Travelling with four of my five senses!

I don't think I'll ever really want to visit anywhere more than I want to constantly go to/be in Britain, however, I don't go to England to travel - I go there to go home.

But in the past couple of years, I've become more financially stable and it looks like I don't have to scrimp and save in order to get back to London. This means I can do MORE travel - if I could only afford one trip, I would choose England every single time, but I may now be able to afford more travel, or maybe do some proper stopovers on the way to Europe.

See, I want to go to some places feel a bit more different than Western Europe and the USA. Here's a list of where I've visited:

UK
Ireland
France
Germany
Austria
Sweden
Denmark
Netherlands
USA
Canada
Fiji
Israel

All of those are fairly 'Western' - Fiji is very resort-style, at least where I was, and Israel has a huge mix of cultures but I've been going there since before I can remember. Most of the stops in Europe were only very short, three days at a time at most, sometimes only one day. I've allegedly been to Greece and Singapore but I was a baby and I don't remember it.

So. While I am genuinely most interested in Europe and the culture found there (as well as the USA and the events/food found there) I feel like I've travelled a lot but am not particularly 'well-travelled.' I work in the travel industry so am constantly exposed and reminded of the existence of thousands of cities and all the unique experiences to be had. I want to do some of that. And I could do some of that. The problem, for me, is food.

Ifyou read this blog post, you'll know I have some eating issues. If you haven't, I suggest you read it as the issues are quite severe. I'm terribly ashamed of travelling somewhere with a totally different style of food and having to not eat it, but the fact of the matter is that I just can't. People might say how much I'm missing out, how much it's a major part of the experience... I've heard it all before. I'm sure that's all true... for you. But eating for me isn't that big a deal, because I've had these problems so long that I am used to not experiencing things when it comes to food. I don't often go out to eat with people even at home. I just eat what I can eat to get by, and when there is something I really enjoy, I enjoy the fuck out of it and it's a major luxury. So yes, one day I'm going to go to Naples just to eat their pizza, and I'll go all around Italy eating pizza and bread and being disgustingly gluttonous, and when I was in California I spent $60 on 2lbs of hand-made salt caramels which are a gift from heaven. But I don't NEED that in my travel. I just need to be able to eat enough to survive.

I want to visit places in Asia. Maybe Russia, Eastern Europe at least. Maybe India. South America also, and the West Indies. South Africa, Egypt and Jordan. I have genuinely no idea how easy it is, in many of the places I might want to go, to get simple Western food, which is basically what I need. I'm sorry if it offends you connoisseurs, but that's the situation and I know it means I'll have trouble going 'off the beaten track' and out into the wilds. Don't tell me how much I'm missing. It's not like that. It's how much YOU'D be missing in that situation. Don't project your values onto me.. I have different values about food. Pretend that food was just a meagre thing required to get by, like plugging yourself into a power socket, and I need a particular type of socket.

Can you help me?

I'll list some examples of places that I'd like to think of visiting. If you have anything to offer in regards to what I need, please comment, or Tweet me. (@nataliefisher)

Indonesia
Philippines
Thailand
Malaysia
Vietnam
Hong Kong
China
Korea
India
Sri Lanka
Poland
Russia
Turkey
Poland
Czech Republic
Greek Islands
Croatia
Spain
Egypt
Jordan
UAE (Dubai)
Oman
Southern Africa
Ecuador
Brazil
Argentina
West Indies
Mexico

Here is my question - if you have visited any of these places - or any other places you think I should visit - how easy do you think it would be for me to eat, relatively simply and normally for me? I'm talking more supermarket food than restaurant food. For example, safe fresh fruit/veg I could buy, commercial Western brands I would recognise being sold, or even fast food? I've been to Malaysia - not into the city, just around the airport, and this is a good example - I ate McDonalds there and it was pretty much the same as any McDonalds anywhere. Same goes for Korea. It should be noted that I'm not obsessed with McDonalds, I just happen to have instant trust in regards to them, like I know their world standards so I wouldn't be scared of going and getting some fries and fries are a staple of simple filling foods that I can eat and sometimes easier to get than plain bread, depending on the culture.

Now, I'd be happy to go to anywhere in Asia and experience all the culture, forests, wildlife, history, temples etc. and then go back to my hotel room at night and stuff myself with plain fries, Coca Cola, and a couple of bananas and oranges. I can sustain myself like that, I generally only eat one proper-sized meal a day as it is.

So, friends, tell me - where is this plausible? I imagine somewhere like Bangkok that's no problem, but I'm more interested in northern Thailand and also the islands. I think Bali might be okay? My idea for Asian travel is beaches and forests, wild life, boats, temples, sculpted gardens, serene mountains, local craft, history and culture, markets, etc etc.  As far as Europe goes, I want to go to Gallipoli, I want to see ancient ruins, I want to see beautiful museums and stately buildings. As far as South America, Russia, India and Africa go - I have no idea what might be plausible in regards to my eating.

I know in a lot of these places, the culture may vary hugely from big cities to smaller places. I don't love the idea of big Asian cities, it overwhelms me quite a bit, but I'd stay there and potentially go on day trips out to the slightly more remote places if possible, in order to see what I might like to see and still be able to eat? I could bring my own food on such trips if I'm able to buy it in the cities.

I just want to hold baby tigers AND eat McDonalds, okay? Is that a thing that can happen in my life?

Review: Magic Mike - The Stripper Film

So in an attempt to write more - to record more about what's inside my head, and also to help myself learn to write concisely, I'm going to try and write down my thoughts on each movie I watch from here on out - for the next month, 6 months, a year. Some posts will be about the first time I'm seeing the movie, some will be about re-watches. Thrilling. Here goes:

Magic Mike (2012)
watched 1st September, 2012 
first time seeing it

First off: despite the hype, it needs to be stated that there was not a single moment in this movie where I was titillated. I'm pretty sure that was intentional on the part of the film-makers - I mean, I'm certain many men and women who are attracted to men would find this movie appealing and just used it as an excuse to giggle and squeal, but I think that if you went to see the movie through that gaze, you might have missed the actual point of it, and - while I'm sure they helped box office sales - after seeing the film, I'm even more certain that the people who went for the eye-candy were not the intended audience of Magic Mike. 

I was interested in seeing Magic Mike because I'm generally interested in exposure to alternative or taboo lifestyles (even though I'm really prudish IRL, Secret Diary of a Callgirl is one of my favourite shows ever,) and the small snippets of dialogue in the trailer proved to me that this really was a film about that, not a film about looking at men's bodies. 

