Channel4s-JonSnow Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, Risto said: Well, it seems that entire man-candy thing that is going on in Hollywood is actually liberating for women. If media plays the sex card with men, why not also women? And if actresses have to be sexy having almost nothing on themselves, why not having shirtless guys doing the same thing? The principle is simple: Women, just like men, can objectify what they see on screen. Equality Yeah thats what I thought. Two wrongs don't make a right is what I think, if you have a problem with say 'boobs in GoT' then you can't turn around and gush about the 'man-candy in Outlander'. Personally I don't care about objectification, its quite a natural thing for most people, especially in the visual age we live in. But the hypocrisy here is amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Definitely not a show I will watch even a second of based on that trailer and promo pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Yeah thats what I thought. Two wrongs don't make a right is what I think, if you have a problem with say 'boobs in GoT' then you can't turn around and gush about the 'man-candy in Outlander'. Personally I don't care about objectification, its quite a natural thing for most people, especially in the visual age we live in. But the hypocrisy here is amusing. I do agree... But it is like one of those perspectives I found rather interesting. It seems that some circles have no problems women are objectified as long as the men are objectified too. I wouldn't call it amusing, it is just different people having different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Risto said: I do agree... But it is like one of those perspectives I found rather interesting. It seems that some circles have no problems women are objectified as long as the men are objectified too. I wouldn't call it amusing, it is just different people having different opinions. yeah I think its a much wider discussion however. Theres a difference between the general trend towards objectification of everyone and specific sexism. Those complaining there are too many boobs in GoT, and yet there are plenty of topless males walking around in the show. Either way.. its another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: yeah I think its a much wider discussion however. Theres a difference between the general trend towards objectification of everyone and specific sexism. Those complaining there are too many boobs in GoT, and yet there are plenty of topless males walking around in the show. Either way.. its another discussion. Being topless for men and women is not the same, as topless women in public get arrested while no one is going to detain shirtless surfer boy. But yeah, whole new debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: Yeah thats what I thought. Two wrongs don't make a right is what I think, if you have a problem with say 'boobs in GoT' then you can't turn around and gush about the 'man-candy in Outlander'. I do have to point out that the way things are shot also features into this. GoT's shots of boobs and sex come of as icky and exploitative pretty much the entire time (which, if that was the intent is fine, but GoT throws boobs in there to tiitillate and fill a quota). With Outlander that is much less of an issue imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 17 hours ago, Astromech said: Haha, that cover and fifth photo. I hope you were reading it in front of some prudes. Hard to find prudes in my neighborhood -- young, diverse, metropolitan, cosmopolitan, bohemian, academic, artists, IT, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 9 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: The whole show is basically sold on the premise of a topless Jamie, go look at the EW cover. Its a bit like mr Darcey and his tight white bulge, or Poldark and the topless elf, the way its the focus of the promotional material. Theres a sort of reverse sexism that is vaguely interesting at play, a bit like how Baywatch used to be sold purely on the shots of Pams boobs. If this is so offensive to you, this is something you'd better not find out about:: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/business/media/with-romance-novels-booming-beefcake-sells-but-it-doesnt-pay.html?_r=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The difference between the sex and nudity in got and OL is enormous. One is used to exploit women by demeaning them. In OL the entire gamut of a normal woman's sexual life is depicted from the most tender and loving intimate connections, to wild riding lust to being assaulted -- and all of it is part of a story and character development. The sex Claier has to heal Jamie is healing and nothing one would ever see, even be dreamed of by got writers. Why these differences are so difficult for some to see and feel is hard to understand. Of course, in the meantime more and more stories in fashion and lifestyle sections of newspapers and magazines are running in which men are objecting to the hardships of having hard bodies, and that all the cool men's clothes are fashioned for male bodies that are tall, slender, muscular and young -- "What average guy looks like that?" the men wail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Zorral said: The difference between the sex and nudity in got and OL is enormous. One is used to exploit women by demeaning them. In OL the entire gamut of a normal woman's sexual life is depicted from the most tender and loving intimate connections, to