I just saw last week episode of the big bang theory.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Big Bang Theory
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 06:51 AM)
I just saw last week episode of the big bang theory.
It was established that Raj had a relationship with a woman who we later found out that he wasn't dating and he was cleaning the bathroom with her and there was even a line "i'll remember you everytime I cum in the bathroom", and with everything in there by slight of hand, I think it's blatant on analysis that he was banging that chick all over the office before he started dating her. (Or he could have been exaggerating to howard pretending that that woman was his girlfriend - and a little embarrassed?- but with everything else in the show, it's not as likely, given all the other 'leads' on close analysis. Like analyze the dialogue and what if they just skipped a scene, what was said by slight of hand like 'I'll remember you ever ytime I cum in the bathroom.')
I think he has a sex addiction who read the kama sutra and developed a personality where he would not speak to women unless he was drunk, so with that pressure, he would have to get laid and then he tried out stuff he read and then just refused to talk when he wasn't drunk so he barely had sexual relations, but with a lot of people and in a gross way but with a lot of fortitude for it. but then he didn't want to talk to them due to the shame involved.
But now I see it in the show too. Like I fear the butterfly. Lines like that. What if he just banged that broad with the bedroom eyes and if he's not sexy looking he is when he comes up with lines like "I sometimes let my dog eat things out of my mouth" and "I fear the butterfly" it just opens him up with innuendo but he doesn't even know what he's doing he does it so much like an auto pilot of innuendo.
Has it always been like this though? Where he was banging babes in public places and then we see the awkward silence part or the semi awkward conversations but there's several implications that they already banged or was last week's episode a rare thing?
Plus the way he was doing it, he could have been seen as a smooth player by slight of hand and if he was being somewhat honest with Howard, then he would HAVE to be hooking up with the cleaning lady all over the office but he could have been making more of it was, and then their relationship just seemed to vibe more intimately because she could have wanted to date him if she didn't already establish that initially she liked Raj but didn't have time for dating before Raj overturned it in a brave fight to battle his sex addiction and attain more fulfilling relationships.
This time I'm sure it was strongly implied in the episode that they were having sexual relations and I'll call it. Raj has a 10 year old or about son or daughter because the show is big bang theory about dating to mating so his child will be older from one of these one night stands early on so they can display parental interactions with more range. that's my prediction. Because if they're doing this stuff now if not the whole way, implying he's having sex with people he barely knows in somewhat public places semi frequently, then he's probably already a father to make the age difference between the kids more pronounced and the show more well rounded -
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 07:28 AM)
Nah, I'm Hindu man. Not so many celibacy issues.
But really, watch it. There are too many implications.
It's stated that he's in a relationship but not dating a woman in his office, and it could have been part of the exaggeration to Howard, but then the way they were interacting, he probably does this all the time, especially given his prior mental history.
There are facts buddy. Do the math. If it's on demand for you, check it out. Do the math. Too many hints. It's very slim they were not banging already. Too many hints.
There is logic in my brain and that is a peace.
But now I'm wondering if it was ever alluded to before, so clearly. But the episode I'm referring to is on Demand. Last week's episode, if you check it out again, there are multiple hints, and the silly one is not so silly within the context of all the other hints, but it implies he hooks up with women in public places such as bathrooms all the time.
Logic is peace. It eliminates the random. That fear of the random, that is a Hellish world, so we need to analyze for volume and consistency find the rhythms.
I didn't state every little thing. Like he was cleaning toilets and candle light dinners and what not what if they were currently banging? Would it make more sense or less? Woman that appears to be in a relationship with him that he is not dating that he only sees at work but gauge the intimacy and the context and try to free your mind from randomized paranoia. just keep it to the facts, and the rhythm and try to paint a cohesive unifying picture, but it's coming from too many angles this time that the only question is where are the other times he had random sex encounters, if any?
That's what I want to hear about, buddy.
Because again, this time, it's not really 'how do you see it'? One way is too favored.