I found Magic Mike to be really raw, raw in a good way, with very natural dialogue. In the last few years, some films and TV shows have finally actually been able to write words that sound normal, that sound real, that sound like the way people actually talk, and get the actors to deliver them ways that SOUND normal and natural. Do you know how rare that has been? For the majority of Hollywood history, (contemporary British entertainment has always done a lot better on this front, but that's a rant for another day) people haven't actually talked the way they do in real life - even in a 'realistic' movie like a biopic or a rom-com or anything set modern day. There's always been an element of it being thought out, and written, which of course it was, and sometimes that's a good thing because writers have the skill of taking the feelings we want to express and articulating them in ways that we just can't say, especially off the top of our heads. So we turn to quoting things, such as these films, to express what we mean in ways that have already been written for us and resonated with us. 

But lately, in the last 5 years or so - I'm sure older examples exist, but I'm noticing it more and more now - people have actually started making films where the characters talk like real humans, and I find it much more immersive and effective. Even in comedies, where obviously people are funnier than in real life - the film No Strings Attached and the show New Girl (both written by Liz Meriwether) spring to mind. Even in superhero films - the realistic, natural performance of Andrew Garfield just playing a derpy teenager was the best thing about The Amazing Spider-Man. For lack of a better word, certain film-makers are making their films - or at least the dialogue and delivery by the actors, if not the plot - less over-dramatic. And I'm really, really into that. I'm sure some people find it boring, but for me I'm constantly air-punching over it. 

This quality abounds in Magic Mike, particularly in all the interactions between Mike, the lead character, and Brooke, the sister of his young workmate. Sometimes, the conversations are downright awkward, like Brooke doesn't know how to talk to the boys - not in a blushing virgin way, just in a 'I don't know what to talk to you about' way. And that's realistic. She's a medical assistant and her brother and his new best friend are male strippers and they keep hanging out with her. In real life, there would be plenty of moments where, in that situation, the conversation would be awkward. And in a movie, traditionally, people would be cooler and smoother than in real life, and they'd be funny, sassy, snappy and they'd be able to talk because they'd been written that way. However, this film looked at the reality of a situation like this and really seems to have written that reality. I appreciate that.

The plot was interesting enough, and I do like the fact that Channing Tatum pitched this movie involving some of his own experiences as a stripper in order to draw back the curtain on the industry a little. I think it worked very well, and showed a good deal of the behind-the-scenes of this alternative lifestyle - the backstage, the business, the rehearsals, the social interactions from the (possibly expected) drug-fuelled orgy parties to the much more laid back and fun beach trip which could have been taken by any group of workmates and friends who had access to a boat. It did a good job of showing that while the lifestyle did have the expected amount of dirt and glamour, that the people involved are normal. It shows what quick 'fame' or success can do to people, with The Kid going from insecurity to arrogance and then carelessness pretty fast. But I just really liked the character of Mike, I liked his relationship with the psychology student Joanna and how he chose to keep going back to her for hookups rather than taking girls from the bar. It was a sign of his search for something in his life with more meaning, that he wants to trust and befriend people, and that he doesn't take advantage of the 'benefits' of the lifestyle of his job. But it isn't done in a way that makes him some beacon of purity. There's no moment in the film where there's any 'oh, these are my morals, I'm a stripper but I don't do THAT' - he's just a normal and decent guy who pretty much lives by the Wil Wheaton law of 'don't be a dick.' And it's a little painful to see him doing that and for people, like Brooke and the bank manager, to not give him credit for that, or for them to expect him not to be decent.

If I wasn't sure from the trailers, the ending and its lack of resolution made me certain that this was meant to be a pithy film. We don't know what happened to Adam, The Kid, whether he moved on with the club and became the new 'Mike' - he has no real redemption, either. We don't know whether Joanna was engaged the entire time she knew Mike - but I liked that his discovery of the situation hurt him, though, even though his true feelings were for Brooke. It is another example of this man not wanting to feel used and abused, that his job is not his personality and how problematic it is for him when people assume that he feels a certain way because of what he does for work. At the end, he does get Brooke, but that's where we leave them - no resolution regarding his choice to leave the club and the fact he's spent all his money to save the ungrateful Kid. I suppose we're meant to assume he stays in Tampa and finds a way to make ends meet, making furniture and enjoying Brooke, but I was reminded strongly of another Soderbergh film, Erin Brockovich, where the ending is mostly in place but the last scene is Erin approaching the door of her ex, so we don't know the resolution to every issue in the story. There's a pretty decent assessment that the difference between entertainment and art, a movie and a film, is that a movie ends, but a film stops, and if you go by that rule, Magic Mike is a pretty great film. 

Also: tiny tiny pig! I will save you, tiny pig, from Elvis Presley's manic pixie dream girl granddaughter who feeds you drugs and vomit. OMG, if I was squealing over anything in Magic Mike, it was in every moment featuring the TINY PIG.

Next up: Spice World. Yeah.

A Wild Personal Post Appears: I Have Two Conflicting Diseases!

Just in case some of you aren't aware of one or the other of these, I have two major health problems.


1. Selective Eating Disorder - I have had this my whole life, since before I can remember. Calling me a picky eater or asking me to just try something is the same as asking a clinically depressed person to "just cheer up." It has improved a little in the last five years, but by a little I mean moving on from eating one specific brand of plain cheese to trying other similar brands. It causes extreme social problems because I cannot go "out to eat" anywhere with people unless I'm dictating where, which seems controlling and is also repetitive and boring to others. I can only eat very plain foods, I can't mix foods, the most complex food I can eat is pizza (base + sauce + a couple of toppings like mushrooms and olives + cheese) but like.. I can't eat a cheese sandwich, or mushrooms on their own, or tomato sauce on pasta. I think I can only eat pizza because I've eaten it since before I remember. I just can't put things in my mouth, texture is a big thing, like plain rice or mashed potato, tried both, and while it isn't a repulsive flavor like licorice or something, I can't eat more than a mouthful because of texture. There are millions of things, it's easier to list the things I can eat than I can't. I can eat - quite a big range of fruit, a medium range of vegetables (raw, never cooked), white bread (of varying types, not just like sliced sandwich bread, I can eat Italian bread, sourdough etc), plain cheese like tasty or mild cheddar, snack foods like plain crisps and crackers, a few types of nuts, sweet snacks like cookies, pastry and plain cake, pizza, chips/fries (unseasoned), juice, soda, one single brand of chocolate milk, plain pasta (literally just cooked in heavily salted water and that's it), olives, ice cream.. I think that's it. That's all. I have tried to treat this with a range of options including seeing a nutritionist and a hypnotherapist. The article also mentions "severe refusal behaviors if presented with non-preferred foods" and that is more than accurate, including, for me, sobbing, anxiety, shame, anger. Not just like, if I see the food, but if I am either forced or socially pressured into eating it, or if I think I'm not going to be able to obtain food I can eat.


