.

Related image

I won’t get into all the absurdities behind creationist debates. That’s not what prompted this post. The primary inspiration for this topic came from the recent news surrounding Ben Shapiro’s recent speaking gig at UC Berkeley. By every measure, this incident highlights all the problems with such debates better than any creationist ever could.

For those of you who don’t know who Ben Shapiro is, it’s not too hard to know what he’s about. He’s a fast-talking, quick-witted talking head in a media landscape that’s full of them. He specializes in espousing staunch conservative principles and you could make the case he does it better than almost any other conservative, at this point.

Personally, I like Mr. Shaprio’s style and I agree with some of the points he makes and not just because he makes them well. Many of them are points I’ve come to embrace on my own accord in trying to make sense of this crazy world. However, as much as I respect the man and his principles, he does embody a dangerous phenomenon that is becoming more prevalent in the digital age.

Image result for talking heads on tv

It’s one born from that not-so-old saying I mentioned earlier about being right versus winning an argument. They are not the same thing, but they’re easy to confuse, thanks largely to our caveman brains.

Think back to the Simpson Filter in appealing to large swaths of people. For the Homer and Marge Simpsons of the world, winning the argument is enough to win them over. They leave the truth for the sad, lonely, and miserable Lisa Simpsons of the world that nobody listens to.

Ben Shaprio, and others like him, are highly skilled at using the Simpson Filter to get their message across. They’re slick, compelling, and charismatic in the sense that they check all the boxes that appeal to our tribal instincts, which I’ve noted before are a major source of conflict.

Related image

By appealing to these instincts, they don’t have to be completely right. They don’t even have to be half-right. They just have to get people thinking and feeling that it’s right, so much so that they won’t bother checking the facts, doing some research of their own, or even giving it a second thought. Why would they? Ben Shaprio comes off as so smart and so knowledgable that he’s done the thinking for us.

Therein lies the biggest problem, though. By focusing on the argument and not the truth, it’s easy to conflate the two. Ben Shapiro is not a scientist, an economist, a politician, a philosopher, or even a used car salesman. He’s just a commentator, who happens to be exceptionally well at commentating in an articulate manner. That’s a valuable skill, but it’s not the same as being correct.

This actually played out in another event that occurred earlier this year at Politicon 2017. At that event, Ben Shapiro debated Cenk Uygur, another professional commentator who is at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Like Shapiro, I respect Mr. Uygur and agree with some of his positions. However, he is not as skilled a debater as Mr. Shapiro.

If you watch the debate, listen to the crowd, and note the speaking styles of both men, it’s not hard to see who has more skill and experience in that field. If you read the comments and look at the reactions, most agree that Mr. Shapiro won that debate. I’m sure it’s not the first debate he’s won, nor will it be the last.

That’s just it, though. Mr. Shapiro could win a billion more debates against a billion other people much smarter than Mr. Uygur. He could go down in history as the most skilled debater in the history of the human race. It still wouldn’t change one inescapable fact.

The real world, as in the world that operates outside our caveman brains, doesn’t give two whiffs of dried wolf shit about who wins a debate or by how much. Reality still operates under the same facts, rules, and principles. People still operate in ways that are at the mercy of their caveman brains and their collective circumstances.

Image result for Tribalism

Ben Shapiro could convince every person on this planet that Ronald Reagan was right about everything, that the Jewish religion that he practices is the only correct one, and that everyone whoever worked for Hillary Clinton was an alien spy. That still doesn’t change reality. At the end of the day, the truth is still that same harsh mistress that will whip all our asses without warning.

That’s why, in the long run, it doesn’t matter how many debates Ben Shapiro or others like him win. It doesn’t matter how well they craft their message. In the long run, if their ideas don’t line up with reality, then reality will eventually win out. It always does. People die, take their ideas with them, and leave reality to sort out the rest.

Now, I don’t doubt for a second that Mr. Shapiro is sincere in his beliefs. I also don’t doubt that his opponents, like Cenk Uygur are just as sincere. That’s why I wouldn’t classify them as professional trolls, such as the Ann Coulters and Lena Dunhams of the world.

Image result for Ann Coulter

They don’t say what they say, just to provoke our caveman brains and draw attention to themselves. They aren’t outright con-artists either, like certain televangelists. They’re just good at conveying their ideas and making them feel legitimate. Unfortunately, that’s as far as they can take it.

Ben Shapiro, Cenk Uygur, and everyone like them may think they have the answers. They may even believe that their way will make the world a better place, as a whole. They’re not entirely malicious in attempting to convey their points, but they are misguided.

There’s also a danger to their approach, conflating debates with truth. They present the false impression that an issue like politics, evolution, and economics can be resolved through simple debate through a series of talking points. As anyone who has worked with a tax attorney knows, that’s just not how the real world operates.

Image result for Complex economics

The world is complicated, complex, and chaotic. No human brain, or collection of human brains, is equipped to make sense of it. Some of these issues aren’t just complex, either. They’re impossible to resolve because there just aren’t enough resources for everyone.

