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

#591

Post by jancsika » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

smusamashah wrote: post #569

throway98752343 wrote: post #246

> [Julia] was a bold-looking girl, of about twenty-seven, with thick hair, a freckled face, and swift, athletic movements. A narrow scarlet sash, emblem of the Junior Anti-Sex League, was wound several times round the waist of her overalls, just tightly enough to bring out the shapeliness of her hips. Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. > Better than before, moreover, he realized why it…

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?

> How do people separate emotions from sex (i.e. changing/leaving partners).

Most likely, people who separate emotions from sex can enjoy the pleasure of sex without getting (too) attached to the other person. Some people have a natural inclination toward that separation, others may have developed it out of being hurt in a relationship, or common sense after gaining experience, some people develop intimacy in other ways, etc.

> How do people do it without (emotional) bonding with the other person?

Practice. :)

> I always thought the act itself is strongly emotional, isn't it?

If you're asking for stats across the population, I'd rankly speculate it is strongly emotional. But that's just a guess-- perhaps someone here who knows the research can report?

> Will it be correct to say that cost of sexual freedom is emotional detachment from it?

No, because emotional detachment is simply one approach to sexual freedom, and a rather superficial one at that.

Another approach is to gain emotional maturity, introspection, and self-control through time and experience. Part of that is understanding that sex is not the epitome of an emotional bond. E.g., a free and self-aware human can have a perfectly nice emotional sexual encounter, and then decide to leave it at that because they see the evidence that a fuller long-term relationship likely wouldn't work with this person. Or perhaps they have a short- or mid-term relationship that doesn't much past sex for reasons they've learned through their life experience.

For example-- did you ever know any couple in high school who had a completely toxic and nasty relationship but somehow they just couldn't ever break up with each other? Or, they'd break up, then they'd be making out at a party and instantly get back together?

Some older people can optimize out the toxicity from this:

1. They meet, enjoy each other's company, and decide to have sex, enjoying both the emotional and sexual bond from that experience.

2. They reflect on the situation and assess an extremely high likelihood that continuing the relationship would lead to that kind of dysfunctional relationship.

3. They leave it at that.

They even have a protocol-- called mutual respect-- to deal with the problem where one party wants to leave it at that one party wants it to continue. Through the use of a so-called "two-way handshake" the two parties agree to hang up the connection, and the heart-broken party just does the work of breaking down that connection alone.

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

#592

Post by dfxm12 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

prirun wrote: post #317

I have never understood why nudity and consensual sex - basically harmless activities - are deeply frowned on by the ratings groups, yet stabbing someone in the throat and having their blood gush out everywhere is fine and dandy. Everyone knows that men have dicks. Why is seeing one such a big deal? Or a butt for that matter: everybody has one! It's no wonder our society is screwed up when it comes to our bodies. We…

are deeply frowned on by the ratings groups, yet stabbing someone in the throat and having their blood gush out everywhere is fine and dandy.

I'm trying to think of a movie where so graphically murdering a real human with a real weapon wouldn't get a frown and an R from the MPAA like nudity would.

Kind of ironically, though, one way to dodge harsher ratings for violence is to kill non-humans (like aliens) with made up weapons (like phasers) and show no gore while doing it. Everyone has viscera, after all (I assume, maybe some aliens in the Star Trek universe don't); is seeing it such a big deal?

Most movies and shows have become so violent that I don't even look for new stuff anymore.

There are a lot of new movies and shows out there (including new Star Trek shows), especially considering how there are so many platforms distributing new content. I'd venture to say most of them are at the violence level of Star Trek or below. It's totally fine if you want to rewatch the same stuff because you know you like it, but to write off decades of new media like you have, without even seeing it, is kinda lazy.

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

#593

Post by 1234throwaway » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #582

wolfram74 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combine that with how a cleaned up diet typically either costs more time or more money and working ~60 hours a week on minimum wage, yeah, that is pretty hard for a lot of people.

