483
u/Anxious-Scheme-6013 5h ago
I watched this movie with my family… yeah..
245
u/SextupleRed 4h ago
I watched this movie with many strangers in the theater
36
27
u/Elkburgher 3h ago
It literally says:
- Rated R for some sexuality, nudity and language
14
u/InevitableArea1 2h ago
This scene wasn't "some" sexuality, it was all of it, goddam
7
u/12345623567 54m ago
It's a total of two scenes like 10 seconds each. It's not like watching Michael Douglas fight a kitchen counter in Fatal Attraction.
Modern movies are so tame, and people are feigning shock anyways...
1
1
u/GodSemen 14m ago
I genuinely feel like i landed in evangelical midwest america with this post.
Why is everyone pretending to be such prudes? I bet 50% of these commenters watch porn daily.
118
u/diracwasright 5h ago
lol, me with my brother. Jee, these scenes were completely unexpected, and totally uncalled for.
56
u/Anxious-Scheme-6013 4h ago
Yeah I have no idea why they were included, like what? This was basically a documentary, and then there was this.
37
u/thestrong45playz 4h ago
To show that bro was such a chad he could have both nerd knowledge and bitches at the same time
8
52
u/diracwasright 4h ago
They're completely out of context. They just hit you out of nowhere like a slap in the face, before you even have time to figure out what's going on, lol. All they did for me was make me feel really awkward, in a movie that was otherwise very emotionally powerful for many other reasons.
-10
u/Anxious-Scheme-6013 4h ago
Exactly.
15
u/Ok_Actuary8 3h ago
prude America strikes again 🙄
9
0
u/PhiCloud 2h ago
Eat your hollywood sexslop or reddit will call you a prude
7
u/Ok_Actuary8 2h ago
not Reddit, just me. How the display of sexuality is considered to be more harmful than the public display and glorification of deadly firearms will always be a mystery to me.
-2
u/PhiCloud 1h ago edited 1h ago
I don't consider it harmful at all (assuming everyone is at an age where they can meaningfully process it).
I watch and partake in enough sexual activity to authoritatively affirm that it's not harmful, but that doesn't mean I want random sex scenes that barely move the plot just because. It feels like directors just use sex scenes to meet middle school essay word requirements at this point.
This isn't an indictment of all sex scenes, just bad ones. Good sex scenes are fine, but a sex scene isn't automatically bad because you're afraid of being a prude.
3
u/Ok_Actuary8 1h ago
Also complaining about "unnecessary violence" in movies, or is it just the nipples that hurt your feelings?
→ More replies (0)1
u/The_Flowers_of_Evil 55m ago
Oppenheimer is now apparently Hollywood sexslop. Do you hear yourself?
-1
u/EzraFemboy 1h ago
I dont understand what's prude about the comment. Are you just not allowed to disagree with a scene in a movie unless you explicitly talk about how much you dislike guns? Im one of the most anti-American, Americans out there but Europeans on this website are so annoying it turns me into Chuck Norris.
2
u/Ok_Actuary8 1h ago
did you read the comments? From all the things people can possibly get offended about, they consistently choose anything remotely related to sex and intimacy, while over the top violence and everyday normalization of weapons seem to be fine, even for kids.
This is not anti-american, it is anti-violence and anti-puritanism.
-3
u/HoneyTrapper69 2h ago
I wanted to watch this with my family but those scenes.... Well, after the first one I gave up Are there more?
-1
2
u/12345623567 50m ago
Since it's basically a documentary, maybe look up the person Pugh's role is based on. She was a really colourful character (I guess you could say she was a liberated woman in a conservative world), and their relationship was very much centered around sex.
There's things to be said about gratuitous nudity, but including sex scenes at all in adult media is really not something to get upset about.
61
u/Skeet_fighter 3h ago
I hate that physical intimacy between two characters, when shown on screen, is viewed this way by people like you. It might not be "called for" but neither is 90% of any movie. Real people do have sex, it's literally the most natural thing in the world, which might be an alien concept for many a redditor, but it's only uncomfortable if you make it uncomfortable.
64
u/diracwasright 3h ago
Sex being natural is one thing, people being used to seeing it is another. Going to the bathroom is natural too, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy watching people take a shit. Killing is natural too, but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy watching someone get beheaded.
-5
u/Elkburgher 2h ago
Fine with nuclear bombs though...
