|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Attitudes to sex and nudity.
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
If you look at "Daisy Dukes" - something I don't recommend unless you like looking at very hot women in very tight shorts - a lot of the apparently acceptable displays would make Daisy Duke herself blush. And men walking around in man-half-thongs does expose far more flesh than anyone should have to see. So the first part of the question is, are we going to accept complete nudity soon? Is that acceptable?
The second part of this is something I remember from watching Watchdog some 20 years ago. They were investigating a plumber who, they trailed, did one of the most appalling things ever. When they ran the film, they had to stop it and Anne Robinson said "What he did next is too disgusting to show". In fact, I suspect that he simply had a good wank behind the washing machine.
I don't want to suggest that either 1) I want to see that or 2) that was acceptable behaviour. But it was trailed as if he had engaged in an S&M threesome while slipping and sticking in the blood and semen washing the floor.
It strikes me that we are very prudish when it comes to talking about sex on television. We seem to pretend that people don't engage in sexual activity in the real world (yes, I know in GoT everyone is banging everyone else right in front of the camera all of the time). But Eastenders don't do sex jokes, as far as I know. And talking about sexual deviancy (however you define that) seems to really bring out the prudes.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Our entire attitude to sex is unhealthy. Compare to our attitude to food, which (although full of issues) is not quite as pathological. I think it was C.S. Lewis who postulated a country where you could fill a theater by having a covered platter on the stage. Just before the spotlight went out someone would lift the lid, revealing a chop or a plate of stew.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Is it only me who doesn't really want to see people with nothing on, unless they're in front of me and me alone? And even then, aren't some clothes often sexier than none?
Does that make me a prude?
I don't think we pretend it doesn't happen in the real world, rather it's that we don't want its image impressed upon our minds. Unless we seek it out.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
These days people have the internet for explicit sexual viewing, if that's what they want. The TV could never compete with that.
I also think that some of the most popular British shows, such as soaps, are watched largely by older people now, including a high number older ladies, and the majority of them probably don't want to hear 'sex jokes'.
Channel 4 used to be known for some of its daring documentaries, though, didn't it?
[ 13. January 2016, 23:50: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
It strikes me that we are very prudish when it comes to talking about sex on television.
Depends what you mean by prudish. One of the IMO more sensible of the new agey gurus (if that's not an oxymoron) is Andrew Weil who strongly criticises the establishment's (medical and media) reluctance to talk about the health risks of promiscuous sex, for fear of being labelled puritanical. That's a type of prudishness.
Personally I don't want to be bombarded by sexual imagery, which makes me feel like a voyeur which I find degrading. The silliest thing said about sex scenes in film and television is that "it is natural". Is it bollocks. Sex is natural but simulated sex in front of a film crew done in order to provide erotic pleasure to others is nothing of the kind.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
1. There is a world of difference between "prudery" and speaking about sex and public nudity or semi-nudity.
2. The plumber in the Watchdog film didn't pleasure himself - he urinated into the cold water tank in the loft, so polluted the water supply for the house, including water in the bathroom which is where people tend to brush their teeth.
3. When it comes to public nudity its fine if people are young, reasonably attractive and (roughly) of average weight, but how many of us want to parade our older, saggier bodies in all their glory, or see those of our friends and neighbours?
4. And all of this before considering the effect on, say, a group of teenaged boys of a passing group from a girls' school.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Is Daisy Dukes a tv programme? In the Netherlands they have (or had?) a dating programme where the participants meet each other naked.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Public nudity is not much of an issue in Scotland in January mustbesaid.
I suspect the popularity of the WI calendar (genesis of The Calendar Girls film etc) was the (discreet) display of bodies such as so many of us have rather than the airbrushed, photoshopped, hyper-sexualised ideals of youth and beauty that sneer at us from advertising.
Similarly most representations of sex are athleticised and sensationalised to a place far from the affectionate exchanges of long term love.
