Posted on 09/03/2009 10:22:30 AM PDT by WesternCulture
I won't argue with that statement.
It sure does, just like Marsian vegetable porn often tends to do.
But, to begin with, why should Swedish tax payers finance it (this project received $59 000 from the Swedish government in production support)?
Furthermore, anyone who expresses her(?)self in this way is obviously somewhat daft;
"The film was put onto the internet and provoked a strong reaction. A lot of the reactions were negative, with comments like: "Damn, they're ugly. Could they not at least have put on some make-up." I found the comments interesting. They showed that we're still living with the age-old belief that a woman and her sexuality should please the beholder above all else."
- PLEASE try and understand that what these people desperately are trying to explain to you is that, regardless of gender roles, PORN should always please the beholder.
Okay so what, the guy is bent over a barrel, has a ball gag in, while some woman named “Midge” is approaching with some artificial appendage that says “Rodbuster” on the side?
Porn,in general,is pretty degrading to both men *and* women.But I’ll wager that “feminist” porn doesn’t feature a single “Y” chromosome.
Once again the government has to step up to make something that the consumer won’t...consume.
That HAS to be the reason!
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that your appearance makes people physically ill.
"Erotica" is what gets me hot.
"Porn" is what gets you/judges hot.
I don't recall who originally said this.
There is a book of porn for women. It shows attractive men, dressed, and doing housework.
If you don’t want the ‘male gaze’ to watch you masturbating, don’t film it and put it up on the internet.
Problem solved.
Beauty is imposed by men?
Pffft.
Beauty, in men and women, is a strong signal of:
Good genetic material (even face, proportional, etc)
Fitness/Health
Intelligence (yes, pretty people are smarter, too)
Wealth/Status/Upbringing
Fertility
In short, it’s a good signal that the individual would be a good (biological) mate.
Trying to pass off a fat-butted, cockeyed, hairy girl as a “new” form of beauty simply flies into the face of biology.
“They showed that we’re still living with the age-old belief that a woman and her sexuality should please the beholder above all else.”
Pornography absolutely exists to please the beholder. What else could possibly be the point? Someone must be pleased, most often not by being disgusted. But if that’s what excites them, there’s still excitement, so everything’s as it should be. Ugliness turns some people on, so I guess sex films with ugly people still constitute pornography. Don’t be surprised, however, if there’s a limited market.
I’m guessing what the creators of these films were shooting at was an artistic rather than a specifically pornopgraphic appreciation of their work. That’s a whole other subject, and incidentally the whole problem with modern art.
Is that Barney Frank?
I looked at the trailer and I didn’t see an unattractive woman in the lot. Won’t buy the film or search for it beyond the tailer but...
Was thinking the same thing.
Hollyweird has this problem, too. You see, if the "beholders" don't buy tickets and watch, there's no point in making the film.
Surprisingly, no. This person has been put off of men and sausages...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2330666/posts?page=1
BUY the film? It should be FREE:
“How can we liberate our own sexual imagination from the commercial images we see every day...”
If it is sold it automatically becomes a commercial image.
Kinda scary some many had the same reaction.
Looks just like Barney Fag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.