P.S. 40 days isn't that long

I was watching 40 Days and 40 Nights earlier today. Actually it's the second time in a month I've watched it (or parts of it) because they keep re-running it on various cable outlets (and because I kind of love it). Today I actually started watching it because I'd read a review of another Josh Hartnet movie with numbers and days in the title (30 Days of Night) and the reviewer had said that Josh Hartnet didn't have what it takes to be a leading man. I thought it was a little odd. I mean normally when they say something like that about an actor it's in reference to a romantic comedy or serious drama not a crappy horror movie. Also, I think Josh Hartnet's just fine as a leading man (in the more traditional sense) not that I can speak to his performance in 30 Days of Night since I haven't seen it and don't plan to (in fact if I even see the commercial on TV again it's likely to drive me to drink). Anyhow, I saw that 40 Days and 40 Nights was on and thought I'd see if his acting was as decent as I remember it.

This is not about Josh Hartnet's acting skill (or lack of it) though. He is pretty good in that movie, but that's not what stood out for me this time I watched it. There's a scene where Hartnet's character is trying to explain to this new girl he met, that he really likes, why he's taken a 40 day vow of celibacy. It's all about his ex, he really loved her and when they broke up he subscribed to the theory that the best way to get over someone is to get under someone new, but it didn't work, he couldn't get over her that way. So, the new girl says she thinks she understands, she says that it's hard to tell the difference between physical attraction and a genuine connection sometimes, and he agrees.

I think you know where this is headed but let me spell it out anyway. That's absolutely not true. First of all, if it were true then Hartnet's character wouldn't have had trouble convincing himself that he had a connection with whatever girl he jumped in bed with to try to get over his ex because it would have been so easy to confuse those purely physical attractions with genuine connections. He wouldn't have decided to take the vow of celibacy because the casual sex would have worked and gotten him over his ex, but it hadn't worked. The entire premise of the movie is predicated on the fact that purely physical attractions don't even come close to comparing to genuine connections.

Anyone who's had sex for reasons other than a genuine connection (like physical attraction, or an attempt to get over someone, or an attempt to sublimate some other emotion, etc) and has also experienced a genuine connection knows that it is easy to tell the difference. It's not hard at all. In fact, it's hard to confuse a physical attraction with a genuine connection (unless you have both with the same person and then the line is kind of blurry but the need to distinguish the two is moot).

Maybe it's tempting when you get your heart broken to go out and find someone new right away even if it's only for a night. Maybe you think it will help you get over someone and when it doesn't work maybe you try again with someone else, but after that you know it's not a decent substitute for a genuine connection. If you do it more than twice you're just punishing yourself.

I used to have a theory about drinking until you puke. I don't like puking and I think most people would agree with me there. If you drink until you puke twice you should know better than to do it a third time. After the second time you should know your limits a little better and be able to recognize the signs that you're starting to reach them. The whole casual sex as treatment for a broken heart thing is kind of like drinking until you puke (in fact drinking until you puke is also often considered a good remedy for a broken heart but it doesn't work either). After the second time you should know better because it is most definitely not hard to tell the difference between a purely physical attraction and a genuine connection.