2. Ulcerative Colitis - this is an autoimmune, inflammatory bowel and stomach disease. You may have heard of Crohn's Disease, this is a type of it. Don't read the wiki, it's gross. But basically it means I have a lot of stomach problems, sores on my intestine, sometimes pain, sometimes bleeding into the gut. It's not curable. It's managed with steroids and with lifestyle/diet changes. Sometimes they have to operate later in life and cut out bits of your intestine that are too eroded. People who have it have a high risk of bowel cancer later in life. It isn't 24/7, it can go away and come back, this is called a flare-up. It's a chronic disease. I was diagnosed in 2008, and that was pretty bad, and 2009 was pretty bad. 2010 and 2011 were not so bad, but this year I had to go to hospital in January and I'm having a new flare-up now which is presenting with a fun, apparently common side effect (but the first time I've had it) - crippling joint pain. This will lead to arthritis. Last night I was having fits of shaking, a crazy fever, and my knees locked up and I had to take strong painkillers AND a high dose of steroids to get to sleep. Both times that I've been in hospital for this - when I was diagnosed and early this year - my pain was managed with high doses of morphine. I really hate morphine.


Have I mentioned this disease has no cure and also no cause? It is a fucking first world problem. It presents most commonly in Ashkenazi Jews, of which I am one, genetically. It's a fairly "new" disease, a "lifestyle" disease which may come from our culture's exposure to pollution or refined foods or stress. It is a fucking #firstworldproblem but it can be very debilitating.


I'm terrified of this joint pain becoming regular and having to depend on steroids regularly because of how fat and sick they make you in other ways. I'm trying to figure out if I can make any lifestyle changes and let me tell you the foods that are worst to eat - foods high in fibre or highly processed, such as raw vegetables, fruits with pulp or seeds, nuts, breads, whole grains, refined sugar, and for some people, dairy. Carbonated drinks, caffeine, and spicy foods are all bad too. Meat, also, but I'm a vegetarian since childhood for moral reasons, so I'm never going to eat meat.


WHAT THE FUCK AM I MEANT TO EAT? Even without SED I have no idea how people with UC get any nutrition sticking to that diet. Do they just eat mashed potatoes and sprinkle some crushed vitamin tablets on top? But seriously without complex carbohydrates and the vegetables I can eat, my diet will not be in any way enough to keep me alive. I'm surprised that I haven't had deficient before, due to my SED, but I've only ever lacked B vitamins and iron due to not eating meat. I could manage the SED alone or the UC alone but it's starting to become worrying and scary trying to deal with them both together. I'm getting sicker and I don't know what to do.

The Hunger Games: Now That's What I Call An Adaptation.

At 11am on the 22nd March, myself and two friends went to see The Hunger Games.

I am not promising that this post will flow as a coherent narrative, and it will contain spoilers.

Firstly, I will say this. While no book-to-film movie is ever going to be perfect, this one did a better job than anything I've ever seen. Whether it was the involvement of the author in the creation process, the fact that the lead character was played by a very passionate fan of the source material, or that the film creators/people at Lionsgate - themselves just really put in the dedication to make it faithful and true because they thought the message of the book was important enough to deserve that... I don't know. Maybe all three. But they did a great job and I think what they made showed a lot of bravery and took a lot of risks.. They told the story as it is, at the risk of alienating new audiences with the harsh and political subject matter. But their gamble worked as The Hunger Games had the third-biggest opening weekend of all time - the first not to be a sequel film, and the first to be both based on a story by a female writer and about a female protagonist. So... Yaaaay, Lionsgate! Yaaaaay Collins! Yaaaaay Jennifer Lawrence! Honestly I think Lionsgate had a lot to do with it. They're an independant studio who put out generally weird, arty, risky, thought provoking movies and who have never touched on a franchise this huge. It feels like they approached making this movie the way they'd make something arthouse, that may not get any viewers, like they weren't working with a huge phenomenon, like the whole entertainment world wasn't desperately waiting to judge them. It just felt like they read the book, said "this is an important story, let's do it as well as it deserves." I believe even director Gary Ross said something recently like "I really didn't expect it to do as well as it did." I think this is a good attitude to have when making some sort of art. Just do it because you believe in it. Even the marketing campaign surrounding the release and the products sold... none of them were tacky or money-grabbing, everything that was produced was really beautiful and stuff that fans would really appreciate... no "Team Peeta" phone charms and keychains and bracelets clogging up impulse-buy counters in every bookstore.

Anyway, the film.

- It looked and felt great. I could never quite get a handle on the mix between the advanced technology and poverty in the districts in the book. Every time they were in 12 and mentioned TV or phones I would get confused because the lifestyle they had... I just couldn't get it to work in my head. I'm not very good at dystopian society. But the film showed it better, it didn't feel unnatural and I liked that. 

- That being said, I didn't understand some of the technology - mostly the tech of the Games itself. The room with the Games map and how they sent things into the Games really confused me... Was it like, what they did to the model automatically happened in real life? Like a voodoo doll? But they don't have magic... I understand that they can build the arena, wire everything up and program it from afar, but does that mean the trees aren't real trees? The thing that mostly confused me was the inserting of the Mutts, but I am going to have to assume that someone physically created them, the image was in the map, and when the Game programmer inserted the image onto the map, somewhere, someone else inserted the physical real Mutt. Because I kind of felt like she inserted it into the map and it magically appeared there? Like that she cast a spell or something or even a hologram, when it was obviously all real. So I'd like some explanation of that technology.

