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

691–699 of 699 posts

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

#691

Post by darkerside »

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.

Tennis is one on one, typically. And there is vulnerability in trying your hardest at anything.

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

#692

Post by dawg- »

engineeringwoke wrote: post #599
dawg- wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I agree. Things only become symbols when read as symbols

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

#693

Post by darkerside »

milchek wrote: post #27

This was a fun read, especially as someone who grew up with those 80s and 90s movies. That said, and as the author touches on, the action/super hero of today is a PG-13 one. Studios need to reach the widest audience possible to make the most money, so it's a safer bet. Sure, back in the day studios had the same imperative, but the licensed toy game was still young, so they didn't realise that maybe if they made Die H…

> And in those activities we often don't get the true value out of them because we're doing them for the wrong reason.

I've been hearing this sentiment lately and don't understand it. What gives one person insight into the psychology of another without an intimate relationship? How can one know another is doing something for "the wrong reasons"? It feels like a lazy stereotyping heuristic.

Actually, I do think I might understand it. It could be introverts failing to achieve full theory of mind about extroverts. Which itself might be a lazy stereotyping heuristic, but at least it has the virtue of reacting to an expressed state of mind, and not an implied one.

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

#694

Post by forgotmypw17 »

coldtea wrote: post #656
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

with all due respect, have you ever talked with a poly person or known one?

Yes. And all stories I know ended up badly.

Just out of interest, how old were the people you spoke with?

Personally, it took me over two decades of learning to make it work, and I agree that it's about O(n!) difficult.

I've had several failures, but kept perservering, and it paid off, so anyone reading this who feels like they're definitely poly but afraid to start the journey, do it!

FWIW, I've known I'm poly since before puberty, and it still was not easy. I think poly acceptance today is where gay acceptance was a couple decades ago, with most people being either dismissive of its validity, saying it's a bad idea in practice, and generally denying its right to exist.

I think we're slowly moving forward, however.

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

#695

Post by chordalkeyboard »

brokenmachine wrote: post #676
smusamashah wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because the intimacy of the act inherently creates conditions for vulnerability.

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

#696

Post by prirun »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #624
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…

I used to think the same about gun play, and still do. But I realized what the driver is, having kids. No one wants to watch people getting it on with their eleven-year-old. An adult rating makes an easy warning.

That's my point: why is it okay to watch people getting killed with your 11 year old, but not okay to watch people naked? I'm not talking about a porn scene of course.

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

#697

Post by hntrader »

rhfkfld wrote: post #685
hntrader wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irrelevant (because the assignment of twins to particular environments is mostly blinded to mutation differences) and pedantic (because the differences are trivial).

Wrong, and wrong. Keep pace with the literature. Differences can manifest as early as embryogenesis and have far reaching outcomes, e.g. there have been reports of different covid severity outcomes within a twin pair. Hell, you do know that the cells in your own body don't all have the same genome, right?

As I said, it's irrelevant since assignment is mostly random at birth. The law of large numbers takes care of trivial differences since those differences are largely randomized.

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

#698

Post by hntrader »

rhfkfld wrote: post #672
hntrader wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Of course not, this is a strawman. I was disputing the positive claim that it isn't genetic, I was not claiming that heritability implies genetic determinism.

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

#699

Post by pronlover723 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #440
pronlover723 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like the same answer to me. As an adult you should have "responsible" sex in real life. So, sex in media with a young and irresponsible audience will lead to irresponsible sex and all the repercussions. Hence, the common idea, don't show kids sex. Violence in media will not (or at least no one has been able to find a connection)

I am sorry this is total BS, now even 10 year olds suddenly have access to porn, and amount of sex in society plummeted. Secondly, I didn't sign up for catholic church, sex is not a sinfull activity limited to procreation only.

I don't know where you got the idea that I though sex is sinful. I only suggested that as a society "responsible" sex (sex that doesn't cause unwanted pregnancies nor get you sick with an STD) is a desirable outcome for society and people in general. Otherwise have any kind of sex you want with whoever you want.

The point is only that sexual media has an arguably negative influence on society and violent media does not so it's not irrational to find violent media non-problematic and sexual media to be problematic for kids.

The 10 year old can see porn and sex has plummeted does not mean seeing more porn = less sex. The world is complicated and there are plenty of other reasons there is less sex happening (assuming there actually is less sex happening)

As just one example, many people claim the reason there is less sex is people stay home and entertain themselves with the facebook/instragram/tiktok/youtube/twitter/reddit/video-games/netflix vs go out and socialize IRL. That could easily be the major factor in decline in sexual activity even if sexual media by itself influences kids to be more promiscuous.

Post reply on HN