wild riding lust to being assaulted -- and all of it is part of a story and character development. The sex Claier has to heal Jamie is healing and nothing one would ever see, even be dreamed of by got writers. Why these differences are so difficult for some to see and feel is hard to understand. Of course, in the meantime more and more stories in fashion and lifestyle sections of newspapers and magazines are running in which men are objecting to the hardships of having hard bodies, and that all the cool men's clothes are fashioned for male bodies that are tall, slender, muscular and young -- "What average guy looks like that?" the men wail. The point isn't about the sex, it's that the nudity is every bit as obviously designed to titilate as GoT, and yet nobody bats an eye. its true, men whine about unrealistic depictions of what men should look like, just as women have been doing for years. The difference is men are told to man up and stop crying about it, women are sympathised with. So much for equality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 33 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: The point isn't about the sex, it's that the nudity is every bit as obviously designed to titilate as GoT, and yet nobody bats an eye. I wouldn't agree with this. As I have said, topless women and topless men cause very different reaction. Sex is also, as @Zorral pointed out, part of this story, as this is primarily, a romance drama. Sex here serves as a connection, as something that unites these two characters. Yeah, there are scenes in which you would see almost naked Sam Heughan but for every minute of him showing his body, GoT goes twenty in showing pointless nudity for the sole purpose of someone being naked. 10 hours ago, Veltigar said: I do have to point out that the way things are shot also features into this. GoT's shots of boobs and sex come of as icky and exploitative pretty much the entire time (which, if that was the intent is fine, but GoT throws boobs in there to tiitillate and fill a quota). With Outlander that is much less of an issue imo. True. Plus, most of the time, titillating imagination is something that works for the story as we have the woman who is supposed to be impressed and fall in love with this Scottish man. Something you obviously don't have in GoT. Simply, sometimes, Jaime is nude because it is a story of Claire falling for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble AK Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Zorral said: The difference between the sex and nudity in got and OL is enormous. One is used to exploit women by demeaning them. In OL the entire gamut of a normal woman's sexual life is depicted from the most tender and loving intimate connections, to wild riding lust to being assaulted -- and all of it is part of a story and character development. The sex Claier has to heal Jamie is healing and nothing one would ever see, even be dreamed of by got writers. Why these differences are so difficult for some to see and feel is hard to understand. Of course, in the meantime more and more stories in fashion and lifestyle sections of newspapers and magazines are running in which men are objecting to the hardships of having hard bodies, and that all the cool men's clothes are fashioned for male bodies that are tall, slender, muscular and young -- "What average guy looks like that?" the men wail. I think GoT wants to have its cake and eat it too. The nudity is often designed to titillate, but often the context is intended to deconstruct the notion of sexism (for instance Craster's Keep was supposed to be "shocking", but at the same time it was an honest exploration of the situation, where you have a bunch of criminals who have control over a vulnerable female population, and so what you would expect would happen, happened). Because we are in a transitional period, a period where society is trying to find a gender equilibrium after such a long time of imbalance, I think there are a lot of cases where reverse sexism is pretty common as people overcompensate against the traditional sexism by participating in sexist behavior (that is, the objectification of males is less of a concern right now). So Outlander can and does engage in objectification of males without even bothering to have any substance or point beyond the immediate gratification the audiences derives from the objectification. GoT is not trying to create a sex fantasy that gets women all turned on from how totally romantic and just so, like, dreeeeamy it is. Westeros is a cruel world, and the focus is on the cruelty and imbalance of the world. Outlander is about giving women a sex fantasy and it totally is written in that fashion. When GoT uses sex, it's more about the shock value than the actual sex, which may or may not (depending on your point of view) contribute to the overall deconstruction of ideas it is attempting. To sum up, GoT uses sex for shock and to argue an idea; Outlander uses sex as a fantasy to arouse, essentially as porn for women. For myself, I'm fine with sex being used for shock value (though I find none of it shocking) and for exploring ideas. I do hate the Twilight/Outlander/50 Shades kind of porn, though if other people like it, more power to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Totally disagree that Outlander is porn -- at least the first novel or two. (Can't speak for the rest of the series because II stopped reading sometime in the third volume because it had become historically preposterous, and thus the writing and plotting got