|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 11, 2012 18:47:26 GMT -5
You know, I wanna bitch about Playboy etc... but I actually think she looks pretty good in these. And this is coming from somebody who thinks that she is really not very attractive/was way too rough looking to play Julia (Julia was a very fragile/fairy type of girl).
|
|
|
Post by sonnenstern on Jan 11, 2012 18:58:00 GMT -5
Yes is the second time for Nina Bott on the Playboy cover. Today was a reportage about her on ARD in the Show Brisant.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 11, 2012 19:09:33 GMT -5
Yes is the second time for Nina Bott on the Playboy cover. Today was a reportage about her on ARD in the Show Brisant. I think it says a lot for the advances in photoshop that the new pics look actually much better than the old pics (not that I think that she didn't get more attractive with age, I'm talking about the overall quality and "shiny-ness" of it).
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 13, 2012 8:12:02 GMT -5
According to VL Twitter[/url], Nina will be guesting on Monday's TV Total[/url] from 11pm, and Isa will be on the same day's ' NDR DAS![/url]' from 6.45pm.
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 15, 2012 18:47:11 GMT -5
Renée and Dirk were at Saturday's 'Ahoi!' party (Empire Riverside Hotel, Hamburg). There are two pictures of them there on APA PictureDesk[/url], four over at Cozycot[/url] (click 'show images', under the initial preview set of pics, to view all of the enlargeable set), and five over on Bildagentur Bildmaschine[/url] (three on page 1 and the remaining two on page 3). ETA: There are also four of them over on the rtntvnews site[/url].
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 16, 2012 9:41:18 GMT -5
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 18, 2012 5:59:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 18, 2012 6:08:28 GMT -5
Awww. That was kinda mean. I did lol at the "night" callback.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 6:17:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phoenix-feather on Jan 18, 2012 9:27:21 GMT -5
May be this is the writers' way of getting back at all the hateful emails of the past year Sort of like "In your face, hateful fans, you can s**k it! "
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 19, 2012 15:23:27 GMT -5
[/url] [/quote] There are more pictures of Jana at this 'Lambertz Monday Night 2012/Chocolate & Fashion Show' dress rehearsal over on the Lambertz site[/url]. And there's also one enlargeable one of her[/url] over on the FOCUS site (danke, Christina).
|
|
|
Post by samtelvis on Jan 19, 2012 20:09:08 GMT -5
I primarily lurk, but now I do have a question. I'm just wondering about something. And there is no offence intended for those of you who are Jessica fans. This is what I'm wondering about: the impression I get from this forum, from the German forums as well as on MM's channel that Jessica is generally a disliked character (actually she seems to be really disliked), but I don't think it's just because she interfered with Chris and Ollie's marriage. So, I don't really understand why there are so many images of her posted on this forum. It seems that there are many Jessica images, Jessica vlogs, and Jessica/Jana VL promotional pics. I guess...I don't understand? I haven't seen nearly the number of photocaps of Olivia, Judith, Rebecca, Miriam or many of the other female characters that (have) surround(ed) Chrollie as I have seen of her. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I find this really kind of interesting. SE
|
|
|
Post by dalphine on Jan 19, 2012 21:55:21 GMT -5
I can only guess that it's probably because she dates Thore in real life. He seems very happy and I'm happy for him. JMOP
|
|
|
Post by samtelvis on Jan 19, 2012 22:21:09 GMT -5
I wonder, how long yet they will make embarrassing remarks to that night ....?!?!it seems, that the authors really enjoy it .... EDIT: and maybe ...these little comments on that threesome-night are meant for those viewers , who still refuse to believe that between Christian , Jessica and Andi really something happen during the night in NL . Personally, I think there are two explanations for "that night". I'll put a disclaimer here: I can only state my point of view and support it with what I think are reasonable answers, but that doesn't mean that I don't think there aren't "other" answers. I do know that some viewers have different explanations, I just don't believe those explanations are truly logical, or reasonable. In many ways I lack imagination, and can only come up with conclusions based on the information I am presented with. So I try to avoid getting into emotional discussions about whether Chris is a "this" and therefore a "that"; or Oliver is a "this-this" therefore of course he'll react by being a "that-that". Whatev. I love them both; they both have faults; they are both heroic in their own way. So all I'm talking about is THIS situation only. I don't mean to draw conclusions about other areas of their lives. Okay so explanation #1: Nothing happened So before anyone wants to poke me in the ribs, this is my rational: a) We didn't see anything. b) Christian and Andy didn't see anything