Thursday, January 09, 2014
Standard Definition of Prostitute
a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.
By agreeing that you'd be upset if your wife engaged in WoWS behavior, you have conceded my point that the "simulated" activity on display in WoWS is real sexual activity. I don't care if you try to get out of this by declaring a different standard of behavior for actors. That's a cheat. Thus, objectively, according to the standard definition of prostitute, I think that it's entirely fair for me to refer to the actresses in the film as prostitutes, women who have engaged in sexual activity for payment.
I might respond more later. I'm probably done. I'm already exhausted by all of this conversation. I don't like that WoWS forces me to be crass in order to interact with its own crassness. You're right that my example was not at all classy, it was obscene. But how else does one interact with the obscenity of WoWS if one does not translate its obscenity into familiar terms to make its blatant moral failures more real to someone such as yourself who loves the film? By loving WoWS, you are loving the thrill of each display of perversity. Or what? You are loving being "uncomfortable" by such diplays?
One thing I'd like to respond to is the "double standard." Everything I've said about WoWS applies to other films. The thing is that other films have this content to such a lesser extent that it's easier (not necessarily correct) to forgive or overlook this content while looking at the whole and saying what is good about the whole. In WoWS, this behavior (almost) constitutes the whole and becomes overbearing, something that, for better or worse, must be reckoned with in the forefront of all conversation about the film.
a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.
By agreeing that you'd be upset if your wife engaged in WoWS behavior, you have conceded my point that the "simulated" activity on display in WoWS is real sexual activity. I don't care if you try to get out of this by declaring a different standard of behavior for actors. That's a cheat. Thus, objectively, according to the standard definition of prostitute, I think that it's entirely fair for me to refer to the actresses in the film as prostitutes, women who have engaged in sexual activity for payment.
I might respond more later. I'm probably done. I'm already exhausted by all of this conversation. I don't like that WoWS forces me to be crass in order to interact with its own crassness. You're right that my example was not at all classy, it was obscene. But how else does one interact with the obscenity of WoWS if one does not translate its obscenity into familiar terms to make its blatant moral failures more real to someone such as yourself who loves the film? By loving WoWS, you are loving the thrill of each display of perversity. Or what? You are loving being "uncomfortable" by such diplays?
One thing I'd like to respond to is the "double standard." Everything I've said about WoWS applies to other films. The thing is that other films have this content to such a lesser extent that it's easier (not necessarily correct) to forgive or overlook this content while looking at the whole and saying what is good about the whole. In WoWS, this behavior (almost) constitutes the whole and becomes overbearing, something that, for better or worse, must be reckoned with in the forefront of all conversation about the film.
Posted by trawlerman at 3:37 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment