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.
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.