A skilled debater, like Ben Shapiro, is good at convincing people there are quick fixes. The world can be improved simply by adopting the policies of his favorite ideology. He may convince you, me, and everyone around you that he’s right.

The truth, however, can never be swayed by fast talking, fancy rhetoric, or skilled arguments. At the end of the day, it will stay on the side of the harsh mistress that is reality. In the short term, the Ben Shapiro’s of the world will be able to bask in many victorious debates. In the long term, however, the truth knows whose asses will be stinging in the end.

Related image

9 Comments

Filed under Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Current Events, Jack Fisher's Insights

Rick Sanchez: Hero Of Generation Z?

Every generation has heroes, icons, rebels, and blowhards. While they don’t always define that generation, they often act as their voice. Sometimes, they even become a metaphor that embodies their hopes, dreams, and struggles. Other times, they reflect just how screwed up certain parts of that generation became.

The Baby Boomers had the Beatles, JFK, MLK, the Rolling Stones, and the average hippie. Generation X had Nirvana, MTV, NWA, “The Simpsons,” “South Park,” and Bill Clinton. For better or for worse, these people embodied the spirit and attitudes of that generation. Sure, the worse tends to make more headlines, but those who are part of that generation fondly remember the better.

The book is still being written on the millennial generation, which I’m just barely a part of. They’ve still assembled their share of heroes and icons. Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Barack Obama would definitely fit into that category. I would also list Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and Kanye West as musical icons. For heroes, I’d basically put the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe on that list.

That list of heroes and icons is still in flux for millennials because many of them are still young. They’ve yet to go through the natural evolution of a generation where spirits get crushed, rebuilt, crushed a few more times, and then stitched back together in a way that embodies the breadth of their story.

For Generation Z, who I’ve also been talking about, that story is barely beginning. Most of that generation isn’t even old enough to drive or buy a beer, let alone establish who their heroes and icons are. Right now, much of their identity is still tied to that of their millennial parents.

Make no mistake, though. They’re going to rebel against those parents. Every generation does that. It’s like laws that govern gravity, atoms, or the inherent appeal of female breasts. They see what they’re parents are doing, decide that it’s “uncool,” and try to forge their own path. Along the way, they often forge new heroes and icons.

I’ll give millennial parents a moment to dread this process. At the moment, though, Generation Z is still too young to latch onto any icon that isn’t a stuffed animal, a homework assignment, or a game they can play on a smartphone. However, that doesn’t mean some aren’t already emerging.

Once again, I’m going to try and speculate here. That means I need to make the same disclaimer I did with my last post about Generation Z where I say I am woefully unequipped to predict the future. I’m an aspiring erotica/romance writer. I’m as qualified to predict the future as an unlicensed plumber. Please keep that in mind as I attempt to make sense of a generation too young to pay its own phone bill.

I’m still going to take that chance because I feel like there is an icon emerging, as we speak. He already resonates with a sizable crowd of disillusioned individuals from previous generations. In some respects, he’s a force for utterly deconstructing everything that Generation X, Baby Boomers, and millennials held dear. As a result, he may very well be the first hero/icon that Generation Z rallies around.

To complicate matters even further, he’s not even a real person. He’s a cartoon character on a show that doesn’t air on Saturday mornings. I’ve talked about him before and I’ll probably talk about him again for any number of reasons. His name is Rick Sanchez, the raging alcoholic, nihilistic super-genius from “Rick and Morty,” the greatest show on TV that doesn’t feature a naked Emilia Clarke.

Those who watch “Rick and Morty” as avidly as I do are probably cringing at the idea of him being the voice of any generation, let alone the one the millennials are creating. This is a character who once turned himself into a pickle to get out of going to family therapy. I swear that last sentence is real. Trust me, it’s even crazier than it sounds.

I could spend multiple blog posts talking about the various antics, exploits, and traits of Rick Sanchez. I could spend even more posts talking about why a show like “Rick and Morty” is so unique compared to every other cartoon, sitcom, or TV show managed. I may end up talking about Rick Sanchez almost as much as I talk about X-men comics and Wonder Woman.

For now, though, I’m going to restrict the discussion to why Rick Sanchez may be their first iconic voice of a new generation. If you’ve read my post about the possible secrets that this generation may possess, I recommend you check that out first. That’ll help make sense of why Rick Sanchez embodies many of the traits that may shape Generation Z.

If there’s one trait that makes Rick Sanchez stand out, even more so than his raging alcoholism or trademark portal gun, it’s his unique brand of nihilism. Granted, it’s not the same nihilism that would’ve made sense to its champions in the 19th century. They probably would’ve drawn a line at turning themselves into a pickle. With Rick Sanchez and Generation Z, the context here is more subtle.

Throughout the various antics in “Rick and Morty,” there’s one common theme. Nothing you do really matters in the grand scheme of things. Nobody has an inherent purpose. There’s nothing mystical, special, or unique about you or the world you live in. Even Friedrich Nietzsche would find that extreme.

