Blog D'Hipster

now she’s scared.

-

-

-

—————-

Look, you can include as many extended, explicit sex scenes as you like, you're entitled to do so and there's nothing wrong about that. But don't pretend it's necessary for the plot. You can talk about characters sleeping together without including porn. Sure you get your rare examples of it being necessary for a story, but let's face it most of the time it's just there for arousal. Which sure, you can argue is a reason, but it's not an important or even necessary one.

I'll say it again, you can talk about characters having sex without turning a portion of your film into a porno. It's called being a creative writer and not needing to shove every story element in the audience's face, and trusting them to figure shit out on their own (not that figuring out that two characters just slept together is difficult).

Like, can we consider the way we talk about sex in media, as opposed to violence? Media in the modern world can be incredibly violent, and I have to wonder: what does it say about us that consensual sex between two adults who love each other is considered less appropriate for general audiences than people actively hurting each other? And I’m in no way trying to slag violence, either - turns out, people struggling with each other is an excellent medium for storytelling, and it can also look really cool - but it seems unusual that between these two aspects of the human experience, violence is the one that we deem acceptable for general audiences?

fair points all around, but like i want to stop seeing ridiculous and forced straight sex scenes which add no value to the movie whatsoever?? (ok so it isn’t about if it’s necessary to the plot or whatnot. i get it. it’s art and emotion etc blah blah blah but tell me that applies to every ridiculous american action movie-- is that “portraying artistically” to you?)

when ppl say “that sex scene wasnt necessary” they’re not usually talking about shit like the sexual scene in Moonlight for god’s sake. like I don’t give a shit that some white male director wants us to see a woman’s body to titillate and sell tickets. it’s not ok how the spectacle of sex is used in misogynist and racialized ways.

sure violence is the same way and our tolerance for that in american movies is way too high blah blah but they can both be bad?? i dont want to hear what-about-isms about violence-- it’s honestly irrelevant to the question. no one is making you choose between sex or violence-- like of course i’d rather my kids see some ppl fuck than senselessly murder each other but that’s not the point??

“hi manhattan folx. we are both fresh out of school and looking to split rent 3/4s* with one (1) quiet femme roommate. wed prefer to live with someone who is not greek, cannot practice martial arts and was recently fired from their job.

we are looking for a quiet person because it is a MUST that you do not ever speak to my partner due to his inability to behave normally. if you need trouble him, you will pass messages beneath our bedroom door at precisely 3am on sundays only.

you mightve heard about us from our previous roommate, moon. she will be posting in various local groups saying we sold her ferret on craigslist. please PM me for more details.

we are looking for some who

is not mentally ill

is not disabled

will not be seen or heard

does not have friends

will wash dishes for us

you would be living in a cardboard box in our living room. we have a washing machine and dryer but ask that you do not use it, instead going to the laundromat down the street and matching whatever you paid them to pay us as well.

we are both lawyers but one of us roams the streets at night wearing a mask with horns and performing vigilante justice. you must be able to perform first aid at all hours. (and of course comfy doing this xo.)

people with leopard geckos and capricorns need not apply.

the word indigenous describes a specific relation to colonialism and to regional structural power, it does not simply mean “originally from/autochtonous to a given piece of land”. in the context of a racially organized settler state, claiming the dominant group that holds all judicial and political power is “indigenous” is absurd and literally goes against the definition of the word. it also negatively impacts native struggle globally by muddying people’s understanding of indigeneity and what the needs and demands of indigenous people are. incidentally, this was half the point of my post.

the jewish diaspora is spread across the world, and has been for more than two thousand years. they have throughout that time become integrated within various countries and cultures, developing their own unique ethnocultural identities, which is why terms like ashkenazi and mizrahi and sephardi exist. the denial and erasure of jewish european, african and asian national and cultural identities in order to retroactively justify the zionist project is one of the ways in which zionism is also harmful to jews.

may i also suggest: 1) this thread by rabbi andrue kahn

2) when does a native become a settler? by yuval evri and hagar kotef

3) my own post about global conceptions of indigeneity