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

#601

Post by engineeringwoke » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #595

bojan wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's how it works. People you perceive as "naturally thin" probably simply: * are used to not snacking between meals * eat when they are hungry, and stop when they are not * do not drink (excessively) * are more-than-average active Calories add up extremely quickly and it's very easy not to notice if you don't pay attention. Say you have one Mars bar per day, as a snack - that makes a difference of 10…

And what is "not natural" about any of that? Some people naturally regulate their intakes such that they don't get fat. It's not a conscious effort on their part. They eat what they want to and don't get fat. It's as simple as that. There are certain breeds of dogs and cats that will eat until it makes them sick and easily get fat. Other breeds don't. Even with food readily available they just don't get fat. Humans a…

So I'm guessing you're fat?

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

#602

Post by BunsanSpace » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

plzbo wrote: post #553

BunsanSpace wrote: post #546

"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 res…

What is a PED? You mean performance-enhancing drugs? I wanted to read the article you linked to, but seems like they have a region lock for EU countries. Its been what, nearly three years since GDPR took effect? > Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU mar…

PED is a broad term for Performance-enhancing drugs.

There's two big categories, SARMs and Roids. Everyone knows roids, you take them, you get big. SARMs are lesser known but tend to lower body fat while preserving/gaining muscle (since normal cutting routine you will lose lots of muscle).

There's also fat burning drugs which are their own third category with DNP and Clenbuterol being the most common. Both are very dangerous and have a host of side effects, these are what hollywood/celebrities use to slim up fast.

It's a fantastic research rabbit hole to go down, and they're much more prevalent than you think.

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

#603

Post by ragazzina » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #321

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually okay with this. I only watch movies with my family and I'm sick of having to pass up on actually interesting movies because they're excessively vulgar. If there was a service I could pay to censor movies for me, I would.

Yeah, I actually prefer a minimal sex scene (conveying the idea that it happened) to the explicit and lengthy stuff in your average HBO mini-series. Even less tolerant of sexual violence and torture. When I think of how many fake rapes I’ve witnessed/mentally onboarded via cinema/tv it makes me throw up a bit.

I've linked to it in the past but I think it's relevant again.

"Wait, There's Torture in Zootopia?: Examining the Prevalence of Torture in Popular Movies", 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3342908

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

#604

Post by Robotbeat » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #301

Robotbeat wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure, frankly, but I think there's a connection. A more sexless society is also a society with a lower overall birthrate. When the pressures of urbanization and modern life mean few people choose to have children while the trends in the article and in many of these comments show that people are less likely to accidentally/serendipitously become pregnant as well combine to somewhat drastically reduce the birth…

It's probably many things, but I think another factor is a delayed transition to (biological) adulthood, which leaves fewer "prime years" for the tiring task of raising children. That delayed transition comes in part from an increased focus on the self. Although individualism is often attacked or derided in modern American culture (from the political left at least), I feel like there is a near-universal individualism…

That, and the hyper-individualism of capitalism makes it super hard to AFFORD that collectivist goal of perpetuating the species. Housing is much more expensive, as is healthcare, which are two things you need when starting out as a young family. Lack of collective bargaining power compared to the 50s means starting wages are also much lower and jobs are less stable, so it’s harder to take that leap to add another person to the household (which requires probably another room plus thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses which as a young person could be the same as an entire year’s income).

So I think the challenge is a kind of selfish individualism from both the left and the right, although of different types. And let’s not even count the cost of schooling (which the right wants to burden the parents for).

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

#605

Post by _xnmw » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

throway98752343 wrote: post #549

_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…

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. Histo…

Monogamy increases sexual scarcity for the highest value males, while decreasing it for almost everyone else. I would argue that's actually an ideal situation for everyone, a progressive tax.

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

#606

Post by aksss » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:59 PM UTC

throwawayhehe wrote: post #454

aksss wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly those examples you provided take a lot more skill and effort than most people put into exploitive sex. The consequences of doing those examples “wrong” are far higher, too, e.g. loss of life or limb. I think a better retort would be that people want professional jobs where their contribution is based on seemingly objective merit. If 50% of your performance is judged by one person in an entirely subjective wa…

Most people have no job protection whatsoever. Could just as easily argue that providing sexual services increases her job security.