As a result, none of the conflicts that play out in “Rick and Morty” follow the traditional path of a story. It’s basically the antithesis of every cartoon, sitcom, or general narrative that we all follow in high school English classes. In the world of Rick Sanchez, all that crap is a total farce.

In many cases, especially in episodes like “Meseeks And Destroy” and “Ricksy Business,” the conflict is either forcibly contrived by someone or is revealed to have never been a conflict in the first place. In most cases, Rick Sanchez already knows this and usually can’t be bothered to make much of it. He’s so smart, so capable, and so devoid of ethical boundaries that there’s really no conflicts he can’t resolve with ease.

This is part of why I highlighted him as an anti-hero forged, in part, by boredom. The issue for him is that because he’s so smart, he’s aware that he’s part of a vast multi-verse filled with infinite versions of himself, his family, and everyone he’s ever dealt with. He’s even made allies and enemies with alternate versions of himself in some episodes. It basically reinforces the notion that nothing he or anyone does truly matters.

It doesn’t matter of he succeeds at anything. In another universe, he failed. Conversely, it doesn’t matter if he fails either because in another universe, he succeeds. The biggest example of this, by far, is the events of “Rick Potion Number 9.”

In that episode, Rick and Morty essentially destroy their entire world. Every human being gets turned into a monster and civilization collapses. Rick’s solution to this is as simple as it is pointless. He and Morty just travel to another universe where he did succeed, but died afterwards. They just go to that universe, bury their own bodies, and take their place.

It might be one of the most disturbing, but telling messages of the show. While Morty is horribly traumatized, Rick just shrugs it off. One minute, he’s burying his own body. The next, he’s drinking a beer and watching TV. That’s because he understands how pointless everything is in the grand scheme of things.

In a sense, Morty’s trauma is a metaphor for the millennial mindset. Many millennials are so driven by their sense of passion, social justice, and community. When that gets shattered, it’s pretty traumatic. That’s why a lot of millennials will suffer a major meltdown at some point in their lives. I know this because I’ve had more than a few.

Conversely, Rick Sanchez is the perfect response to that mindset. He’s so smart, aware, and informed that he understands all that drive means nothing in the grand scheme of things. In world that’s so small in a universe that’s unimaginably big, all those hysterical theatrics are pointless.

It’s because Rick’s attitudes are so utterly opposed to those of millennials like Morty that it’ll strike a greater chord with Generation Z than it will with any other generation. Unlike all previous generations, this is a cohort of people that is actually over-educated and over-informed.

Yes, it is possible to be too educated and too informed. The millennials, the most educated generation of all time, have already begun crossing that line. They helped forge a society that has unlimited access to information and is more socially accessible than any generation before it.

However, in recent years, all that information and education has unveiled a problem that only someone like Rick Sanchez could’ve foreseen. Given the sheer breadth of information, as well as the inherent chaos that comes with people in general, it’s impossible to know what’s real, what’s fake, and what’s just plain stupid.

Most of Generation Z isn’t even old enough to drive, but they’ll be entering a world where known falsehoods are alternative facts, all news is fake, everybody lies, and nobody can be trusted. The implications are unavoidable. If everyone is special, then nobody is special. If nobody is right, then it doesn’t matter how wrong everyone is.

That’s not to say there’s no meaning, whatsoever. Even Rick Sanchez shows throughout “Rick and Morty” that he is driven by something. It’s just not the same crap that drove millennials, Baby Boomers, or Generation X. In a sense, everything that drives Rick is more petty and personal.

Rick uses people, selfishly indulges in self-destructive vices, and crosses any line he has to, even before he knows its there. He does all of this because while he understands that there is no meaning to what he does, he still challenges himself. Sometimes it’s just because he can. Sometimes it’s because he really likes a certain flavor of dipping sauce.

Rick Sanchez doesn’t just understand this. He basically lives it in every episode and he’s fine with that. He doesn’t try to prove himself to anyone, even other versions of himself. He doesn’t bother virtue signaling or making excuses. He just does what he does, understands it’s meaningless, and enjoys himself along the way.

That, more than anything, is what will resonate with Generation Z. They’re inheriting a world where uncertainty is the only certainty. Their millennial parents whined and protested about it. They just accept it, shrug it off, and watch TV like Rick. That’s what will make him a true voice for a burgeoning generation.

4 Comments

Filed under Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Current Events, Jack Fisher's Insights

A Better Male Feminist: Ron Swanson

When it comes to icons and heroes, it says a lot about society when most these days are fictional characters. We’ve become a very cynical bunch, never putting too much stock into real people. It’s often only a matter of time before they tweet something stupid or are discovered to be card-carrying asshole.

In some ways, it’s a sign of the times. We are an exceedingly jaded bunch, born from a generation of burned-out hippies. We also live in a world where we have no concept of privacy and no ability to give anyone who holds problematic opinions a pass. For anyone who becomes an icon, it’s usually only a matter of time before they say or do something to ruin their iconic status.