aside from "a few" (two or three) images taken on her cell phone of them laughing and grabbing her boob; she wearing a bright hot pink top--so clothes on for ALL of them. c) Scant memories of fuzzy things (by both Chris and Any) the next day. d) The boys waking up completely naked while Jessica is still (mostly) dressed the next morning. e) They have to rely on Jessica's word f) Jessica has a track record of lying, even to the point of committing perjury (lying in a court of law which carries a prison term in every country--she lied about the rape) Explanation #2: She sexually assaulted them. Again, before anyone elbows me in the ribs hear me out. Obama just recently updated the sexual assault laws in the US to include men as victims. This is quite a significant change because the law has not been updated for 80 years. So men can claim sexual assault against a man or a woman now, where as before it was quite difficult to do this. If a man was sexually assaulted in the past, it was either not reported or there was very little support for him to come forward if he ever wanted to, though he would suffer through the same feelings of powerlessness, blame and stress as any other victim of sexual assault. a) Because Chris did not set out to have sex with Jessica before he started to drink, when he became incapacitated she no longer had/has the legal right to engage with him in such a manner. So, now under US law he can charge her with sexual assault. b) His blood alcohol level was too high to have intercourse. We know this because he blacked out right afterwards. c) This is the BAL that Christian was at-- "0.20 BAC: Feeling dazed/confused or otherwise disoriented. May need help to stand/walk. If you injure yourself you may not feel the pain. [For men there is erectile dysfunction]. Some people have nausea and vomiting at this level...Blackouts are likely at this level so you may not remember what has happened." www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htmd) If Chris were a woman and Jessica a man because Chris did not give Jess explicit permission to have sex when he was not incapacitated, this is illegal. e) When Jessica meant sex, it looked like she meant oral sex because he was sitting in exactly the same position when he woke up the next morning as he was "clothed" the night before. This indicates a physically "passive" position. f) Last point, he had every right to be where he was, where as she did not, after Chris and Andy were no longer able to give her permission to stay after hours. She was in their place of business; she was in their home. She was a guest who stayed a little too long. So, I think for many viewers "that" situation has not sat right with them in terms of its explanation. What I've done is articulated some of the possible reasons why Jessica's record of events seems so implausible. viewers have had a problem with it--because it just didn't jive with a "reasonable" set of events. Remember Occam's Razor theory: the simplest explanation is the most likely one. It's also important to note, that victim of sexual assault blame themselves for the assault, which is what Chris has done. He didn't remember anything; he didn't remember much. But because he is a man, he assumes he must have been complicit in the event. So these are the two theories I have: #1 It didn't happen, #2 Jessica sexually assaulted both Chris and Andy. Any thoughts, any comments? SE
|
|
|
Post by samtelvis on Jan 19, 2012 23:47:12 GMT -5
I can only guess that it's probably because she dates Thore in real life. He seems very happy and I'm happy for him. JMOP Thank you so much for answering; I wondered about that. So, you mean it's not because she has a job in acting that we see so many images of her? I saw a very brief interview with her--posted here actually, and she seems to really enjoy playing the Jessica character.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 20, 2012 0:40:02 GMT -5
It's a soap. It's not reasonable.
IMO with every day that passes, with every new storyline that starts it becomes more and more unlikely that they will do away with it/come up with a different narrative.
I also think that Jessica was drunk as well (she mentioned headache/hangover) and that she didn't set out to have sex with Andi/Christian when she arrived there. IMO she set out to flirt with anybody there and hoped to snag an aristocrat (Phil, Tristan, Hagen), but ended up going with the people who responded the most/didn't go home.
Jessica said to Helena that she had sex with Andi and Christian at the same time. In the vlog a viewer asks her an unrelated question which includes the phrase "getting on Olli" and she says she was never "on" Olli, she was "under" Christian and "on" Andi. Yes, I realize that that makes little sense with the "facts" presented but imo that's still their soap logic and canon.
And considering that stuff happening made it into official material like the bio pages I don't think that you can consider it untrue as long as the show doesn't at one point make a point of having it come out otherwise. Which again I think becomes less and less likely with every new day and every new storyline. Characters just move on to other topics (yes, even when they do still make jokes about the past).