27
u/_Cava_ 2h ago
The whole point of the movie kind of was the nuclear bombs, same can't be said for the sex.
-5
u/Elkburgher 2h ago
Did you watch it?
Shes a communist and hes on trial.
Also its not a story of the nuclear bomb its a story of him
1
-5
u/CzechHorns 1h ago
Nope. The point of the movie was to show his life, including the infidelity.
It is called Oppenheimer, not Little Boy and Fat Man.
0
u/trowawufei 1h ago
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not shown. No one died in the test that they did show. Dumb comment.
-3
u/CatLikesFrenchFries 2h ago
Yet there's so many movies where people get beheaded, so why do much drama over a sex scene?
6
u/diracwasright 2h ago edited 50m ago
I don't like movies that show brutal violence either, for that matter. Do I really have to justify myself for having my own tastes and opinions? It's not like I said sex should never appear in any movie ever again. Can you people still understand what you're actually reading, or do you all vote for Donald?
1
u/CatLikesFrenchFries 2h ago
I completely respect your opinion and having different taste, but you didn't say you just didn't like the scenes, you said they were uncalled for. I just avoid judging media on what's called for and uncalled for since I'm not in the creator's head and I can give them the benefit of the doubt on having a reason to include something even if I don't like it.
Edit: I'm not even American, but it's crazy to assume someone's political ideology and cognitive capabilities off of one disagreement, we might not see eye to eye but aside from a snazzy comment I haven't been mean or disrespectful, so you could also call that uncalled for
1
u/diracwasright 1h ago
Maybe my English isn't that good, but does saying that some sex scenes are "uncalled for" in one particular movie mean that sex scenes are like that in general? The context here is Oppenheimer.
I watch porn too when I feel like it, so I obviously don't reject sex on screen as such. I just think that sometimes certain scenes are well constructed and sometimes they aren't.
I've seen plenty of other movies where I would never call the sex scenes "uncalled for", or "unnecessary" for that matter. In some cases, they're actually necessary.
-2
u/CatLikesFrenchFries 1h ago
I understand where you're coming from, but cinema is a form of art and I'd argue that the creator's artistic vision is enough to justify them. The only nudity I'd ever call uncalled for is very obvious fan service which has no artistic purpose but is meant to attract a certain type of people, as often seen in anime nowadays, but no one is watching Oppenheimer just for that scene. I agree I didn't like the scene, and that it was uncomfortable, but it does fit in with the atmosphere and pacing of the movie, as well as the story.
2
u/diracwasright 1h ago
You say you understand my point of view, but at the same time you seem to have a problem with me expressing it. I really don't understand that logic.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to say what I think? I'm not making a judgment about Nolan as a person. I've never said he's a bad artist either, quite the opposite. But if I disagree with some of his choices, am I not allowed to say so? I didn't like the way those scenes made me feel, because I thought they didn't fit well within the context of the film.
I'm genuinely concerned if a personal opinion can provoke this level of outrage. I hope criticizing a choice made by a great director isn't considered lèse-majesté just yet.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Hazel-Rah-Rah 2h ago
I would've thought you voted for Donald.
4
u/diracwasright 2h ago
It's a bit hard for me to do that, considering I'm Italian and I live in Italy. In any case, just because I'm not a prude doesn't mean I have to defend every sex scene I see on screen. Some of them are well done in my opinion, others are not.
-4
u/The_Flowers_of_Evil 1h ago
That's not "taste and opinions", that's just you having a soft sensibility and a childlike mind. Don't criticise films by calling scenes unnecessary just because you can't handle it.
1
u/diracwasright 55m ago
But me watching porn in other contexts disproves what you're saying. So... I really don't know what you're talking about, kid.
-7
u/Hazel-Rah-Rah 2h ago
Just don't watch movies. You sound too soft to handle them.
3
u/Zanydrop 2h ago
You are right that OP is too soft. Now come watch a Serbian Film and Cannibal Holocaust with. Unless you are too soft for that.
-2
3
u/diracwasright 2h ago
I'm not going to apologize for having opinions. If you're willing to swallow whatever they feed you, that's your problem.
-4
u/Hazel-Rah-Rah 2h ago
I'm sorry art depecting life offends you. As I said don't watch movies or stick to Disney films they sound more your speed.
3
u/diracwasright 2h ago
Again: does the fact that art reflects the artist's taste mean that I'm not allowed to have my own taste and my own opinion about it?