Recently, Joss Whedon added his name to that bloated list of fallen icons. Up until a few weeks ago, he wasn’t just a successful director and alpha dog of geek culture. He was held up, by many, as a feminist icon. He was the gold standard that feminists referred to when asked to reference how a male feminist should conduct themselves.

Now, like so many other icons whose hypocrisy was exposed, Joss Whedon’s once impeccable feminist credentials have been shattered. While I’ve argued that his hypocrisy isn’t quite on the same level as other less reputable celebrities, it’s still a mortal blow, of sorts, to his status as an icon. He may still be a celebrity and a successful director, but he cannot be a feminist icon anymore.

I think that’s more than tragic. As an unapologetic fan of superhero comics, I know the value of having an iconic hero who embodies the values of a particular idea. While I’ve taken issue with certain brands of feminism, I do think there are still important women’s issues that deserve attention. Those kinds of struggles need icons and heroes.

So, in lieu of Joss Whedon’s shortcomings in this area, I’d like to offer an alternative to those seeking a new feminist hero who can raise the bar for everyone in terms of true gender equality. That hero is already an icon to many and one whose feminist credentials are a lot more pragmatic than Whedon’s ever were.

He’s a man, but he’s a man who earns the respect of men, women, and everything in between. He’s also a fictional character, but one who managed to carve a special place in popular culture for all the right reasons. Ladies, gentlemen, and those of unspecified gender, I give you the ultimate feminist hero, Ron Swanson.

To those who haven’t watched every episode of “Parks and Recreation,” bear with me. I have a feeling that those already familiar with the unstoppable force of American manliness that is Ron Swanson don’t need much convincing. They already know damn well why this man deserves to be an icon to men and woman alike.

For the sake of those who haven’t seen the show, and I weep for those people, allow me to explain. Ron Swanson isn’t just a man of many talents, from wood-working to cutting wasteful government spending. He’s a man of principle. Throughout every season of the show, he makes those principles clear and doesn’t give a wet fart about whose feelings or faces are hurt in the process.

Those are ideals that plenty of men can respect. However, it’s how he conducts himself around women that sets him apart even more. The fact he can do so with a perfectly groomed mustache is just an awesome bonus.

One of Ron Swanson’s most defining traits is that he deals with everyone the same way and sees them on a similar level, as individuals. Specifically, he sees most people as morons who annoy him and are too lazy/stupid/weak to solve their own problems. Yes, that’s a somewhat cynical view of people in general, but that’s just it. It’s how he views people.

Ron Swanson is nothing if not even-handed in dealing with men and women alike. Throughout the show, he holds both genders to the same standard. If you annoy him, as most people do, he won’t give you special treatment on the basis of what body parts you may or may not have. Annoyance is annoyance, no matter where it comes from.

That is, in essence, what traditional feminism has been about, treating both genders fairly and holding them to a similar standard. Ron Swanson does that better than anyone. Moreover, he doesn’t need to be constantly reminded. That’s just how he rolls. He doesn’t need any rigorous feminist training.

He also trusts women to be as capable as men in whatever tasks he gives them. While he’s the director of the Pawnee Park’s Department, he delegates most of the tasks to his deputy, Leslie Knope. However, he doesn’t do that because he has to. He does it because he trusts her to do the job and because Leslie wants that job.

His relationship with Leslie Knope shows that Ron is capable of working with women, trusting them, and acknowledging their value in a professional, non-romantic sort of way.

He has a similar relationship with his assistant, the crass and crude April Ludgate. Again, Ron doesn’t give her the job because she’s a woman. He gives her the job because he knows she’ll do it effectively. He also doesn’t try to make her conform to any particular standard for an assistant, gender or otherwise. He lets her be herself. Can you think of fairer, more pro-feminist way to deal with a female employee? I think not.

Beyond his working relationships, Ron shows he’s also capable of having deeper relationships with other women. Not all of them are healthy, though. He’s been divorced twice, both to women named Tammy. However, it’s these unhealthy relationships that really help solidify Ron’s status as a true feminist hero for men and women alike.

In a sense, Ron’s ex-wives are the very antithesis of feminism. In fact, they’re perfect feminist villains. Tammy One, as Ron calls her, is a joyless, ball-busting tyrant who has the warmth and comfort of a venomous snake. She exists to control everyone around her, especially Ron. She doesn’t accept anyone for who they are. She tries to mold them into whoever she wants them to be. Men and women alike are right to fear her.

On top of that, she works for the IRS. I honestly can’t think of a way to make anyone, man or woman, more terrifying. The fact that Ron survived a marriage with her should immediately give him credibility with any feminist looking to avoid the label of a man-hater.

Then, there’s Tammy Two, as Ron calls her, and while not quite as terrifying, she’s every bit as devious. What she lacks in Tammy One’s callousness, she more than makes up for with weaponized sex appeal. I’m not talking about the cute, lovable kind of sex appeal either. I’m talking about the kind that attempts to strangle a man with brute vaginal strength.