As with food, as with so many environments we spend time in, everything is artificial, denatured, over-stimulating and unnourishing.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Is Daisy Dukes a tv programme? In the Netherlands they have (or had?) a dating programme where the participants meet each other naked.
Daisy Duke (played by Catherine Bach) was a character in a very silly, 1980s American sitcom called The Dukes of Hazzard. What are now called "Daisy Dukes" are the very short cut-off jeans she usually wore.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Lyda*Rose: Daisy Duke (played by Catherine Bach) was a character in a very silly, 1980s American sitcom called The Dukes of Hazzard. What are now called "Daisy Dukes" are the very short cut-off jeans she usually wore.
Thank you. Yes I know about the Dukes of Hazzard, and I was a fan in the eighties.
I was trying to understand the first part of Schroedinger Cat's post "If you look at Daisy Dukes". Is he talking about looking at women wearing Daisy Duke jeans on the streets? I don't think there will be many of those around in the current Northen Hemisphere weather (although there seems to be an English thing about girls being skimpily clad in cold weather). Or was he perhaps talking about a tv programme?
[ 14. January 2016, 10:30: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
In truth, I had not heard the term Daisy Dukes until I heard Katy Perrys California Girls. They are any form of very short and tight shorts worn by women. Worn sometimes being a rather flexible term.
I am not calling anyone prudish, but wanting to question whether we are becoming more or less open to talk about certain subjects. I suppose it was the interesting contrast of men and women wearing less and less coverage, while so often finding that sex is a taboo subject. When it isn't, it is staged and unreal.
I don't particularly want to see lots of images of people naked. Personally, I would rather most people were clothed. But I do want there to be more public discussions of sex, because I think that is currently talked about wrongly and dangerously.
I found it odd that we seemed less prudish, on the whole, about nudity, and more about sex over time. I feel this is wrong, but that may just be my personal idea. I wanted to know what others felt, and I think, so far, others might be broadly in agreement with me.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Lyda*Rose: Daisy Duke (played by Catherine Bach) was a character in a very silly, 1980s American sitcom called The Dukes of Hazzard. What are now called "Daisy Dukes" are the very short cut-off jeans she usually wore.
Thank you. Yes I know about the Dukes of Hazzard, and I was a fan in the eighties.
I was trying to understand the first part of Schroedinger Cat's post "If you look at Daisy Dukes". Is he talking about looking at women wearing Daisy Duke jeans on the streets? I don't think there will be many of those around in the current Northen Hemisphere weather (although there seems to be an English thing about girls being skimpily clad in cold weather). Or was he perhaps talking about a tv programme?
Newcastle, Sheffileld
I have been in places where nudity for bathing or swimming for all ages and sexes was totally acceptable - and it's very refreshing and unsexual. Daisy Dukes - along with the way high heels create artificial fertility signs (lordosis behaviour) and lipstick and makeup simulate other ovulation signs - are directly comparable to chimpanzee mating rituals. That's not to say I don't find them a turn on if other fertility signs are also there (the word nubile comes to mind), but they do tend to channel male-female interactions down a pretty narrow gulley. So difficult not getting Freudian - definitely time to stop.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm no prude but I do have concerns about the current trend to 'sex-up' dramatisations of period novels and so on ...
For instance, in the otherwise engaging BBC adaptation of Agatha Christie's 'And Then There Were None' we had graphic violence, drug abuse, drunkenness and gratuitous sex scenes ... of the usual simulated TV not actually showing anything but pantings and writhings etc ...
Notoriously, there's been some onscreen innuendo and rumpy-pumpy in the current dramatisation of War and Peace ...
I do wonder at times, whether some of the film-makers are simply pushing things to see how far they can go and what they can get aware with. For instance, the BBC 2 series 'Peaky Blinders' will have it's third series screened shortly - and that's been full of humping and heaving and some very graphic violence.
Sure, it's well acted and presented and the period detail is done well ... but as audience figures have dropped dramatically since the first few episodes, I do wonder what the Beeb are playing at with this one ...