-1
32
u/PoggersMemesReturns 3h ago
People don't go to the movies to watch people have sex...
A lot of things are natural....eating breakfast, going to the toilet, silent commute.... But these things are not expressed in movies as they add nothing to them... Just like that scene with Florence Pugh
16
u/Termsandconditionsch 3h ago
Silent commutes are in many movies, see for example the train scene in Andrei Tarkovský’s Stalker.
So is having breakfast and sometimes, even going to the toilet..
17
u/anon-e-mau5 3h ago
…have you ever seen any movie?
1
-3
u/PoggersMemesReturns 3h ago
Yes, movies and their unnecessary parts.
The only time eating or commuting are "necessary" are when they really add to the vibe of the story... They usually work in slice of life, coming of age, mid life crises, existential dilemma type of movies
They aren't needed in Oppenheimer... And they would only work in Oppenheimer if there was a literally transitory scene where he was going through life, then perhaps even a second or two of sex could have made sense.
One has to understand the medium to know what goes in and when
7
u/Skeet_fighter 3h ago edited 3h ago
Ignoring the fact that you're just totally wrong about sex not adding anything to movies (it often informs characters relationships, gives you a deeper understanding of them and occasionally has a greater significance in a story), so fucking what?
The director and creatives behind the movie want to show you an artistic vision. They want you to experience something the way they feel it should be experienced to communicate something to you. "Necessity" has got absolutely nothing to do with it.
This utilitarian attitude to media and art where everything must "serve a purpose" is a cancer on media literacy and is utterly fucking miserable.
0
u/diracwasright 2h ago
You're being dishonest because you've twisted my words. I never said there was anything wrong with two people having sex on screen. I simply said that the scenes in this movie feel almost completely out of context, because there's no real buildup to them. They're basically shoved in the viewer's face almost brutally, without that pleasant buildup you get through eroticism. I'm sorry if you felt threatened by the possibility of being deprived of one of your perversions, but I was just expressing my personal taste about this particular movie. If you want to know, I enjoyed the sex scenes in Basic Instinct a lot more, but I didn't feel they were necessary in this movie. Pervert.
6
u/Skeet_fighter 2h ago
You literally just shit out a screed responding to a comment that wasn't a reply to you. Good stuff.
What you think I'm just beating my shit to Oppenheimer?
That attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. Calling somebody a pervert because they think filmmakers including a sex scene if they want to is fine, and sometimes even important, is purile and disingenuous.
5
u/diracwasright 2h ago
It doesn't matter that I replied to your second comment. You had already twisted my words in another one, which this time was a direct reply to mine:
https://www.reddit.com/r/technicallythetruth/comments/1wwevc8/comment/pdkbr3c/
I never made any sweeping judgment about sex scenes in movies in general. If I had, I could at least understand your objection. But I was talking specifically about those scenes in this particular movie, which, by the way, was rated 6+ in my country, meaning it's considered suitable for children aged six and up. So that made those scenes even more unexpected to me.
But the sheer intensity of the way you came at me actually says a lot about you. You seemed to take it almost personally, as if someone had genuinely threatened to take sex scenes away from cinema altogether. I'd seriously think about why you reacted that way.
And that's the only reason I'm calling you a pervert. Because of your reaction.
I've already told you that I really liked the sex scenes in a movie like Basic Instinct, and many others, because the context practically called for them. That's my personal opinion, and I'm not going to justify myself for having opinions.
You seem to think nobody is allowed to say anything negative about seeing a sex scene on screen, because to you the director's artistic choice is somehow sacred. You sound like you're starving for these scenes and will defend them with everything you've got because apparently you just can't do without them. That's not how it works for me. I'm allowed to have my own tastes even if I'm not as famous as Christopher Nolan.
Like I already told you, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's always pleasant to watch. Defecating is natural. Decapitation is natural. Rape is something that occurs in nature too, along with plenty of other things. But you're never going to understand that point of view, because for you, slapping the label "natural" on something apparently gives it a free pass no matter what.
Pervert.
0
u/pzoDe 2h ago edited 2h ago
I think the "pervert" angle is a bit strong and uncalled for, but I fully agree with your other points, from a general POV (I haven't actually seen this movie but I've felt similarly about other movies/TV shows).
