|
Title: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Mr. Cohen on October 17, 2012, 01:25:06 AM Brian was no good in the sack. Let's think about it. His ex Marilyn basically said her and Brian stopped having sex regularly around '69 (how ironic, right?). Brian then has a dildo made at one point and parades with it around his kids, claiming he's not a real man. Later, he invites Tandyn Almer over to teach him how to properly please his wife, which involves Tandyn having actual sex with Marilyn. Eventually, in a desperate bid to sexually satisfy his wife, he even willingly (?) allows himself to be cuckolded by Marilyn with Rocky Pamplin. When Marilyn decides to leave Brian anyway, he's hurt and lashes out at Pamplin, but it's obvious Brian knew and consented to the arrangement for some time.
The fact that Brian felt most comfortable at 19 approaching girls way younger than him already reveals a deep-seated insecurity over his sexual prowess. The guy was likely a weak lover and rather submissive. He would sing lyrics about "eating up her wild honey" and "we'll fill the hours with things that both most like to do, spending a sweet Sunday lovin' you" (a clever reference to 69). Other songs would explore his difficulties with understanding and fulfilling woman. No wonder he was so jealous of Dennis! Now that was a real man! On an unrelated note, Brian really was a punk rocker at heart in the '70s, and it's a shame no one around him could understand it. The way he was willing to rock out a single riff for almost an entire song was very much a punk thing. He'd lock into that one groove and just bleed his emotions. That's like something the Sex Pistols would do. But none of the Beach Boys could ever understand such a thing. Well, that's it. Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: runnersdialzero on October 17, 2012, 02:15:49 AM Twice a day, every day, mother f*cker.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Mike's Beard on October 17, 2012, 02:22:20 AM Taking lots of cocaine can play havoc with your dick.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: The Heartical Don on October 17, 2012, 02:49:24 AM I don't find this topic to be in good taste.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: jeffcdo on October 17, 2012, 03:05:11 AM Moderators?? How is this post appropriate in ANY way?
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Cabinessenceking on October 17, 2012, 03:06:15 AM Brian was no good in the sack. Let's think about it. His ex Marilyn basically said her and Brian stopped having sex regularly around '69 (how ironic, right?). Brian then has a dildo made at one point and parades with it around his kids, claiming he's not a real man. Later, he invites Tandyn Almer over to teach him how to properly please his wife, which involves Tandyn having actual sex with Marilyn. Eventually, in a desperate bid to sexually satisfy his wife, he even willingly (?) allows himself to be cuckolded by Marilyn with Rocky Pamplin. When Marilyn decides to leave Brian anyway, he's hurt and lashes out at Pamplin, but it's obvious Brian knew and consented to the arrangement for some time. The fact that Brian felt most comfortable at 19 approaching girls way younger than him already reveals a deep-seated insecurity over his sexual prowess. The guy was likely a weak lover and rather submissive. He would sing lyrics about "eating up her wild honey" and "we'll fill the hours with things that both most like to do, spending a sweet Sunday lovin' you" (a clever reference to 69). Other songs would explore his difficulties with understanding and fulfilling woman. No wonder he was so jealous of Dennis! Now that was a real man! On an unrelated note, Brian really was a punk rocker at heart in the '70s, and it's a shame no one around him could understand it. The way he was willing to rock out a single riff for almost an entire song was very much a punk thing. He'd lock into that one groove and just bleed his emotions. That's like something the Sex Pistols would do. But none of the Beach Boys could ever understand such a thing. Well, that's it. weird topic, and very insensitive, but since it was allowed... Imo Brian made some of the best riffs ever. Even his songs which were just enless riffs like Shortenin' Bread and Mona were very rockin'. I didn't know that about Brian and Marilyn. I thought it didnt go downhill between them before 74 when he went over the precipice... Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: hypehat on October 17, 2012, 03:16:30 AM Incredible post, but -
Twice a day, every day, mother f***er. *drops mic* Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Lowbacca on October 17, 2012, 03:36:49 AM On an unrelated note, Brian really was a punk rocker at heart in the '70s, and it's a shame no one around him could understand it. The way he was willing to rock out a single riff for almost an entire song was very much a punk thing. He'd lock into that one groove and just bleed his emotions. That's like something the Sex Pistols would do. But none of the Beach Boys could ever understand such a thing. THAT is quite on the money, I think. Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: cablegeddon on October 17, 2012, 03:42:46 AM Since when is sex about pleasing women? It's about getting laid brother.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: The Shift on October 17, 2012, 03:47:17 AM It's obviously not about the music for Murry, eh?