pretty bad.) My question is why is showing real connection between two people sexually, why is showing that love-lust connection as dreamy, and that it helps bond people, people who are expecting to spend the rest of their lives together and look forward to that, who are also engaged in a mutual quest to 'save the world' -- why is that wrong -- and considered pornography? Why is having a world in which there is no tenderness, love and joy to be found profoundly over a period of years and instead only humiliation, torture and cruelty not porn and totally considered reality? Because, you know if you know anything about the Middle Ages, that didn't hold true for a whole lot of people of whatever class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: The point isn't about the sex, it's that the nudity is every bit as obviously designed to titilate as GoT, and yet nobody bats an eye. its true, men whine about unrealistic depictions of what men should look like, just as women have been doing for years. The difference is men are told to man up and stop crying about it, women are sympathised with. So much for equality Looks like somebody's carrying a great big chip . . . . Jamie cried. A lot. Guess he didn't man up enough. And, um, no they're not told to man up and not cry about these clothes and bodies, A buncha designers are racing to give them what they want, and the mags and papers are pushing something called the Dad Bod, that supposedly women find more attractive than the tone and slender body that the entertainment industry sells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble AK Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 43 minutes ago, Zorral said: Totally disagree that Outlander is porn -- at least the first novel or two. (Can't speak for the rest of the series because II stopped reading sometime in the third volume because it had become historically preposterous, and thus the writing and plotting got pretty bad.) My question is why is showing real connection between two people sexually, why is showing that love-lust connection as dreamy, and that it helps bond people, people who are expecting to spend the rest of their lives together and look forward to that, who are also engaged in a mutual quest to 'save the world' -- why is that wrong -- and considered pornography? It's not a the love-lust so much as the characters that generate the love-lust connection. The male subject of Outlander is an unrealistic female fantasy (at least from what I've seen; from what I've heard, the show is fairly faithful to the novels and if the novels are anything like the show, having to read through millions of words of that ridiculous nonsense would make me want to opt for defenestration from a high building to end the agony). You have your incredibly fit and gorgeous male, who is utterly devoted to the female, has the bad boy qualities but is sensitive and caring to the female, is a prime warrior but sentimental to his woman's needs, doesn't stray, is always there to rescue her from raping, is virginal and receptive to guidance but powerfully commanding, absolutely respects his partner as an equal (in 18th century Scotland), he could have any woman he wants but chooses the protagonist of course - essentially the guy every woman says they want. And sentimental sex is profoundly boring. You can have it all the time in real life, so I don't see what's great or thought provoking about seeing it between a caricature male and a "rah-rah, I'm a powerful female so men will respect me in 18th century Scotland" Mary Sue, who, if we are being realistic, with her attitude wouldn't have been almost raped, as she so often is, but actually raped and probably put to death or severely beaten. For myself, I don't need to experience love and sex through a proxy source. I kind find it on my own. So a fantasy romance does nothing for me. What I do appreciate is a twist on your typical love story, and GoT has that in spades. It's all betrayal and crushed desire and aberrational dynamics - I find that it's at least interesting, and not banal like in Outlander. And my definition of pornography is material that is employed with the explicit and singular intention to arouse. That's the relationship in Outlander to a T. Of course, the means of arousal is building the chemistry between the female protagonist and the female fantasy male, and so it's not as direct as just going straight to the sweaty sex, but that is the ultimate intention. With GoT, the sex is also meant for titillation, but that's not the primary purpose, that's almost a by-product. GoT is about the misery of the world and what people in their quest for power and domination, and those who resist them, are willing to do. And everything is caught in that vortex, including love. Quote Why is having a world in which there is no tenderness, love and joy to be found profoundly over a period of years and instead only humiliation, torture and cruelty not porn and totally considered reality? Because, you know if you know anything about the Middle Ages, that didn't hold true for a whole lot of people of whatever class. Well, unfortunately, there is tenderness and love in GoT. Jon and Ygritte, for one. Robb and Talisa for another. It fortunately not a focal point. But no one is making the argument that there was no happiness or tenderness in the Middle Ages. That's simply not the focus of GoT, and it's not like a necessary component of validating a show's worthiness is showing that people can be happy. Maybe the happiness occurs offscreen. But seeing people be