Scandinavian dramas can be even more full-on ... such as that '1864' series from Denmark which was visually stunning but which at times seemed to be a vehicle for gratuitous sex and violence ...
Yes, we know soldiers visited prostitutes ... yes, we know that it's gory when someone gets bayonetted or shot ...
But do we need to see it in detail?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I would be perfectly happy to have sex discussed more in public--what I don't want are the visuals everywhere. They tend to have a visceral effect, just as visuals of people bleeding, vomiting, taking a dump, etc. do. If I WANT to be, er, "viscerated," I'll go looking for it; the rest of the time I'd prefer not to have my train of thought yanked around willy nilly by random billboards, commercials, ads, etc.
In a way, it's sort of like having people shout at you all the time, from your TV and your web browser (stupid ads!) and the billboards on the highway. Shout SHOUT shout SHOUT SHOUT shout SHOUT. Just stop.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
That, at least, can be clearly labeled as bad art. Everything in a drama ought to work towards making the thing good -- script, costuming, actors, lighting. The thing should be streamlined and honed like an Italian race car. If anything throws you out, it is the equivalent of a dent on a Ferrari.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think sex often films badly, although there are exceptions, for example, the recent 'London Spy' on BBC had some very good scenes, between two men. By 'very good' I mean, that it actually conveyed passion and physical oomph.
But it is often done in a sort of ritual manner, which conveys tedium, hello, the mattress is twanging again.
There may be possible ways of describing sex, e.g. in novels and films and TV, which are interesting. But it's difficult to avoid looking porny. And I suppose there would be howls of protest in the UK.
The nude in art is very interesting, but I don't have the time to discuss it. Lucien Freud springs to mind, but then he can be rather repellent, well, for me. But then modern artists want to avoid the pretty.
[ 14. January 2016, 13:58: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, we know soldiers visited prostitutes ... yes, we know that it's gory when someone gets bayonetted or shot ...
But do we need to see it in detail?
No, we don't - but do we have to look? I simply look down during the meat fests.
I like openness to sex and nudity. But I prefer a kind of 'innocent openness' like you often see in Germany. A lack of body consciousness and easy nudity - uncommented on - are good imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Now I'm thinking of Tracey Emin and her many drawings of female genitals, actually superb, I think. But I am a big Tracey fan.
But art makes sex safe in a way. Thus photos of female genitals would produce shock and horror, I think. Drawings are OK.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I was desensitized to nudity early in life. My family refrained from frontal nudity; modesty meant turning your back when changing, breasts were feeding stations for children. Most people look much better in clothing, and one must be careful to avoid sexualizing the nonsexual, such as clothing-variable beaches or when swimming in wilderness areas.
I am always surprised that nudity and sexuality is more troubling to parents and people in general than is violence. Give me a naked butt over a bullet in the head in a movie every time.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
itsarumdo:
quote:
I have been in places where nudity for bathing or swimming for all ages and sexes was totally acceptable - and it's very refreshing and unsexual.
Well my experience in Germany (the former DDR where FKK aka. getting your kit off was a big thing) was not so arcadian.
I went to a water complex somewhere where there was a Naked Area. Now neither the lady with me nor myself had any desire to disport, and we'd assumed it was optional. We went because the Nacktbereich did have some of the best pools. We ended of getting a bollocking from a butt-naked Guardian of Propriety which is this case meant we were instructed, not invited, to get our kit off. So we beat a retreat.
But the main point, noted by my friend as well, is that quite a few younger people were in the main area, but none in the naked area. I cannot imagine why a beautiful teenager would want to get their kit off in front of a load of old geezers. I also get pissed of by those who say that I some sort of debauched lech because I am afraid of gawping at or even pointing at the said nymphettes.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Now I'm thinking of Tracey Emin and her many drawings of female genitals, actually superb, I think. But I am a big Tracey fan.
