Which is it?

[Elite Engineer]

So with the Harvey Weinstein and now other predatory Hollywood stories, I feel like a specific topic rises that has never really been addressed.

Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment, no big deal, if it feels good do it routine. This can very easily lead to transactional sex for roles in films etc.

If someone objectifies against the person doing this, the person doing the calling out is called a holy roller or preacher and that they're slut-shaming the person involved in this "transaction", because

after all, it's just sex, if it feels good, do it. But when allegations like HW's arises, all the sudden transactional sex, and the "if it feels good do it, it's YOUR body" get's left behind and the individual is now a victim. 

So, my question is, which is it?

[John Cuthber]

I have seen some hogwash in my time but this is something special.

2 hours ago, Elite Engineer said:

Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment, no big deal, if it feels good do it routine. This can very easily lead to transactional sex for roles in films etc.

It's an invalid deduction from a false premise.

"Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment..."

is wrong

Hollywood and progressives like to make CONSENSUAL sex out to be this spur of the moment...

"no big deal, if it feels good do it routine"

It seems to have escaped your notice that rape doesn't "feel good"..

 

Frankly, I expect better from you.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

t's an invalid deduction from a false premise.

"Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment..."

is wrong

Hollywood and progressives like to make CONSENSUAL sex out to be this spur of the moment...

Also, while that may be a more acceptable version, I still doubt there is any truth to it.

[iNow]

Your premises are questionable to the point of being straw men, but even if we accept them unchallenged the answer here is easy. Hollywood is not some huge homogeneous monolithic unvaried block, and the approaches (decision to support sexual freedoms and in parallel to suppress sexual predation) are not mutually exclusive in the way you seem to think. 

[swansont]

The situations involving the sexual predators which are making the news do not involve consensual sex. That's the difference.

Frankly it's disturbing the number of comments I've seen in various places online where people can't seem to distinguish between the two cases.

 

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, Elite Engineer said:

So with the Harvey Weinstein and now other predatory Hollywood stories, I feel like a specific topic rises that has never really been addressed.

Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment, no big deal, if it feels good do it routine. This can very easily lead to transactional sex for roles in films etc.

If someone objectifies against the person doing this, the person doing the calling out is called a holy roller or preacher and that they're slut-shaming the person involved in this "transaction", because

after all, it's just sex, if it feels good, do it. But when allegations like HW's arises, all the sudden transactional sex, and the "if it feels good do it, it's YOUR body" get's left behind and the individual is now a victim. 

So, my question is, which is it?

Movies have ratings. There isn't casual sex in G or PG rated films. As with any industry filmmakers are looking to turn a profit. They turnout whatever audiences willingly pay to see. They react to societies appetite and not vice versa. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Frankly it's disturbing the number of comments I've seen in various places online where people can't seem to distinguish between the two cases.

 

This has been repeated so often in certain circles that it amounts to at least willful ignorance. The real frightening bit is that this line of reasoning is not limited to the online world.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Duplicate threads have been merged

 

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Movies have ratings

Movies are not real life.

[iNow]

I think the idea being conveyed is that they more often produce that which drives revenue (aka: these are things audiences pay to see).

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I think the idea being conveyed is that they more often produce that which drives revenue (aka: these are things audiences pay to see).

True.

However the movies they make (and which bring in a lot of money) are not generally based on some rich powerful bloke getting his end away with some poor lass who is too frightened of ending her career to tell him to "F***  off! ".

So it's hard to see what relation there is between contents of films and the asserted actions of Weinstein (or indeed, of "progressives").

 

Casual sex happens in real life; so does rape.
Most people can understand the difference.

If you want to call it "transactional" then I guess the difference is equivalent to sale of goods or services, and "obtaining goods or services by deception" or any of a variety of  crimes like slavery; demanding money with menaces; fraud, or whatever.

Just because something is a "transaction" doesn't mean it's right. Society recognises that some transactions are too "one sided" to be legitimate.

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

True.

However the movies they make (and which bring in a lot of money) are not generally based on some rich powerful bloke getting his end away with some poor lass who is too frightened of ending her career to tell him to "F***  off! ".

So it's hard to see what relation there is between contents of films and the asserted actions of Weinstein (or indeed, of "progressives").

 

Casual sex happens in real life; so does rape.
Most people can understand the difference.

If you want to call it "transactional" then I guess the difference is equivalent to sale of goods or services, and "obtaining goods or services by deception" or any of a variety of  crimes like slavery; demanding money with menaces; fraud, or whatever.

Just because something is a "transaction" doesn't mean it's right. Society recognises that some transactions are too "one sided" to be legitimate.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 0:02 AM, Elite Engineer said:

So with the Harvey Weinstein and now other predatory Hollywood stories, I feel like a specific topic rises that has never really been addressed.

Hollywood and progressives like to make sex out to be this spur of the moment, no big deal, if it feels good do it routine. This can very easily lead to transactional sex for roles in films etc.

If someone objectifies against the person doing this, the person doing the calling out is called a holy roller or preacher and that they're slut-shaming the person involved in this "transaction", because

after all, it's just sex, if it feels good, do it. But when allegations like HW's arises, all the sudden transactional sex, and the "if it feels good do it, it's YOUR body" get's left behind and the individual is now a victim. 

So, my question is, which is it?

Perhaps I misunderstand Elite Engineer's post but it seems that they're saying that Hollywood both promotes casual and quid pro qou sex while aslo attempting to be social justice warriors for sexual assualt victims. The highlighted line from Elite Engineer's post implies an association or likeness between "Hollywood" (which I assume U.S. film industry) and "progressives" (which I assume means U.S. Democrats). The way progressives would "make sex out to be" comes in the form of political debate and policy pushes. The way Hollywood would "make sex out to be" comes in the form of filmmaking and advertising (?). I think Elite Engineer is implies that Hollywood pushes sex on society in film and as such is somehow in contradiction with itself when it responds with shock and anger over something like Harvey Weinstein's situation. My response to that implication is that Hollywood, like any industry, pushes out whatever will make them the most money. There is nothing ideological about Hollywood; there is no contradiction.

*there is not a contradiction.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Perhaps I misunderstand Elite Engineer's post but it seems that they're saying that Hollywood both promotes casual and quid pro qou sex while aslo attempting to be social justice warriors for sexual assualt victims. The highlighted line from Elite Engineer's post implies an association or likeness between "Hollywood" (which I assume U.S. film industry) and "progressives" (which I assume means U.S. Democrats).

I'm not sure "promotes" is the right word. Hollywood makes war pictures, too. Are they promoting war, or is it something that happens and is used as a plot device in a story? People have casual sex. Republicans do, too — they just like to present the appearance that they don't.

(Hollywood also has a history of promoting non-consensual sex, too, especially if you go back a few decades)

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The way progressives would "make sex out to be" comes in the form of political debate and policy pushes. The way Hollywood would "make sex out to be" comes in the form of filmmaking and advertising (?). I think Elite Engineer is implies that Hollywood pushes sex on society in film and as such is somehow in contradiction with itself when it responds with shock and anger over something like Harvey Weinstein's situation. My response to that implication is that Hollywood, like any industry, pushes out whatever will make them the most money. There is nothing ideological about Hollywood; there is no contradiction.

*there is not a contradiction.

Hollywood and TV also tend to lag society in terms of what is portrayed. It does not so much push it on society as reflect what society has already established.