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

481–490 of 699 posts

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

#481

Post by simonh »

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.

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.

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

#482

Post by tomjen3 »

_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…

It is indeed the best argument for conservative social values.

But we also have xhamster, xvideos, pornhub and so much more. It doesn't make sense to have fake, sterilized characters in one show, and then have fake sexualized characters in another if you care about the effects on society.

At that point it makes more sense to show how sex can be integrated healthily into a normal human life - neither fucking step-sis because she is stuck in a washing machine nor being superbuff and not even looking a women seems the ideal for society.

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

#483

Post by hntrader »

astrange wrote: post #480
hntrader wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you meant unborn children or fetuses you should've said that, because the most obvious interpretation of your original words is that you meant postnatal children. That is typically how the word "Child" is defined: "A person between birth and puberty"[1] - not a person before birth. Nevertheless, what you cited and attacked is uncontroversial. IQ is heritable, whether it's due to genetics or prenatal nutrition or s…

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 treated well given current knowledge. There's lots of genetic problems where our treatments currently suck, and you can't claim to know when/if those treatments will get better for some specific genetic problem.

> People who discuss this in SSC and marginalrevolution comments don't care about this

Who would argue against lead abatement resulting in higher IQ levels? Who would argue that prenatal nutrition isn't part of the picture? I mean sure, you can find one nutjob in the comments section anywhere. But that's hardly an argument against anything.

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

#484

Post by ardit33 »

dmos62 wrote: post #468
_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, is a universal human construct found in all human societies, ancient and modern I'd be wary of an antropologist claiming knowledge of all human societies, ancient and modern.

From written record. We know for sure, since Old Egypt/bronze era, marriage was almost universal.

Heck, we even have tablets of workers that built the pyramid that were writing about how they think they made a mistake marrying their wife, as she is miserable and complains all the time, and suspicion of her cheating.

It is a story that could have been written today, but it was written 4800 years ago

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

#485

Post by nullserver »

_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…

Disease management.

Think about AIDS of other STDs without modern medicine.

Forcing one partner for life is way to deal with it.

Other customs involving the “unclean” are equivalent to days social distancing.

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

#486

Post by ghaff »

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 film. Whether or not Rocky Horror and Holy Grail would be appealing to modern audiences I don't know but I see no reason they couldn't be made.

In another vein, I've also seen the claim made that Heathers couldn't be made today because of school shootings, yet it was made into a Broadway musical within the past decade.

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

#487

Post by dmos62 »

ardit33 wrote: post #484
dmos62 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Marriage", according to anthropologists, is a universal human construct found in all human societies, ancient and modern I'd be wary of an antropologist claiming knowledge of all human societies, ancient and modern.

From written record. We know for sure, since Old Egypt/bronze era, marriage was almost universal. Heck, we even have tablets of workers that built the pyramid that were writing about how they think they made a mistake marrying their wife, as she is miserable and complains all the time, and suspicion of her cheating. It is a story that could have been written today, but it was written 4800 years ago

I'm not implying you don't find marriage in ancient times that resembles modern marriage. I'm pointing out the bold generalizations.

> We know for sure, since Old Egypt/bronze era, marriage was almost universal.

For sure almost. Earth's experienced a larger number and variety of cultures than some people give it credit for. Let's not make generalizations about human nature based on someone else's generalizations about human past. Noone owes a justification for acting the way they do. When you introduce justifications, you enter the realms of dogma.

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

#488

Post by aasasd »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #293
koolhaas wrote: post #57

Was really glad to see 9/11 mentioned in the article in relation to the American male body entering its militaristic phase. It validates an armchair theory I've had related to the correlation between media coverage / dramatization of Special Forces operations in the early to mid 00's and the general trend of American dudes getting very ripped and growing beards. At some point around 2005-2008, I just started noticing…

> And then the ripped look was kinda table stakes. Everyone had to mirror that alpha male SEAL physique and eventually people forgot why, and it became a self reinforcing cycle for the next 10-15 years. You might be in a bubble. Outside of a few US cities and outdoorsy areas, when I look around, almost nobody looks like they are going to raid a tunnel system in Afghanistan. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cdc-amer…

> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cdc-american-obesity-rate...

It says right there in the original post that the BMI definition shifted downwards, and discusses exactly these articles like you linked.

Have you ever looked at the BMI? 100 kg at ~183 cm is classified as ‘obese’, whereas if you have barely any muscle 100 kg won't even be enough for a proper beer belly—in my experience. But search the web for ‘obesity’ and lo, landwhales galore.

Not disputing that US people might all be walking barrels of fat—I have no idea. But if you're ripped, I don't see how you wouldn't automatically fall under the ‘obese’ BMI in the stats. Moreso if you have a ‘dad bod’ with both muscle and fat.

Edit: funny how BMI is illustrated with abstract silhouettes on most sites, but I found some photos of certifiedly obese people: https://height-weight-chart.com/600-220.html

These two dudes close to ‘obese’ are especially illustrative, I think: BMI 29 https://height-weight-chart.com/l/601-230_Mike_L2.jpg

and BMI 28 https://height-weight-chart.com/l/511-200_Alex_L1.jpg

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

#489

Post by honkdaddy »

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…

>Also, if you follow this line to its logical conclusion, you end up with inceldom

What does that mean?

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

#490

Post by wl »

ardit33 wrote: post #484
dmos62 wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Marriage", according to anthropologists, is a universal human construct found in all human societies, ancient and modern I'd be wary of an antropologist claiming knowledge of all human societies, ancient and modern.

From written record. We know for sure, since Old Egypt/bronze era, marriage was almost universal. Heck, we even have tablets of workers that built the pyramid that were writing about how they think they made a mistake marrying their wife, as she is miserable and complains all the time, and suspicion of her cheating. It is a story that could have been written today, but it was written 4800 years ago

There's a decent argument that marriage came about as a consequence of agriculture, where paternity suddenly mattered when it came to inheriting property. Of course, this predates writing, making it hard to definitively prove one way or another.
Post reply on HN