There are repeated conversations where Jessica talks about what Andi is like in bed, whether he is "smaller" than Daniel and imo I don't get the impression that she's not supposed to know what she's talking about (Andi is embarassed and doesn't negate her, there is no unsure or scheming expression on Jessica's face/demeanor). It comes across to me like stuff that Jessica is supposed to know. Her character background is to be to sleep around a lot (SPOILER: especially now since they probably want to stress that to emphasize the contrast of her falling in luuuuuurve for the first time with Daniel) and hence Andi/Olli will be kept because it fits with that narrative. Because apparently in VL logic sleeping around even with attached people is still fairly normal but sleeping around with two together is apparently particularly slutty.
Sadly it's part of the course of a VL that sometimes stuff is the narrative even if it violates common sense. Like all the "hey look this couple is awesome and romantic" narrative vs. people saying "No this couples sucks/no this couple is actually dysfunctional". Or "Hey look this character is so poor and likable and heroic" vs. "No this character is actually a selfish hypocrite".
SPOILER I did say in the spoiler topic that I don't consider it completely impossible for there to still do a "reveal", it might still topically "fit" with the Daniel/Helena/Andi narrative in the future. That's why I keep an eye on that story, how Helena reacts to Jessica, to what extent they intend for Jessica to remain in the story etc. Because things in VL need a purpose. Right now there is purpose to it being real aka it strengthens the contrats between slutty Jessica and Jessica now wanting one particular guy. So I feel the only way it is gonna be done away with would be if a larger purpose came along. One theory was that one purpose might be to make the Chrolli reunion happen, but that has passed already. Another purpose might be to make Andi look better/good in Helena's eyes. But it depends on whether they want to go there since that would make Jessica look particularly bad and would make it hard for her to remain in that storyline and at the same time they seem to want Helena/Daniel as their OTP and not Helena/Andi. So I keep an eye on that story. Another point against it in my mind is that Helena got over Daniel sleeping with Jessica fairly easy. If they for example made a point out of Helena still being shown as being unhappy about that/using that against Daniel, it being made clear that that is a "black mark" on him for her and she accepts it only because apparently every guy in Düsseldorf has been there as well etc then it would be a larger contrast to at one point reveal that Daniel really did sleep with Jessica and that it turns out Andi didn't.
It's not just a question of what is good or logical or desired, but also a question of whether it fits into the overall show.
|
|
|
Post by samtelvis on Jan 20, 2012 7:35:49 GMT -5
It's a soap. It's not reasonable. IMO with every day that passes, with every new storyline that starts it becomes more and more unlikely that they will do away with it/come up with a different narrative. I also think that Jessica was drunk as well (she mentioned headache/hangover) and that she didn't set out to have sex with Andi/Christian when she arrived there. IMO she set out to flirt with anybody there and hoped to snag an aristocrat (Phil, Tristan, Hagen), but ended up going with the people who responded the most/didn't go home. Jessica said to Helena that she had sex with Andi and Christian at the same time. In the vlog a viewer asks her an unrelated question which includes the phrase "getting on Olli" and she says she was never "on" Olli, she was "under" Christian and "on" Andi. Yes, I realize that that makes little sense with the "facts" presented but imo that's still their soap logic and canon. And considering that stuff happening made it into official material like the bio pages I don't think that you can consider it untrue as long as the show doesn't at one point make a point of having it come out otherwise. Which again I think becomes less and less likely with every new day and every new storyline. Characters just move on to other topics (yes, even when they do still make jokes about the past). There are repeated conversations where Jessica talks about what Andi is like in bed, whether he is "smaller" than Daniel and imo I don't get the impression that she's not supposed to know what she's talking about (Andi is embarassed and doesn't negate her, there is no unsure or scheming expression on Jessica's