Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
ATOB

Sheldon Cooper, Demisexual?

Recommended Posts

Stephen Hawking is 'playing the character' of 'Stephen Hawking the theoretical physicist' in the Big Bang in my opinion. We all have different 'roles' we play according to what we're doing, where we are and who we're with. We are the parent, child, spouse, sibling, employee, boss, friend, enemy, lover; we are never constant.

 

Wil Wheaton was the perfect example of "playing the character" in his first few visits to TBBT.  He wasn't (and isn't) the ass he played in the show.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  I admit I find Eastern Philosophy more relevant to my own thinking than the epistemology that has arisen from 'the book’; however, I can’t embrace Buddhism due to the link between karmic punishment and disability.  Similarly, I rather like the Baha’i faith’s idea of global equalism and unity, but not enough to commit to it.  I’m just happy towing the agnostic line (perched here on my fence).

 

As far as sexuality is concerned, I can only answer from my own experience, and categorically state that I no more chose my own sexual orientation than I did my eye colour.  The two examples you give above would both be categorized as bisexual I guess, if you sought to label them.  Are you Freudian in your thinking on sexuality?

 

As you’re compiling a reading list, I wonder if anyone’s suggested Iris Murdoch’s novels to you?  ‘The Sea, The Sea” is a masterpiece (which also touches on Buddhism incidentally) on self-delusion which may appeal to your interest in the ego self.  Likewise, ‘The Philosopher’s Pupil’, with its blatant Platonism and Dostoyevskian characters might appeal.  Although, if you read too much Murdoch you do get a sense of deja vu, I’m guessing her circle of acquaintances were ‘eclectic’ only in a philosophical sense; she should've got out more! :)

 

There should be a 'book club' thread on here! :)

I know some say you can't pick the best bits, from religions(or whatever), but I think post multiplicity, we are free to choose what makes sense to us at that time, and encorporate. I'm trying the idea of extending my definition of identity, to include every living thing(I think it's a western interrpertation of Buddhism), it's not easy, I look at trees, I think of all the people, including those who's views I dislike,etc. I think the two examples above, show that sexuality is flexible in expression, depending on context, and sometimes the context changes. I think one problem is that people are afraid to discuss such topics openly, then easy judgements are made because of ignorance, and people repress some part of themselves. It's good to have intelligent threads as well as others!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking is 'playing the character' of 'Stephen Hawking the theoretical physicist' in the Big Bang in my opinion. We all have different 'roles' we play according to what we're doing, where we are and who we're with. We are the parent, child, spouse, sibling, employee, boss, friend, enemy, lover; we are never constant.

He has to be playing the character, he's in a sit com, opposite a fictional character. It's strange that some fictional characters seem to have almost lived, they are so strong in our memories(collective): Robin Hood, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes. Another question: If an author decides to write a histrical biography; visits places the subject lived, reads all their letters,studies their photos,etc, until they really feel they know that person; what they would think and do, even. They start out writing as a character that bears a resemblance to their subject, but by the end, have intervened for personal reasons. Will the character have replaced the real subject, in the consciousness? The collective historical interpretation. Actually if I start down this route I might end up deconstructing mysef, am I just a character,etc. Is it Sheldon who is real?

Edited by gaqo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know some say you can't pick the best bits, from religions(or whatever), but I think post multiplicity, we are free to choose what makes sense to us at that time, and encorporate. I'm trying the idea of extending my definition of identity, to include every living thing(I think it's a western interrpertation of Buddhism), it's not easy, I look at trees, I think of all the people, including those who's views I dislike,etc. I think the two examples above, show that sexuality is flexible in expression, depending on context, and sometimes the context changes. I think one problem is that people are afraid to discuss such topics openly, then easy judgements are made because of ignorance, and people repress some part of themselves. It's good to have intelligent threads as well as others!!

I don't see why you can't cherry pick! Of the 51 books that form the Old Testament, only the Eastern Orthodox recognise them all. Protestant, Catholicism, Judaism and Islam only recognise those relevant. Indeed, if you follow Buddhism to it's Hindu roots, even an agnostic like myself can see the relevance of the unknowable Brahman I believe.

He has to be playing the character, he's in a sit com, opposite a fictional character. It's strange that some fictional characters seem to have almost lived, they are so strong in our memories(collective): Robin Hood, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes. Another question: If an author decides to write a histrical biography; visits places the subject lived, reads all their letters,studies their photos,etc, until they really feel they know that person; what they would think and do, even. They start out writing as a character that bears a resemblance to their subject, but by the end, have intervened for personal reasons. Will the character have replaced the real subject, in the consciousness? The collective historical interpretation. Actually if I start down this route I might end up deconstructing mysef, am I just a character,etc. Is it Sheldon who is real?

In essence what a method actor does. Do try not to deconstruct yourself!

I often wonder that there's not more research into the Stanislavski praxis and depression/mental health. It's all very well triggering 'your dark place' to climb inside a character but what if you can't find your way back out?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"And on the other side of it, because of Sheldon's somewhat odd relationships, he ends up feeling a little less anxious about it than she does because it hasn't been built up in that way for him. This is not something he's been waiting and waiting for." ~ Jim Parsons

I see a lot of people are taking this comment as "Sheldon did not want to do teh_sex!" :superstition:

Jim says it is simply not something that he has been waiting and waiting for and it's not! He has had the opportunity for the past few years to become fully intimate with Amy and had chosen not to.

He chose to practice Kolinar and to hyper focus on his work instead, it wasn't until she asked for a break and he realised that the option of any sort of relationship with Amy was taken off of the table that he started making deliberate and continuous references to sex.
"invading (her) southern borders"
"first notch on the bed post"
"I wouldn't coitus her with yours"
the horrible/hilarious eggs comment. 

Coitus was something that he was putting off, we can argue about the reasons for that till the cows come home (and I expect that we will!) but the 'build up' for him has been a recent thing compared to the last few years of Amy's anticipation for him and perhaps a decade or so of desire to have sex at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.