But art makes sex safe in a way. Thus photos of female genitals would produce shock and horror, I think. Drawings are OK.
Shock and horror, seriously?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I live in a very conservative area, and I can't imagine photos of vulvas, etc. producing shock and horror. Though there might well be some complaints if the photos appeared in an inappropriate context.
My basic attitude (which most people I know share) is similar to the #WeWantPlates movement. Sex, nakedness, genitalia--all these are fine. But we don't want them served up in random places or settings. That's not only tiring, it's childish in a "look at me!" kind of way.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I found most of the thread puzzling in linking sex and nudity. While one can easily argue that sex is a private and intimate act, what folk wear while swimming or (foolishly) sunbathing is an entirely separate issue. Strolling through France and Spain over the years, I frequently noted the presence of bare bodies on beaches, along with a variety of swimming costumes, and nobody really pays attention and society is not disturbed.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
In countries with little media exposure, such a connection doesn't exist. A body is a body, and a person's decision to wear clothes or not is dependent on the comfort of that person and not what sexual scorecard the world will hold up in response.
In media saturated cultures people-- inarguably, women in particular--are taught that their personal nudity comfort level is secondary to "who wants to look at that." Even a cursory glance at cultures where nudity is the norm-- say, in the Amazon region-- shows that this attitude is not innate. In cultures where nudity is the norm, people's bodies age and aquire weight predictably, women do not wear bras, and by age thirty their breasts are in conversational distance of their navels, and nobody tells them to stay at home and be ashamed of themselves. Their bodies, as Carrie Fischer puts it, are their "brain bags", the mode of transportation for a human mind and personality.
Sure, in such situations people still evaluate attractiveness-- in a radically different way media saturated countries do, is my understanding-- but people aren't taught they have to alter the cultural norm of nudity in response to other people's opinion. The primary purpose of the human body is not to provide visual accomodation to others-- its primary purpose is to serve its owner.
Maybe tangental maybe not, but IMO we put ourselves in an awkward position when we judge cultures that make women submit to the burqua, and also support a culture that says only a fraction of the female population deserves to be seen.
[ 15. January 2016, 16:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe tangental maybe not, but IMO we put ourselves in an awkward position when we judge cultures that make women submit to the burqua, and also support a culture that says only a fraction of the female population deserves to be seen.
Twists my brain, this does.* There is a level of control that is different and an emphasis that is not the same, but yes, there is a commonality as well. Both are treating women as objects and subordinate.
*I hate the ideology behind the burqa and niqab especially.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
IMO there is in both cases aquisition of power in making a group of people invisible-- whether you compel that group to physically cover themselves or create social pressure that convinces the majority of that group to cover themselves. It is easier to dismiss, exclude, and work around invisible people.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And it is a perpetually moving target. The prudes can never be satisfied. The nipple? Female ones never, male ones OK. (There is a fine protest in NYC in which women went topless, but pasted photocopies of male nipples over their own.) Bare arms, bare legs? Clearly an incitement. Wrists? Ankles? Well-known to be temptuous. Hair? faces? foreheads? eyes? Agents of sin. Even full coverage in a black bedspread is unbearable to some men.
This is not the solution. It has been proven to be not the solution, over and over again. And therefore the solution must lie elsewhere. Oh look, men! Over there in the mirror, do you see?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Regarding sex scenes on TV:
Since I watch a few Showtime series, I notice what somewhere up there mentioned-- sex scenes are turning perfunctory. That is sad. When you look at two attractive actors and think, when is this boring scene going to end? That doesn't bode well.
More importantly, the constraints of a filming schedule do something horrible in terms of creating expectations in viewers-- sex on screen needs to take about 30 seconds -1 minute so as to keep the show's pace, and nearly every sex scene on TV has the couple finishing simultaneously. If they don't it is tragic foreshadowing, or some other huge plot point. And women never, ever need substantial foreplay. ( again, time is money, we ain't got fifteen minutes to spend on foreplay.
