# Has the media successfully encouraged millennial women to want toxic relationships?



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

i think one of the most interesting distortions is not directly about gender roles, but it's this: the idea that _any time_ a woman and man interact with each other, there is or is going to be 'something' that comes from it.

i mean, it makes sense in a way. stories don't get told about completely mundane interactions. but on the other hand, movies are particularly notorious for the mindset of 'you only need one woman in any movie; aka the love interest.' the sub-logic to men is that if a woman isn't there to fulfill that role then there's no need and no place for her. and the sublogic to woman is that any time you are in any scenario, at least one layer of the the scenario is going to revolve around you because that's who/what you are within it.

i felt monumentally relieved in my later 20's when it finally dawned on me that this fallacy just isn't true. 99.99% of all the men/women (pick whichever) you interact with are just people. and you're just people to them as well. 

i do feel like modern generations have come a long way in that respect, compared with the more segregated and loaded atmospheres i grew up in, that made the second wave of feminism so relevant. but i'm not really convinced that the fiction is following that kind of truth. you still get this sense of very careful calibration within the demographics of any fictional group. 

somewhat-relevant side note: i am only _very_ recently noticing racial mixing in advertising. mention it becuase imo advertising is immensely influential as well (it's also all micro-fiction, if you stop to think about it). 

i may not have grown up around tv or ever had it inside my own home, but i notice the things i do notice all the more clearly for not being immersed. and that's one of the more remarkable things. i mean, i'd say it's only been within the past five years at most. still not seeing any same-sex presentations except in extremely outlier moments.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

dulcinea said:


> There are many memes about the Disney movies we grew up with. How Ariel wants to run off with a man she just met, how Belle has Stockholm syndrome, and how Jasmine, ends up with a man who lied to her about his status. But, at some level, I'd think we can understand these are fantasy stories and are not necessarily meant to be a reflection of reality. I don't know too many young women who modeled their relationships after the Disney princess model. On the other hand, they are based in enduring archetypes that has been an appealing basis for stories to women for generations.
> 
> Then you get to the literature that came out when many people were teens: Twilight, then later on, 50 shades of gray. These are just the really famous examples, but I imagine there's a whole subgenre of novels like this. I mean the kind of male romantic figure being presented is nothing new, and goes all the way back to the 19th century, being dubbed as the "Byronic hero": moody, mysterious, super rich and/or powerful, and full of angst. This is an old trope. In high school, I read Jane Eyre, and I love it, but if I were to describe Jane Eyre it would be that a naive young woman false in love with a much older man who locked his wife in the attic for years. Seems a bit creepy, if you were to stop and really think about it. I don't think too many women would specifically seek that kind of relationship, but what of the dynamic between Jane and Rochester, the dialogue, the presentation of Rochester of a rather dark and brooding man who is transformed by love?
> 
> ...







As a matter of curiosity how do you think them all being princesses factors into it?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Ronney said:


> I couldn't be bothered writing a novel.
> 
> I'll continue... The young woman strips naked to bathe in the river. She turns and sees the fit wild man collapse from dehydration. The head of the evil tyrant rolls out of his grasp.


If I wrote myself into the story, I'd be her friend and tell her this isn't the time or the place to be stripping. If you're really set on stripping in front of strange men, at least demand that they pay first! I seriously doubt dude-with-the-severed-head can afford to pay her. Dude is violent and no context who the dead guy is. Wasn't there a less violent way to deal with the dead guy? I'm not overly fond of wild, violent men holding severed heads. Evil tyrant or not, wild man looks like a psycho.


----------



## 76170 (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## attic (May 20, 2012)

I don't think it is specific to the millennial generations, I actually think it was worse before in many ways, but it is still relevant for sure. 

I think it is important that fiction is allowed to tell those kinds of stories too, of unwise love for example. But the problem is when it is for young children I think, that can't put things in context, hasn't got a clear distinction of the world of fairytales and reality, history and current times etc. Can't reflect as much on their own. The stories teach them about the world, it will be part of the base of their worldviews, so for young children I think most stories ought to be representing things well. There can be a few old stories thrown in, but it doesn't seem like a good thing if they dominate.

Disney is usually based on old legends and folklore. So those stories were told to the earlier generations too, sometimes for centuries I think. Folklore seems to often tell something that is inherent in humans, and that is why the stories stick, and get retold from generation to generation and spread across the world. I wonder if not the Beauty and the Beast-story (which is such a common story, existing in so many shapes), is based on something instinctual, and something about how societies are shaped perhaps too... It doesn't mean it is a wise relationship, but perhaps there is some reason people are drawn too it. It could be just manipulative stories, to convince girls to agree to be married off to abusive oafs, for the benefit of the men. But there seems to also be a part of the story that is about... how it affects all the people in the village/tribe, in a society that is small, isolated, perhaps the option of leaving the "monster" be is not a good option, perhaps it will turn on the group (outcasts starting to terrorise the village?), and the servants in beauty and the beast are captive, and except killing the beast, the way to make their lives better, is to calm him down, make him kinder. Perhaps in those times, it wasn't so unwise? in the larger picture, even if the Beauty was more of a sacrifice, than a cinderella-story.

Either way, I think that even if there is some way to go, stories have become a bit better. A long time ago, in school, I did an essay comparing folklore from around 100 years ago to more current, and the current versions were less violent, less morbidly vengeful (in some cinderella stories I think the sisters are punished by their eyes being picked out by birds and the stephmother is tortured and burnt at the stake), the protagonists are a bit less passive, and some changes had to do with the parents, especially fathers, and their involvement, because why doesn't Cinderellas father do something for example? why is all the blame on the stepmother?


----------



## Vikka (Jun 21, 2015)

Toxic relationships, no relationships, whatever they feel like pushing for that day.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

Convallaria Majalis said:


> Maybe I am missing something but what is the logic behind your reasoning, should we all follow a single higher-being? Collective consciousness is enough of an answer, although I am fortunate enough to have some friends who do not want to be manipulated by what they are taught and want to make their own choices. I want equality and freedom of paths for all, and I think stereotypes are deeply hurtful to individuals' potential and well-being. That is enough for me to want a change.


I mean I am a believer of Christ. I’ve sacrificed many things for Him. I love my God.

But don’t expect to ever find any god or love within a device. My God works through people, not machine.

If you have any true friends, just keep them alive. Love them like you love yourself. Sacrifice for them every now and then. Sometimes all you can do for someone you love is listen or be there in person.

Actions speak louder than words. People say a lot of things and much of it changes nothing. Many even go so far as to take action, but just once or for a little while.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

JennahHaeley said:


> Im hyper happy you chose independently. The question is, how did you bypass the social programming? )))))))
> 
> And another q would be, if you can access reason, which you obviously do, how are you considering altruism as a next stepping stone. No need to publicly resp here. Just more like for you to connect with it yourself.


I think for me, it was because I was exploited by men who didn't respect my boundaries, and learning to have religious and spiritual values helped, because it gave me a compass to understand what direction to head in. When I met a person who shared my values and respected me and treated me with kindness, I knew this was the kind of person I needed to be with.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Conniptions said:


> Yea let's just blame it on media, government, men, anybody but yourself. Never let self-responsibility reign. Gucci strategy ngl. Makes everything too easy. Never take responsibility until we've achieved a perfect world where we will have no responsibilities. Best idea bro. I'm gonna live by it from now on. Brb gonna go rape a dog or something and then blame it on toxic masculinity drilled into me by my parents or summat.


This is a good point. There is a lot of people not assuming real responsibility for themselves and their communities and thus it is easy to pass much of the blame on the media, and I think the causation may be the lack of responsibility, leading to greater government regulation, leading to less responsible media portrayals, because ultimately these things are more a reflection of than an influence to society, perhaps.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

i'm going to challenge the 'it's all in the upbringing' concept as well. first, because i've been a parent. and second because i've been two people's kid  . not one of us would be happy to be dismissed as nothing more than whatever our parents taught us to be, so it often puzzles me that we still reach so readily for that explanation when it's about diagnosing what's wrong with the lives of everyone else. 

what i want to point out is that naivete and gullibility come from somewhere. and one of the places i have observed it coming from in myself is a 'good' upbringing that left me with _no concept _of how certain people behave. i've got my full share of gripes about what my parents exposed me to and didn't expose me to and/or modelled at me as normal, but being talked down to or treated as stupid because of my gender (for instance) was never one of those things. when i embarked on my adult life it took me a good decade before it even dawned on me that this was actually happening in the 'real' world. 

so you can emerge from exactly the kind of upbringing the people are prescribing here, with the psychological equivalent of 'no natural predators'. or maybe 'no acquired immunity' would be a better analogy. i don't think any of this is susceptible to simple silver-bullet solutions, myself.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

dulcinea said:


> This is a good point. There is a lot of people not assuming real responsibility for themselves and their communities and thus it is easy to pass much of the blame on the media,


i don't see this thread as being about blame. deconstruction is a solid and viable pathway to growth. awareness is not automatically blame. 

you have to name stuff before you can deal with it. i like threads and topics like this becuase i think naming is important. and it's very encouraging to see it's still seen to be so, in [yet another] era of 'oh we don't need feminism or gender studies or that shit no more'.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

lilysocks said:


> i don't see this thread as being about blame. deconstruction is a solid and viable pathway to growth. awareness is not automatically blame.
> 
> you have to name stuff before you can deal with it. i like threads and topics like this becuase i think naming is important. and it's very encouraging to see it's still seen to be so, in [yet another] era of 'oh we don't need feminism or gender studies or that shit no more'.