happy and love-struck certainly isn't why I watch GoT, nor would I care to see that content in GoT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 12 hours ago, Humble AK said: I think GoT wants to have its cake and eat it too. The nudity is often designed to titillate, but often the context is intended to deconstruct the notion of sexism (for instance Craster's Keep was supposed to be "shocking", but at the same time it was an honest exploration of the situation, where you have a bunch of criminals who have control over a vulnerable female population, and so what you would expect would happen, happened). Because we are in a transitional period, a period where society is trying to find a gender equilibrium after such a long time of imbalance, I think there are a lot of cases where reverse sexism is pretty common as people overcompensate against the traditional sexism by participating in sexist behavior (that is, the objectification of males is less of a concern right now). So Outlander can and does engage in objectification of males without even bothering to have any substance or point beyond the immediate gratification the audiences derives from the objectification. GoT is not trying to create a sex fantasy that gets women all turned on from how totally romantic and just so, like, dreeeeamy it is. Westeros is a cruel world, and the focus is on the cruelty and imbalance of the world. Outlander is about giving women a sex fantasy and it totally is written in that fashion. When GoT uses sex, it's more about the shock value than the actual sex, which may or may not (depending on your point of view) contribute to the overall deconstruction of ideas it is attempting. To sum up, GoT uses sex for shock and to argue an idea; Outlander uses sex as a fantasy to arouse, essentially as porn for women. For myself, I'm fine with sex being used for shock value (though I find none of it shocking) and for exploring ideas. I do hate the Twilight/Outlander/50 Shades kind of porn, though if other people like it, more power to them. I agree with this. I do think GoT often uses nudity in a way which is designed to excite. I won't argue against that. There are numerous examples of it and sometimes its pretty cringey. However while that nudity is often female nudity, its also male nudity as well. I understand that a topless male and a topless female is a different thing, because you know, women have breasts.. but at the same time neither gender can show their genitalia on screen. So really a topless male IS the equivelent of a topless female, until we are all happy to see an aroused member on screen. My point is that Outlander isn't above this, it uses male nudity to excite, it glorifies in showing off Jamies fit young bod. Also, has been mentioned above it uses the standard chic lit trope of creating a damaged but beautiful young stud who is for no real reason is devoted to the main heroine of the story. I personally find that pretty offensive, in the way that others might find big boobed warriors in street fighter offensive. Outlander might not be outright pornographic, but it is certainly designed to tap into female fantasies and sexual urges. Its also not really the point to compare the sex in Outlander and GoT, because Outlander is a relationship drama, its about romance. Its whole story is based around the sexual and romantic relationships between characters. Thats not the case in GoT, there isn't enough time to devote to that subject and I'm not sure I'd want more time devoted to it, it being the least interesting part of the series so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 12 hours ago, Humble AK said: Because we are in a transitional period, a period where society is trying to find a gender equilibrium after such a long time of imbalance, I think there are a lot of cases where reverse sexism is pretty common as people overcompensate against the traditional sexism by participating in sexist behavior (that is, the objectification of males is less of a concern right now). So Outlander can and does engage in objectification of males without even bothering to have any substance or point beyond the immediate gratification the audiences derives from the objectification. GoT is not trying to create a sex fantasy that gets women all turned on from how totally romantic and just so, like, dreeeeamy it is. Westeros is a cruel world, and the focus is on the cruelty and imbalance of the world. Outlander is about giving women a sex fantasy and it totally is written in that fashion. When GoT uses sex, it's more about the shock value than the actual sex, which may or may not (depending on your point of view) contribute to the overall deconstruction of ideas it is attempting. To sum up, GoT uses sex for shock and to argue an idea; Outlander uses sex as a fantasy to arouse, essentially as porn for women. For myself, I'm fine with sex being used for shock value (though I find none of it shocking) and for exploring ideas. I do hate the Twilight/Outlander/50 Shades kind of porn, though if other people like it, more power to them. Completely agree with this post. I would add that I would find the suggestions that it's worse in GoT absolutely hilarious and hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippocras Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 On March 31, 2016 at 0:59 PM, Veltigar said: I do have to point out that the way things are shot also features into this. GoT's shots of boobs and sex come of as icky and exploitative pretty much the entire time (which, if that was the intent is