4 ms·

This article is just a bunch of anecdata. Has the proportion of theatrical releases containing sex scenes indeed declined in recent years? What about streaming

This article is just a bunch of anecdata. Has the proportion of theatrical releases containing sex scenes indeed declined in recent years? What about streaming releases? Neither of these questions is quantitatively answered. The “evidence” that sex scenes have become taboo because they embody the “male gaze” and are therefore problematic comes from some un-cited hypothetical tweet. Assuming this tweet is even real, is it actually reflective of the majority opinion, or just a Twitter echochamber? Again, the author does not even attempt to answer this question.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Jedd 5y ago
It's an opinion piece in the culture section of the Free Beacon - what kind of article were you expecting (beyond 'bunch of anecdata'). FWIW I found it a hugely entertaining, and spectacularly well written piece. As to your concern about the un-cited hypothetical tweet, a) on my reading of the article it was very much NOT ascribing much evidence to this phenomenon, and b) your favourite search engine will quickly reveal your answers if you ask for 'Laura Mulvey male gaze'.
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  I expect opinion pieces opining on objectively verifiable facts to support their statements with objective evidence. This piece simply asserts with zero evidence that sex scenes are less frequent in recent movies, and then speculates at great length why this might be. But because the piece has done nothing to prove its initial assertion (i.e. sex scenes are less frequent), any further discussion predicated on this assertion being true is inherently meaningless.
graycat 5y ago
I read the article and didn't have your reaction! Or, I long since, for years, often had your reaction and finally for nearly all media gave up! Soooo, instead of your reaction I just backed off and decided to regard any and all statements in such media content as, call it, "conjectures that some people want to pass out guessing that maybe some other people will agree". That is, we get a lot of conjectures! I can like getting some of the conjectures since commonly they are not ones I would think of -- so, maybe there is some value there, e.g., not that the conjectures make any real sense but, say, just that they are maybe (another conjecture!) that some people would entertain in which case we might get some insight into some people! See, if strain enough, bend over backwards and twist self out of shape, discard nearly all sense of rationalism and critical thinking, can find a glimmer of value!! Then the article mentioned Anya Taylor-Joy: Never heard of her, so did a fast Google search and got caught up. Yup, of the several pictures of her one of them to my eyes did have "almost-alien beauty"; that picture, if only from some lighting, seemed to have the part of her nose between her eyes unusually wide. Besides, have to give a little value for the rough, guesstimate conjecture: "(Congrats: You're caught up on the last 30 years or so of the theatrical exhibition business.)" Maybe some such thing is true, maybe! Net: It's easy to read such media criticism -- just set aside all rationality directly on the content and look, instead, at the content as maybe some insight into what some people might believe! That is, we should have some good insight into what nonsense some people might believe, that is, we might be learning about the people, not the nonsense! It's not difficult; you can do it, too!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Jedd 5y ago

It's an opinion piece in the culture section of the Free Beacon - what kind of article were you expecting (beyond 'bunch of anecdata'). FWIW I found it a hugely entertaining, and spectacularly well written piece. As to your concern about the un-cited hypothetical tweet, a) on my reading of the article it was very much NOT ascribing much evidence to this phenomenon, and b) your favourite search engine will quickly reveal your answers if you ask for 'Laura Mulvey male gaze'.

MontyCarloHall 5y ago
I expect opinion pieces opining on objectively verifiable facts to support their statements with objective evidence. This piece simply asserts with zero evidence that sex scenes are less frequent in recent movies, and then speculates at great length why this might be. But because the piece has done nothing to prove its initial assertion (i.e. sex scenes are less frequent), any further discussion predicated on this assertion being true is inherently meaningless.

graycat 5y ago

I read the article and didn't have your reaction! Or, I long since, for years, often had your reaction and finally for nearly all media gave up! Soooo, instead of your reaction I just backed off and decided to regard any and all statements in such media content as, call it, "conjectures that some people want to pass out guessing that maybe some other people will agree". That is, we get a lot of conjectures! I can like getting some of the conjectures since commonly they are not ones I would think of -- so, maybe there is some value there, e.g., not that the conjectures make any real sense but, say, just that they are maybe (another conjecture!) that some people would entertain in which case we might get some insight into some people! See, if strain enough, bend over backwards and twist self out of shape, discard nearly all sense of rationalism and critical thinking, can find a glimmer of value!! Then the article mentioned Anya Taylor-Joy: Never heard of her, so did a fast Google search and got caught up. Yup, of the several pictures of her one of them to my eyes did have "almost-alien beauty"; that picture, if only from some lighting, seemed to have the part of her nose between her eyes unusually wide. Besides, have to give a little value for the rough, guesstimate conjecture: "(Congrats: You're caught up on the last 30 years or so of the theatrical exhibition business.)" Maybe some such thing is true, maybe! Net: It's easy to read such media criticism -- just set aside all rationality directly on the content and look, instead, at the content as maybe some insight into what some people might believe! That is, we should have some good insight into what nonsense some people might believe, that is, we might be learning about the people, not the nonsense! It's not difficult; you can do it, too!