I can see both sides tbh.
I can see the aspect where there can be some culpability on media influence, but I can see the aspect of culpability being on individuals needing to be more responsible. I do think maybe people are more influenced by the media if their parents didn't bother to teach them anything. You have to learn somewhere, so I think the lack of responsibility in lack of good parenting can be a cause. Like you stated, not necessarily an excuse, because some people can indeed overcome bad parenting, but people find guidance wherever they can, and if they're only source of guidance is the film industry, I suppose that's what some people will follow until they find a better source of guidance, if they're willing to follow a better source.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

dulcinea said:


> I can see both sides tbh.
> I can see the aspect where there can be some culpability on media influence, but I can see the aspect of culpability being on individuals needing to be more responsible. I do think maybe people are more influenced by the media if their parents didn't bother to teach them anything. You have to learn somewhere, so I think the lack of responsibility in lack of good parenting can be a cause. Like you stated, not necessarily an excuse, because some people can indeed overcome bad parenting, but people find guidance wherever they can, and if they're only source of guidance is the film industry, I suppose that's what some people will follow until they find a better source of guidance, if they're willing to follow a better source.


I suppose you believe people aren’t so easily manipulated or deceived. At least less so than I do.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Ronney said:


> Lets try something here.
> 
> He stands half naked and on the desert plain. Holding the severed head of an enemy in his left hand. A sword in the right. His body glistening with blood and sweat of battle. He sees a young woman dressed in a white flowing gown in the the distance.
> 
> Do you picture the scene and write your self in it ?


I'm not really sure how your theory works out here with this.

When I read this I pictured the scene from the perspective of the man, because to me it sounds like it's written from his perspective.

It says "he sees a young woman" blah blah blah--it's not the young woman sees him. If it was written from the woman's perspective then I would probably view the scene from her perspective.

I think it's more common for women to be able to view narratives from the perspective of men, because default over history is that it's been written in the perspective of men. So it's easy to do. Whereas it's probably a little more challenging for men to view narratives through the perspective of women, and there are also less deep, well rounded depictions of female character to choose from since history has been kind of limited with that.

But I don't view myself as some kind of "savage" and that is why I view it through the perspective of the man--I think it's just from the mechanics of how you wrote it where it places the narrator closer to the man's perspective than the woman's.

Ths is a little off topic, though it could relate to the topic of how women and men are portrayed.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

lilysocks said:


> i'm going to challenge the 'it's all in the upbringing' concept as well. first, because i've been a parent. and second because i've been two people's kid  . not one of us would be happy to be dismissed as nothing more than whatever our parents taught us to be, so it often puzzles me that we still reach so readily for that explanation when it's about diagnosing what's wrong with the lives of everyone else.
> 
> what i want to point out is that naivete and gullibility come from somewhere. and one of the places i have observed it coming from in myself is a 'good' upbringing that left me with _no concept _of how certain people behave. i've got my full share of gripes about what my parents exposed me to and didn't expose me to and/or modelled at me as normal, but being talked down to or treated as stupid because of my gender (for instance) was never one of those things. when i embarked on my adult life it took me a good decade before it even dawned on me that this was actually happening in the 'real' world.
> 
> so you can emerge from exactly the kind of upbringing the people are prescribing here, with the psychological equivalent of 'no natural predators'. or maybe 'no acquired immunity' would be a better analogy. i don't think any of this is susceptible to simple silver-bullet solutions, myself.


I think I had a good upbringing. My mother left a strong career as a lawyer to raise me and put as much effort into me as she had put into her career. I'd say my parents tried to make sure I was well rounded. I was home-schooled and had a tight knit grip of friends. I was sheltered because my parents didn't allow people to mistreat me but they let me see and interact with the real world. 

Of course, there were failures too. My mother's overprotective and a Type A personality. She can be too much at times, but I'm grateful and don't have anything real to complain about. During my teens me and friends decided we wanted to go to high school. We didn't see anything that surprised us there out of peoples behavior. Same for college. People were same as the people we saw walking around our city. 

To me, a 'good' upbringing is preparing kids to succeed in the real world. Is it a good upbringing if you weren't ready for what people are really like?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Ronney said:


> I couldn't be bothered writing a novel.
> 
> I'll continue... The young woman strips naked to bathe in the river. She turns and sees the fit wild man collapse from dehydration. The head of the evil tyrant rolls out of his grasp.


Now your point of view is closer to the woman's imo. Except how would the woman know that this is the "head of the evil tyrant"? Does she know the tyrant and is that her opinion?

I don't particularly identify with either one of them though to me the woman seems especially unrealistic (why is she dressed in white? That stains so easy and why is she bathing in a river if she's wearing white? I mean...if she was on the road like the man she would probably be dirty--he's the dirty one and yet she's the one bathing in the river etc.)

I get maybe she has supernatural abilities like she has some kind of fairy dress on that never gets dirty and so it can be white.

Women throughout history have been held to a higher standard (of purity and morality) than men, in literature, so I don't disagree with you about the archetypes, but in your particular story I probably identify with the man more since he seems a little bit more realistic.

Edit: I don't want to discourage you from your story just because the POV seems a little confusing though.

Maybe it is drawing upon archetypes.

And really--why should the woman bath herself after the man dirties himself with blood and violence? And yet that's exactly what has been expected of women in some Christian mythology I think.

It's how they justified holding women to higher standards then men--a man can whore around while a woman must be a virgin. A man can have ugly sins in his past and still be redeemable while a woman who so much as slept with someone is condemned and falls from grace.

The man, covered in blood, will be cleansed by the woman. He can be cleaned. The woman however, were she to get even a drop of red (from her period or God forbid, losing her virginity) on her "white dress" she would forever be stained and become the scape goat.

Because the woman is expected to save the man in your story. She will be the vessel through which he finds his redemption. Her purity will somehow absolve him from his sins.

It's all really kind of weird--but with archetypes there are so many levels. This is just one way to read the little bit of your story. There are a lot of different ways to see it.

But the man is allowed to be more human--that's the reality. The woman is elevated to this unrealistic status who can easily be knocked from her pedestal for the slightest imperfection. So it's still easier for me to relate to the man more in the small amount of story you wrote, because the man is more human and dynamic. He can get dirty and then become clean. He can collapse in weakness but still be strong when he emerges again. The journey is about him, his accomplishments, his challenges etc. So he is probably more relatable to me.


----------



## BlueViolet (Dec 14, 2019)

Ronney said:


> Do you picture the scene and write your self in it ?


Yes. I am the severed head.
But, wait, I regenerate a body, and then I cut the woman and the man in half, reconnect them with exchanged half-bodies and laugh my a** off.


----------



## JennahHaeley/Sanstread (Jul 25, 2020)

dulcinea said:


> I think for me, it was because I was exploited by men who didn't respect my boundaries, and learning to have religious and spiritual values helped, because it gave me a compass to understand what direction to head in. When I met a person who shared my values and respected me and treated me with kindness, I knew this was the kind of person I needed to be with.


Yeah. That is happening a great deal, the exploitation of hopefullness. But what happened with you is you learned from it. My issue with a lot of women is that they dont want to admit their selection process is just plain wrong leading inevitablely to repeated mistakes. Its like they literally cant see its their own choices of preferences that is destroying their own chance to be happy. Its a nightmare to witness. The sufferance levels of a woman being under this sadistic master slave ownership thing trying endlessly to change the narcissistic psychopath is just like as if was the meaning of their damn lives. Theres nothing other than that to them, which already a very deeply rooted tilt which Im not entirely sure is just social programming but more so either an extreme talent from the behalf of the exploitators (not to say predators) or just somesort of plain genetical tweak asking for that type of life - as stating it just as a life experience to me would mean too little in comparison to how intensely their are seeking to prove themselves psychopathy, or the milder, yet nowhere near healthy, narcissism is to be changed, because after all, they pretty and disney says thats more than enough to do the trick. So again, to me, your case is interesting, because you learn. The q is, how did that click in for you. What is about you that they cant access, that made you chose religious values? What cured you, as it obviously did happen to you too. Just fascinating.

But yes. That compass is the salvation. In every single way one can be saved. As it is well intentioned. Im so happy its working out for you, you have no clue. The calmness youre radiating based on the outcome of those choices, (Llyralen and few others too) is precisely why Im promoting getting rid of cog disso and choosing actively having couple resonance about those values and the ultimate goal in life to be set as a spiritual one, never a wordly one to begin with. But so few listen, without psychological manipulation and covert tactics of communication. Just far too few, if you wanna believe me. And so that made me thrilled that you could and would succeed. So thats where all this curiosity arose from. 