Raj claims to be in a relationship with a woman who later turns out to be the cleaning lady and he is not dating her. So they must be having sexual relations or Raj is lying. But it seems like he was not lying about the relationship part. For example why were her feelings so hurt. When you change cum to come it doesn't change that much, but I think it appears that he has done this before and will do it again. But it's too one sided to see the other way. That means it does not appear that the two were already really in a relationship and he was just courting her. but given the level of intimacy here, it implies that they were already in some form of relationship or it would be awkward And then why was she so hurt if she was not in a relationship with him? It's not impossible but it would be more believable if they were the scenes you see of them together, by a wide margin.
It's not impossible for it to be the other way but once you catch it, it is clearly one sided biased with many rhythms to imply that they had sexual relations of some sort, and I would go further to say it's implied he's done it before, and I want to know if he's done it before
It's safe to go here if it's logical but it's not just in my head that way. Clearly a strong implication on many levels, and then if you didn't get it, I could understand why people could lull and wonder if I have missed it in the past myself. -
BobInValencia — 9 years ago(November 22, 2016 10:00 AM)
We didn't take it that he said something that sounded dirty in a sexual way (if that is what you meant) more like, telling someone that you will think of her every time you walk into the bathroom seems kinda nasty/creepy/dirty/yucky.
-
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 02:34 PM)
That's why it's casual sex.
It makes sense if you check out the numbers.
He is in a relationship with a woman he is not dating and only sees in the office but he could be lying about being in a relationship. So how do they act when they see each other in person? Romantic dinners, cleaning all these rooms for time for nookie, etc.
I'm a South Asian man. I assure you with certainty that I am fairly good at some forms of mathematics. Check your numbers. It sounds absurd but it's more than a suggestion the only way it cannot be is if he was lying about being in a relationship with that woman who did not date, but then when you see them all chummy together, they do appear to be in some form of relationship, and the only obvious possibility left is sexual.
So now the way that he couldn't talk to women before unless he was drunk, implied a potential for a sexual issue, after running the numbers last week, he is clearly having promiscuous sex in open places, with random women, on more than one occasion, or at least there is a strong implication if you check the material
And then if you imagine these conversations following about 20 minutes later from an extreme intimacy, the mood for it is appropriate but signifies a different situation and there's a way when you put his face with his lines for his appearance, he could be spitting out some player lines in there but there are too many correlations. It's not impossible that he is not battling a sex addiction, but unlikely given all the implications that would have to be ignored. -
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 03:46 PM)
Leaps of faith?
Answer me this one. Why is he helping her clean so much unless he is trying to make time for sexual relations? Why would he bother? Even if he went into four rooms, emptied the trash, maybe pushed a chair or two in, and didn't lysol the place, what would have taken her an hour and a half, why would he bother?
It's not impossible that he was not having casual sex with a new female acquaintence in the work place but if not, it's very hard to believe the reasonings behind the situation presented and then we are assuming he's lying about EVERYTHING to Howard and they weren't in a relationship of a sort, which the woman presumed later on in the show it's too many things, man.
Again, I do not know if this is the first time the innuendo was portrayed so much so that we would have to assume that Raj was lying the whole way to make it work, and the rest, we can just throw out but innuendo this strong, I wonder if it's like that for other BBT episodes, but the nature of his initial mental problem could be fuel to a sex addiction.
I know there's a way that Raj could be exaggerating the truth because of high hopes of pursuing a relationship, because the way I see it it was a given potential truth, but the other side that he was banging her is more likely 9 to 1.
I could just keep on going with these points and some of them sound frivolous but would not be in a set of points. Then they would gain weight but some sound frivolous on their own.
But what I think the confusion is is that the dispassionate lull is portrayed and what is under-seen is what must be to give the show rhythm, 9 to 1.
But can you really make another case beyond nookie with everything else going on and openly stated in the show for him to be helping her clean up so much? What would she do with her time for example?
You could make up a reason but it would carry 1/10th the weight.
That's why it's not really my fantasy but I concede from the start that the other side of it, the nicer presumption still has 1/10th the potential for truth. -
kerryedavis — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 03:53 PM)
Racket?!?!That's Brahms!!!Brahms' 3rd Racket!!! - Basil Fawlty
If you follow Star Trek you know it's actually Mr Flint's 3rd Racket.