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Mr. Cohen on October 17, 2012, 04:02:43 AM It is quite inappropriate. I thought it would be interesting to explore the boundaries of idolization, voyeurism, obsession, and celebrity. After all, is it appropriate to analyze Brian or Mike's lives the way we do? When does it actually go too far? Somehow, I know all of these facts, thanks I'm sire to published books and this message board. So there you go. If it's all information many here are aware of, what does it really matter if someone types it out in one space like I just did?
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Lowbacca on October 17, 2012, 04:06:45 AM It is quite inappropriate. I thought it would be interesting to explore the boundaries of idolization, voyeurism, obsession, and celebrity. Like... this..? Yeah, right.Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Mr. Cohen on October 17, 2012, 04:17:09 AM Sure, it just popped into my head, so I did it. Of course, you'd have to have some interest in sexual psychology to think up something like that, which I do. I can say with 99.99% certainty that everything I wrote (except the topic title) has been posted here before.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: The Heartical Don on October 17, 2012, 04:31:02 AM Sure, it just popped into my head, so I did it. Of course, you'd have to have some interest in sexual psychology to think up something like that, which I do. I can say with 99.99% certainty that everything I wrote (except the topic title) has been posted here before. Dear Murry - I am certain all of us have some interest in sexual psychology. That does not mean that all of us feel inclined to post something like you just did. Even if (a major) part of it is out there - we may feel that refraining from doing it may be the best way to go. I am against censorship, and for freedom of speech. I am also for being modest and courteous. These things go hand in hand, IMHO. Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Mr. Cohen on October 17, 2012, 04:38:13 AM I suppose modest and courteous in your case means whispering dirty rumors when enough heads are turned rather than announcing it out loud all at once. Or have you always gotten upset when Brian's personal life was invaded in some way?
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: The Heartical Don on October 17, 2012, 04:43:29 AM I suppose modest and courteous in your case means whispering dirty rumors when enough heads are turned rather than announcing it out loud all at once. Or have you always gotten upset when Brian's personal life was invaded in some way? That is a pretty mean-spirited allegation towards me, mr Murry. I have no further comments. Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: hypehat on October 17, 2012, 04:57:38 AM It's hard to know what you're getting out of this besides the opportunity to be a massive twat, Murry.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: The Shift on October 17, 2012, 05:39:25 AM (http://www.demandstudiossucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Troll_Restless72119.jpg)
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Al Jardine: Pick Up Artist on October 17, 2012, 06:25:02 AM oh my god I can't stop laughing
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on October 17, 2012, 08:29:44 AM I...don't even know how to respond to this.
Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: EgoHanger1966 on October 17, 2012, 08:38:53 AM I doubt it. He had his own sex chamber.
http://neonbrown.bandcamp.com/track/brian-wilsons-sex-chamber Maybe the wierdest thread topic, ever, though. Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on October 17, 2012, 08:39:59 AM :lol
I wasn't expecting a song out of that link Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Aegir on October 18, 2012, 12:18:44 AM The guy was likely a weak lover and rather submissive. He would sing lyrics about "eating up her wild honey" and "we'll fill the hours with things that both most like to do, spending a sweet Sunday lovin' you" (a clever reference to 69). Other songs would explore his difficulties with understanding and fulfilling woman. No wonder he was so jealous of Dennis! Now that was a real man! what does going down on a girl have to do with being a weak lover? Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: MBE on October 19, 2012, 02:11:32 AM The guy was likely a weak lover and rather submissive. He would sing lyrics about "eating up her wild honey" and "we'll fill the hours with things that both most like to do, spending a sweet Sunday lovin' you" (a clever reference to 69). Other songs would explore his difficulties with understanding and fulfilling woman. No wonder he was so jealous of Dennis! Now that was a real man! what does going down on a girl have to do with being a weak lover? Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Paulos on October 20, 2012, 11:48:09 AM The guy was likely a weak lover and rather submissive. He would sing lyrics about "eating up her wild honey" and "we'll fill the hours with things that both most like to do, spending a sweet Sunday lovin' you" (a clever reference to 69). Other songs would explore his difficulties with understanding and fulfilling woman. No wonder he was so jealous of Dennis! Now that was a real man! what does going down on a girl have to do with being a weak lover? How has no-one mentioned Goin' South yet! Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Letsgoawayforawhile on October 20, 2012, 01:53:27 PM I'd be Brian's girlfriend.
I wouldn't complain. Title: Re: Brian was no good in the sack (and other musings) Post by: Wirestone on October 20, 2012, 03:25:45 PM This was clearly a big deal for Brian, though, and part of the insecurities that really define him as an artist and man. Think about the chain smoking, the "manly" voice, the out-of-control facial hair, the idolization of his father, the hatred of his falsetto voice. This is a guy who was fixated on the post-WWII concepts of manliness. Add in the rock-star business, the fact that Dennis and Mike were in the band (and some of his closest friends and collaborators) -- there's no wonder he got so messed up about it all.
|