fine, but GoT throws boobs in there to tiitillate and fill a quota). With Outlander that is much less of an issue imo. The way things are shot when? In what situation being depicted? I thoroughly disagree, because while this is somewhat true in scenes inside brothels, THAT'S THE POINT. It is supposed to be sleezy and exploitative, titliating and yet somehow sad because that is what brothels are. The argument that brothels should somehow be shot it a way that shies around this issue is ludicrous. As is the argument that having brothel scenes at all makes GoT uniquely sexist...because the main thing GoT does differently with brothels than other shows is to make us actually (somewhat luridly and uncomfortably) feel like we are actually in them, and simultaneously makes the prostitues actual characters. A review of non-brothel scenes of female nudity reveals a series of very complex scenes that were generally important to charcters' stories and that were not titliating in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channel4s-JonSnow Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, Hippocras said: The way things are shot when? In what situation being depicted? I thoroughly disagree, because while this is somewhat true in scenes inside brothels, THAT'S THE POINT. It is supposed to be sleezy and exploitative, titliating and yet somehow sad because that is what brothels are. The argument that brothels should somehow be shot it a way that shies around this issue is ludicrous. As is the argument that having brothel scenes at all makes GoT uniquely sexist...because the main thing GoT does differently with brothels than other shows is to make us actually (somewhat luridly and uncomfortably) feel like we are actually in them, and simultaneously makes the prostitues actual characters. A review of non-brothel scenes of female nudity reveals a series of very complex scenes that were generally important to charcters' stories and that were not titliating in the slightest. Good point. Someone on the GoT board once complained that there were naked women but not naked men in the Brothel scenes.. but thats not how brothels work. Seems like a case of searching for things to fit your argument and then getting offended by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolorous Gabe Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 15 hours ago, Humble AK said: I think GoT wants to have its cake and eat it too. The nudity is often designed to titillate, but often the context is intended to deconstruct the notion of sexism (for instance Craster's Keep was supposed to be "shocking", but at the same time it was an honest exploration of the situation, where you have a bunch of criminals who have control over a vulnerable female population, and so what you would expect would happen, happened). Because we are in a transitional period, a period where society is trying to find a gender equilibrium after such a long time of imbalance, I think there are a lot of cases where reverse sexism is pretty common as people overcompensate against the traditional sexism by participating in sexist behavior (that is, the objectification of males is less of a concern right now). So Outlander can and does engage in objectification of males without even bothering to have any substance or point beyond the immediate gratification the audiences derives from the objectification. GoT is not trying to create a sex fantasy that gets women all turned on from how totally romantic and just so, like, dreeeeamy it is. Westeros is a cruel world, and the focus is on the cruelty and imbalance of the world. Outlander is about giving women a sex fantasy and it totally is written in that fashion. When GoT uses sex, it's more about the shock value than the actual sex, which may or may not (depending on your point of view) contribute to the overall deconstruction of ideas it is attempting. To sum up, GoT uses sex for shock and to argue an idea; Outlander uses sex as a fantasy to arouse, essentially as porn for women. For myself, I'm fine with sex being used for shock value (though I find none of it shocking) and for exploring ideas. I do hate the Twilight/Outlander/50 Shades kind of porn, though if other people like it, more power to them. GoT doesn't deconstruct anything (other than ASOIAF). Any exploration of ideas comes by accident through adaptation of the source material. Themes are for 8th grade book reports according to David Benioff. Sex Fantasy may not necessarily be a primary goal of GoT, but you simply cannot deny that there is a considerable element of appealing to men's sexual desires. Otherwise, why is there an executive on set with the specific goal on set of pushing the director towards increasing the amount of female nudity in the scene? GoT often uses female nudity as window dressing designed to serve a male faction of the audience. And regarding brothel scenes, presenting this male-dominated world with prostitution as a fundamental normality and depicting pretty much ALL prostitutes in such a sexually titillating way is testament to the fact that the show runners don't care about internal critique of inherent sexism of the world they are depicting. This simply isn't how you explore ideas. GoT has become a product rather than a story. Outlander is a romance fantasy whose primary protagonist is female and as such sex and the objectification of the male love interest would be a natural part of it. GoT has no primary protagonist and should be presented in a more balanced way than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.