Sure. Kindness is the new cool. It was always cool, just that disney bs inversed those value system. But some have the strenght to think with their independend minds then I guess. OR are having some SERIOUS upstairs help because of humbleness.

As the last word of that phrase is the ultimate winner to everything of absolute value. While the rest, wordly success just kinda add to it, dont they.

Youre making me happier than I already am. Great feeling gettin to know you.


----------



## JennahHaeley/Sanstread (Jul 25, 2020)

Im loving Ronneys imagination games. Its a really suttle way to seduce for sexual exploitation purposes. Works every time.

Oh and how intratopic it actually is. As indeed the media is doing exactly what psychopathy is doing, after all, its ctrl by them.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

Roslyn said:


> To me, a 'good' upbringing is preparing kids to succeed in the real world. Is it a good upbringing if you weren't ready for what people are really like?


the scope of my comment was specifically directed at the 'toxic parents raise kids who think toxic is normal' truism, which i have caveats and reservations about. so this is a much wider scope. i don't want to be unkind or confrontational but your remark rings a little bit smug to my ears. 

it's putting far more than is realistic on parents, to expect them to not only import and model the full scope of human nature into their kids' lives, but to also anticipate how different the world is going to be by the time those kids have grown up. 

that's where and why things outside the parental influence ought to come in. and that's why this topic is relevant. because no parents are or should be expected to be their kids' entire source of information on life. it is NOT just the parents who teach children things. if it really did happen, i think most of us would recognise that as a profoundly unhealthy situation and possibly consider it to be a form of abuse. 

having been a kid and brought up a kid, it astonishes me to hear so many people apparently think you can just tell kids what to think. idk; maybe my personal gene pool is just peculiar, but that sure as hell isn't what happened in ours.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

lilysocks said:


> i don't think i ever had to deal with such an overtly commercial confrontation myself. my experience has been more one of men trying to impose some more emotional form of transaction on me, which tends to be far less direct. but i have dealt with a whole lot of that, and i really relate to/agree with this statement from you.
> 
> i was thinking about this whole discussion today because i spent most of the afternoon futzing around with my car. it's parked on a public street and you have to disengage the entire front bumper to get at the back of the headlight assembly to switch out the bulbs. so, i mean, kind of obvious that i wasn't just dusting or vaccuming it.
> 
> ...


I think I see a similarity.

I felt angry that my value or worth wasn't being acknowledged--my abilities were being reduced to "sexual object" I guess.

And in your examples, though it wasn't really about a monetary transaction (being paid for labor), it was about men's perception of you.

Like they looked at you and assumed you couldn't drive or couldn't do the thing with the car. And then perhaps if you had accepted their help it might have felt like you were somehow agreeing with their warped perspective of you.

Similar to how if I agreed to receive money to sit there with my clothes on (for sexual gratification) that I would have somehow confirmed, at least in his mind, that I was a prostitute.

And then there's the reality that sometimes there are transactions that are hidden--like with the yacht guy I did agree to consider cleaning the barnacles off his boat but I didn't know he secretly had actually wanted to solicit for prostitution. It also happens that some men have these "unspoken" rules they believe are clear--like if they buy you dinner they get X in return. Or if they help you with your license then they get your friendship and trust (and perhaps more access to you than other men would). So there's always, especially in the past more, been this shadow over male/female communications and interactions, where a woman has to worry that she's agreeing to something she doesn't actually agree to by doing something (even wearing certain clothes etc.)

But I wonder if it was about affirming the view of the man--like the yacht man's view of me was a sexual object and a prostitute, I assume. Something I didn't identify with. The other men's view of you may be like you are a dumb little lady who can't drive or helpless with mechanics, which perhaps you felt like you'd somehow "confirm" in their minds if you were to accept help, because then they could write you off as that and walk away thinking themselves right about you.

I don't know if yacht man remembered me (he's probably dead now--he was already kind of old when I was a teen), but if I had agreed he might have walked away thinking "I just paid a prostitute for her time," whereas without agreeing he may have had to think of some other category to fit me into (failed prostitute? idk). But just that small victory of not "confirming" the other person's assumptions and views about who you are and who you must be. With yacht guy, some part of him might have even filled in other blanks like "oh she must secretly be attracted to me that she let me pull out my weiner" etc. So just nipping it in the bud and being like "no" can feel very powerful and avoid that slippery slope into other people deciding they know you better than you know yourself and they can categorize and identify you better.

Even though it wasn't my responsibility or yours, there is a slippery slope where once a man "confirms" his weird views of you, maybe he will continue to have confidence in them and not care to listen otherwise. So it can go from "oh I was right, she let me teach her to drive" to "I bet I'm right that she must be interested in me and she is probably looking for a husband like me." Or something--or just "oh I was right, women can't drive on their own without a man."


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@WickerDeer My INFP sister was also homeless for a time and she also stayed out of sex work even if it might have made things easier money-wise... but I think that strong Fi is the least likely type to sell out or do something inauthentic. You’d feel like you lost your soul in many ways. 

Didn’t Marilyn Monroe say something like “Hollywood is a place that will pay you 1,000 dollars for a kiss and 50 cents for your soul.”

@Six. I absolutely understand and appreciate the exact way that @WickerDeer behaved and thinks. She sees it exactly the way I do and she kept her soul intact. I am not sure how to explain to you the importance of her being able to say “no” for her own sense of autonomy, but I think it was very important. I sense the intense need and danger there. That otherwise you’d feel violated and that you allowed violation. And she is right... this man was asking her to be consensual in some way, so it wouldn’t have been authentic to her— it wasn’t what she wanted at all. For him I’m sure he got off on violating someone’s autonomy and there being some neediness/power dynamics there. I do not have compassion for men who take advantage of their power, wealth, or position. I have disgust for that.

There is nothing to “sort out”. Wickerdeer bravely got through this one due to her own sense of being true to herself. And I don’t know if you would think that then she would be taking advantage of him as well or something— that is NOT what she wanted either. It wouldn’t cancel anything out— again I’m not sure what you’re thinking, but there’s definitely nothing to explain here for Wickerdeer— she sees herself and others clearly and without undue judgement. It would not be “winning” for her/us or “okay” for her/us. But if you want to understand that Fi “To thine own self be true.” It is right there. 

And someone’s perverted and insecure fantasies and lack of compassion and lack of being able to put themselves into other people’s’ shoes and unable to help the world around them will be a mystery to people who do see people’s circumstances and think of things to help the people around them... and it would remain a mystery even if broken down. Because even if being compassionate is inconvenient and comes at personal cost whose who are compassionate and do things for others at personal cost and also those who have benefited from others doing this see so much value in it that it is almost impossible to understand someone not valuing it. Anyway, this is a long enough ramble. This subject is interesting, I will get back to the OP.


----------



## lilysocks (Nov 7, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> And in your examples, though it wasn't really about a monetary transaction (being paid for labor), it was about men's perception of you.


if i say 'it was about men using me/my situation and their perceptions of both to get off on themselves", then it minimizes you. but i did detect pure psychological masturbation in it [I Am Studly. And I Will Be Looked Up To For It] and that's why it wasn't okay.



> Like they looked at you and assumed you couldn't drive


i couldn't  i didn't mean to give the impression the offers just came out of total nowhere; i got myself a driver's license when i had the means and a reason for it and could learn to do it on terms i was happy about. i was a very single single parent and very conservative about over-extending myself, so that turned out to be somewhere early in my 30's.

what i meant by 'random' was that these offers would come from people i barely knew and who barely knew me. random male friends of some friend. male classmates in school. male parents of other kids at my son's daycares. and so forth. men who were not interested in me - i could see that even if they couldn't. they simply saw me as 'disadvantaged' and took it for granted that 'disadvantage' created an opening in which they could pick up a nice virtue-flavoured little power trip for themselves.

what they _assumed_ was that they had knowledge [true] that i wanted [not true] and that i would be admiring and grateful to have it bestowed on me by them. what i was actually thinking was various forms of 'fuck no'.

or couldn't do the thing with the car.


> And then perhaps if you had accepted their help it might have felt like you were somehow agreeing with their warped perspective of you.


well, that just annoyed the pure out of me without my feeling the slightest bit of desire that they would know me better than that. i just found them presumptuous and offensive. but what i would also have been agreeing with - and wouldn't - was their equally-warped perspective of their own selves. I Am Studly etcetera. and i wouldn't do it because i didn't think they were Studly at all.



> So there's always, especially in the past more, been this shadow over male/female communications and interactions,


bingo. and this goes to that comment i made earlier, about the conditioning that says if there's a woman (of the correct age and dimensions etc) in the frame, then she's an object of _something_ on the part of the male. there is absolutely no reason whatever, at any time, why any guy would assume the having or not-having of a driver's licence by another human who is a total stranger . . . is any business of his. and it isn't. imo that is borne out just by the fact that they don't learn a random fellow-guy has no licence and offer to teach him to drive. they don't stop to try help a woman who's 55 change her headlights (thank fuck). there just isn't a reason, objectively. and yet i saw it constantly as a single mother; men's minds reflexively seeing 'possibilities' just in the parameters, regardless of the individual 'self' of each person involved.



