Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

Post by kodah » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:01 AM UTC

tgv wrote: post #439

kodah wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you're witnessing is the two ideologies coming to a head. One which is a staunchly prude version of society going head to head with a staunchly open version of society in the most proxy way possible. The proxy being art, journalism, and finally public discourse.

I think the left wing of the two sides has embraced prudishness, rationalizing it as being feminist (female nudity => objectification => sexual violence). The left has always had a large prudish faction, so it's not really a surprise.

Post by Const-me » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:06 AM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #367

Const-me wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why is 100% sex work less exploitative than 50% sex work? I oppose receptionist that also has sex with the boss. Exploitation has nothing to do with that. At least in my world view, having sex at workplace is unprofessional. First of all, spending corporate or investor's money on paying sex workers is wrong. Even if the boss is the sole owner of the company i.e. spending their own money, boss fucking a receptionist…

You seem to be suggesting there would be logistical problems with the idea of the prostitute/receptionist, but I think that even if those problems were solved it would still be a bad idea. If there was a clause in the contract that sex had to be outside the workplace and the money to pay for the sex act had to come from the entertainment accounts and the company had no problem attracting female employees or retaining…

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:08 AM UTC

injidup wrote: post #388

pjc50 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Amazon, yes. Not in the cinema. Cinema is what the original article is talking about.

Perhaps the difference is important. Maybe not. Certainly the boundaries between "cinema" and "tv" are blurred with many people consuming most material via streaming. But maybe "series" can take more risk with the material than a "movie" just because the unit cost of a single "failure" can be amortized through the season if the the majority of episodes shine.

Post by jonsen » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:10 AM UTC

dsign wrote: post #437

_xnmw wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarcity increases value. We often artificially enforce the scarcity of things in order to preserve its value. That's the reason why patents, IP and copyrights exists, for example. "Marriage" and "fidelity" are a means of artificially enforcing scarcity on sex, in order to increase the value and likelihood of partners bonding for life, which in turn improves the child-rearing situation for society, as single parents…

> "Marriage", according to anthropologists .... There is a very interesting discussion about that in "Sex at dawn". Shortly put, anthropologists are very biased, and they will use their data selectively. Today, there are people that live wholesome lives with multiple consensual sexual partners, search for polyamory. IMHO, there simply is a lot of residual prejudice coming down from old religious dogma.

Post by astrange » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 11:13 AM UTC

hntrader wrote: post #443

astrange wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know the utopian liberal vision is "we're all created equal," but it simply is not true with the scientific consensus being that IQ is 50-70% heritable [3]. "heritable" does not mean "genetic", please stop reading fake science and slatestarcodex comments. Children exist in the same environment and have the same nutrition as their parents. Besides that, most published scientific results are false, so why are you b…

"Children exist in the same environment." Wrong. There are twin studies that establish this. But I get it, you are only pro-science when you happen to agree with the conclusions already.