Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it • Hacker News Board

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#541

Post by lc9er » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #503

rayiner wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is an accurate summary of certain conservative or puritanical stances on sexuality. Of course there are also decades of progressive literature that argue why this is essentially bullshit. Those ideas served civilization for thousands of years. But after just two generations of “progressive literature” western countries have literally ceased to be self-sustaining, becoming reliant on importing the next…

> Those ideas served civilization for thousands of years. Civilisation also had wars and famines for thousands of years to manage population and "cull off the weak". Do you want to go back to that? > western countries have literally ceased to be self-sustaining, becoming reliant on importing the next generation from conservative Latin (in North America) and Muslim (in Europe) countries. Victory! And yet the same peop…

It has also become almost prohibitively expensive to raise children (in the US).

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#542

Post by TheRealSteel » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

throwaway8581 wrote: post #345

airhead969 wrote: post #325

Fuck all that mass-media social programming propaganda. Murder and violence are "okay," while sex and sexuality are "bad." I'll walk around naked, look at women, and hookup whenever I damn well please. Sex is awesome, bodies are beautiful, and no shame is necessary for either. Films that cannot be made in modern America: - Laura, les ombres de l'été (1979) - Lolita (either) - Pretty Baby (1978) - Caligula (1979) - Ro…

Sex is not harmless. While it is one of the great human joys, it is also the source of some of our deepest despairs, intractable conflicts, and personal tragedies. This free-for-all free love ethic that you celebrate, which erased almost all of the previous social restrictions on sex, inevitably created the discontent that boiled over into the #metoo phenomenon. It is also fueling the growing incel phenomenon. It is…

Are you... are you blaming victims for being raped and sexually assaulted? Excuse me?

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#543

Post by pradn » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

dawg- wrote: post #521

Barrin92 wrote: post #515

I think the article is spot on. We live in a sanitized, sexless culture that glorifies self-optimisation without purpose. Baudrillard however already recognised this a while ago in America (1989) "The skateboarder with his Walkman, the intellectual working on his wordprocessor, the Bronx breakdancer whirling frantically in the Roxy, the jogger and the body-builder: everywhere, whether in regard to the body or the men…

Baudrillard's insistence on reading everything as a symbol gets him in trouble. There are a lot of intellectual fireworks in his writing, but I think he lacks depth and appreciation for the vibrancy and diversity of life. It's another example of cultural criticism failing because it overly textualizes things. Did he ever ask the owners of the bodies he so eloquently critiques, the "bodybuilder", or the "skateboarder"…

It's best to read his work - and the work of many philosophers - metaphorically, and with a grain of salt. His statements are vectors that point in certain directions, not destinations in themselves.

I think his work is deeply humanist. He's afraid the society we've created for ourselves prevents us from enjoying our own humanity. And this shouldn't be particularly controversial. We can agree that most workplaces can be quite constricting; Baudrillard speaks of our leisure lives instead.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#544

Post by smusamashah » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #475

_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…

I think this is an accurate summary of certain conservative or puritanical stances on sexuality. Of course there are also decades of progressive literature that argue why this is essentially bullshit. Also, if you follow this line to its logical conclusion, you end up with inceldom. I think there is also another mechanism at work in why many modern societies seem at the same time oversexualized and prude: By raising…

I have never understood how people separate emotions from sex (i.e. changing/leaving partners). I always thought the act itself is strongly emotional, isn't it? Will it be correct to say that cost of sexual freedom is emotional detachment from it?

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#545

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:23 PM UTC

aasasd wrote: post #445

lstamour wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth pointing out that Orwell wasn’t so much predicting a future as commenting on current trends. For instance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4412199/ or https://www.jstor.org/stable/27673024 My point is not that the above articles are definitive but to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same, etc.

Now that's some specialized knowledge. How do the stars even line up so that someone with the insight on British sex practices of the fourties, lands precisely in a random thread mentioning Orwell's writing on the matter?

I should have elaborated on this in my other flagged comment, but: the poster has linked two papers, the relevance of which is not obvious, and not explained it at all.