SPOCK: Your collection of Leonardo da Vinci masterpieces, Mister Flint, they appear to have been recently painted on contemporary canvas with contemporary materials. And on your piano, a waltz by Johannes Brahms, an unknown work in manuscript, written in modern ink. Yet absolutely authentic, as are your paintings.
FLINT: I am Brahms.
SPOCK: And da Vinci?
FLINT: Yes.
SPOCK: How many other names shall we call you?
FLINT: Solomon, Alexander, Lazarus, Methuselah, Merlin, Abramson. A hundred other names you do not know. -
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 07:44 AM)
The way it was portrayed in this episode though, I'm saying this is implied to be a more than one time thing by a wide margin. If you imagine the scenes portrayed as the sway inward as a recovery mechanism from this sexual commingling, he comes off as a Casanova. if you just imagine it like they did this and they're showing it 'now' but this was Sheldon's big coming out trying to get his woman pregnant the way the commercials were and just presumably another day for Raj Kootherpalli the Caltech physics professor that traveled all the way to the Golden State where his people are still openly at times persecuted as they should be but more likely to uphold the respect that if these guys could have easily looked the other way and they called a bunch of people over and made a spectacle of it maybe in those conditions with reasonable care (promiscuous sex with relatively unknown women in semi public places) if attention was called to something that the coupling was trying to hide, in the Golden State the law may grant clemency or leniancy amongst consenting adults it must have become his Mecca because no matter where you are from including California almost no one suffers from this condition as stressfully as Raj his portrayal as a man with such a unique sex addiction frees his problem from any form of cultural stereotype we can really say about other people.
-
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 08:57 PM)
It's not though. I'm stating facts that give very little room for the goings on in the episode if you put them together.
It is stated when you add up the total that he is in a relationship with a woman he is not dating that he only sees in the office. He could be lying to make it true but when they are together they appear to be in a relationship.
That's pretty grounded. Now let me go here. If they are not dating and in a relationship, they are in a sexual relationship. And if they are only together in the office, if we accept the first part, then they must be having a sexual relationship within the office.
If you accept my first assumptions (and if not can you reasonably argue why - we would be assuming they are lying but what about the stuff they can't hide, like when raj and the cleaning lady are together interacting alone, cleaning toilets for the first time, having romantic dinners with relatively little presumptions, they appear to be in a relationship but there is some ice you can slide on) Now you're boxed into a very limited potential of what could go on if you analyze the situation.
It's on demand right now, most likely. So I know it's a lot but you could easily check the facts and do a double take but the fantasy cannot be the facts. Closest thin to a fact is the statement if you are not dating and in a relationship, you are in a sexual relationship, but you play the then part different and tell me if you can come up with anything reasonably practical
but these are factors here. There's a kind of math that is not numbers based that I don't know that could express these logical statements. I don't know what it is though. But I assure you that I am a South Asian man that is fairly good at some forms of math and regardless of my lack of knowledge of the proper terminology of this logical style math, a mathematical foundation for it rather than just logic or reasoning, I would be good at this math.
Can you say that any of the assumptions are wrong though? The episode adds in all those assumptions for these statements and then where can you go? If you accept all these assumptions (or then tell me what you don't accept, especially if you on demand it) then where can you go?
I can't really argue this much more and come up with even more points because it's just not worth it anymore but every one of those pillars stands strong within reasonable boundaries. And then what can you build from that? They really box you into this one this time if you're paying attention
I know not many people are going to go through the trouble of on demanding it and watching it again, but keep a logical tally. I'm not a fan fic writer. This would be more like critical analysis of an episode but when it appears to be fan fictional analysis, think the boundaries that I'm reasoned into when I let my mind go now. if you see it again, you know what I mean?
But then back me up on it cuz you'll see it too. Most people won't check twice though and it's quite the double take if you didn't catch it the first time I wonder if it's like this on a bunch of episodes or this is the precedent for a presumption that the way it was advertised Sheldon is changing getting sexualized out of desire for a baby, but that's new, and there's nothing particularly new in Raj's life, though he may be dealing with his sex addiction to raise his dating and relationship capacity in some regards so there is progress.. but if you look at the facts, it's hard to deny, and where they can't lie, when they are together, it's pretty tough to see it the other way. -
rene-482-93855 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 07:34 AM)
Oh wow. you must be a great source of income for a psycho analist.