face/demeanor). It comes across to me like stuff that Jessica is supposed to know. Her character background is to be to sleep around a lot (SPOILER: especially now since they probably want to stress that to emphasize the contrast of her falling in luuuuuurve for the first time with Daniel) and hence Andi/Olli will be kept because it fits with that narrative. Because apparently in VL logic sleeping around even with attached people is still fairly normal but sleeping around with two together is apparently particularly slutty. Sadly it's part of the course of a VL that sometimes stuff is the narrative even if it violates common sense. Like all the "hey look this couple is awesome and romantic" narrative vs. people saying "No this couples sucks/no this couple is actually dysfunctional". Or "Hey look this character is so poor and likable and heroic" vs. "No this character is actually a selfish hypocrite". SPOILER I did say in the spoiler topic that I don't consider it completely impossible for there to still do a "reveal", it might still topically "fit" with the Daniel/Helena/Andi narrative in the future. That's why I keep an eye on that story, how Helena reacts to Jessica, to what extent they intend for Jessica to remain in the story etc. Because things in VL need a purpose. Right now there is purpose to it being real aka it strengthens the contrats between slutty Jessica and Jessica now wanting one particular guy. So I feel the only way it is gonna be done away with would be if a larger purpose came along. One theory was that one purpose might be to make the Chrolli reunion happen, but that has passed already. Another purpose might be to make Andi look better/good in Helena's eyes. But it depends on whether they want to go there since that would make Jessica look particularly bad and would make it hard for her to remain in that storyline and at the same time they seem to want Helena/Daniel as their OTP and not Helena/Andi. So I keep an eye on that story. Another point against it in my mind is that Helena got over Daniel sleeping with Jessica fairly easy. If they for example made a point out of Helena still being shown as being unhappy about that/using that against Daniel, it being made clear that that is a "black mark" on him for her and she accepts it only because apparently every guy in Düsseldorf has been there as well etc then it would be a larger contrast to at one point reveal that Daniel really did sleep with Jessica and that it turns out Andi didn't.
It's not just a question of what is good or logical or desired, but also a question of whether it fits into the overall show. This is funny! So it seems like what you're saying is: 'been there, 'thought that, but VL world=not much logic :. focus on storylines that ARE somewhat realistic, and interesting. LOL! With your above explanation (which I find is enlightening), it would still fit into the second explanation: she sexually assaulted them. It wouldn't really matter whether she was drunk or not. At a later point I'll explain more fully why I still think the logic (illogic) of the show supports the second explanation, I have to scurry on to work now. SE
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 20, 2012 7:52:41 GMT -5
But the issue is that VL makes their own reality.
For example: Leonard cheats on his deathly ill wife with Sarah. Sarah cheats on her husband Gregor while pregnant with his child.
Common sense interpretation: Wow, what a*holes! VL interpretation: OMG, what a romantic supercouple, big fluffy wedding
So it doesn't matter whether what happens fullfills the technical requirements for an assault, the question is whether VL ever intends to portray it that way/whether any of the characters will ever feel like this is what happens. And my theory is: Naw, no way, not unless there were to be an outside purpose/it doesn't clash with their current narrative.
Kinda like the show deciding whether it goes with the "chronically unreliable criminal" or "lovable rogue" with Emilio. Or "perverted longterm abuser of Helena" or "poor suffering guy who was driven crazy by love" for Tristan. They are the one who decide what the narrative is regardless of what the facts are.
And on a soap narrative matters. Because soaps usually have an undercurrent of reward/punishment. Of course it doesn't work 100% (because "amusing" villains get to stay around even if they did bad things). But still, Jessica's fate/punishment would be very different if as far as the show and the characters are concerned she was "just" a normal slut who had a drunk party with two guys than if she was a rapist like that Alexander guy.