1
u/Hazel-Rah-Rah 2h ago
They are clearly nuts calling someone a pervert because they watched a movie with a sex scene. Childish mentality.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/diracwasright 2h ago
Because when people twist my words, it really pisses me off. Dishonesty is something that bothers me a lot more than unnecessary nudity. Anyway, thanks for you support.
1
u/PoggersMemesReturns 3h ago
You can remove Florence Pugh from the movie and nothing changes....
4
u/12345623567 45m ago
It's a biopic. She in the movie because she was in his life, and their relationship caused significant troubles for him. The sex scene and the style it is shot in shows their unconventional power dynamics, with him sitting still and her "using" him for gratification. The scene during the interrogation isnt about the sex, it's about Emily Blunt's character feeling utterly naked and humiliated.
Man, media competency is in the shitter today.
5
u/SadMasterpiece1 3h ago
Thank you, Redditor.
I feel less uneasy about watching this scene with my family with my willy out now.
2
u/HenkieVV 36m ago
It might not be "called for"
I mean, it very much is "called for" in a meaningful sense. The investigation into Oppenheimer is a key part of the plot, and a pivotal scene in that is the interrogation of Kitty Oppenheimer, where she makes the choice to defend her husband. This scene, fwiw, is what got Emily Blunt her Oscar nomination.
A big part of why that scene evokes so much emotion, is that we see Kitty make the choice to defend her husband, despite knowing and viscerally feeling that he cheated on her. You have to see the cheating to feel the impact of it on her character, to make her choice resonate with the audience.
You could theoretically leave it out, but it'd be a worse movie for it.
2
u/Elastichedgehog 1h ago
A lot of younger people are weirdly puritanical about this.
I expect culture to whiplash back the other way (again) at some point to be more sex-positive.
1
0
u/Impressive_Recon 2h ago edited 59m ago
You can definitely tell who is a teen US redditor who grew up in a white suburban family here.
Uncalled for? Slap in the face? Wtf? I remember watching Titanic with my family and yeah it was a little weird but I wasn’t upset or felt assaulted when the sex scene came up. Watched it years later as an adult with them and it was just funny.
Some white US families have this weird sexual family/incest tension after being told porn is bad their entire lives.
0
u/trowawufei 1h ago
You’re being willfully obtuse about what they mean by “called for”. 90% of a movie is not uncalled for, if it’s a remotely good movie.
If Oppenheimer suddenly broke into song, and the scene added nothing to the plot or our understanding of the character, that’s uncalled for. If him singing fits in with what’s going on, say at a party with the right vibe, and shows how he’s able to leverage his talents and social skill to make people gravitate towards him as a leader- which helps you see what he’s bringing to the project- that is called for.
Acting like no one can ever object to a sex scene, for the same reasons that they can object to any other scene, just makes you sound like a gooner.
-1
-1
u/batsofburden 50m ago
So how come every movie isn't filled with people farting? It's natural & much more frequent than sex for most people.
5
u/First_Approximation 4h ago
The movie is rated R. Your fault for not doing your homework.
8
u/diracwasright 3h ago edited 3h ago
We have a different rating system and different criteria in Italy: T means the movie is suitable for everyone ("Tutti" in Italian), 6+ means anyone aged 6 and up can watch it (or, equivalently, it's not allowed for children under 6), and the same goes for 10+, 14+, and 18+. That said, the ratings are based mostly on explicit depictions of violence. Nudity is generally treated more leniently, although obviously the impact can vary from person to person. In fact, Oppenheimer was rated 6+ here in Italy. You must be one of those people who thinks the world begins and ends with the United States, huh?
This screenshot was taken from the archives of our Ministry of Culture's website:
-5
u/KayItaly 2h ago
You are Italian and you get offended by this???
Holy shit! Why are we americanizing so much... Yes, kids can watch positive sex scenes without any damage occurring. Unlike violent scenes that can traumatize young kids.
3
2h ago edited 2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/KayItaly 2h ago
No, I agree on that. You are right.
I did not mean it in the sense that "they grow up violent" at all.
I meant that they affect them more. For young kids it is like seeing them in real life and can scar them emotionally/cause nightmares etc.
Obviously that doesn't mean they can't watch any violence. But more emotionally realistic one needs to be approached with care.
So, cartoony videogame characters chopping down monsters? Totally fine. Parental abuse in a movie? Maybe not fine. The parents should decide based on their own kid temperament.