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 manufactured trash that no human except perhaps escaped roswell experiemnts and MBAs can metabolise correctly

this is compounded by modern trash propaganda telling people not to eat meat, to replace meat with synthetic mineral oils and watered down oats for $500 a litre

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

#594

Post by planet-and-halo » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

127 wrote: post #319

planet-and-halo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to glorify a life of reckless abandon, but in the context of the actual article, it's a little concerning to me that normal parts of human life like humor and sexuality seem to be a negative to you, and we should instead strive for "sobriety." That seems a rather grim view of human existence. I'm also not sure I can take seriously the notion that somehow this is a more serious moment in history than al…

In my opinion that (as a mainstream social narrative) is a false dilemma. The real division is between casual relationships and long relationships. The message I got as a young person is that casual sex should be celebrated and endorsed. That is a lie. Casual sex erodes long, meaningful relationships. It makes it that much harder to commit. Long relationships are how functional families are built. Functional families…

I mean these are all sort of arbitrary categories. I'm not saying "go have casual sex, it'll enrich your life." I agree that long-term meaningful relationships are fulfilling. But sexual attraction, flirting, humor—these are all spontaneous parts of human societies and human lives. To suggest we're living in such a serious time that they're not appropriate is macabre and anti-human, in my opinion, and will only create more suffering.

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

#595

Post by globular-toast » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

bojan wrote: post #568

globular-toast wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they actually are naturally thin. Such people do exist and I refuse to believe most people haven't ever met someone like this. Why is it so hard to believe that the tiny fraction of people who make into Hollywood are selected for this trait? I'm not saying they don't also do unnatural things to their bodies that set unrealistic standards and don't set a good example, but being "thin" is not one of them.

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 are no different.

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

#596

Post by globular-toast » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

fuzzer37 wrote: post #587

tilolebo wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really believe all bodies react the same to calories intake?

Yes, (calories absorbed - calories burned) will always be true.

Yes, but some people's bodies will burn excess calories by generating heat while other's will immediately store it as fat. When it comes to nutrition, nothing is quite as simple as you hope.

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

#597

Post by HelloNurse » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

necovek wrote: post #402

hirundo wrote: post #35

Is this a side effect of normalizing porn, that sexuality is more effectively partitioned? I once had a debate in an online forum about legalizing prostitution, and most participants were supportive of it. Then I asked the same group, what about legalizing partial prostitution, like a receptionist that also has sex with the boss as part of the job description. The participants all immediately switched to revulsion at…

This is an anecdote from my student life. One of my colleagues told me how all the girls in the class (including her) are going out of their mind for the chubby, average looking teaching assistant and how he's "very sexy". He wasn't even particularly nerdy, nor well-dressed, humorous or well-spoken (since those might be quirky or well-regarded behaviours that can be considered "sexy" too): to me, he was decidedly ave…

Some of my university professors and assistants were too nerdy or decrepit to be sexy, but most were smart, interesting people that students listened to attentively for hours and found attractive beyond their moderately plain appearance. There were several couples (and triangles) among faculty, evidence that they made a strong impression on each other too.

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

#598

Post by Robotbeat » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #538

Robotbeat wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US abortion rate is now lower than it was before Roe vs Wade and fertility rate has been dropping in tandem with the dropping abortion rate, so I don't think that explains it.

Not necessarily, morning after pills and IUD-induced abortions are not counted.

Neither are regular hormonal pill abortions. In fact, the pill (monthly pill, not morning-after) is the most common birth control method and most prolife people support it, even though technically there’s a possibility that it may prevent implantation (if for whatever reason ovulation happens anyway).

If you want to call that abortion, then go right ahead but I think you’ll be in the minority (just like people probably wouldn’t call a natural lack of implantation a miscarriage because they have literally no way of knowing that it happened... a dewer containing 100 frozen undifferentiated embryos is just not the same as an actual child, and I think most people do not act like it is). I think the vast majority of people understand a sort of gradient between conception and birth. Most people who are prolife would be uncomfortable banning the pill and most people who are nominally pro choice probably aren’t too comfortable with later-term abortions. Reality is complicated and so are people’s opinions.

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

#599

Post by engineeringwoke » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:25 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"…

Well, everything is a symbol. Everything that you will ever do or say means something, whether you knew it at the time or not.

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

#600

Post by BunsanSpace » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

anthonypasq wrote: post #565

jmarbert wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example of dehydrating for shirtless shots - Henry Cavill talks about doing just that for The Witcher in an interview on the Graham Norton Show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne5xD5XrzOc

i think its also worth noting that actors really exaggerate how hard is it to look good on camera and it ends up discouraging people from improving their diet and exercise. you dont need a nutritionist, and a personal trainer, and to treat it like a full time jobs and get paid for it to look good. you need to clean up your diet and do resistance training at least 3 times a week for an hour, and be consistent.

"you need to clean up your diet and do resistance training at least 3 times a week for an hour, and be consistent."

It takes a lot more than that. A good diet and moderate exercise will keep you in a slim/lean shape, but it won't get you Hollywood ripped.

Actually having a muscular looking physic requires aggressive training, or naturally doing activity which requires lots of muscles (Dancing, climbing, acrobatics, sports).