Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

bloodknife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 699 posts

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

#671

Post by rhfkfld »

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.

Twin studies are bull. Twins don't even have the same genome

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

#672

Post by rhfkfld »

hntrader wrote: post #483
astrange wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All children start off as fetuses and inherit things that affected them before they were children. > IQ is heritable, whether it's due to genetics or prenatal nutrition or some combination. Yes, and I said it wasn't genetic. A "heritable" effect can only last one generation - all you have to do is invest in lead abatement. In fact, even if it is genetic it can still be treated. Phenylketonurics have a "genetic condit…

> All children start off as fetuses and inherit things Right, but you said "Children exist in the same environment", which is present-tense. If you said "Children existed in the same environment", then it would've come across as you intended. > I said it wasn't genetic Source/rationale? That's a rather strong claim. > even if it is genetic it can still be treated. Potentially correct, but it doesn't mean it can be tr…

Heritable doesn't imply genetic determinism. It's not a strong claim, it's just not what that word means

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

#673

Post by kbutler »

blacksqr wrote: post #663
kbutler wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who controls spending? Especially on transfer programs, which represent the bulk of the deficit? (It’s not the president) http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/index.html is more useful. It shows party control of the presidency, house, and senate and deficits each year, not just at end of term. Looks like the ideal for deficit control is to have a democratic president and republican control of both houses of Congress.…

If Democrats make up half the team that you claim is most effective at limiting deficits, it would seem to me to be difficult to sustain the argument that Democrats don't care about them.

Look at the data on deficits linked above.

This seems to be the pattern:

Republican president: spend on this!

  Republican congress: OK

  Democratic congress: OK, as long as we spend on this, too.
Democratic president: spend on this!

  Democratic congress: OK

  Republican congress: No, deficits are important.

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

#674

Post by smusamashah »

ggggtez wrote: post #585
smusamashah wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do people separate emotions from sex (i.e. changing/leaving partners). How do people do it without (emotional) bonding with the other person? 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?

You don't have to think of sex as this deep emotional bond between two people. In one sense, you've been tricked into believing that that is the only way. So one solution is to accept that sex can be just that: just sex. It can be something that you and a friend do, maybe regularly, maybe only once in a while. Like playing Tennis. You may be happy that you have a friend who you can play Tennis with. But you don't hav…

Tennis analogy isn't right. Activities like that don't require to expose yourself in a vulnerable way to other person (multiple persons in a sport) in private space. Making love, as it's called, does not fit your example.

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

#675

Post by TheRealSteel »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #548
TheRealSteel wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nope. Nothing in my post said that.

You said that people not being shamed enough about sex and their bodies leads to people speaking up when they are the victims of sexual violence, and that you view that as a problem.

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

#676

Post by brokenmachine »

smusamashah wrote: post #674
ggggtez wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to think of sex as this deep emotional bond between two people. In one sense, you've been tricked into believing that that is the only way. So one solution is to accept that sex can be just that: just sex. It can be something that you and a friend do, maybe regularly, maybe only once in a while. Like playing Tennis. You may be happy that you have a friend who you can play Tennis with. But you don't hav…

Tennis analogy isn't right. Activities like that don't require to expose yourself in a vulnerable way to other person (multiple persons in a sport) in private space. Making love, as it's called, does not fit your example.

This statement says more about your own attitudes to sex than anything else. There's nothing wrong with that, but you seem incapable of imagining that the two activities can be performed in similar, non emotional, ways. Why must you feel vulnerable to have sex?

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

#677

Post by aksss »

blacksqr wrote: post #662
aksss wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic did Bush inherit the dot-com crash from Clinton? I think you'd like to make the world fit neatly into ideological views. The boom-bust cycle of the US economy is pretty nuts when you step back and take it all in. Often the federal policies and bank regulations, to the extent they drive 'irrational exuberance', seldom reach their zenith and nadir all within one administration. The subprime mortgage crisi…

If you don't think it's possible to make the world fit neatly into ideological views, then I don't understand your former comment where you appear to give credit for the deficit reduction under Clinton and Obama to the Republicans.

Of course you don’t.

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

#678

Post by lstodd »

gerbilly wrote: post #621
lstodd wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you want to bring children into the world with global warming, mass climate migration and other horrific things likely to happen within their lifetimes? Because not bringing them in is defeatism. Suicide in fact. If you want to solve the problem, children are ones who can do it, and your task is to prepare them to do it. If you flunk from this, you are the reason the world fails.

> If you want to solve the problem, children are ones who can do it Yeah, but maybe not human children . If anything we need more non human children on this planet, we are attempting to fish the oceans dry, there's less than 10% of old growth forests still in North America. Almost every ecosystem on earth is severely degraded due to human activity. If aliens came to visit they might logically assume that humans are a…

What baffles me since I first studied ecology in 1990-s and to this day is this inexplicable divide in certain someones' minds between "us" and "earth".

There is no such thing. We are the one, the unity. There is no border, no difference between "ecosystems" and "us". The whole biosphere is a single, very complex, but undivisable system. Get rid of any tiny single part, like a single human being and it responds.

In this light, I see the notions like childfree or extinction rebellion as cancer. People doing this do not even attempt to understand the real consequences of their actions.

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

#679

Post by KSteffensen »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #668
ramraj07 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the R-rated ones don’t axtually deal with sex or nudity much - see John Wick

That's because western families often have no problem with watching massive amounts of violence with each other but watching a graphic sex scene with memaw and pepaw is gonna make you squirm.

I guess you mean 'american' when you say 'western'?

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

#680

Post by KSteffensen »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #670
JeremyNT wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's now a "solved problem" though. We live in the endpoint where the formula to craft an optimally revenue generating movie is not only possible but expected, and studios are designed with that expectation as a baseline. There are certainly fewer happy accidents out there now.

I would say it's been a solved problem for all movies. We all know what sells and have for 100 years. People claiming modern movies are all sequels, prequels, and unoriginal aren't really paying attention. We've been telling the same stories for the past 2000 years with the same archetypes, skeletal plots, and emotional presentations. 4 out of 5 times I can tell you what is going to happen at any point in a given mov…

I would argue that there are new twists on the old stories. New settings, new ways of presenting the material, et.c

The Matrix, Memento and Delicatessen come to mind as examples.

And then there are examples of non-original stuff that is just beautifully executed like Die Hard, or Alien.

Post reply on HN