> The other men's view of you may be like you are a dumb little lady who can't drive or helpless with mechanics, which perhaps you felt like you'd somehow "confirm" in their minds if you were to accept help, because then they could write you off as that and walk away thinking themselves right about you.


i'm not sure either  I just got pissed off.



> there is a slippery slope where once a man "confirms" his weird views of you, maybe he will continue to have confidence in them and not care to listen otherwise.


and then, ime, often takes minimal responsibility for his own part in that slope when the reality hits. at a certain point in my life i got fucking sick of hearing men gripe about how their partners were 'not who i thought she was' as if they had had nothing to do with creating and even imposing whatever delusional bubble had turned out not to be true.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Okay so Disney, fairytales, the Twilight Saga. I think that modern media does just as big of a disservice to young men and the wool is thrown over their eyes much easier. What I mean is— understanding and building skills that make an intimate relationship work are not really being taught to men in the media, but the importance of sex and sex appeal is being taught constantly. It’s actually what is used to sell lots of products.

In the past Fairytales were often used to inform girls about what life was going to be like. That had little choice about who they would get to marry. I read a lecture once about how the fairy tale “Donkey Skin” taught girls that it was okay to run away from incest and that incest was wrong not right. The story is about a king who vows not to remarry until he finds a woman as beautiful as his first wife. He becomes obsessed with his own daughter. 

Beauty and the Beast is supposed to teach the moral of looking for the good in people— I think this was probably an important lesson in times when young women had almost no choice about who they married. Sometimes there are choices between despair and bitterness and surviving tolerably. Stockholm syndrome or having no power and choice at all. Life has not been easy in the past for most women. Although looking the other way while a husband is violent or abusive of one’s children is unforgivable to me at this time period now, and it’s not like I don’t see that happening. I told my husband that the 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 who is molested, it is usually their family members and since people tell me stuff, I believe this is the exact proportion of women who are abused. My husband said “People tell you this? “. I said “Yes! And usually it’s dads and brothers and grandfathers.” So yes. And women in those family cycles often turn a blind eye or think they are the only ones in their family when of course they are not and so... any woman reading this who needs to hear it...please wake up about what is happening, go to a women’s shelter and protect your kids. Don’t say “This is just how men are.” Most of them aren’t. But it is really sad when women have no contact with truly good men.

I think many movies in the past taught different society agendas. What about “The Red Shoes” How strong the message that you could not have a career on stage and be a person’s wife was at that time! And that’s from when my mother was a teenager.

Twighlight and 50 shades were written by women who had their own weird fantasies and I personally find Edward Cullen to be somewhat isolating, very controlling and the only upsides are his looks and wealth. When she says he plays the piano it’s like she is checking off a box. It’s not like Bella’s character discusses music with Edward or understands his playing. It’s just all a fantasy. A not very healthy one either.

However... do I think any of this even comes close to touching how much marketing of fantasy girls has gone into the minds of young men? Not even a pinch. If we are talking dollar signs? I knew young men in college who didn’t believe girls farted— I knew 2 guys who separately said this to me. “I just can’t imagine that they do.” No it’s WAY out of hand with men. Have you guys ever watched a video of an Incel talking about why and how he is an Incel? It sounds kind of like “I met a hot girl and I got obsessed and she didn’t like me!“. Their expectations are SO far off. SO FAR OFF.

Anyway, in my opinion a real problem is that people do not understand that actually being with other people takes good interpersonal skills. It’s all skills like listening, compassion, honesty... yet nobody has broken that down for many people. Most people have to rely on positive role models and not everyone has those. Too bad that a 2-D screen teaches some people life’s most important lessons due to a lack of teaching anywhere


Here are some videos that show case some of the different ideas I posted. Some are funny....
















Sorry these are text to speech off of reddit, but it just shows the collective crazy expectations out there. Not that women can’t have Weird expectations... but... look:










You know I think the thing that is overwhelmingly being sold and bought by us all is very specific ways to look. Anorexia nervous and bulimia nervous are typically American and Brazilian and somewhat Western European. But lately we’ve been documenting what happens when the Philippines and Nicaragua start watching American shows—for the first time ever people report going on diets and Anorexia starts to appear. So really American media Sells a lot of physical image stuff to us all and I think it is very detrimental. It can take over people’s lives.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2020)

WE are broken people. Some clearly out of our own bad decision, some few from other's.

We are here to improve ourselves since life still have lots of thing to offer (or else we already end up in the cemetery, amirite?). In that spirit, we should share and take our past as lesson and come up with clearer vision for the future. We shouldn't take what broke us and project and impose it into others.

No way jose. They say misery loves company, which is very true, but we simply refuse to do it, delving and immersing ourselves into vicious cycle of hate.

We should take our own responsibility since we are much better than that and we yearn to also make it better for everybody else.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Llyralen said:


> @WickerDeer My INFP sister was also homeless for a time and she also stayed out of sex work even if it might have made things easier money-wise... but I think that strong Fi is the least likely type to sell out or do something inauthentic. You’d feel like you lost your soul in many ways.
> 
> Didn’t Marilyn Monroe say something like “Hollywood is a place that will pay you 1,000 dollars for a kiss and 50 cents for your soul.”
> 
> ...


I don't disagree she did the right thing I'd consider it obvious in fact - (although tactically speaking if you really wanted to fuck the guy over you'd let him do it, film it with a cameraphone and forward it to his wife - or his place of work, or the police - it might be what I'd do...): However there was this issue she touched on which (again) I'm undecided on because (Fe) *YOU (Fi) YOU'RE THE ONES MAKING THE RULES* (Ti) I'm just deciding whether they make sense - and this issue is:

@WickerDeer 

She was umm'ing and aah'ing and reflecting and wondering about whether:

A. Oh, my authentic, romantic, ideals about what could be and is to thine own self be true and AGH, disney princesses - sing along ladies:






B. Fucking hell man you can make a fast bbbuck if you're just willing to show a little tit whilst yacht man masturbates, god damn, house ownership's nothing. Just give up your fucking soul, allow yourself to become dead inside and see how the world opens up once you _actually _let go of what you love - you have to get kicked in the balls (or ladyballs) an awful lot...

"I think there's something wrong with your suit..."






You know:

"...there's a dead guy in it."

_It's degrading, however so much of life is - you think the life of your average office flesh drone wage slave isn't - or whatever else? Air-Conditioning engineer who has to shit in a bucket in the back of his van because customers don't like you using their loos on a blazing summer in some attic with your tin snips sweating like a dog locked in a hot car? Or whatever else, the guy who has to scrape a dead sheep's carbonised guts out from under the transformer pf fallen electrical pylon at 3am so the 2 million people sitting on their ass just "waiting" for the power to come back on can go back to watching netflix? The haulier who puts his back out permanently at 40 hefting your giant amazon parcels out of his lorry as if they all appear by magic instead of by hard-pressed, brutal competition applied to people who have 3rd party contracts. The 17 year old who has to have a suicide net installed outside their cell window so they don't miss their targets for installing motherboards on your next phone? - there's so much suffering and degradation out there, pick a flavour, you're upset you can't be appreciated as an artist - urgh, give me a break pull your head out of your ass - we've all been homeless, I've been homeless - and I certainly didn't somehow manage to end up a yacht with some rich woman asking to pay me her to masturbate in front of me during it either so how homeless you might have been I don't know if it's really explored the situation._

But of course all that would involve perspective which distracts you from yourself - dare I say it, "compassion" - the sort which doesn't have to make an enormous display of itself as its own reward because it's actually concerned with the suffering out there to the bare minimum of actually wanting to pull its own weight and not act like it's in an entitled fairytale -

It's all degrading - at least stripping and prostitution pays faster for a slightly more compressed form of degradation instead of long term - you can make bank if you're savvy and get out, (or you can't, in the words of Missy Elliot):

_Just make sure you're ahead of the game:





_
And this is a strange sort of power, such an odd point (it's up there for me with the number of feminists I've met who enjoy having their throat choked during sex (which disgusts me) as if their issues with "patriarchy" and that aren't the same coin - an issue which they won't address either sides of and so they wrought it upon the world at large instead of confronting it themselves).

Women have this weird issue on stripping and prostitutes where they see it as somehow empowering - look at this latest progressive debac film "Cuties" - somehow dancing like a whore now in front of obvious fucking pedos is "A Coming Of Age Story" now? 










I mean what the fuck. Because it's "empowering" for a woman to learn how much effect selling her body in some form is to get by in society?

THAT'S what WickerDeer is circumambulating around as if this is a moment of regret - WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED if I'd just gone down that path for rich yacht guy, would I have a house like my selling-sex friends - no, I can't do that - but oh, how hard life is - and is it bad? Who wins in the end - the idealist or the mercenary?