- They changed or left out things, but unlike many other films, it wasn't enough to really matter. The way Katniss got the Mockingjay pin, for example, yes, we lost the whole character of Madge but the way she found it both introduced us to The Hob and left it open that we could find out later where it came from originally - we may yet get that connection to Haymitch's partner. Seneca's execution was much less violent than in the books, but even more twisted and fucked up. Things were changed, and yes, violent was cut out, but the end result is bringing the same overall message to the screen by making parts more watchable. They changed or shortened what they had to in order to tell the story with the same values - and not a lot of films do that. They cut things for time, or because they don't realise it's going to be important later on (hmmm, Potter) or simply because they have new ideas they think are better/funnier/more dramatic than the original content. The Hunger Games doesn't do that. It doesn't add in anything new. It paints the picture of the Panem world. It changes or shortens bits and pieces in order to show more of that world, and it leaves enough room to come back to them to broaden the story later - it drops references to the tesserae, District 13, Katniss' mother's mental illness. It does such a good job of SHOWING rather than TELLING - and with a book that's so much internal monologue, that's hard. They don't TELL us that Katniss cares for Rue because of Prim. They don't TELL us that Snow is a creepy-ass twisted man. They don't TELL us that Gale has feelings for Katniss. They don't TELL us that Haymitch hates the Capitol and hates schmoozing to sponsors and does it anyway because he believes in Katniss. They don't TELL us that Caesar is a sincere man who really cares about all the Tributes and does his best to show them off and get them support. They don't TELL us that Cinna is not your average Capitol stylist. So many movies just make characters comment with these things, explaining them just in case someone missed it. The Hunger Games does not do this. It trusts the audience and it does not set out to appeal to the lowest common denominator of humans. So many movies who try to make money do this - they play to the lowest common denominator just to make sure EVERYONE understands and I hate that because it makes it apparent that the creators think the audience is stupid.

So onto some character stuff: 

- Katniss: was fine. Jennifer never would have been my first choice for Katniss based on her looks and her warmth, but I knew she would do a good job because she's such a huge fan and she cares about the character. I knew I was going to like her from the first time I heard her speak about it, that when she was being considered for the role she kept going up to the director at events being like "um even if you don't cast me, you have to make sure this bit is like this, promise me? that's really important in the book". I support her and I'm glad she's getting to do this.

- Peeta: I was very, very anti Josh as Peeta before the film. Partially because of his bad dye job and the fact his face looks like it's made up of bits of other people's faces which don't fit together very well, but mostly because of the way he speaks, his voice, and the acting I've seen him do before. I didn't think he'd do well. I thought his Peeta would come across as too innocent and naive and not crafty enough. I didn't trust that he'd deliver a lot of the lines in a way that I'd buy, based on his delivery in the trailer. I was wrong. He was actually  really good. They did change a major thing that I was worried about - you can't do a lot about someone's speaking tone and I just was not going to be able to buy him talking the way Peeta talks to Katniss in the Games, when he calls her sweetheart. Very few 16 year old boys can pull that off and sound smooth and natural and gorgeous and when I was fantasy-casting Hunger Games, this was a major factor as to how I'd cast Peeta - someone who could talk that way, because it's one of my favorite things as it reminds me of how all the lovely sassy men in Tamora Pierce novels talk. Josh... can't. But they eliminated that problem by just not having him use those phrases, which was a bit of a bummer, especially the loss of my favorite line, 'You here to kill me, sweetheart?' but he did the rest so well that at the end of the day I'm kind of okay with it. He made up for it in his interview with Cesar which was literally perfection in film form. That confidence and natural onstage ability and that flirting was exactly the way Katniss describes in the books - (and again, they SHOW us this aspect of Peeta without having someone commentate it) and his crafty, pretending to be naive, playing up to the crowds thing really worked as well, when they had him waving from the train window.

- The one thing that I'm not sure was made all that clear to a casual viewer was Peeta and Katniss' relationship. I am not sure if people thought Katniss really fell for Peeta when she realised she could let him live... or if Peeta was ever sincere about his feelings when he revealed them in the interview... it was sort of made clear at the end when she looks uncertain and resigned about having to keep up the pretense, but they did change the ending - in the book she was MUCH more quick to draw her weapon and expect Peeta to draw his when it was announced that the two-can-live rule was revoked. The film basically made it a bit more confusing as to who was actually feeling what... but I am assuming a lot of Catching Fire will be about that. Oh, and it was a little thing and an unnecessary thing, so I understand why they cut it, but I missed Katniss drugging Peeta because I think it says a lot about her and about Haymitch.

- Haymitch, Effie and Cinna were all perfect and the scenes showing their dynamic when dealing with the kids in the lead-up to the Games were probably my favorite scenes in the film. They were all just incredible and I can't wait to see it again, just for that. I can't wait to see more of Haymitch in the next film, and seeing Elizabeth as Effie facing up to the rebellion while trying to keep her ideas of the world in place... and seeing what happens to Cinna is going to destroy me. They were all magical. I wish I could say more but they were just too good. I want a spin-off of like, their lives while the kids were in the Games. I also really loved the way   they did Effie at the Reaping, like her false positivity - it told a big story. 

- I also loved Wes Bentley as Seneca Crane. He had a great energy about him... I don't know how I pictured Seneca in the books, but it wasn't like that. But yes - loved his vibe, he was enthusiastic but somehow without being bloodthirsty or creepy or too caught up in it? He was a bit mad scientist. He was enigmatic. I didn't see him as a villain. I don't know what I saw him as, but I felt bad for him. 

- Another person I loved was Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman. As I mentioned, I felt like he really came across as sincere, slightly troubled, and supportive of all the Tributes. I was surprised to read that Tucci thought the character was false and creepy because I did not take that from him at all. I loved him and I loved the way he talked to the kids. The books never paint him as a villain and I really hope Tucci's ideas don't mean that they make him creepier in the next films. I was so fond of him in this one. 

- Amandla Stenberg as Rue was perfect and I don't even want to get into the mass stupidity surrounding that subject right now. But anyway... she was just so natural and funny and, yes, while an innocent, so are all the Tributes, and she wasn't a doe-eyed little angel. I loved her and Thresh, and what we saw of District 11. The Victor's Tour to 11 will be hard to watch in the next film, I think.

- Gale was fine and we'll see more of him soon. I'm glad they didn't hardcore love-triangle it. 

Bits I cried at: 

- Both times they did the three fingered salute - at the Reaping and when Katniss did it to the cameras after she looked after Rue's body.

- Weirdly and unexpectedly, when Katniss became the Girl on Fire. Something about that parade scene and her reaction to it. It moved me, man. I don't know. 

Irrelevant side note - Can I have Katniss's Capitol clothes? Not her dresses... I just want her cool loungy pants and tops that she wore in all the apartment scenes. Also Peeta's knitted hoodie jumper thing. They look so awesome and comfy.

That seems a bit of an irreverent moment to end this post, but I can't really think of what else to say. I am excited for the next movie and I want it NOW and I want Jonathan Groff to play Finnick and Naya Rivera to play Johanna. And I think if they do want to split one of the next two films, it should be Catching Fire, not Mockingjay, and they should do the tour as one film and the 75th Games as another. Mockingjay is too much of a short and hectic time period to be split, it won't make sense. But I do trust the creators and the studio to do a good job with the next films and so I really hope they don't let us down. 

