Not saying this guy in particular is right, but I hate this attitude that “porn exists so we shouldn’t have sex, or nudity, or anything horny in other art forms”. We shouldn’t treat people like creeps just because they want more horny in mainstream art.
I find the current cinema trend of “everyone is beautiful, but no one is horny” far creepier than the rampant sexualization in old 80s movies.
Afaict, nobody is making the argument that you’re refuting.
There is art that is elevated by being horny and art that is made worse by it. Being horny doesn’t fit this character, and isn’t relevant to the story being told, so it seems like a bad fit. Being a bad fit, the only people this would benefit are creeps who want upskirt shots of whoever, and I don’t think that’s a demographic to cater to at the sacrifice of the more vulnerable demographics that this film is targeting.
The point of the post and the reason for calling the guy a creep (I say guy because we’re definitely dealing with a male here) is because he wants a movie that is not designed to be pornography to have elements that would be better placed in a pornographic movie. You are inserting a degree of kink shaming into the post that doesn’t actually exist. Watching pornography and having a healthy attitude about sex is different from wanting to sexualize a story that is not trying to be sexual. That is creepy.
Again, I’m not defending this particular guy - I’m criticizing the response, which is an attitude that’s prevelant today, especially amongst the youth. A lot of people hate on sex/nudity of any form in mainstream art, and their argument is generally “just go watch porn you creeps”.
Maybe Supergirl specifically shouldn’t be sexualized (even though she’s sexualized in most of the source material I remember), but if so, let’s come up with a better reason than “a containment genre exists for sex, and if you want to see it escape that box then you’re a degenerate!”.
Not arguing with you, but you misunderstand the point of the post. A guy that would get so mad that he would refuse to use a ticket he already has purchased (which is almost certainly a fictional scenario) because he can’t see the crotch of the protagonist is a creep… The reference to porn in the response hammers the point home because it is a movie that you can watch that will definitely contain visible crotches. It’s not commentary on the presence of sex in movies or that it should be limited to pornography, but a specific comment about that one person who seems to be taking a moral stand over not being able to see more of the protagonist’s crotch. You keep trying to say the post is a broader comment on sex in movies. That assumption is not supported by the post. I only responded because you seem well intentioned, but are maybe drawing upon a personal event that is not applicable to the post itself.
the actress is probably 35, who cares who the character is aimed at. it’s normal for men to see an attractive woman and be like ‘wow she’s attractive.’
you’re pathologizing normal thinking and probably feeling incredibly satisfied with your lame response because you used the word ‘teenage’ and nobody would dare to cross swords.
porn in america is hyper-aggressive and focused on penetration. there’s no eroticism to it. it’s crass and disgusting.
there’s something to putting on a 90s skinemax film and seeing hot milfs wearing sexy, satin nighties tenderly riding men on a real bed in a real bedroom, instead of watching giant, unearthly cocks penetrating gaping vaginas in extreme close-up.
what a boneheaded take out of the OP.
there’s a HUGE difference between what porn is selling and what turns you on.
Sex is too important to be left to porn.
Not saying this guy in particular is right, but I hate this attitude that “porn exists so we shouldn’t have sex, or nudity, or anything horny in other art forms”. We shouldn’t treat people like creeps just because they want more horny in mainstream art.
I find the current cinema trend of “everyone is beautiful, but no one is horny” far creepier than the rampant sexualization in old 80s movies.
Afaict, nobody is making the argument that you’re refuting.
There is art that is elevated by being horny and art that is made worse by it. Being horny doesn’t fit this character, and isn’t relevant to the story being told, so it seems like a bad fit. Being a bad fit, the only people this would benefit are creeps who want upskirt shots of whoever, and I don’t think that’s a demographic to cater to at the sacrifice of the more vulnerable demographics that this film is targeting.
Maybe don’t sexualize the character that, at least in part, is aimed at teenage girls.
See, that’s an example of a much better argument than “porn exists, stop being a creep”.
The point of the post and the reason for calling the guy a creep (I say guy because we’re definitely dealing with a male here) is because he wants a movie that is not designed to be pornography to have elements that would be better placed in a pornographic movie. You are inserting a degree of kink shaming into the post that doesn’t actually exist. Watching pornography and having a healthy attitude about sex is different from wanting to sexualize a story that is not trying to be sexual. That is creepy.
Edit: deleted unnecessary sentence
Again, I’m not defending this particular guy - I’m criticizing the response, which is an attitude that’s prevelant today, especially amongst the youth. A lot of people hate on sex/nudity of any form in mainstream art, and their argument is generally “just go watch porn you creeps”.
Maybe Supergirl specifically shouldn’t be sexualized (even though she’s sexualized in most of the source material I remember), but if so, let’s come up with a better reason than “a containment genre exists for sex, and if you want to see it escape that box then you’re a degenerate!”.
Not arguing with you, but you misunderstand the point of the post. A guy that would get so mad that he would refuse to use a ticket he already has purchased (which is almost certainly a fictional scenario) because he can’t see the crotch of the protagonist is a creep… The reference to porn in the response hammers the point home because it is a movie that you can watch that will definitely contain visible crotches. It’s not commentary on the presence of sex in movies or that it should be limited to pornography, but a specific comment about that one person who seems to be taking a moral stand over not being able to see more of the protagonist’s crotch. You keep trying to say the post is a broader comment on sex in movies. That assumption is not supported by the post. I only responded because you seem well intentioned, but are maybe drawing upon a personal event that is not applicable to the post itself.
why is her outfit ‘sexualizing’ anyway?
even if her outfit didn’t suggest ‘panties’ it’d still be sexy because it accentuates her form.
the actress is probably 35, who cares who the character is aimed at. it’s normal for men to see an attractive woman and be like ‘wow she’s attractive.’
you’re pathologizing normal thinking and probably feeling incredibly satisfied with your lame response because you used the word ‘teenage’ and nobody would dare to cross swords.
grow up.
porn in america is hyper-aggressive and focused on penetration. there’s no eroticism to it. it’s crass and disgusting.
there’s something to putting on a 90s skinemax film and seeing hot milfs wearing sexy, satin nighties tenderly riding men on a real bed in a real bedroom, instead of watching giant, unearthly cocks penetrating gaping vaginas in extreme close-up.
what a boneheaded take out of the OP.
there’s a HUGE difference between what porn is selling and what turns you on.