I mean I'd love to see a film on how women (and not Pretty Woman - I mean a true, deep, ugly, dark, gritty film about it) actually view that sort of life - because it does seem as if that's a theme that runs deep and confuses women - do you sell yourself or not - I love that in all aspects of human experience - Faust to Transformers, it's there in our collective depictions of our dreams: The Temptation Of The Amoral, Loss Of The Soul: The nature of the soul - it's fantastic - you root for the moral party yet you can't deny the chic of the amoral - you know?

What is that? What is the "soul" - so much that it appears in fiction either so venerated or silly?!

*I feel sorry for you Prime. *






*Your allegiance to these humans? The Trouble With Loyalty To A Cause: Is That The Cause Will ALWAYS Betray You.*

You are betrayed by the Cause, by the Romantic Ideal?

That's Faust, in point of fact.






_I'd take the deal and crawfish and drill that Old Devil in the ass. How about you Ringo what would you do?_
*I already did it.*

Because you're in this weird civilisational spot where acting like a whore is empowering yet you know it isn't - where does you soul truly lie in that process - what is it you're actually selling and what are you doing it for?

That's a GOOD question and whilst I agree she obviously made the right choice - if you don't understand it you can't move past it.









Choices...


The Oracle says we already made the choice, we are here to understand WHY we made the choice. Sometimes we make choices we regret because we didn't think at ...




www.youtube.com





It circulates around that deeper issue you feel you can't express (which doesn't make you smarter or more noble incidentally - a truth you can't express is a useless one) - so try?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Six said:


> Women have this weird issue on stripping and prostitutes where they see it as somehow empowering - look at this latest progressive debac film "Cuties" - somehow dancing like a whore now in front of obvious fucking pedos is "A Coming Of Age Story" now?


For the record, the producer of Cuties intended to make a social commentary (criticism). Netflix completely ignored the entire point and tried to sell it as sexy. Netflix is pretty gross. You should actually try watching it and be railing against Netflix. Netflix marketing is disgusting, not the movie. Next they'll call 1917 a romantic comedy. 

As for the rest of it, I've never been in a situation where I had to make a decision between survival and prostitution. I grew up dancing ballet and there isn't a lot left to the imagination but somehow that's considered cute. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Shoes_and_Pin-ups_in_the_1950s_United_States In the 19th century ballet was considered the realm of sluts. I think there's a middle ground somewhere in society's attitude.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

Roslyn said:


> For the record, the producer of Cuties intended to make a social commentary (criticism). Netflix completely ignored the entire point and tried to sell it as sexy. Netflix is pretty gross. You should actually try watching it and be railing against Netflix. Netflix marketing is disgusting, not the movie. Next they'll call 1917 a romantic comedy.
> 
> As for the rest of it, I've never been in a situation where I had to make a decision between survival and prostitution. I grew up dancing ballet and there isn't a lot left to the imagination but somehow that's considered cute. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Shoes_and_Pin-ups_in_the_1950s_United_States In the 19th century ballet was considered the realm of sluts. I think there's a middle ground somewhere in society's attitude.


And I'm very much in two minds about it:

A. On the one hand - I can see how it can be social commentary, because I've seen critiques of it and from the trailer footage they show - they show these kids watching all these videos of icons twerking and stripping and dancing in sexualised manners.

You can definitely be angry at the sexualisation of the children in the film, but if your anger is directed at the people who made it you could be said to be missing the point - they're showing where this stuff comes from.

B. On the other - a lot of people seem to have taken a Culture War side on this where a lot of the very same people will say a racist joke is never ironic or social commentary and can only be seen as perpetuating racism seem to think that this is not bound by the same meta-observations. That this isn't sexualising children because it's social commentary and it isn't perpetuating the acceptance of sexualising children.

I truly don't know because I'm only one person, I don't make moral values - society does collectively, but I do see inconsistencies (I'm sure that's part of their evolution that they're in a constant state of flux and contradiction) however you can track where those contradictions are going to resolve.

Personally I think society is too sexualised.

Muslims have a pretty categorical solution:










I'm in two minds about that because let's compare it with an alternative:










You can make the argument:

A. It's in fact the girls wearing burqas who are more likely to be spoken to or valued for who they are as people.
B. Versus the woman who's showing cleavage (which is acceptable to do in Western societies) - how many guys (girls for that matter) are spending 20% of their concentration simply attempting to not look at your tits?

I prefer the idea that people should be allowed to comport themselves however they want - but that unwritten, unlegislated sensibilities should incentivise them to conduct themselves in a way that keeps sex out of the equation except where it's actually meant to be - in the bedroom.

And this is a weird spectrum you leave open to women in the West - do you want to sexualise yourself and use that power (even if it objectifies you and you know it?) You're welcome to - but do you want to do it and what for or not?

Really it seems clear to me: Sex is for having children - and every behavior which is not conducive to stable families that look after those children, (by promoting cheating, or poor planning, or making casual sex acceptable) is probably one that you should feel a pressure against engaging in.

But is that "patriarchal"?

_shrugs_

A lot of people would say so - but then are you arguing in favour of women sexualising themselves and being considered as objects instead of as people?

A fair-sounding answer to that can be: "You can think of me as sexy and still a person."

Speaking honestly however if you've ever tried to sexualise yourself to attract that sort of attention, how much of that do you think was based on what you innately feel you are as a person instead of for how you look?

It's an impossible thing to resolve of course, and there's no answer except a "middle ground" - but in defining it you've got to be consistent on how you apply the mores which circulate around wherever that middle ground is - otherwise you leave it open to be moved around.

If you want to be valued for your mind - use your mind.
If you want to be valued for your body - use your body.

However women are always going to have that dynamic skewed towards sexualising themselves because it's honestly a lot more lucrative for them to do the latter than it is for guys. Sure there are male strippers and sex workers but there's a lot more guys sitting around waiting to throw cash at sex than there are women who have to do that.

And honestly we solved all these issues back when there was chastity and marriage - the exchange of resources for sexual access was pretty soundly resolved. Now it's oppressive so you've got a lot of values to reflect on about how you want that to work if at all - because it's always going to be the case that men are willing to pay for sex a lot more than women...

It's why I say to guys who resent that ease with which some women can get through life skating on their looks and being only attracted to money or power:

"Are you really not sure they've got the rawer deal? At the end of the day at least with money and power there's a prospect you've earned it using capabilities and achievements you'd consider to be more innately you than how you appear. Even the shallowest woman on that score can at least be said to be giving you more of a shake at meritocracy than shallowest guys give to girls..."


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

There's a much better way to make a statement about the sexualization of children than hiring children to dress in skimpy outfits and dance in provocative ways.These are real actors that are too young and inexperienced to fully understand the meaning behind what they're doing. This is child exploitation. I don't care what anyone says, and am surprised any of these girls' parents consented to their being in something like this.

And, no, I'm not a conservative, but I was a child who was sexualized: sexually abused and harassed, and understand how degrading it is to be a child and to be looked at in that particular way, and would never wish that kind of experience on anyone!!!!


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

dulcinea said:


> There's a much better way to make a statement about the sexualization of children than hiring children to dress in skimpy outfits and dance in provocative ways.These are real actors that are too young and inexperienced to fully understand the meaning behind what they're doing. This is child exploitation. I don't care what anyone says, and am surprised any of these girls' parents consented to their being in something like this.
> 
> And, no, I'm not a conservative, but I was a child who was sexualized: sexually abused and harassed, and understand how degrading it is to be a child and to be looked at in that particular way, and would never wish that kind of experience on anyone!!!!


You haven't watched it. Put the incredibly bad Netflix marketing aside and judge it on it's own merit.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Six said:


> A. It's in fact the girls wearing burqas who are more likely to be spoken to or valued for who they are as people.
> B. Versus the woman who's showing cleavage (which is acceptable to do in Western societies) - how many guys (girls for that matter) are spending 20% of their concentration simply attempting to not look at your tits?
> 
> I prefer the idea that people should be allowed to comport themselves however they want - but that unwritten, unlegislated sensibilities should incentivise them to conduct themselves in a way that keeps sex out of the equation except where it's actually meant to be - in the bedroom.
> ...


Except the women in burkas aren't being respected or listened to. 

There are plenty of fields men use their bodies but they don't lose respect for it. 3.5% of firefighters are women. 24.4% of farmers are women. 9.9% of construction workers are women. There are plenty of fields where physical strength helps and men dominate those fields, using their bodies. A man using an advantage of his sex remains respectable but women using an advantage of her sex results in loss of respect. They're both using their bodies to get ahead. 

It's equally inappropriate to push boys into physically demanding work before their time or push girls into sexual roles before their time. There are physical and psychological issues with both. 