That’s not remotely true for US corporate work. Companies want to protect their investments - progressive discipline policies are set up with the intention of avoiding the liabilities and wastefulness incurred by the hasty decision making of a single individual. Most companies reserve their “at-will” status, but in practice getting fired on the spot for an exception or omission (non-criminal) is pretty rare. Usually there’s a layer or two before outright termination. It took me years to appreciate the fact that my skills and knowledge made me more valuable to a company than a single screw-up could overshadow. Took a lot of stress and anxiety off my shoulders when I did.

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

#607

Post by Causality1 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #264

Causality1 wrote: post #119

To me the desexualization of mainstream movies is a wonderful trend. If I want to be sexually stimulated I'll watch porn. The "sex" in older movies has no payoff. Its like if they stopped Avengers to spend ten minutes showing Tony Stark filling out insurance forms for damage to Stark Tower. Sure it's in the story but why the hell would I want to look at it?

It's a fake desexualization though. They're not showing anyone doing taxes, but they're also not showing extremely good accountants around the place or joke about the huge tax returns. That bare chest, preferably wet after the shower though, spotted by a woman across the room - obligatory. It's in other aspects of Marvel too. I actually really enjoyed it with Thor Ragnarok when they seemed to stop pretending it's not…

The key difference is ignorability. If you're not attracted to men you may not even notice that the camera lingers on his chest or she looks down before looking at his face. It also doesn't go on for minutes at a time. Maybe a woman is showing more cleavage that is normal, but the camera doesn't spend five straight minutes panning up and down her body. What exactly does five minutes of looking at grasping hands and contorted expressions contribute to the experience of a film, besides a convenient time to take a bathroom break?

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

#608

Post by phreack » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

The elephant in the room is Disney I'd say, basically. Disney owns all blockbuster movies now, and wants to sell them around the entire world, and no Disney property shall have sexuality. Same goes for Apple, who forbids any adult content to even touch an iPhone, barring (through gritted teeth) what you can find in a browser and Reddit. Power is consolidating into fewer and fewer companies, who want to cater to all world powers, some of which say a naked human body is The Ickiest Thing and must be forbidden.

I'm hopeful that in the future though, as costs of producing and distributing high quality movies go lower and lower, more and more indie or low cost films will look as professional as we want today's blockbusters to be, and also be free enough to explore cinema as an art form as they see fit.

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

#609

Post by polishdude20 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #38

polishdude20 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Become financially independent is probably the best you can do. That'll cover not affording to go out and having to live with parents or roommates.

I don't think thats the core issue , sex is down even among school going teenagers

I think teenagers are observing what's going on in their old young adult counterparts.

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

#610

Post by bilegeek » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

1234throwaway wrote: post #593

WhompingWindows wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard on a genetics podcast recently that your weight is 70% genetically determined. Every family carries in its genome the similar ingredients for weight: how much do you eat, what foods do you like, how efficient is your body at gathering and storing energy, how much do you naturally like exercise, etc. That 30% is obviously important and most people could make huge gains there, simply by eating less.

ya but vegetable oil and corn fructose syrup did not exist >100 years ago as food products. we cook our food in wat used to be called boat varnish (vegetable oil) yes you are correct, our genes are what determines weight in realtion to the foods you eat. it affects your bodies ability to metabolise those foods , etc but most of the foods you eat, over 90% of what is available in walmart for instance, is industrial ma…

> ya but vegetable oil and corn fructose syrup did not exist 100 years ago

They absolutely did, from about the 1870's onward. Read about Harvey Washington Wiley. Modern food isn't a paragon of health, but for most non-rural people in the US, it was quite a bit worse from the 1870's to the 1910's.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Washington_Wiley

[2]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/poison-...

From that last one, they talk about a lot of honey simply being flavored corn syrup. There was swill milk. They put all sorts of weird conservatives into food before Wiley's Poison Squad determined what was safe.