Like Tammy One, Tammy Two attempts to use sex to bend men and everyone around her to her will. Throughout the show, she makes multiple attempts to seduce Ron back into her grasp and almost succeeds a number of times. Despite her supernatural ability to manipulate men with her vagina, Ron is able to resist and break her hold.

On one level, that’s a perfect demonstration of a woman who uses sexuality for manipulation, something feminists and men’s rights activists alike complain about. On another, it also demonstrates that some men cannot be bought with sex, no matter how wild and amazing it might be. Ron is one of those men and he’s a better man because of it.

Despite his experiences with his ex-wives, Ron Swanson still treats women fairly. He’s even a romantic, of sorts, and not just towards bacon. In the later seasons of the show, he meets a woman named Diane Lewis and she’s everything the Tammys aren’t.

She accepts him for who he is, doesn’t want him to change, and eventually marries him. Ron treats her the same. Theirs is a true relationship of equals, a kind that feminists can respect and admire alongside that of Cyclops and Jean Grey. For a man to have endured two failed marriages to two monstrous women, yet still love a better woman for all the right reasons, is as heroic a story as any, especially within a feminist context.

Between the way Ron works with women, the way he loves them, and the way he deals with them, he demonstrates a far more refined approach to feminism than Joss Whedon ever did. He didn’t need to create female heroes. He didn’t need to make multi-billion dollar movies or iconic TV shows. He just had to show that it’s possible to deal with women in a fair, equal, and respectful way.

The fact that Ron does all of that without being the kind of whiney beta-male that makes every male feminist sound like they have a deflated scrotum. Ron is, by every measure, as alpha as it gets when it comes to men. He’s strong, he’s tough, he’s stern, and he has one of the manliest mustaches of all time. No one in their right mind would doubt this man’s masculine credentials.

On top of that, he’s not the kind overly-muscled, John Rambo kind of alpha male with woefully impractical muscles and ridiculous skills that nobody without Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body-building routine can hope to match. Ron Swanson has the build and physique of an actual man. He does set the bar too high or inspire body image issues, except when it comes to manly facial hair.

By nearly every measure, Ron Swanson is the kind of man that should earn him a place in the feminist hall of fame. He is everything men respect and women admire. He should be the icon and hero that feminists refer to.

I’m not saying he’s without flaws. I’m not saying there aren’t other men, real and fictional, who deserve a similar status. I’m just saying that Ron Swanson is the kind if icon that feminists can rally around. Granted, Ron doesn’t care much for rallies, icons, heroes, or annoying people in general, but that’s what makes him Ron fucking Swanson.

3 Comments

Filed under Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Current Events, gender issues

Joss Whedon: Feminist Hypocrite Or All Too Human?

Happier times: Architect and producer Cole claims that Whedon cheated on her multiple times through their 16 year marriage in her piece for The Wrap; (pictured 2010)

If you’ve been following this blog in any capacity, or even the past few months, you’ve probably picked up on a number of themes. If you’re new and just stumbled across this blog because you noticed how much it talks about boobs, sex robots, and Deadpool, then here’s a quick rundown of those themes.

  • Every human being is at the mercy of their brain wiring to a large extent
  • Our brain wiring still assumes that we’re a bunch of cavemen hunting and foraging in the savanna
  • Our brains and body structure have two primary purposes, survival and reproduction
  • Any function other than survival and reproduction is secondary
  • Our overall biology is a blunt instrument that is nearly incapable of being precise, specific, or consistent
  • People will make endless excuses to justify actions they think were more logical than they actually are
  • Sex robots are awesome and cannot come soon enough

For this post, which highlights a major story that broke recently, it’ll cover almost all of those themes, minus the sex robots. It’s also a story that’s still developing so, in all likelihood, the details are bound to change at some point.

 

That tends to happen a lot when the story involves divorce, celebrities, and potential hypocrisy on a level that even our celebrity-loving culture can’t tolerate. I’ve made an issue of that kind of hypocrisy before when sex icon and walking male fantasy Pamela Anderson came out against porn, despite having become rich and famous from it. This, however, involves a different kind of hypocrisy.

This brings me Joss Whedon, whose life seems to have taken a few tumbles since it peaked while directing “The Avengers.” It’s not just that he never got “Firefly” un-cancelled or did not do a good job of handling the less-than-flattering controversy surrounding “Avengers: Age of Ultron.” His personal life is also suffering.

Lately, Whedon has been going through a long, tedious divorce with his wife, Kai Cole. Divorce is always rough, even when you’re as celebrated and successful as Joss Whedon. Celebrity couples endure it with distressing frequency, as Chris Pratt and Anna Faris recently learned. However, Whedon’s divorce has incurred another story with even larger implications.

Granted, it doesn’t take much to make divorce even more painful, especially when you have the resources of a celebrity. This might be one case where the pain goes beyond the relationship, revealing something about ourselves that’s as impactful as any billion-dollar movie.

That pain came in the form of a letter that Kai Cole penned about her husband for The Wrap. This is not just an angry rant from a bitter ex-wife, although that’s definitely a part of it. This letter potentially reveals a level of hypocrisy that may undermine our ability to trust any male celebrity who claims to be an ardent feminist.

