Tom Hardy's Penis, offensive or art? (Split from movie rating thread)

[Bronzeage]

Matriarchies do well in hunter-gatherer cultures. The men spend their days in the forest or the field, while women maintain the camp. When the group progresses(if that is the proper word) to an agrarian culture, many things happen. One of the most significant differences is the creation of private property. Agriculture means crops must be harvested and stored for future use. Suddenly, who controls resources and who has access is a problem. This is a problem unknown to a tribe of nomads who follow where the fruit is ripe.

The word 'progress' doesn't work, here. Hunter-gatherer societies didn't 'figure out agriculture because they wanted to'. Rather, it was a slow process that happened once population densities could no longer be supported by hunter-gathering alone. Communities needed, and so found, ways to accumulate more energy, faster.

Private property can only be held by those who can keep other people from taking it. A matriarchy is fine for deciding who will cook and who will clean. But, for keeping bandits out of the granary, that's a job for a patriarch. The downside of putting the men in charge of everything soon became apparent. If a man can claim dirt, trees, and water, as his personal property, to do with as he sees fit, he can do the same for a woman.

Classically, women have been rooted to the household, and men to ventures outside of the household. This meant that when politics became a thing, politicians were mostly men. And because men are naturally going to look out for their own interests, early law was heavily biased against women.

You are arguing semantics. A slow process is progress, if the process changes the situation. You've used different words to say the same thing I said, but seem to think we disagree.

 

[rousseau]

The word 'progress' doesn't work, here. Hunter-gatherer societies didn't 'figure out agriculture because they wanted to'. Rather, it was a slow process that happened once population densities could no longer be supported by hunter-gathering alone. Communities needed, and so found, ways to accumulate more energy, faster.

Private property can only be held by those who can keep other people from taking it. A matriarchy is fine for deciding who will cook and who will clean. But, for keeping bandits out of the granary, that's a job for a patriarch. The downside of putting the men in charge of everything soon became apparent. If a man can claim dirt, trees, and water, as his personal property, to do with as he sees fit, he can do the same for a woman.

Classically, women have been rooted to the household, and men to ventures outside of the household. This meant that when politics became a thing, politicians were mostly men. And because men are naturally going to look out for their own interests, early law was heavily biased against women.

You are arguing semantics. A slow process is progress, if the process changes the situation. You've used different words to say the same thing I said, but seem to think we disagree.

Right, I don't disagree. Mostly I was explaining why the move from hunter-gatherer to agrarian cultures shouldn't be looked at in the frame of 'progress', at least how we classically define it.

It wasn't progress in the sense of moving to a higher state of being, or a regress in the sense of moving further away from a state of being, it was progress in the sense of social evolution over time, mostly caused by greater population density. In other words, there was no choice in it happening.

Thought maybe that point might not be something you've seen in your massive array of books.

 

[another1]

An appeal to most people is a bad idea, considering most people are impulse-driven doofs who are wrong about pretty much everything.

People are impulsive doofs abaddon but that is what people are. And they make up reality. A whoooooole LOT of reality. I have nothing else to appeal to.

Problem seems to have solved itself anyway. I only saw one penis in last season's Game of Thrones. It was done as sort of a mockery really. I haven't seen any penises in any major flicks since Bronson, either. Penises were edgy in entertainment for a quick minute but now they are unnecessary. Whew, last decade was a total penis fest. I think we're nearing dawn. Popular fashion will be less taxing on the crotch again. We just have to hang in there. We're still being reduced in so many ways, but our penises will be ours again. Stay Positive.

 

[credoconsolans]

Tom Hardy's Penis, offensive or art?

Realistic.

His character spent his time like that. Why back off from that if you don't have to?

Men have very strange hangups in this country.

Some Western men seem to think they can't be tough and show their toes at the same time. Hence why a lot of lead male characters in sword and sandal movies don't ever wear sandals.
There was even an argument over the footwear of the murderous monk in "The DaVinci Code" with the actor finally deciding he could be scary and tough and wear sandals, too.

As for penises...the guys don't really like their penises exposed for the censure of others. Women, sure, put their boobs and asses and legs out there and let society judge. But in no way do many male actors want to hang their junk out there for society to judge.

Men in the audience certainly don't want penis judging to become an openly accepted part of society, hence their disapproval of such scenes.

Secondly, nudity has become sexualized in this country.

Naked can't just be naked. It has to mean something or indicate something salacious.

Straight men want nudity to always be sexualized in their favor. Hence any nudity in films, straight men anticipate it will be the women whose nudity will be there to titillate them.

When the nudity is male, and blatantly so, the sexualization of the nudity becomes uncomfortable because it's the wrong - for straight men - gender. Hence the discomfort many men in the audience felt when the pretty slave boy was dancing for the hero in the movie Alexander. Hence the discomfort felt when Patterson/Bronson's junk is jiggling all over the place.

So, straight male audiences find it 'offensive' and distasteful when any nudity in any film isn't female. They were prepared to sexualize the sight of any naked flesh, and when that flesh is unexpectedly male, their dander rises. They don't want their bodies sexualized.

 

[Angry Floof]

What credo said.

 

[Bronzeage]

The word 'progress' doesn't work, here. Hunter-gatherer societies didn't 'figure out agriculture because they wanted to'. Rather, it was a slow process that happened once population densities could no longer be supported by hunter-gathering alone. Communities needed, and so found, ways to accumulate more energy, faster.

Private property can only be held by those who can keep other people from taking it. A matriarchy is fine for deciding who will cook and who will clean. But, for keeping bandits out of the granary, that's a job for a patriarch. The downside of putting the men in charge of everything soon became apparent. If a man can claim dirt, trees, and water, as his personal property, to do with as he sees fit, he can do the same for a woman.

Classically, women have been rooted to the household, and men to ventures outside of the household. This meant that when politics became a thing, politicians were mostly men. And because men are naturally going to look out for their own interests, early law was heavily biased against women.

You are arguing semantics. A slow process is progress, if the process changes the situation. You've used different words to say the same thing I said, but seem to think we disagree.

Right, I don't disagree. Mostly I was explaining why the move from hunter-gatherer to agrarian cultures shouldn't be looked at in the frame of 'progress', at least how we classically define it.

It wasn't progress in the sense of moving to a higher state of being, or a regress in the sense of moving further away from a state of being, it was progress in the sense of social evolution over time, mostly caused by greater population density. In other words, there was no choice in it happening.

Thought maybe that point might not be something you've seen in your massive array of books.

Humans are inherently lazy. We always do things the easy way. Some groups of people found themselves in an environment where, it was easier to manipulate the plants instead of waiting for them. Plenty of cultures never made it to agrarian, not because of any failure on their part, but simple fortune.

 

[another1]

Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises - sauna fight scene

Painful one. No escaping that black hole.

 

[RavenSky]

What credo said.

yep