|
|
|
Post by samtelvis on Jan 20, 2012 13:37:43 GMT -5
But the issue is that VL makes their own reality. For example: Leonard cheats on his deathly ill wife with Sarah. Sarah cheats on her husband Gregor while pregnant with his child. Common sense interpretation: Wow, what a*holes! VL interpretation: OMG, what a romantic supercouple, big fluffy wedding So it doesn't matter whether what happens fullfills the technical requirements for an assault, the question is whether VL ever intends to portray it that way/whether any of the characters will ever feel like this is what happens. And my theory is: Naw, no way, not unless there were to be an outside purpose/it doesn't clash with their current narrative. Kinda like the show deciding whether it goes with the "chronically unreliable criminal" or "lovable rogue" with Emilio. Or "perverted longterm abuser of Helena" or "poor suffering guy who was driven crazy by love" for Tristan. They are the one who decide what the narrative is regardless of what the facts are. And on a soap narrative matters. Because soaps usually have an undercurrent of reward/punishment. Of course it doesn't work 100% (because "amusing" villains get to stay around even if they did bad things). But still, Jessica's fate/punishment would be very different if as far as the show and the characters are concerned she was "just" a normal slut who had a drunk party with two guys than if she was a rapist like that Alexander guy. I hear what you mean: in your "reading" of this show, its own intrinsic logic or illogic is what defines its meaning. In other words, the narrative itself, regardless of the medium (whether this is a telesoap, a novella, a radio soap, a written drama etc.), is solely responsible for explaining itself. Got it. This type of "reading" is called New Criticism. I love this type of reading simply because it means that once a work of art has been created it is an autonomous entity--neither the viewer, nor the author can determine the logic of the work--only the work itself can do this. I have a different reading (now that I have a break at work I can write a little more). There's a great article on this type of "understanding" of works of art in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticismMy reading of this story is centred around "reader-response" criticism. This theory focuses on the reader, or in this case the veiwing audience's involvement in receiving the work of art. In other words, this work was not created in a vacuum, nor is it an onanistic endeavour--it was created to be received by an audience. Therefore, the intent of the viewing audience is intrinsic to its creation and meaning. You cannot parse out/extract the audience from the story's meaning. It is intended for us to watch, and therefore it is intended to be accessible to us. When it is no longer accessible, people (readers, viewing audiences etc) buy out--THEY STOP WATCHING. When viewers stop watching, the ratings plummet, and the show gets cancelled. Therefore, Jessica sexually assaulted Chris and Andy. The fallout in Chris's life is very similar to anyone who has been a victim of sexual assault. Think about what it use to be like a little less than 30 years ago for women. If a woman was raped it was because she deserved it, or was somehow responsible for it. There was the recent event in Toronto where a Toronto Police office said women who wear erotic clothes are asking to be raped. Now there is the global "Slut Walk". We're placing the blame for the event that happened at NO LIMITS that night on the wrong shoulders. The writers/editors have financial incentive to make the story accessible to us, or at least distract us long enough and sincerely enough to get us to stop asking questions. If we the viewing audience don't like the explanation, that's a problem. SE
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 20, 2012 13:56:31 GMT -5
See, to me this sounds like it should be translated as:
"I want this to be portrayed as a sexual assault or otherwise I'll stop watching". Which I actually agree with. I think there are very good reasons to stop watching (though I think they are more manifold than this particular plot point). And if they get cancelled that is their risk.
But it still doesn't change the reality of people that continue to watch.
Basically we are all running on a rail cart. The rails go right. You have the option to either get out of the cart all together or go right with the cart. But you can't just make it go left just because you want it to go left nor can you just decide that right is suddenly left and vice versa.
And even though you might get out of the cart and refuse to watch it go right (aka it never goes right in your mind), the cart still goes right. So in this particular case, the tree falling in the woods still makes a sound even if you aren't there to watch/hear it.
The show put out its reality and its inner laws. And I think with the laws VL has an assault/lie/scheme is not impossible but at this point it would be a retcon. And it won't be real until the show decides to actually do that retcon if ever. (kinda like how some people still hope they'll eventually do a switched at birth story with the Lahnsteins, but as long as nobody actually writes it, it's not real even if it could be real, not even negating any current known facts)
|
|
|
Post by teachgirl on Jan 20, 2012 14:28:55 GMT -5