While I’ve articulated my doubts about those kinds of figures before, Ms. Cole’s article is basically a perfect storm, of sorts. That’s because, until this letter, Joss Whedon had a reputation as being the quintessential male feminist in Hollywood geek culture.

He did plenty to earn that reputation too by creating shows like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Dollhouse,” and the aforementioned “Firefly.” He even wrote comics like Astonishing X-men. The man had a long list of accomplishments. The fact he did so much under the feminist label says a lot about him.

Then, this letter comes along that basically says Whedon’s feminist credentials are built on a lie. It’s a major revelation that may not have surprised some, but it’s still pretty jarring for those who held Whedon as the gold standard for male feminism.

For some context, here are some of the things his ex-wife said about those lies. I’ll give die-hard Buffy fans a moment to brace themselves.

There were times in our relationship that I was uncomfortable with the attention Joss paid other women. He always had a lot of female friends, but he told me it was because his mother raised him as a feminist, so he just liked women better. He said he admired and respected females, he didn’t lust after them. I believed him and trusted him. On the set of “Buffy,” Joss decided to have his first secret affair.

Fifteen years later, when he was done with our marriage and finally ready to tell the truth, he wrote me, “When I was running ‘Buffy,’ I was surrounded by beautiful, needy, aggressive young women. It felt like I had a disease, like something from a Greek myth. Suddenly I am a powerful producer and the world is laid out at my feet and I can’t touch it.” But he did touch it. He said he understood, “I would have to lie — or conceal some part of the truth — for the rest of my life,” but he did it anyway, hoping that first affair, “would be ENOUGH, that THEN we could move on and outlast it.”

Joss admitted that for the next decade and a half, he hid multiple affairs and a number of inappropriate emotional ones that he had with his actresses, co-workers, fans and friends, while he stayed married to me. He wrote me a letter when our marriage was falling apart, but I still didn’t know the whole truth, and said, “I’ve never loved anyone or wanted to be with anyone in any real or long-term way except for you ever. And I love our life. I love how you are, how we are, who you are and what we’ve done both separately and together, how much fun we have…” He wanted it all; he didn’t want to choose, so he accepted the duality as a part of his life.

Now before I say anything else about this issue or Ms. Cole’s letter, I need to make one thing clear. This letter is just one side of the story. As of this post, Joss Whedon and his people have not commented on this letter. That could change between now and the second after I publish this post.

Also, keep in mind that the person who wrote this letter is an ex-wife who probably isn’t feeling too happy with her former husband. She has reason and incentive, due to his wealth and status, to undermine his reputation. That’s usually all anyone needs to shrug off details, context, and facts.

For that reason, and others I don’t have time to get into, it’s unreasonable to assume that every word of Ms. Cole’s letter is completely true. It’s also just as unreasonable to assume that every word is false. Even if she is bitter, there may very well be elements of truth behind her claims. We’ve seen how hard it is to expose the hard truth of celebrities.

For the sake of exploring the implications, here, let’s assume that at least part of Ms. Cole’s letter is true. Since they are divorcing, it’s entirely plausible that Whedon was not entirely faithful during their marriage.

He’s a big name Hollywood director, armed with obscene amounts of money and influence. If you think for a second that beautiful women aren’t going to throw themselves at someone like that, then I suggest you watch some old Motley Crue music videos. Feminist or not, people are attracted to wealth and power. How else do you explain Mick Jagger having kids with women more than half his age?

I think it’s a near certainty that, at some point in his career, a beautiful young woman has offered herself to Joss Whedon in ways that would make Anastasia Steele blush. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some just showed up naked at his trailer and offered a guided tour of their vaginas. The only uncertainty is the extent to which Mr. Whedon accepted these offers.

Even if he accepted just one and never did it again, that would still be a major blow to his feminist credentials. Think of it from the perspective of the feminist characters that Mr. Whedon usually champions. What he did would be the antithesis of the narratives he tried to forge with shows like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” Instead, it would basically be the same narrative of at least half of every porno ever made.

In that story, he’s anything but the feminist he claims to be. He’s a powerful man who uses his power and wealth to get sex from the kinds of eager young women who would fail the Bechtal Test on every level. It doesn’t matter that these women willingly offered sex. It still gives the impression that he’s a powerful man who’s using his position to get the kind of sex usually reserved for the villains in a “Mad Max” movie.

According to the letter, Ms. Cole was not an absent force in his life so it wasn’t like she was never around. She makes clear that she helped him with his career. She even contributed in some ways. However, those contributions didn’t stop Whedon from taking advantages of the sexy opportunities that presented themselves, often quite literally.

Whatever the extent of Whedon’s infidelity, if true, it still begs one important question. Does what he did make him a hypocrite in the eyes of feminism? Well, I would argue that it does, but to a very limited extent.