3x04 - Pot 'O Gold

I wrote the recap for 3x04 on Hypable last week, so my post is over there, however, I wanted to note down a few personal opinions before today's episode airs:

Finn: is taking out his own insecurities on Blaine, and it isn't fair. Blaine is famously non-competitive, was made a leader at Dalton by circumstance and not by his own ambition. He's happy to do what the group wants, and participates purely for fun. When he stands up and offers his enthusiasm or encouragement, he just genuinely wants to help - he's not being arrogant, ambitious or domineering, and Finn cuts down Blaine's contributions because he's insecure in his own leadership and talent - and possibly, possibly because of repressed homophobia (which is addressed interestingly in this blog post). He needs to knock it off and see the facts, which is that Blaine has no shitty or selfish motives here.

Last Friday Night: was the most pointless, transparent, money-grabbing number ever. It was put in purely to create sales, because Darren Criss doing pop songs has been a winning play for them in the past. However, regardless of the obviousness of that and how out if place it seemed, it was fucking adorable and strangely realistic and natural. I mean, think about it. He got the band to play a song - a current hit that they'd all know the words to without having to be taught - and he started them off in what is basically just a big sing-along, everyone running and jumping and having fun together. I love unpolished choir room numbers - Ride Wit' Me is still one of my favorite moments on the show. So I kind of loved this even though it was ridiculously pointless. However, I feel that Finn's enthusiasm was unrealistic given his prior behaviour - but apparently having two characters object to an event at the same tome is something they can't handle or be bothered going into, and they felt they had to show Santana's objections - despite the fact that Santana later calls out Finn's jealousy. So I would have liked to see Finn eye-rolling and not participating in LFN as well - it would have been self-explanatory.

Santana: is gorgeous and perfect and wonderful and nervous and vulnerable and delicate and brash and I love her forever. That restaurant date scene just killed me, she's so fucking terrified. Naya Rivera is a splendid actress - she is equally talented in comedy, drama and singing. She does very, very little with her face and yet it conveys absolutely everything, just by the way she moves her eyes or the set of her jaw. She's a gift to this show - when I saw the Glee panel at SDCC this year, the writers freely admitted that she was hired as basically an extra, a pretty face to back up Quinn, and they never, never expected her talent. They are so fucking lucky they've got her, she is one of the flawless things on this show. It was shitty of Santana to manipulate Brittany by making Rory 'wish' on her, but that wasn't her original plan - she meant what she said at Breadstix and only confronted Rory afterwards, in the heat of the moment while angry about Blaine. While it doesn't make Santana's actions excusable, Brittany does end up solidifying her own choice due to Finn's treatment of her. I am glad the dating issue was established and the fact it was done in a way that showed what I've always felt about Santana- that it must be so, so hard to be inescapably in love with someone less intelligent than yourself, that it must make communicating so stressful. But Santana is so patient with Brittany and it's gorgeous. The way she said that thing at the start, about the special place where Brittany lives - it wasn't mean, it was beautiful and almost made me cry. I think Santana deeply wishes she could be as happy as Brittany.

Burt Hummel: deserves all the awards, but especially for having time for any of Will's sctick.

Kurt: is self-involved, and bears shit in the woods. Something about his comment about the stress of Burt's campaign and how him being gay will be making it worse, and Burt's like 'lol, it's a non-issue' rubbed me the wrong way. It rubbed me harder the wrong way when I rewatched today, given some recent issues on the same subject in regards to Chris Colfer himself.

Quinn: is way fucking crazy and I'm annoyed that they've done this to her character - I wish they'd show her emotional damage in a way that would make people feel sorry for her and take her seriously.

Puck: is everything I ever dreamed he'd be since early season 1. I've invested a lot in him and he's never disappointed me - he is a phenomenal human being, he's truly a good person and his development and softening has been very consistent. Also, the Shelby thing - called it. But her unloading onto him, while I get it, was pretty unhealthy and irresponsible of her.

Rory: I kind of hate him. He's a creep. I liked that Brittany was suspicious and unhappy about him being in her room, though he changed her mind fast. When he was singing Bein' Green, my roommate said "you're pretending to be a mythical creature in order to trick a girl into sleeping with you, sorry that I don't care about your problems." Which, accurate. Also, Kurt's being a little bitch currently, but I do wonder if his negative, jealous reaction to Rory's singing is going to be extended on. Damian McGinty has mentioned that - Kurt being threatened by Rory's falsetto - as an issue in a bit of press, and he can't have been referring to just those couple of eyerolls, can he? I see Kurt getting a complex that this kid can sing in his range and in a traditional men's range as well. I honestly don't know what plot-line they could give him for another 7 episodes or whatever - wracking my brains and I can not imagine whatsoever what they are going to do with Rory.

Continuity question of the week: at the start of the episode, Kurt was viciously attacking Rachel about her presidental candidacy. At the end, during Rory's audition, Rachel is sitting between Blaine and Kurt, and nudges Kurt enthusiastically about Rory. Is the hatchet buried? Or was this just a bit of inconsistency?

Random things I loved: the protesting woman in Figgins' hallway, and the funeral directors scene. Fucking amazeballs, ohhhh my god. That is the kind of screwball absurdist comedy that this show excels at, when it's at its best. I just died. 

See you very soon on Glee Chat for talk about 3x05!

Some Questions about the "ins and outs" of Glee's 'First Time'

You'd have to be living in another solar system if you follow Glee and yet know nothing about this week's upcoming episode, 'The First Time.' Seriously, even the headmaster of Pigfarts (I hear he's a big Blaine fan) got the memo that it's going to be about two teen couples - one straight, one gay - considering having sex. 

That's as far as I'll go into Glee spoiler territory. I do know a little more, but this post does not need to involve those details and is basically spoiler-free. This is about a much wider issue than Glee plots and characters. I want to talk about whether there are double standards regarding straight and gay sex. I want to talk about defining virginity in straight or same-sex couples, and I want to talk about whether Glee will address, acknowledge, define or clarify any of these differences.

This will mostly be posed a series of questions. I don't have a solid opinion on this - I don't have something I consider to be The Answer that I am hoping Glee conforms to. I don't know what I believe. I am simply curious as to how Glee will tackle the subject at hand, or if they will at all - so this just me, asking the questions that have been running through my mind. None of them are loaded, and if anything comes across offensively, it is due to my unaware ignorance, not active disregard. Please feel free to correct me politely.

Losing one's virginity - everyone knows what that means for a straight couple. Whether or not you hold to that definition yourself, the stereotyped dictionary definition of 'having sex' is a man and woman having PIV intercourse, and losing virginity is doing this act for the first time. 