(Also, I feel we've gone somewhat offtopic here; it's not a Party matter, the depiction of sex in American films - unless we're counting the targeting of films at the global market resulting in films being made compliant with Chinese censorship? Could OP and/or the upvoters explain why they think 1984 is relevant?)

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#546

Post by BunsanSpace » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

"In the early 2000s, there was a brief period where actresses pretended that their thinness was natural, almost accidental. Skinny celebrities confessed their love of burgers and fries in magazines; models undergoing profile interviews engaged in public consumption of pasta; leading ladies joked about how little they exercised and how much they hated it. It was all bullshit: no one looks like that without calorie restriction. We knew it then, and we know it now."

No they where taking Clenbuterol or DNP which will make anyone lose weight like no tomorrow no mater their activity level. For a significant cost that is.

The more disturbing thing is male actors are clearly taking PEDs and/or being dehydrated for shirtless shots, distorting what a normal body should look like. Even in fitness circles where I live, no one looks that good without juicing or prepping their body for the shirtless pic.

[0] https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/hollywood-dirty-diet-...

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#547

Post by kall » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #486

airhead969 wrote: post #325

Fuck all that mass-media social programming propaganda. Murder and violence are "okay," while sex and sexuality are "bad." I'll walk around naked, look at women, and hookup whenever I damn well please. Sex is awesome, bodies are beautiful, and no shame is necessary for either. Films that cannot be made in modern America: - Laura, les ombres de l'été (1979) - Lolita (either) - Pretty Baby (1978) - Caligula (1979) - Ro…

I'm always skeptical about claims that $MOVIE couldn't be made today that was made in a past decade. Lolita's title character was 3-4 years older than the character in the book in both films. Pretty Baby was very controversial when it came out. (ADDED: And I'd entertain the thought that it might be even harder to make today/be even more controversial.Might be more like HBO material.) Nymphomaniac is a European art fi…

Nymphomaniac was also barely made in a past decade. Lars von Trier is such a troll he could absolutely make it today.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#548

Post by throwaway8581 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:31 PM UTC

TheRealSteel wrote: post #542

throwaway8581 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex is not harmless. While it is one of the great human joys, it is also the source of some of our deepest despairs, intractable conflicts, and personal tragedies. This free-for-all free love ethic that you celebrate, which erased almost all of the previous social restrictions on sex, inevitably created the discontent that boiled over into the #metoo phenomenon. It is also fueling the growing incel phenomenon. It is…

Are you... are you blaming victims for being raped and sexually assaulted? Excuse me?

Nope. Nothing in my post said that.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#549

Post by throway98752343 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

_xnmw wrote: post #415

airhead969 wrote: post #325

Fuck all that mass-media social programming propaganda. Murder and violence are "okay," while sex and sexuality are "bad." I'll walk around naked, look at women, and hookup whenever I damn well please. Sex is awesome, bodies are beautiful, and no shame is necessary for either. Films that cannot be made in modern America: - Laura, les ombres de l'été (1979) - Lolita (either) - Pretty Baby (1978) - Caligula (1979) - Ro…

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…

Monogamy should actually decrease sexual scarcity. There are a lot of sexual topologies out there, but let's compare two historically common ones: monogamy and polygamy.

Boys and girls are born in equal proportion, and monogamy pairs them up. If nobody died before old age and everyone were adequately paired up, monogamy would mean that every couple that wants sex could have it, a certain shade of zero scarcity.

Historically, polygamy meant that attractive or powerful men could have multiple wives. So again, given our sexes' equal birth rates and assuming nobody died before old age, a polygamous society must leave some men without a committed partner for sex.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#550

Post by jtbayly » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #481

dsign wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if human sexuality adapted flexibly to the social environment. Both can be true. Marriage might be a natural and ubiquitous response to the pressures of living in settled relatively highly communities, while flexible relationships might be common in societies of small loosely associated nomadic groups.

Show me evidence of this. Blaming all the anthropologists for being prudes and suppressing the data that everybody wants to hear and that would make them famous is just not even remotely believable.