I 100% disagree that sex is about reproduction. You're ignoring homosexual couples and how much sex is with birth control and non-reproductive sex acts. Even how many people die never having sex with another person but masturbating. Sex is so much more than for having children. If the traditional European model solved so much, why were there always so many bastards filling the poor houses and so many "widows" starving for so many hundreds of years? It didn't work.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Six said:


> I don't disagree she did the right thing I'd consider it obvious in fact - (although tactically speaking if you really wanted to fuck the guy over you'd let him do it, film it with a cameraphone and forward it to his wife - or his place of work, or the police - it might be what I'd do...): However there was this issue she touched on which (again) I'm undecided on because (Fe) *YOU (Fi) YOU'RE THE ONES MAKING THE RULES* (Ti) I'm just deciding whether they make sense - and this issue is:
> 
> @WickerDeer
> 
> ...


Just some clarifications--I don't regret anything about yacht guy. It might seem different to you--I mean it's possible a woman would rape you or chop you up and dump you in the ocean, but statistically, it's probably more likely that a man will do that and perhaps even more likely if you're a 90 lb teenage girl on the street. So it might seem glamorous that some rich old woman wants to pick you off the street to jerk off in front of you, but I don't know if we can really switch roles that easily.

As for the apprehension--it's more to do with, as you said, how other traditional activities can be just as dehumanizing (so maybe instead of just labor, also traditional female roles in relationships).

But also just the concept that sex is supposed to be some kind of connection between people. And that I never experienced that really--so to me it almost does feel like I always had this ideal and nothing in reality could ever come close to it, so why not be realistic and pragmatic?

Being a stripper or some other adult work like that would probably feel less like selling out my ideals than settling for some kind of shitty relationship, which is really all that would have been possible for me in life, given the choices I've made. If I am perfectly happy being single now, compared to not, then why wouldn't I just used sex for profit instead? Being alone and rich is probably better than being alone and poor, so long as you didn't have to hurt anyone to get there.

I'm not talking about yacht guy either--that was being an at-risk teen runaway and there was nothing empowering about that situation to me except being able to say no. I'm just talking about resenting that part of who I am that refused to consider options that are somewhat pragmatic because of some unrealistic idealism.

But I guess another aspect of it that would make me angry is that the type of person most likely to shame me, imo, if I had been a prostitute would be a man who is upset I'm not upholding my feminine virtues. The type of person who's going to try hardest to pressure me to do something "shameful" or "slutty" is also a man. It's irritating that a society that pretends to value women's virtue has always been so hell bent on destroying it whenever possible--if the women is poor.

A capitalist society like this doesn't bother putting money where its mouth is. If money is supposed to be some social currency that reflects a society's values, then it really shows how much not just this society but other more traditional societies value women, because in pretty much any society you'll find dumbass old farts who'll pay to sleep with young women. And it really makes humanity look pretty stupid.

I will keep my head up my own ass about art--I can put it wherever I want. It is my decision. And honestly, sometimes creative expression in the form of writing or art allows me to engage with my own ideals and dreams better than reality. So perhaps that's what I really wanted all along, rather than some relationship, financial security, or whatever.

I do think though--when someone is under extreme stress decisions aren't really that well thought out. I was sort of like a zombie during that period of my life. I think that's what happens when you're not getting basic needs met. And you can't really engage with ideals or dreams or whatever that well at that point when you are really just trying to survive.

Also--just to clarify this as well--yes I am familiar with labor. I have worked low paying, physically and emotionally demanding jobs for most of my life. I have worked through illness and mental breakdown. And yes--I agree a lot of work is degrading and disrespecting in its own way. Putting people's bodies at risk, taking up huge amounts of their life energy, and leaving them with almost nothing so that someone else can get a profit off them. I didn't shun hard work the way I shunned sex work, which is probably what infuriates me even more--that society values a young girl's body being used for sexual gratification of rich men over so much else she would choose to do or they would need her to do (because much essential work is done by women--many essential workers are women). It's just so hypocritical. 

All and all it's just one of those moments at being angry at reality, angry at society, etc. because it doesn't measure up to the ideals. Which itself is a rather disrespectful, ungrateful attitude but Idk I think it's probably alright to be angry sometimes and just try to do what you can to not contribute to it--so I don't buy prostitutes or treat prostitutes like crap or slut shame them. It's pretty easy to avoid contributing to that.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> You haven't watched it. Put the incredibly bad Netflix marketing aside and judge it on it's own merit.


I don't think I need to watch an entire film to know that this sexualizes children.


----------



## NihiLizm (Apr 7, 2018)

.


----------



## ThisNameWorks (Mar 11, 2017)

NihiLizm said:


> “You can’t change a world you’ll never meet in person.”
> 
> ^ This sentence is really intriguing to me. It feels on track with the truth but I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re saying.
> 
> ...


I don’t believe this is a “choose your battles wisely” sentiment, because that’s too vague and focuses on a win/lose ratio.

My words are more focused on being present at the problem area, where it matters most. Think emergency relief for ground zero in a disaster struck area.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

dulcinea said:


> I don't think I need to watch an entire film to know that this sexualizes children.


It was made by a woman and her point is fighting FOR these children. The shitty marketing glorified it ie. did the opposite of what the film is about. All you've done is posted the shitty marketing. Bravo.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Roslyn said:


> It was made by a woman and her point is fighting FOR these children. The shitty marketing glorified it ie. did the opposite of what the film is about. All you've done is posted the shitty marketing. Bravo.


I'm actually really pissed off at Netflix for this TBH.
As someone who's been involved in dance in one form or another since the 80's, you can go to any professional or even non professional dance show and see similar moves performed by girls this exact age if not younger. Over sexualization of girls in dance has been an thing since I was 9 and remember there being a big to do about another group doing hips thrusts to Push It. Or at 11 when I was told my body was too proactive for ballet. (Remember a few years ago the controversy about 8 year olds dancing in bras and spankies to Beyonce?) Is it all of them? No. But it is enough that if I had a daughter I'd have to seriously vet any dance company she studied with, should she choose to dance.
I could google a dozen videos of similar performances, and while they would be at a distance, don't think for one second that there aren't close ups just like this video. 



Anyone interested in the actual plot of the movie here it is:


* *





The girls family is a traditional Muslim family from Senegal and they live in a poor region of Paris I believe. She is upset that her father is taking a second wife and has to watch her mother feign excitement despite being very upset. She befriends a girl in her apartment who is trying to, with some other girls, win a dance contest. These girls do dress in crop tops and just seem more grown up. Possibly they also have very little parental supervision. But the dance moves they do are not overtly sexual. She does steal a phone and see some provocative dance moves performed by adult women, which she teaches the other girls. While watching the dance moves on the phone, the adult woman dancing lifts her shirt exposing her breasts. There is a scene where they flirt with some older boys but the boys have no interest and leave. There is also a scene where some older girls bully her and pull her pants down and make fun of her child like underwear. She also starts her period. She is told she is a women now and her grandmother tells her how shortly (a couple years) after she started hers she was married off. When the person who owns the phone sees she has stolen it, he argues with her and wants it back. She tries to seduce him by taking her shirt off (reveling a crop top) and starts to unbutton her pants. Disgusted, he leaves and then she locks herself in the bathroom. She takes a photo of her vagina (implied not seen) and posts it on social media. The her friends get mad at her for this and make fun of her. Her new group of friends no longer want to be friends with her, and kick her out of their dance group.

She is bound and determined to still dance at the competition with her friends. At one point she pushes one of the other dancers in a river/canel so that she can take her spot. At first their dance is the simple dance moves they did in the beginning. Then, they switch and start doing the overtly sexual and provocative dance. The audience is appalled by their dance moves. Literally they are disgusted. They boo them and they camera pans to a nasty looking creeper who is obviously enjoying it. Midway through the dance she runs off stage and goes home. Her family is getting ready for her father's wedding to his second wife. The aunt is furious with her but the mother intervenes and tells the aunt to back off. The girl does not want to be a part of the wedding. The mother lets her leave.

There is a dress in the move that symbolizes her heritage. It’s ugly and what she has to wear at the wedding. That dress and the dance uniform symbolize the two extremes the girl is dealing with if her “coming of age moment”. When she leaves see finds some kids jumping rope and joins them. It’s obvious she is finding some middle ground in her transition of cultures and growing up.


This is not showing dancing proactively as being sexually empowering. Quite the opposite in fact.

It's slow moving (I've literally seen paint dry faster than this movie moves) and while I do question some of the decisions made here, the director has stated that there was a child psychologist and also a social worker on stage working with these girls and putting everything into context for them.

My friend called it a remake of the movie Thirteen but with French subtitles.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

^ Haven't watched the film, it kinda seems to me like a bad choice to show them dancing in those angles, would perhaps do more for the symbolism of how absurd it is if they showed us a static audience view. I guess if the director wanted to shock and make us uncomfortable it works but doing so with real children doesn't seem like a great choice...

but in the end, this film is prob not worth the outrage compared to the real damage tiktok and insta do to kids in that regard, tiktok especially.. spending hours in front of the mirror & camera to achieve the best dance moves and look the sexiest...sets a bad precedent for social approval. But maybe those types of kids who invest in this don't have the nature to do something else anyways, and the rest will just grow out of it.