What he did was not very feminist. In fact, it was about as progressive as the setting of “Mad Men.” He plays directly into the narratives he claims to resent. However, he didn’t actively seek that narrative. It sought him. He’s a man. Feminist or not, when beautiful women throw themselves at you, that caveman brain of yours is going to take notice.

In Ms. Cole’s letter, she quoted Mr. Whedon offering an excuse for his behavior. Given what I’ve said about excuses, certain details should be fairly obvious.

When I was running ‘Buffy,’ I was surrounded by beautiful, needy, aggressive young women. It felt like I had a disease, like something from a Greek myth. Suddenly I am a powerful producer and the world is laid out at my feet and I can’t touch it.

That bold portion was my doing. Read it over a few times and think about what he’s saying. Mr. Whedon is implying that the concept of being surrounded by beautiful women wanting to throw themselves at you and feeling inclined to accept their eager offers isn’t just antithetical to feminism. It’s a disease.

That creates a couple of problems, both for his feminist narrative and his depleted excuse bank. One, it implies that, by being a disease, there’s some outside force responsible for his behavior and he’s somehow not responsible. Two, it also implies that a man wanting to enjoy the sexual opportunities that come his way is somehow inherently wrong.

Both of those problems fail miserably within the context of caveman logic and simple human nature. In fact, it even fails within the context of the natural biology of life that prioritizes survival and reproduction. Mr. Whedon did more than enough to acquire abundant resources for survival. Then, opportunities to reproduce follow and nearly every law of nature makes him inclined to use those opportunities.

In that sense, Mr. Whedon is not a hypocrite, but he is misguided in his understanding of sexual dynamics. I don’t deny that he sees himself as a pro-feminist person. However, I think that’s such a huge part of his identity that he’s willing to make more excuses than most to protect it. It’s really no different than what happened with Ted Haggard.

If Joss Whedon weren’t so closely associated with feminism, then the revelation that he might have cheated on his wife probably wouldn’t be news. He would just be another powerful man in Hollywood who enjoyed the fruits of being rich and famous. However, it’s his excuses, as Ms. Cole describes them, that are most telling.

It also reflects the distressing flaws in the kinds of sex-negative feminism that pervade certain parts of Hollywood and mass media. It paints certain sexual dynamics between gender, which are entirely logical within the context of biology, and paints them as flawed.

Now, I don’t deny that the human body has its flaws. Any man who has been kicked in the balls will attest to that. However, attempting to subvert those flaws never ends well. Just ask anyone who has survived gay conversion therapy. Any man or women who thought Mr. Whedon could subvert those same forces in the name of feminism is living in a fantasy world every bit as flawed as “Dollhouse.”

So while I don’t think it’s right to call Mr. Whedon a total hypocrite, I do think his actions, if true, reflect poorly on the principles he’s preached. It also reflects poorly on the brand of feminism that insists that certain male inclinations are inherently wrong. Mr. Whedon may be a great director and a less-than-perfect husband, but he’s still a man at the end of the day. If we acknowledge that, then we don’t need as many excuses.

6 Comments

Filed under Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Current Events, Reasons and Excuses

Breaking Down The Breakup Between Anna Faris And Chris Pratt

The life of a celebrity compared to the life of a non-celebrity couldn’t be more different without involving aliens, unicorns, and pet monkeys. That’s also a major reason why we’re so fascinated by celebrity culture. Say what you will about the crazy headlines of the glorified toilet paper known as tabloids. They still get our attention and, as I’ve pointed out before, that’s the most valuable currency in our economy.

As such, a high-profile celebrity couple breaking up is a big deal. From a celebrity culture and deranged tabloid perspective, it’s like crack mixed with meth mixed with heroin. It’s as addictive as it is debilitating. It crushes whatever fairy tale narrative we had playing out in our collective psyches and making us question whether love is truly real.

Now, I don’t doubt the allure of celebrity romances. These are people with a lot money and power at their fingertips. These are people who could ask a random stranger to smear pudding on their chest and have a hungry loin lick it up and they’ll do it with a smile.

They have every conceivable resource to make their relationships the sort of thing that Disney movies are built on. How is it that they keep failing? That’s not just a perception thing either. In terms of raw numbers, celebrity marriages fail at nearly twice the rate of non-celebrity marriages. With all that money and power, how is that even possible?

Well, last week we were reminded that no matter how many fairy tales fever dreams a celebrity romance may inspire, it can still fail. The latest involves Chris Pratt and Anna Faris, one of Hollywood’s highest profile celebrity couples. After an eight-year marriage, they’ve announced that they’re legally separating.

Even I admit, this one caught me by surprise. I’ve been a fan of Chris Pratt since his day as the chubby dork, Andy Dwyer, on “Parks and Recreation.” I’ve also had a soft spot for Anna Faris since her colorful performance in the horror spoof, “Scary Movie.” The fact that those two got together and stayed married for nearly a decade was just a nice bonus.

However, much like the end of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the high-profile nature of the marriage always made it subject to scrutiny. Most recently, there had been rumors that Pratt had cheated on Faris with Jennifer Lawrence, his co-star in their movie, “Passengers.”

