3 ms·
That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to
by Igelau 6y ago
That's not quite it. It's that there are some people crying wolf who see something as erotic material when it's not. Do you see the difference there? Getting to the heart of why they see it this way when others don't is an interesting question.
There's an ugly implication of the "I know it when I see it" standard -- something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. How could they otherwise make the claim? That's got to be an unsettling experience for a lot of people. The self-disgust this causes is likely to be so visceral and panic-inducing that it will be hard for someone experiencing it to understand that the reaction is not universal.
- cutitout 6y ago> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting. If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself. > The self-disgust this causes is an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".
- Igelau 6y agoExcept for the fact that I never said "arousing", I don't think we disagree. You're just not mortified by the recognition of what you see.
- cutitout 6y agoI do disagree with you say. You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication". I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.
- Igelau 6y agoIf you say so. I see our difference as being mostly semantics, but you're quite upset. > because you're wrong I'm okay with that.
- lopmotr 6y agoNot sure about this particular topic, but what you describe does happen. I used to be a schoolteacher and there were instances of students doing sexual dancing, wearing reavealing clothes or flirting. You're startled and make yourself ignore it. Think of their last assignment or something.