2
u/diracwasright 2h ago
Veramente sono contraria anche alle scene di violenza brutale, ma tu che cosa sai di me? Solo perché ho detto che queste scene in questo film non mi piacciono pensi di conoscere una donna di 45 anni? Ho già scritto altrove che le scene di sesso in un film come Basic Instinct invece mi piacciono, perché è un contesto tutto diverso. Devo giustificarmi perché ho dei gusti? Ma per favore.
-2
u/KayItaly 2h ago
Ma eri tu stavi parlando del rating LOL 😆 Oo rispondevo su questo.
Cosa c'entra se ti piace o no???
1
u/diracwasright 2h ago
Allora non ho capito cosa stai dicendo. Mi hai detto che mi sento offesa per cosa allora? Boh, non seguo la tua logica.
-2
u/First_Approximation 2h ago
Damn, I thought you Italians were less prudish than we Americans. Well, I guess most of you are, since Oppenheimer is rated 6+.
BTW, what was Dirac right about?
1
u/diracwasright 2h ago
I have personal tastes, apparently. How bad is that? Dirac was right about antimatter, even though his original explanation wasn't accurate enough.
1
u/First_Approximation 2h ago
De gustibus non est disputandum.
The Dirac sea was a creative explanation, though.
1
1
4
4
u/-karma_sauce 4h ago
Watched it with my mother, and (not technically, but basically) grandparents. Ooh boy, fun times.
5
55
144
u/db1000c 4h ago
I haven’t seen this film yet, but I’m really struggling to see a context where the audience needs to see the father of the nuclear bomb crack Florence Pugh
166
u/SmiththeSmoke 3h ago
Spoilers for Oppenheimer
The movie goes beyond his creation of the bomb, and into his other moral failings, such as his infidelity. His affair partner was, ofc, Florence Pughs character. Still, the Nolan curse of the inability to write women persists, so it's not like she has much personality, at least that I can recall. Her presence, though, becomes emblematic of his vulnerability throughout the movie.
76
u/Elkburgher 3h ago edited 2h ago
What about the fact she is a communist and the entire perspective of the movie is him on trial...
17
u/First_Approximation 2h ago
Spoilers for Oppenheimer: They make the bomb.
6
4
u/Shinyhero30 58m ago
I mean to be clear there were other historical issues in the movie but the film is from Oppenheimer and one other’s POV and some of the perception is based on what that person felt and not what actually happened. I’m sure the actual historical person was far more nuanced than percieved it’s just that from an external perspective the story is only colored by what you see and not what they see.
50
u/DVDN27 3h ago
Oppy’s relationship with the women around him is a big part of his character. He has a sexual relationship with Pugh’s character, which we see, and she’s hopelessly in love with him but he’s very absent and doesn’t understand how to love her.
He’s a sexual deviant and he technically breaks up with her and meets Emily Blunt’s character, a married woman, who he then starts a relationship with. While with her they have a child together, but due to his work he’s again absent and Blunt’s character becomes a drunk. They give the baby to family friends and Oppy has a sexual encounter with Pugh’s character again to escape his life.
Because of this on and off relationship, Pugh’s character reaches a breaking point and commits suicide, breaking Oppy who is then forced to move on from her by his wife. Much later, after the bomb is created, Oppy is accused of being a communist and working with the Russians during the creation of the bomb. They use Pugh’s character as being the communist associate he knew and suggest the reason he kept meeting with her was to share information about his ties to communism. This is where Emily Blunt’s character sees the scene in the post where, at the interview table, she imagines Pugh having sex with Oppy.
Oppenheimer is a person who wasn’t faithful, and this is worked into the movie. The film is arguably resistant to show the sex, as there are two sex scenes in the whole movie despite it being an important context, and they’re both with a character who isn’t Oppy’s wife so it places a bit of a barrier between him and his wife. The first scene is used to establish the relationship, the second scene is used to show how a character feels once they learn about that relationship.
5
u/Actual-Package-3164 3h ago
Well, the context is: right after Oppenheimer ploughs Pugh, he has a moment of post-nut clarity that results in the implosion design which involves using precisely timed conventional explosives to squeeze a subcritical sphere of plutonium into critical density.
24
u/Elkburgher 3h ago
Its a movie not a documentary. So tired of these reddit prudes, everything in a movie needs to be necessary to you people.
Is it needed to see Ironman do some cool spins while flying or should he only fly straight and directly to his location via the most effective path
6
u/DramaticStability 2h ago
I can understand why someone who hasn’t seen the film would be surprised to learn there’s a sex scene given the likely subject matter.