Even the show "Masters of Sex" pulled this crap, and it's supposed to be a dramatic portrayal of the people who promoted the idea women needing foreplay! Even when they show the scenes of women masturbating in the lab, they spend about three seconds on foreplay and go straight for the genitals. (Example of MOS foreplay- a woman gliding one hand over one breast on the way to her crotch.) They refer to foreplay and non- genital orgasms in the dialogue,,but they never show it. Time is money.
This is the thing-- if you have experience, these scenes are understood to be truncated, and may even seem silly. But there are people out there who have been watching these scenes since long before they ever had sex, and it just sets them up for performance anxiety (or partner blaming) when they get the impression that sex takes a minute or less, that the right magic penis will negate the need for foreplay, and that the only satisfying orgasms are mutual.
Short version-- "less is more" and "if you do it, do it right."
(Bows and descends from soapbox.)
[ 16. January 2016, 16:35: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Lately I've found myself increasingly indifferent about watching modern day sex scenes on TV. Having said that I'd rather watch a production that contains tasteful love scenes as opposed to something containing seedy, gratuitous violence,(even if it also portrays sex).
Coming of age in the early to mid 70s, when TV censorship of the full-on sex scene was lifting, I've been left finding these portrayals of love making far more watchable than anything on offer now. Could be a sign of age on my part.
As for nudity? this ...
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Strolling through France and Spain over the years, I frequently noted the presence of bare bodies on beaches, along with a variety of swimming costumes, and nobody really pays attention and society is not disturbed.
Personal experience of nudity for myself has lately become more comfortable and natural. In many ways it is clothing that produces erotica not nudity in the primeval sense. It's a narrow,(not to mention illegal), gate to be passed as this is something, in most modern cultures, that is viewed with a degree of tetchiness along with -- If someone wants to walk around in the nude then it automatically makes them kinky, or suspect in some way.
[ 16. January 2016, 18:55: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I always liked the film critic Barry Norman's comment that sex isn't really a spectator sport, as the best you can hope for is a one all draw.
[ 17. January 2016, 04:28: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
IMO there is in both cases aquisition of power in making a group of people invisible-- whether you compel that group to physically cover themselves or create social pressure that convinces the majority of that group to cover themselves. It is easier to dismiss, exclude, and work around invisible people.
I read a compelling article (I will ask the person I got the link from to re-send it) arguing that the West uses indignation (mock or otherwise) of the way women are treated in the Third World to avoid talking about or fixing the way they are treated in the First.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I always liked the film critic Barry Norman's comment that sex isn't really a spectator sport, as the best you can hope for is a one all draw.
Ha ha, that's good.
I too used to enjoy his film critic programmes in the 80s. I remember particularly when he remarked that good films were, at that time, being spoilt because the bedroom scene had become expected by cinema audiences and therefore came across as obligatory.
Having probably watched way too many films, I've usually found French films to far more pleasing and natural with regards to onscreen intimacy than either British or American attempts at it.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
IMO there is in both cases aquisition of power in making a group of people invisible-- whether you compel that group to physically cover themselves or create social pressure that convinces the majority of that group to cover themselves. It is easier to dismiss, exclude, and work around invisible people.
I read a compelling article (I will ask the person I got the link from to re-send it) arguing that the West uses indignation (mock or otherwise) of the way women are treated in the Third World to avoid talking about or fixing the way they are treated in the First.
Yeah, that's the first step in giving youself permission to ignore all your problems-- finding someone you can act superior to.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I always liked the film critic Barry Norman's comment that sex isn't really a spectator sport, as the best you can hope for is a one all draw.
My favorite sex scene is PG-13-- the scene in "Stage Beauty" where a bisexual Billy Crudup is playfully guiding Claire Danes through the various positions in which men can have sex. Exactly the reason I love it is because it is not some mundane race to the finish-- it is silly and awkward and exhilarating and reveals the personality of the participants in such a natural way.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