Is that definition fair? I personally think that is a fine definition as far as straight couples go, but how do you apply this to same-gender sexual relations in the name of equality?

Should there be the same standards for everyone, the generalized 'fourth base'/'furthest point' of "normal" sexual acts, using only the body and no sexual aids, between a couple (please imagine normal said sarcastically and with fingerquotes) - male/male penetrative anal sex, male/female penetrative vaginal sex, female/female oral sex? 

Is it about first time touching below the belt, first time bringing each other to orgasm, or sticking something in someone else? If it's both parties orgasming during the same sexual session, as I have seen it defined in some places, then I am a hardcore virgin and I've been sexually active for ten years.

My personal situation is fairly simple - I am a cis-gendered bisexual woman, I identified as bisexual before puberty and before I had even kissed either a boy or girl, and I lost my virginity to a guy in standard m/f sex. My first kiss was with a boy, but prior to this, my first sexual encounter was with a girl, but I do not count it as "having sex" as the situation was very one-sided. So I can define my own virginity pretty easily.

Other bisexual women don't have such a simple definition. I asked my friend C about her experiences. I know she has had a long-term gay relationship. I don't know her specific experiences with men.

Me: a) You consider yourself bisexual, right? b) have you ever had sex with a guy? c) do you consider yourself a virgin?

C: a) Yes, b) Yes, c) No, but, prior to the guy, still no.

So, regardless of being bisexual and open to straight sex, she considers her gay sex experiences to have accounted for her loss of virginity, even though, by the generalised standard, she had not crossed the line of doing "all" that is possible to someone for whom straight penetrative sex is an option she may experience.

And gay men? What do they count as "having sex" rather than sexual acts, what is counted as having crossed that virginity line? 

I'm not a man, so I feel like I can't make any calls about this. But all I hear in fandom is women making judgement calls on this matter. There is a lot of beautiful flowery Klaine fanfiction about their loss of virginity and the general consensus seems to be that the boys get to decide, define and choose what "having sex" means. Handjobs - first sexual contact, mutual orgasm. Blowjobs. Penetration. It all counts as loss of virginity from someone's perspective in a different fantasy Klaine world somewhere. However, at least 90% of this - and 90% is generous, it's more like 98% - is written by cis-gendered women and girls, a decent chunk of whom are not sexually experienced in any way. Women writing for other women about gay male sex - something they have very little genuine perspective on. I'm not going to hate on it, because I've read plenty of fanfiction over the years, but I'm just not that prepared to formulate real-world opinions on this topic based off the judgement calls of female fanfic writers, sorry. 

And it gets more complicated. If someone stands up and says "okay, final answer. losing virginity is body penetration, vaginal for straight couples, anal for male couples" does that mean, to them, lesbians are virgins forever? Is this "choosing how to define it" something that gay boys and girls actually do, or do they have their own generalised set of standards and this "choosing what counts" concept is basically a fantasy?

Should straight couples be given the right to define their own virginity the way that it's implied that gay couples do? Say that some teen male couple defines oral sex as "having sex" and that by having done that, they are no longer virgins. What about a straight guy who has also received a blowjob? Virgin? Not virgin? Why should the same physical act for one guy count as loss of virginity, yet not for another guy? What about straight couples having penetrative anal sex? Yeah, that's an act that doesn't usually happen prior in a relationship to "normal" sex (again, fingerquotes, normal) but it DOES happen, and what does that "count" as? What about when it comes down to tallying the amount of people you've "had sex" with? Another friend, L, says "I kind of consider myself as having had sex with a couple of people with no actual vagina-penis interaction." - whereas I may object if I heard through the grapevine that some guy was saying he and I "had sex" when I did not consider that the truth of the matter.

Is the main question to be asking:

How come straight couples get to have a clear definition of "loss of virginity", but same-sex couples have to pick and choose a definition, 

or:

How come same sex-couples get to pick a definition of "loss of virginity", but straight couples have to use a pre-defined one?

I think my real question is - who's got the short end of the stick? Because I genuinely do not know. It could really go both ways.

I'm really trying not making any judgement calls myself here, about what I believe or what 'should' be the case, either in Glee or in the real world, but what I do feel is that having one set of rules for straight couples and another set of rules for same sex isn't all that fair. I just don't know which group is being, ahem, shafted.

(A couple of asides about Glee specifically: 1) are we meant to believe that Kurt is just A-OK with jumping straight into sex? The last we saw of him in regards to sex, he was throwing Blaine out of his room for bringing up the subject and basically saying he had no sex drive, did not fantasize, did not masturbate, etc. Are we meant to buy that he has worked through all this off-screen and that they've been doing "stuff" other than kissing over the last year? If that's the case, I hope that is clearly addressed because what happened in the episode 'Sexy' was clearly a deep-seated issue for him;

and 2) if they do define or imply "having sex" to mean penetrative sex and they make Blaine top, then I am side-eyeing the writers' abilities to know their own characters. Despite the fact that in a relationship with someone like Karofsky, or Finn, or Puck, or Brian Kinney, Kurt would automatically be stereotyped as a bottom (which also isn't particularly fair or necessarily true, but it's a fact that he'd be stereotyped as such), that's clearly not the dynamic between him and Blaine right now, and while, yes, things may change and grow as their sexual relationship develops, and yes, these things can be indefinable, Blaine right now is realistically the picture of a complete bottom and the people in fandom who are clinging to the idea that he's this suave, in-control, smooth top are the ones also clinging to the white-knight image of him presented in 'Never Been Kissed' - which we know was a complete act. In fact, it has been discussed at length that the reason Blaine took so long to fall for Kurt was due to him seeing Kurt as being another version of the role he saw himself playing in a relationship, the young, more fey, twinkier, and more submissive party. Look at him going after Jeremiah. And once he did fall for Kurt - once Kurt had regained his confidence and dominant personality - we have seen nothing but Blaine submitting to Kurt over and over. And yes, I know - not that emotional submission has to = sexual submission, and not that sexual submission has to do with who sticks what where. But come on. Let's be real. Blaine is submissive, especially up against Kurt, and the easiest way for a TV show to simplify and define that to an audience is to show him as a bottom. If they make it otherwise, I'm going to side-eye them very hard, both for enforcing the stereotype of guys who look and talk and act like Kurt despite their efforts to usually avoid this -  football, working with cars, not wanting to play a drag role, "I'm not a box, there are more than four sides to me."  - and for ignoring what they've developed of Blaine's character as well. I think the message it will send to the general public - the ones who don't analyse the hell out of everything - will not be one that does the characters justice, because it it is left unclarified, I think that people will assume Kurt to be "the girl." (biggest sarcastic fingerquotes possible). Anyway. This is not actually the point of this post, at all, but I just had to say that. Even though I'm a cis-gendered woman having an opinion on gay male sexual dynamics, which we've established is not really within my rights. Please disassociate this part with the main point here, but I am leaving this in because I was going to say this somewhere regardless, and having it here at least says 'yes, I'm aware of my discrepancy' as opposed to posting opposite viewpoints in two separate places.)