----------



## Redwizard (May 3, 2020)

dulcinea said:


> There are many memes about the Disney movies we grew up with. How Ariel wants to run off with a man she just met, how Belle has Stockholm syndrome, and how Jasmine, ends up with a man who lied to her about his status. But, at some level, I'd think we can understand these are fantasy stories and are not necessarily meant to be a reflection of reality. I don't know too many young women who modeled their relationships after the Disney princess model. On the other hand, they are based in enduring archetypes that has been an appealing basis for stories to women for generations.
> 
> Then you get to the literature that came out when many people were teens: Twilight, then later on, 50 shades of gray. These are just the really famous examples, but I imagine there's a whole subgenre of novels like this. I mean the kind of male romantic figure being presented is nothing new, and goes all the way back to the 19th century, being dubbed as the "Byronic hero": moody, mysterious, super rich and/or powerful, and full of angst. This is an old trope. In high school, I read Jane Eyre, and I love it, but if I were to describe Jane Eyre it would be that a naive young woman false in love with a much older man who locked his wife in the attic for years. Seems a bit creepy, if you were to stop and really think about it. I don't think too many women would specifically seek that kind of relationship, but what of the dynamic between Jane and Rochester, the dialogue, the presentation of Rochester of a rather dark and brooding man who is transformed by love?
> 
> ...


"50 shades of gray" is just attemp of author who is unfamiliar with BDSM.
For everything fluffy,stop to "cure" people from their own sexual interests.
What about "Safe,sane and consentual"? Author should research books about BDSM.
That dreaded book is just miserable attempt to attract people who are average,traditional in the worst sense of that word,and who would go to sleep thinking "Everything is O.K. now.Pure sick man is cured from his sexual deviations". Well,author earned a hefty sum of money from people who are unwilling to even think of something that is out of what society and churches teach them what is only "right way" of thinking.Thanks,Red panda.


----------



## Redwizard (May 3, 2020)

dulcinea said:


> There are many memes about the Disney movies we grew up with. How Ariel wants to run off with a man she just met, how Belle has Stockholm syndrome, and how Jasmine, ends up with a man who lied to her about his status. But, at some level, I'd think we can understand these are fantasy stories and are not necessarily meant to be a reflection of reality. I don't know too many young women who modeled their relationships after the Disney princess model. On the other hand, they are based in enduring archetypes that has been an appealing basis for stories to women for generations.
> 
> Then you get to the literature that came out when many people were teens: Twilight, then later on, 50 shades of gray. These are just the really famous examples, but I imagine there's a whole subgenre of novels like this. I mean the kind of male romantic figure being presented is nothing new, and goes all the way back to the 19th century, being dubbed as the "Byronic hero": moody, mysterious, super rich and/or powerful, and full of angst. This is an old trope. In high school, I read Jane Eyre, and I love it, but if I were to describe Jane Eyre it would be that a naive young woman false in love with a much older man who locked his wife in the attic for years. Seems a bit creepy, if you were to stop and really think about it. I don't think too many women would specifically seek that kind of relationship, but what of the dynamic between Jane and Rochester, the dialogue, the presentation of Rochester of a rather dark and brooding man who is transformed by love?
> 
> ...


 On your question,answer is Yes.
There are many examples of strong,independent woman.
I will mention only one-Paradox Trilogy from Rachel Bach.
Deviana Morris is still one of my favourite female main protagonists in books,movies,or TV series


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

I think media and popular culture is encouraging everyone to become more impulsive and sexual, and to neglect long term decision making. Guys and girls are both affected by this though.
It doesn't just stop with adults though. Kids are regrettably noticing this trend as well, since they are particularly susceptible to current trends.

I wouldn't be saying this, if my little sister's friend didn't just show me her _Tik Tok_ video. She was 8 years old, and she was moving her hips in a sexually provocative manner (obviously mimicking modern pop artists). My little sister was just dancing around like a normal kid, so at least isn't representative of *all* kids her age.
Nonetheless, that was still enough to make me almost throw up.
It just feels _wrong. _

It's the same feeling when I see anything having to do with _Cuties_. I think people's inherent reactions to it are similar to mine, and are completely natural.
I get the point of the film, but if you make a film that is meant to be provocative by its very nature, don't come whining to me when you receive heavy criticism for it. You signed up for this.
If the director thought the movie was a good idea, she should stand her ground and defend it. But no, instead we are seeing her cry over the internet. She is getting no sympathy from me.

In any case, I think this pattern is only going to grow worse with time.
I think it mainly has to do with pop culture though. If we can somehow re-direct that energy into something more positive, I think we would start to see a change for the better.


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> I think media and popular culture is encouraging everyone to become more impulsive and sexual, and to neglect long term decision making. Guys and girls are both affected by this though.
> It doesn't just stop with adults though. Kids are regrettably noticing this trend as well, since they are particularly susceptible to current trends.
> 
> I wouldn't be saying this, if my little sister's friend didn't just show me her _Tik Tok_ video. She was 8 years old, and she was moving her hips in a sexually provocative manner (obviously mimicking modern pop artists). My little sister was just dancing around like a normal kid, so at least isn't representative of *all* kids her age.
> ...


The controversy popularizes something that would otherwise get lost in the world of other degenerate stuff out there. We're becoming more and more desensitized to BS.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

dulcinea said:


> There are many memes about the Disney movies we grew up with. How Ariel wants to run off with a man she just met, how Belle has Stockholm syndrome, and how Jasmine, ends up with a man who lied to her about his status. But, at some level, I'd think we can understand these are fantasy stories and are not necessarily meant to be a reflection of reality. I don't know too many young women who modeled their relationships after the Disney princess model. On the other hand, they are based in enduring archetypes that has been an appealing basis for stories to women for generations.
> 
> Then you get to the literature that came out when many people were teens: Twilight, then later on, 50 shades of gray. These are just the really famous examples, but I imagine there's a whole subgenre of novels like this. I mean the kind of male romantic figure being presented is nothing new, and goes all the way back to the 19th century, being dubbed as the "Byronic hero": moody, mysterious, super rich and/or powerful, and full of angst. This is an old trope. In high school, I read Jane Eyre, and I love it, but if I were to describe Jane Eyre it would be that a naive young woman false in love with a much older man who locked his wife in the attic for years. Seems a bit creepy, if you were to stop and really think about it. I don't think too many women would specifically seek that kind of relationship, but what of the dynamic between Jane and Rochester, the dialogue, the presentation of Rochester of a rather dark and brooding man who is transformed by love?
> 
> ...


Your post reminds me of this article: 8 Signs You Have Princess Syndrome And Need To Stop It, Right Now

While the article refers to women in Singapore, the problem it analyzes is present in every developed nation. Women from affluent families seem to be particularly susceptible.

Also, Urban Dictionary has a good definition:






Urban Dictionary: Princess Syndrome


An increasingly prevalent condition found primarily in young heterosexual American women. Characterized by (1) unrealistically high expectations; (2) materialistic conduct; (3) a sense of entitlement; (4) exploitative behavior; (5) feelings of superiority; and (6) a lack of regard for society’s...




www.urbandictionary.com





The key personality traits are narcissism and a tendency to objectify men.


----------



## steffyb (Sep 24, 2020)

Anonymous12345 said:


> Lol that picture


Yes. Really funny.

What is not funny is when you try to search that show on site like metacritic, rottentomatoes and the rest where you will see the total discrepancy between the "authority says" vs "what the phlebs feels", such huge deviation that it'd impossible for anyone to explain with statistics and/or science.

AND, this show is not the first one to have such weird phenomena.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

I was raised pretty heavily on Disney and I've wondered how that's effected me, but I wouldn't change it. Disney is romanticism, and I don't see the point of relationships without romance. We don't, like, _have_ to be in one. They consume a lot of time and effort, there needs to be heavy persuasion to the feels, imo. The idea that you can meet someone, fall into a whirlwind romance, and marry them three days later is kinda cool. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet back in the day, you used the word archetype and these endure. The lover archetype is generally somewhat impulsive, and there's an urgency to their feelings. 

If commitment's the goal making someone a part of your family is always going to be risky and complicated. You can try to gauge someone for years, and still end up disappointed and betrayed. I think the point of these stories is sorta tapping into that leap of faith, and making it all more urgent than not is a part of that theme.

I've actually always loved Beauty and the Beast, but I think I like it because I don't see Belle as the savior and just kinda appreciate the beast for who he is. I don't want to change the person I'm with (god, how boring, women aren't the chaperones of life), and I want to try to love their ugliness. It's human and I can be ugly too.

I do wish that there were more stories that worked in reverse though. The woman is a beast, a diamond in the rough, not just the perpetual perfect princess. Honestly, stating it like that, I think that men come away with more unrealistic relationship standards from these stories, lol.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I was raised pretty heavily on Disney and I've wondered how that's effected me, but I wouldn't change it. Disney is romanticism, and I don't see the point of relationships without romance. We don't, like, _have_ to be in one. They consume a lot of time and effort, there needs to be heavy persuasion to the feels, imo. The idea that you can meet someone, fall into a whirlwind romance, and marry them three days later is kinda cool. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet back in the day, you used the word archetype and these endure. The lover archetype is generally somewhat impulsive, and there's an urgency to their feelings.
> 
> If commitment's the goal making someone a part of your family is always going to be risky and complicated. You can try to gauge someone for years, and still end up disappointed and betrayed. I think the point of these stories is sorta tapping into that leap of faith, and making it all more urgent than not is a part of that theme.
> 
> ...