But the issue is that VL makes their own reality. For example: Leonard cheats on his deathly ill wife with Sarah. Sarah cheats on her husband Gregor while pregnant with his child. Common sense interpretation: Wow, what a*holes! VL interpretation: OMG, what a romantic supercouple, big fluffy wedding So it doesn't matter whether what happens fullfills the technical requirements for an assault, the question is whether VL ever intends to portray it that way/whether any of the characters will ever feel like this is what happens. And my theory is: Naw, no way, not unless there were to be an outside purpose/it doesn't clash with their current narrative. Kinda like the show deciding whether it goes with the "chronically unreliable criminal" or "lovable rogue" with Emilio. Or "perverted longterm abuser of Helena" or "poor suffering guy who was driven crazy by love" for Tristan. They are the one who decide what the narrative is regardless of what the facts are. And on a soap narrative matters. Because soaps usually have an undercurrent of reward/punishment. Of course it doesn't work 100% (because "amusing" villains get to stay around even if they did bad things). But still, Jessica's fate/punishment would be very different if as far as the show and the characters are concerned she was "just" a normal slut who had a drunk party with two guys than if she was a rapist like that Alexander guy. I hear what you mean: in your "reading" of this show, its own intrinsic logic or illogic is what defines its meaning. In other words, the narrative itself, regardless of the medium (whether this is a telesoap, a novella, a radio soap, a written drama etc.), is solely responsible for explaining itself. Got it. This type of "reading" is called New Criticism. I love this type of reading simply because it means that once a work of art has been created it is an autonomous entity--neither the viewer, nor the author can determine the logic of the work--only the work itself can do this. I have a different reading (now that I have a break at work I can write a little more). There's a great article on this type of "understanding" of works of art in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticismMy reading of this story is centred around "reader-response" criticism. This theory focuses on the reader, or in this case the veiwing audience's involvement in receiving the work of art. In other words, this work was not created in a vacuum, nor is it an onanistic endeavour--it was created to be received by an audience. Therefore, the intent of the viewing audience is intrinsic to its creation and meaning. You cannot parse out/extract the audience from the story's meaning. It is intended for us to watch, and therefore it is intended to be accessible to us. When it is no longer accessible, people (readers, viewing audiences etc) buy out--THEY STOP WATCHING. When viewers stop watching, the ratings plummet, and the show gets cancelled. Therefore, Jessica sexually assaulted Chris and Andy. The fallout in Chris's life is very similar to anyone who has been a victim of sexual assault. Think about what it use to be like a little less than 30 years ago for women. If a woman was raped it was because she deserved it, or was somehow responsible for it. There was the recent event in Toronto where a Toronto Police office said women who wear erotic clothes are asking to be raped. Now there is the global "Slut Walk". We're placing the blame for the event that happened at NO LIMITS that night on the wrong shoulders. The writers/editors have financial incentive to make the story accessible to us, or at least distract us long enough and sincerely enough to get us to stop asking questions. If we the viewing audience don't like the explanation, that's a problem. SE Never thought I'd see Stanley Fish used to interpret Jessica, LOL. I myself have learned to put the literary critical part of my brain aside when watching, because if I applied my favorite form, feminist criticism, to this show, I would have to stop watching immediately. The attitudes toward women, and toward female sexuality as embodied in Jessica in particular, are often quite disturbing. Usually I find it better not to think too much and just appreciate my favorite actors.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jan 20, 2012 15:05:53 GMT -5
Yeah, honestly, if one started, there is no way one could ever stop (Olivia comes to mind having some very similar stunts on her track record).
I kinda cope with it because everything and everybody is unrealistic but boy do I wish they could get rid of some of my pet peeves. Like kissing people who are sleeping.
I forgot who said it, but they put it perfectly: Being tempted to kiss somebody who is asleep => ok Actually doing it => ewwww
Or how everytime a woman is love sick it seems like she immediately becomes incapable of doing her job. Like Sarah being unable to play the piano till Leonard walks in. While with guys, they sometimes portray them as love sick or even obsessed too yet somehow it *never* seems to make them incapable of doing their jobs. Somehow they are the ones who can do that on the side, yet women can never do that.
|
|
|
Post by samtelvis on Jan 20, 2012 15:40:18 GMT -5
Yeah, honestly, if one started, there is no way one could ever stop (Olivia comes to mind having some very similar stunts on her track record). I kinda cope with it because everything and everybody is unrealistic but boy do I wish they could get rid of some of my pet peeves. Like kissing people who are sleeping. I forgot who said it, but they put it perfectly: Being tempted to kiss somebody who is asleep => ok Actually doing it => ewwww Or how everytime a woman is love sick it seems like she immediately becomes incapable of doing her job. Like Sarah being unable to play the piano till Leonard walks in. While with guys, they sometimes portray them as love sick or even obsessed too yet somehow it *never* seems to make them incapable of doing their jobs. Somehow they are the ones who can do that on the side, yet women can never do that. I wanted to give you a thumbs up for your most recent post, then I read this one too. So, I'll give you two thumbs up!! (virtual ones of course).
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 20, 2012 17:23:29 GMT -5
|
|
joanna
Senior Member
Former Verbotene Liebe Champion.
Posts: 8,547
|
Post by joanna on Jan 21, 2012 5:17:00 GMT -5
Both the VL cast and attending fans can be seen in THIS[/url] Tonight.de set of pics from last night's VL ep 4000th party at Nachtresidenz.
|
|