Does the world have a responsibility to define virginity in general, in order to calculate milestones and have everyone on the same page simply as far as what words and terms mean? Another friend, P, said 'If the dictionary, world-wide accepted definition of losing virginity was "when a person considers themselves to have lost sexual innocence" do you know how many teen pregnancies that would help avoid in my hometown, due to the stigma of "being a virgin"?'

And does Glee have a responsibilty to define Kurt and Blaine's loss of virginity, when it is unquestionable as to what it means in regards to Finn and Rachel's? Is it more politically correct to define it, or for them not to define it? 

3x03 - Asian F

Hiatus is over today and I realised I never posted my thoughts about Asian F! So while I watch and write my thoughts on the new episode for Hypable’s recap, my write-up of 3.03 is here:

Major storylines - 

Mercedes: I don't get her deal. Are they meant to be saying that she's legitimately sick or hurt, or is she faking, lazy, or slacking off when the rest of them are working hard? If she really is sick or hurt by the physical work, is it meant to be because of her weight or fitness? 

I really, really hate her boyfriend. Like, a lot. He’s supportive, yeah, but to the point that he disregards her actual feelings about things outside competition. And you know what? Yes, Mercedes, people have told you that you're better than Rachel - on many occasions, with certain performances - you know who has mainly told you that? RACHEL, in her own weird ways. Also, why is it that her boyfriend's confidence in her has made her so apparently changed and mature and powerful, or whatever they said about her audition with Spotlight? (which I found a. boring and b. in no way a showcase to prove her a good Maria) Not that I really care either way, because I hate her, but her self-confidence shouldn't just be about a guy, right? She doesn't need other people to believe in her for her to believe in herself - no one ever got success that way. Yet she never had that drive on her own, has admitted it to Rachel in the past. She's naturally good and wants automatic credit for that, but when it comes down to it she isn't driven enough to work for what she wants.

Her attitude to Rachel when they are offered callbacks is just vile. She's known Rachel for three years and Rachel's little comment about how it can't appear as if they're just giving her the part is much in line with her comment last episode about assuming Mr Schue meant she'd be directing the musical - it's a defense mechanism, just little bits of her crazy fantasy coming out of her mouth, and when they're shot down she takes it quietly. Someone who's known her for that long, who has become her friend, should be aware of that, it should produce no more than an eyeroll. But Mercedes' response towards her when Rachel offers her congratulations is just gross, and it gets so much worse in the next booty camp scene, where she can't do the moves, and when Will asks her if she even practiced, her response is not "yes, of course" it's just "stop picking on me, blah blah Rachel, I've outgrown all of you. *knocks over mic stand*" It is an absolutely horrid and un-called for moment, like it just makes me say "what the fuck is wrong with you?"

This leads into the Dreamgirls dream sequence, which is probably the best and most ‘realistic’ surreal scene Glee has ever done. Now, it's no secret I really don't like anything about Mercedes, including her voice. It's fine, but it isn't, to me, in any way special or noticeable. A lot of black girls can sing like that and that style, to me, while good quality, technically flawless, is bland. Nothing she has ever done has moved me. It bores me and even on the Glee Live tour, her solo was the one where I'd tune out and check my phone. But aside from her voice - I have NEVER liked her character. So it made me very happy to see her being called out - particularly the fact that Kurt was involved, because I feel they have definitely outgrown their friendship and that it was a pretty shallow friendship to begin with. They stuck with each other when they literally had no one else, but it started out creepy (with Mercedes thinking they were dating) and really came to a head in Substitute, I believe, for two reasons - Kurt saying Mercedes is using him as a replacement boyfriend, and Mercedes tuning out at dinner when Kurt and Blaine were discussing gay rights. That was the moment when I gave her the red card and it upset me so much that Blaine felt he had to say "let's talk about something we're all interested in" - it's like, bitch, this kid is meant to be your best friend and you don't care about his basic human rights - particularly you coming from a minority that, less than 50 years ago, also did not have basic human rights? Cool, so you'll just tune out? That's fine. Go home. I will never forgive her for that.

Anyway, "It's All Over" was pretty awesome - I like that they twisted around the parts without changing the lyrics to create those awkward Brittany/Santana and Kurt/Finn moments. I liked that they had Puck slightly on her side, seeing as they always had a weird kind of connection. It was kind of weird that they changed people's names from the original lyric, yet still referenced Mercedes as "Effie" - and also, in Dreamgirls, the reason behind Effie's illness and slacking ends up being because she was pregnant... which is of course making fandom wonder if they're doing that with Mercedes, which I do not believe. However I do want to know if her illness/weakness is real or if she just complains more than everyone else.

The diva-off has honestly been done so many times before that I tuned out a little, but Kurt – honestly, if you think you’re going to be talking about this for the rest of your lives, you can’t have a very interesting life planned. Both girls were good, but the cutting between means neither really got the chance to show off their performance onscreen. I disagree with Rachel’s statement that Mercedes was better than her – she was about equal. My favourite thing about the entire situation was supportive-boyfriend!Finn.

Rachel’s reaction to the double-casting genuinely impressed me – I thought she’d take it much worse. She does that little defense/fantasy thing I mentioned above at first, but, again, when corrected, takes it quietly and graciously. Whereas Mercedes’ reaction was just… so horrid. I don’t get it – does she think that she won the role, that everyone thought she was better, but they double-cast because no one wanted to tell Rachel “no”? Because I don’t feel that was the case at ALL. Artie’s right – it is a “stupid pride thing” and if she’d rather let that get in the way of having fun and peforming then good riddance to her.