I tend not to give much weight to such rumors, even when Jennifer Lawrence is involved. That hasn’t stopped some people from blaming Ms. Lawrence for the breakup, but that’s to be expected. Brad Pitt had been subject to similar rumors before his breakup with Angelina Jolie.

In general, it’s fairly safe to assume that, unless there’s high-definition sex tape, those rumors are only partially true at most. Since nobody other than Pratt and Faris know the full story behind their breakup, I’m not going to assume that cheating or infidelity was involved. According to Pratt’s own statement, the breakup was mutual.

“Anna and I are sad to announce we are legally separating. We tried hard for a long time, and we’re really disappointed. Our son has two parents who love him very much and for his sake we want to keep this situation as private as possible moving forward.”

For now, I’m going to take Mr. Pratt at is word, but assume there were other dynamics at work that neither he nor Faris care to share with an unforgiving public. I’m not even going to speculate on what those dynamics can be. Instead, I’m going to step back and look at the bigger picture here. If nothing else, I’d like to give think fans of both Pratt and Faris, as well as fans of any celebrity couple, a sense of perspective.

Much of that perspective boils down to one inescapable truth. Celebrities live crazy lives, work crazy jobs, and deal with crazy stresses that no ordinary person can hope to understand, let alone deal with. The fact that any celebrity romance succeeds in the long run is nothing short of a miracle.

These are not people with normal or even semi-normal experiences. These are people doing things few people can do, achieving success that most people never achieve, and struggling to manage it all without going insane. So whenever a celebrity does have a very public breakdown, of sorts, it really shouldn’t surprise anyone.

On top of that, celebrities often work jobs that keep them busy for insane hours and requires them to spend a good chunk of their time traveling. Even if they have their own private jet and a support staff who effectively manages every minor detail of their lives, right down to the brand of toilet paper they buy, they’re still always busy. In a sense, being a celebrity is as close to a full-time job as anyone can have.

How can you make a relationship work in those circumstances? That’s not a rhetorical question. That’s an ongoing issue that many celebrities struggle to solve. Pratt and Faris thought they had the answer. I’m sure Pitt and Jolie felt the same way. In the end, they were wrong. It’s tragic, but it shows just how hard it is to answer that question.

That’s not to say it’s impossible. Some celebrity couples find a way to make it work. They are, however, the exceptions and not the norms. Realistically speaking, the circumstances of a celebrity romance are a checklist of how not to structure a relationship. For the sake of context, here are just some of them.

  • Working extended periods in a high-stress, fast-paced environment
  • Managing large numbers of people and resources
  • Traveling frequently and having little time to spend at home or with loved ones
  • Doing physically demanding, often exhausting work
  • Being surrounded by extremely attractive people with a strong incentive to seduce others
  • Being subject to constant scrutiny and micromanaging
  • Constantly entering unfamiliar situations and dealing with unfamiliar people
  • Occasionally having to get naked and/or intimate with strangers

Just dealing with a few of these issues is stressful enough on any relationship. That’s why occupations like bartender, massage therapist, or police officer have a markedly high divorce rate. With celebrities, though, the challenges are even greater because it’s not just one or two issues. It all of them.

At the end of the day, no matter what Tom Cruise may think, we’re all human. We all have human brains that are stuck with caveman settings. Those brains aren’t equipped to deal with the rigors of a celebrity life. Hell, it’s barely equipped to handle our current ideals of romance.

Chris Pratt and Anna Faris had the odds stacked against them from the beginning. They clearly loved each other. They made that abundantly clear in their announcement. However, their brains have the same limits as ours. Those brains compel us to form the kinds of intimate, close connections that are easily strained by stressful jobs, constant travel, and an excess of beautiful people willing to sleep with you.

Most relationships, in general, struggle to function in those conditions, as evidenced by the non-celebrity divorce rate. Pratt and Faris tried to beat those odds, on top of all the forces working against them, and did a lot better than most. Just ask anyone Taylor Swift ever dated.

At the end of the day, though, the mechanics of a celebrity romance are just too daunting, even for those who genuinely love each other. It’s part of why people root for celebrity romances . The idea that two people can overcome those daunting obstacles nourishes our ideals about love and marriage. When that fails, it hits those ideals pretty hard, as evidenced by the Twitter reaction to the Pratt/Faris breakup.

https://twitter.com/RyanJohnNelson/status/894444088287780864

While it is disappointing, especially for a relationship that seemed more healthy than most, it still shouldn’t be surprising. We, the non-celebrities of the world, can’t forget that people like Chris Pratt and Anna Faris live such crazy lives that are wholly unconducive to our romantic ideals.

Some of that is our fault. Some of that is the fault of biology with the way our brains are wired. Even so, it shouldn’t destroy our concept of love. If nothing else, it should remind us that making a relationship work is hard, but the fact that celebrities try as hard as they do is proof that the work is worth it.

5 Comments

Filed under Celebrities and Celebrity Culture, Jack Fisher's Insights