Really do you watch every show on tv like that?
I'm reminded of the joke about the guy who comes in to see his psyciatrist.
The doc shows him the ink-blot pictures for the rohrschach-test.
What do you see in this asks the doc, showing the first ink-blot.
A couple having sex in a bush is the answer.
And this one? The doc shows another ink-blot.
A couple having sex in the backseat of a car is the answer.
And this one showing the third one.
A couple having sex on a fire-escape.
This goes one the patient sees couples having sex in every ink-blot he's shown.
In the end the psychiatrist concludes: I'm sorry sir, but you clearly have a sex-complex.
To which the patient replies: I have a sex-complex? you're the one showing me the dirty pictures.
I think it's a bit like that here as well. Raj was infatuated by the cleaning lady. And when he says "i'll remember you everytime I come in the bathroom" he is embarrased because it is not nice to be rememberred by the work you do especially when it is in a dirty bathroom.
i'll help you with your vocabulary a little.
To come is a verb meaning to approach or move toward a particular person or place. That is it's general use and it is not referred to ejeculating over your keyboard whilst watching internet porn. I know i know. You can also use it as a meaning for reaching orgasm when you spell it with a U. But again, that is mostly confined to internet porn.
And when i write "dirty" what i mean is "not clean" "soiled by general usage"
I hope i didn't burst your bubble and wish you happy wanking. -
nishivijay — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 06:55 AM)
It's like you have your phone number posted publically in your profile. I don't want to know what that's about but quite frankly you sound crazy and mean to me, as if you make stories paint blotches and disassociate too much to find cohesion or synergy. With such inner division, how can you build?
But I'm not here to help you out or get more mean cuz you sound crazy mean and I don't want to get mean cuz that's crazy so I'm not going to tough it out with you
So we both made crazy claims. You claimed that I was crazy fun and I claimed you have some form of disassociative disorder that creates a situation on IMDB (at least now) where you frame movies and TV shows as if they were paint blotches because you cannot synergize the plot.
But keep it here so we can redirect it.
If this if worth discussing, Tell me I'm wrong about my assumptions. You can't within reasonable boundaries. And by the time it leaves the wiggle room, it's already pretty ridiculous. Jerry Springer guests would be shocked as would the audience and maybe even Jerry but what Raj isn't talking was said through context because this isn't ink blotches. It's a story with pictures and words and there are too many rhythms here to deny the probability of a peculiar sex addiction. TV doesn't always scream about problems but they cannot always be logically denied either, and TV is not always perfect. But we got to synergize and bring cohesion to stories.
***Keep it to those statements, and whether or not they are true, and when we get past the facts or presumed facts from the show, then we can discuss reasonable potential but you can't just get caught up in the scene and ignore the facts revealed and how they stack up. that's dull and we got to be bright
I could accept that he may be gay as a potential within reasonable boundaries but keep things in reasonable boundaries.
I think people get caught up in the movement but where does it go with time? It's not possible to deny this now. -
rene-482-93855 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 08:19 AM)
You've got something seriously messed up in your head dude.
Maybe Im mean, but someone needs to tell you this.
The Big Bang Theory is a show!! A SHOW!!!
IT IS NOT REAL.
outside what you see on your screen nothing happens. There are no backstories we are not aware of.
The persons do not exist in real life.
Raj is not gay because the writers haven't decided yet what to do with his character. If tomorrow they decide to make him gay, he'll be gay. If the day after tomorrow, they decide he's a transsexual he'll be a transsexual. And if they decide to write the character out of the show he'll die or move back to India.
And if they decide to give the actress Maria Canals-Barrera a bigger part on the show they will write her in as Issabella. And then, and only then will we know what happens.
Otherwise the character Raj is not having sex with other people on strange places or wherever. This all happens in your head and nowhere else. not on the show and not in real life.
So Im telling you, you are wrong in your assumptions, simply because there is nothing to assume.
So there is nothing to discuss. Have fun with your fantasies. But know they are just that: your fantasies.
Oh and by the way: My handle. It's not my phone number. It's just a randomly assigned number by IMDB. Again you jump to a conclusion that is way off base and wildly exaggerated in your head.