Emma and Will: First of all, I actually wanted to throw myself under a truck when I realised that Will was going to show Emma his porn. Please no more references to Will's penis ever. Please?  I don't like that he keeps making these little hints and barbs about having sex with her. And "kept me off of Craigslist"? Really? Are you seriously that randy? But why is it a shock that Emma has a stash of wedding magazines anyway? Remember how she was actually engaged to one guy, and hosted a wedding just to cancel it last-minute? Of course you don't. But anyway, the storyline with her parents was actually surprisingly well-done given the ridiculous “ginger supremacist” premise. They actually, somehow, made that somewhat workable and realistic, and Will calling them out was good - though probably added to Emma's anxiety, however he should not have put Emma through that in the first place after she’d asked him not to. Does no one on this show ever communicate outside the moments we see them on screen? (see: Kurt/Blaine also) Also - didn’t Emma’s OCD stem from falling into the runoff at a dairy? Wasn’t that a thing? Oh Glee, even when you manage to make something realistic and touching, you fuck it up by making it contradict your own canon. LOVE YOU SO MUCH, GLEE. “Fix You” was such a waste of a brilliant song – they could have done that at competition, all chanting in unison on the chorus, it would have been haunting, but they gave it to Will… sigh… and while it was nicely done, with the prayers and cutting over the casting announcements and all, I am a little sick of Will’s attitude about “fixing” Emma. He may have her best interests at heart, but he’s very forceful about it in a way that I do not feel is helpful or healthy for someone so fragile.

Mike: I feel like I can't comment too much on his storyline without dealing without addressing racial stereotypes of a minority I don't belong to and therefore have no right to pass judgement on. I don't know if his father's behaviour is realistic or not - because it's Glee, i'm going to guess not, especially the specific dialogue used, however I can understand the issue of any student being held back from extra-curriculars because of academics. I think Harry Shum Jr did a great job reacting genuinely and emotionally to his on-screen father, and that scene of him dancing alone in the studio is quite amazing. I wish there was a way to have shown his inner monologue without making him look like he was hallucinating, but the points were so valid - especially about the threat of injury, which was something a dancer friend of mine was dealing with at the exact time the episode aired. The Tina fantasy was a bit weird, as was her previous scene with him - it's like nearly every line they give her is exposition and not very natural, which is a shame. They do it in the choir room scenes as well sometimes, they give her lines that are basically to explain the situation to the audience, like "so it's a _____" which is getting kind of old. She needs stronger plots, especially if she is one of the few remaining cast members still at McKinley in season 4.

But anyway. Mike's actual audition is amazing. I've seen some arguments about the song choice, because in the film "Cool" is a song done after Riff dies, and that's where the very famous floorwork/kneepad choreography comes from, but in the actual stage show it IS Riff's song, so, whatever. He looked amazing and sounded fine - definitely passable for that role in a high school show and I seriously hope we get to see him and Blaine act together as Riff and Tony. At the end, when Bieste comments about him wasting his time teaching the footballers the choreography, his response is one of those moments of Glee where for a second I feel like I'm watching a genuine drama show - perfect emotional delivery. I can't wait to see Harry act in more serious roles, such as the upcoming White Frog.  And the bit with his mother was so sweet, though I found it a bit convenient that her dream had been dancing too. Surely sometime in the past 17 years, this had been discussed, as Mike’s dancing has not been a secret, at least since he joined Glee?

Kurt/Brittany/Rachel/presidency: Although Kurt's line about Brittany "whimsically hopping and skipping" alongside his running made me laugh out loud, I think that with Santana behind her, helping her translate and express her ideas, Brittany legitimately is making some good points and appealing to the female population to vote will probably work. I loved Sue and Emma awkwardly dancing in the pep rally. But Rachel.. oh, Rachel. You are incredibly irrational and your fear drives you to do very stupid things, I understand, but your running was really not cool – specifically as you were the one to suggest and encourage Kurt in the first place. But here’s the thing – when Kurt confronts her about her candidacy, it was him I was rolling my eyes at. Rachel was desperate and selfish and thoughtless, and she’s wrong, but she was NOT being malicious, but Kurt’s spiel about how if she won it would help her college chances but if he won it would make a difference for kids like him? Please. Please. This is the first word we are hearing about his campaign having any altruistic motives – he originally applied for exactly the same reason as her, and it’s only now, when challenged, that he has invented some moral high ground to take in order to fight with her. I’m not saying that it isn’t a valid platform for him to use, or something he wouldn’t be concerned about, but that was NOT his original motive and he’s acting like it was in order to be superior, and I kind of want to smack him. Yeah, Rachel’s in the wrong, but she’s so socially unaware that she isn’t secretive or manipulative about it, she doesn’t hide her ambition – Kurt tries to give himself moral superiority through emotionally manipulating and cutting others down. They both need to knock it off. And does Kurt really think that Rachel wouldn’t have his issues at heart if she did win? She has a rainbow flag in her locker. Even though her and Kurt are having issues right now, this is yet another aspect of why they have the potential to be legitimate best friends forever, whereas Mercedes will end up being someone Kurt forgets. Rachel was probably educated in and supporting gay rights before even Kurt was.

Little things:

- Does Figgins still seriously believe Tina is a vampire? Does she dress up as one to get him to do her bidding, or was that a figment of his imagination?

- Bieste is so fucking awesome, she is one of my favorite characters and one of the only people on this show who talks sense.

- Kurt/Blaine: I'm going to try and not spend too long on this because they weren't an A-plot, but their one scene didn't sit well with me. I'm pretty sure we were meant to find it cute. I didn't find it cute. I didn't exactly say "oh, it wasn't genuine" or think it was sinister as much as I know some other people were saying about it, but what stuck with me was the "You always zig when I think you're about to zag." line - THAT just left me thinking "oh, awesome, so Blaine expected Kurt to be shitty about it? That's healthy." Giving Blaine support, the flowers, it was the right move on Kurt's part, for sure, but the fact it was an afterthought is what still worries me. it's good that he came to that conclusion, whether it was because he really felt it or because he knew objectively, despite jealousy, it was the right thing to do. But it was once again an afterthought, whereas Blaine's choices always seem to be Kurt's happiness first. It's his automatic compulsion, and the fact that Kurt's automatic compulsion isn't Blaine is what makes me think that dynamic can never really be good, because I still don't think you can LEARN to be automatically compelled to be selfless. At the end, when the cast list is announced, Kurt really seems to be struggling - he fakes happy for Blaine but is clearly still upset, and that is just... shouldn't they be talking about this? Is this going to keep being a plot point? Equally important, is that little moment on the stairs where Blaine held back from PDA going to be a plot point?

- I liked the booty camp scene where Will is encouraging Finn and is all "you can do it!" and Puck is like "no he can't" as like, a motivating bro move. It's a really cool and realistic moment of Puck and Finn's friendship. 

- All of Rachel's dress and hair choices this episode - flawless and I want them. 

- This was hyped as the best Glee episode ever. Cory Monteith said in an interview that if we did not feel that way he would give us all $20. Cory Monteith, you owe me $20.