I was going to share the history of the story itself, but I don't want it to overshadow your childhood. Suffice to say the story is MUCH older than Disney would have you believe. The original story was published in France in 1740.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I was going to share the history of the story itself, but I don't want it to overshadow your childhood. Suffice to say the story is MUCH older than Disney would have you believe. The original story was published in France in 1740.


You haven't ruined my childhood! Ha! I know. I thought I was making that point (that this all goes far beyond Disney and recent times, that it does seem to tap into the archetypal) but maybe I didn't do it well. lol.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> You haven't ruined my childhood! Ha! I know. I thought I was making that point (that this all goes far beyond Disney and recent times, that it does seem to tap into the archetypal) but maybe I didn't do it well. lol.


I just felt like you're an old friend on here and maybe my usual vomiting a bunch of historical facts about this story might be overly insensitive of me.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I just felt like you're an old friend on here and maybe my usual vomiting a bunch of historical facts about this story might be overly insensitive of me.


Aw, really? I feel the same way! You're an OG member here. I've def appreciated a lot of your posts.

I do really like Disney's version of Beauty and the Beast though. That song is prob my favorite Disney song. It seems like it's just coming at the relationship from both sides. "Tale as old as time" is fitting. The Beast does show much more vulnerability than Belle does tho. Idk, maybe that's because most of the people who worked on the film were male, and so they were providing their own truth. But it does sorta bother me that we get all of this humanity to connect (or fangirl over lol) with the Beast, while Belle just comes out looking perfect while she was prob having the same moment before descending the stairs. And I get the Stockholm Syndrome argument too, tho their relationship doesn't really technically fit that. Emma Watson gave an interview about this when she did the live action version. She never submitted to adopting his persona, she fought with him.






It would be nice to see a reimagining where Belle didn't have to be kidnapped first, lol. But then I guess that wouldn't be the same story. The song could endure tho.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Aw, really? I feel the same way! You're an OG member here. I've def appreciated a lot of your posts.
> 
> I do really like Disney's version of Beauty and the Beast though. That song is prob my favorite Disney song. It seems like it's just coming at the relationship from both sides. "Tale as old as time" is fitting. The Beast does show much more vulnerability than Belle does tho. Idk, maybe that's because most of the people who worked on the film were male, and so they were providing their own truth. But it does sorta bother me that we get all of this humanity to connect (or fangirl over lol) with the Beast, while Belle just comes out looking perfect while she was prob having the same moment before descending the stairs. And I get the Stockholm Syndrome argument too, tho their relationship doesn't really technically fit that. Emma Watson gave an interview about this when she did the live action version. She never submitted to adopting his persona, she fought with him.
> 
> ...


I think they do a really good job with these sorts of stories, but I haven't watched any of the live-action movies yet. I was already an adult when a lot of these movies came out in cartoon form. You ever watched Once Upon A Time on TV? 

It's a complete mashup of all the greatest children's literature and movies to come out in the last 100 years...it is pretty amazing what they pulled off with it.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I think they do a really good job with these sorts of stories, but I haven't watched any of the live-action movies yet. I was already an adult when a lot of these movies came out in cartoon form. You ever watched Once Upon A Time on TV?
> 
> It's a complete mashup of all the greatest children's literature and movies to come out in the last 100 years...it is pretty amazing what they pulled off with it.


I loved this show! It was a little too cheesy for even me at first (and I can appreciate and forgive a lot of cheese lol), but I got into it in I think the third season where Peter Pan was the villain, and his shadow was equally dark and pretty much kidnapping people to Neverland. I was like, wait... this is kinda cool. Def original. It was on my radar bc it had two of the Lost writers as heads (I was obsessed with that show before it's final season), and my sister was always trying to get me into it. I was really into Jung's concept of the shadow and the enneagram seven at the time (the Peter Pan archetype) so it seemed like a fitting thing to watch especially.

And you know what, that _is_ actually one example where I felt like the beast in women was given a real story. Emma and Regina specifically. I even started re-watching episodes after seeing the latest Star Wars installment thinking, ok, this is what they COULD have done with these movies. (Would have liked to see it with a bigger budget, wasted opportunity).

That story arch felt similar in ways (at least, at it's start in OUAT) - where Emma had the bravery to actually embark on becoming the "dark one."






But rather than just let someone die for her so that she could retain her purity and goodness (<which is how I perceived that in SW anyway... it was like the latest Star Wars trilogy led up to Rey (as the grand climax) just going "nah, I'll pass on my heroine's journey. Thx Kylo (and studio heads) for taking care of it for me. Sorry you're dead now, and not even showing up as a ghost at the end (Darth did in Luke's story, and ending ghosts weren't absent in these). I guess there's nothing dark or disempowering (even... placating as a woman, but thx for making me the lead!) about that, considering that you're (Kylo) obviously trying for redemption now, and that your mom who I'm adopting as my own still really cares about you... and I displayed that I did too") ...she, yea, took the journey, and still did save Hook (and all of her Jedi-like Storybrooke ppl at the same time). She didn't become a completely different person in the process either, and I had sympathy for her internal struggle, as I think we all were meant to (same for the previous ppl in her position, some of which (and most notably) were male).

I guess that was all just, really, a different take on the female savior stereotype, but at least a more human one. Where she got to be dark, vulnerable, but also loved as well.

I am conflicted with these savior stories. I think what bothers me the most, from a feminist standpoint, is how you don't usually get the journeys with women though, because they're just _expected_ to be the saviors. And for everyone, not just the people that they care about. Emma saved the people that she loved and cared about, not all of humanity or any dick who tried to latch on (who would otherwise just be the villain that they understandably want to fight, and would if it were dude against dude). She was in love with Hook, and Storybrooke was her family. With Rey, there was nothing. She wasn't in love (or was she?), she disowned her family when she learned of her origins (at the very end, she had no idea beforehand), there was nothing personal about anything that she was doing, no real vendetta, she wasn't even using her own lightsaber. There was no kryptonite. Kryptonite is technically toxic, but without it, I kinda feel like, what's the point? And if it's just to be the "savior" and you're not trying to save everyone, then you failed? Superman would feel the failure if Kylo Ren or Hook died.

I've been into The Boys lately on Amazon Prime. Learning that the MCU had been re-imagined in sort of a satirical way, sort of a farcical way, but also, that none of that really applies as a description - by Seth Rogen and others of all people (who I have always very much loved)... ah, I got so excited. lol. It hasn't been a disappointment. And that we get a woman super-hero with a savior based background who's legitimately conflicted as a double agent so far, grounded in her own self interest (personal love) but also trying to do "the right thing" on a broader scale is so fantastic. Usually we have to choose. The kingdom, the man, or, more often than not, the man who can provide the kingdom.

Curious if the next Wonder Woman is gonna do the same thing, but I've heard from ppl who heavily suspect where this story is coming from given the comics say that we shouldn't expect it. It will be the usual choice (and not even) because, ultimately, it won't be her choice. (It was all a mirage?) I'm hoping they aren't right lol. The decision made in (the most mainstream) pop culture for women now actually seems to be "the kingdom" as opposed to it's prince, but either way, I find it a little insulting. Especially when there isn't even a choice to be made to begin with. Hasn't it secretly always supposed to be this for women too? "Close your eyes and think of England." Kay, so now we're _just_ thinking of England? (I'm being metaphorical, if you haven't gathered, lol). That's better considering it's context, but? Maybe romance was a needed escape. It can be reality tho, ofc.

Anyway, very long response! Ha! Not even sure it totally made sense, very train of thought. Sorry, bringing up OUAT on this topic... triggered a lot of thoughts. I recommend The Boys though regardless of any of this. Pretty good in many ways imo.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I loved this show! It was a little too cheesy for even me at first (and I can appreciate and forgive a lot of cheese lol), but I got into it in I think the third season where Peter Pan was the villain, and his shadow was equally dark and pretty much kidnapping people to Neverland. I was like, wait... this is kinda cool. Def original. It was on my radar bc it had two of the Lost writers as heads (I was obsessed with that show before it's final season), and my sister was always trying to get me into it. I was really into Jung's concept of the shadow and the enneagram seven at the time (the Peter Pan archetype) so it seemed like a fitting thing to watch especially.
> 
> And you know what, that _is_ actually one example where I felt like the beast in women was given a real story. Emma and Regina specifically. I even started re-watching episodes after seeing the latest Star Wars installment thinking, ok, this is what they COULD have done with these movies. (Would have liked to see it with a bigger budget, wasted opportunity).
> 
> ...


Nothing I know is more cool than seeing someone get enthusiastic about something! It may be the single most important joy of my life!


----------

