There were six of us watching — three men, three women — when Max walked in and asked what we were so amused by. It was a DVD of the first season of “Coupling,” the racy British sitcom, and that brought on Max’s next question:
“Is there any nudity?”
It was a classic male concern, and what followed was a something of a case study in further gender differences. “There were some nipples,” I offered, and the other two men agreed.
The women objected. They had seen no such nipples. They had no idea what we were talking about.
So we went back to the episode involving the nipples in question and watched the key scene again. Steve, played by Jack Davenport, is lying on Susan’s bed, waiting for her to emerge from the bathroom for the end of their date. Susan, played by Sarah Alexander, comes out in white panties and a tight white top. Her nipples are plainly visible through the material.
Interestingly, this settled nothing.
The men felt vindicated. The women remained unconvinced.
7 comments:
This post is far too meta for its own good.
That being said, I don't think you can consider clothed-but-visible nipples to be in the category of nudity, which implies the absence of clothes.
"Meta" would imply a post about posting, I think, a blog about blogging, when of course this was about a topic of great importance: nipples. Oh, I mean: how men and women approach an aspect of human sexuality from significantly opposite directions.
And it is significant, in that the impact of the nipples was so great as to be considered essentially a substitute for nudity by all of the men watching. We understand there was no actual nudity; the nipples were offered as a nudity consolation prize, and one good enough to accepted enthusiastically. The women were clueless.
In this case, I can think of reasons that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Anyway, if there's a more important topic, I neva meta.
Oh, I meant by "meta" that it's a post about Coupling that is very, how shall I say, informed by the Coupling paradigm. You are channelling the male Coupling characters in your writing about the show. Which may not be the dictionary definition of "meta", but cut me some slack -- I'm a girl.
No slack is needed, because you're right. I'm maintaining the recent tradition of being an idiot and letting my readers say all the wise and correct things.
Still, can I be Steve? I don't want to Jeff. And I don't qualify as Patrick.
Be Jeff. Be Jeff. I don't want to be Jeff.
You can be Steve, sure. As long as I don't have to Sally. I mean, be Sally. Jane's more my type. (You know, flighty yet full of keen insights.)
Sorry for the delay in replying. I was just out renting “Spiderman.”
And, yes, I accept, Anonymous: Me Steve, you jane.
Post a Comment