WWE or Eastenders?

It has come to my attention that two members of this forum have been debating as to what is more interesting (or 'less gay') to watch - WWE or Eastenders, and I wanted to hear the opinions of some others.

On one side we have WWE, a scripted wrestling show that most people grow out of by the age of 12 if they have an IQ higher than 70; whilst on the other side we have Eastenders, a somewhat mundane programme that attempts to address everyday issues in modern British life albeit failing quite fantastically.

So which would you prefer to watch? WWE or Eastenders?

I like both.

Cam wrote:I like both.

Thank you for outing yourself as a homosexual

I joke, but choose one for the sake of the poll

I like neither, but if I had to watch one it'd be WWE, for the comedy factor.

Eastenders is real

Wrestling is fake

Spoiler:

Cam wrote:I like both.

Same.

Eastenders, fake wrestling is for kids. Oh and have you seen the present day WWE superstars?

Which ones do you have a problem with?

Jelavic9|RFC wrote:Eastenders, fake wrestling is for kids. Oh and have you seen the present day WWE superstars?

As opposed to fake Eastenders which is for middle age to old women

I don't know about that soap but a half naked, muscular man doused in baby oil touching another half naked, muscular man doused in baby oil and attempting to "pin him" to the ground is ripe with homo-erotocism.

Then again so are the Lord of the Ring films and I love those.

Cam wrote:Which ones do you have a problem with?

Most, prancing about lathered in vaseline.

Viva, It's good

both are gay as phuck

Ché Guayaba wrote:I don't know about that soap but a half naked, muscular man doused in baby oil touching another half naked, muscular man doused in baby oil and attempting to "pin him" to the ground is ripe with homo-erotocism.

Then again so are the Lord of the Ring films and I love those.

Lord of the rings isn't really awash with homo-eroticism. Bromance, yes. There is a distinction here.

I watch both on and off, not solidly. But WWE is shocking nowadays, so Eastenders.

A blank T.V. screen.

Samayesan wrote:

Ché Guayaba wrote:I don't know about that soap but a half naked, muscular man doused in baby oil touching another half naked, muscular man doused in baby oil and attempting to "pin him" to the ground is ripe with homo-erotocism.

Then again so are the Lord of the Ring films and I love those.

Lord of the rings isn't really awash with homo-eroticism. Bromance, yes. There is a distinction here.

Dude lets be honest. If in the middle of the film Sam just started sucking off Frodo out of nowhere I don't think anyone would be surprised.

Both used to be a lot better, both have turned into a joke, WWF was the shit though, right now would rather watch Eastenders by miles unless it has something to do with The Rock in WWE.

ayvee1 wrote:I like neither, but if I had to watch one it'd be WWE, for the comedy factor.

Yeah this. Both are shite though. WWE was only good when it was the WWF in the Attitude era.

Ché Guayaba wrote:

Samayesan wrote:

Lord of the rings isn't really awash with homo-eroticism. Bromance, yes. There is a distinction here.

Dude lets be honest. If in the middle of the film Sam just started sucking off Frodo out of nowhere I don't think anyone would be surprised.

I would, because that wasn't in the books.

WWE isn't fake, its scripted, like Eastenders. The difference is in WWE when someone falls off a ladder, they actually do it themselves. In Eastenders they'd have a stunt man do it.

I do find it funny people calling it gay though, it's just as gay as guys going to workout at a gym have naked with similar guys.

James wrote:WWE isn't fake, its scripted, like Eastenders. The difference is in WWE when someone falls off a ladder, they actually do it themselves. In Eastenders they'd have a stunt man do it.

I do find it funny people calling it gay though, it's just as gay as guys going to workout at a gym have naked with similar guys.

Except when people go to the gym, they don't just sit around and watch the half-naked people. I don't think WWE is "gay" though.

Jeeez why does autocorrect change half to have...

This is really tough. I guess i'd rather watch Eastenders, despite being painfully boring to watch, but just because of the fact that it's only half an hour whereas an episode of WWE usually lasts for about 2-3 hours. They are both absolutely terrible programmes imo, though.

Interesting responses so far

Eastenders is quality. Hard hitting storylines, like Pat dying..


Wrestling is shite.

Dan wrote:Eastenders is quality. Hard hitting storylines, like Pat dying..


Wrestling is shite.

WWE has hard hitting storylines like Eddie Guerrero dying, or Chris Benoit murdering his family.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

Dan wrote:Eastenders is quality. Hard hitting storylines, like Pat dying..


Wrestling is shite.

WWE has hard hitting storylines like Eddie Guerrero dying, or Chris Benoit murdering his family.

They are shite.

Dan wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:WWE has hard hitting storylines like Eddie Guerrero dying, or Chris Benoit murdering his family.

They are shite.

I agree, at least they don't come back like Dirty Den though.

Pat died? Good.

What about all those hard hitting storylines like The Undertaker apparently dying millions of times then magically returning a few weeks later.