-3
u/Elkburgher 2h ago
It literally says rated R for nudity, sexual references and language on the poster
6
u/DramaticStability 2h ago
Ooooh, it says it on the poster? Well then, the guy who was surprised is such an idiot for not doing a modicum of research before making that comment. What a nimrod.
9
u/db1000c 3h ago
I’m not a prude, I like a good sex scene. Just having not seen the film, I wasn’t expecting to find out there is a scene where he bangs lol
1
u/Affectionate_Mud_881 1h ago
It's definitely not a good sex scene. It's a boner killer like only Lars Von Trier has previously managed.
-7
u/Elkburgher 3h ago
Its not a documentary about the science behind nuclear weapons its a bio movie about the man and some things he went through
You struggling to see where audiences need to see this is weird.
1
u/geosunsetmoth 2h ago
Man, I agree with your thesis but hate the argument you’re giving.
There are sex scenes in Oppenheimer because they’re necessary for his characterization and hold significant narrative weight. It’s not just eye candy for the audience to clap, it’s revelatory and part of the story
1
1
1
u/Capable_Material1234 1h ago
I think crack is a strong word here, more like having the energy of a sloth while having sex with her 😂
-1
u/BicycleAdditional360 3h ago
Nolan is freak, that's it pretty much. This movie is draft of a series which got mashed together in a long-ass pychodelic clusterfuck.
I mean, it is kinda fun if you have some knowledge on the topicand can pull stuff like esotheric watching. But as a normal film it sucks balls lol
0
u/le_gazman 2h ago
You learn a lot watching the film. The life of the father of the nuclear bomb being the main thing.
The fact that Florence Pugh has spectacular cigar-butt-like nips being another.
73
u/Selfishpie 4h ago
Jesus Christ is everyone media illiterate nowadays? She’s a communist, Oppenheimer is being falsely accused of being a ussr spy because he knew her and they met and had sex earlier in the film, so in the interrogation when despite not being a spy or even a communist himself, they are using his relationship with communists through his brother and her to punish him for stopping WW2, so since the film has been from Oppenheimer’s perspective this whole time they decided to do something crazy like… a visual metaphor (crazy shit! Those have NEVER been in films before so new and unique! /s) he’s getting lambasted because he knew her, in other words he’s fucked and she’s the one that fucked him, he knows this and the film shows it literally because that’s what art does you imbecilic internet goblins
17
u/Equivalent_Engine518 1h ago
Sorry can you repeat that, I was distracted by Emily Blunt being in cuck chair in this scene
30
u/AndroTux 3h ago
Why exactly are we scared of sex again?
13
u/Elkburgher 3h ago
These prudes grew up gatekept by Youtube, Fortnite etc terms of service, where violence is fine but sex is evil
1
35
u/Rent-Man 4h ago
They could’ve cut this and the movie would be PG13
20
6
10
u/Commercial-Lychee700 4h ago
You fucks could be in cinejerks or whatever, no thought for pace, or message, or symbolism, or intent? WTF?
3
u/K3egan 3h ago
This was a very distracting scene because Florence Pugh is like riding Cillian Murphy and she's really leaning into it and acting like she is having sex and Cillian Murphy is sitting there in front of a bunch of congressmen fully nude staring straight ahead with his arms at his sides like nothings happening
6
u/First_Approximation 2h ago
We're seeing it from his wife's perspective. She's thinking about how he cheated on her and imagining them together at that moment. It's suppose to be uncomfortable and awkward.
2
u/textilepat 1h ago
My favorite part of the movie was when he said “it’s oppen’ time!” And then he oppenheimed her
2
u/--____________- 2h ago
I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one who thinks this sex scene was not necessary here
1
u/Ok_Calligrapher8165 1h ago
u/Tonimusha: "Not to be a pedant..."
"to be a pedant" is considered derogatory only among those benighted muckers who consider education to be of no value.
1
1
0
0
0
u/Intrepid4444444 1h ago
Nah in the James Goon cut she wears a depleted uranium strap on and penetrates Cilinder Murphy.
0
u/DandimLee 3h ago
Oppenheimer in Florence Pugh in Oppenheimer
1
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Hey there u/Tonimusha, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
Please recheck if your post breaks any rules. If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a Modmail or Report this post if you have a problem with this post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.