Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrm4 | Hacker News Reader

On one hand, this essay feels like a whole lot of "cope," but if we roll with the author's definition, I think that what people are (feeling/not feeling) is that all of our entertainment is deeply unsexy, even when it's trying to be.

E.g.the whole superhero thing. Good looking strong people, and nothing remotely "sexy" related comes up until She-Hulk, and then people hate it. It's wild to me how ostensibly straight dudes got confronted with a little booty-shaking in their superhero story and they were all like "ewwww."

View on HN

>ostensibly straight

Why is their straightness "ostensible" but the sexiness in question is not? That comes off as pretty judgy, in terms of what people do and do not find sexy. Regardless, what did She-Hulk bring that other superhero media hasn't (I haven't seen it - surely you're not saying that "good looking strong people" are not sexy and "booty-shaking" is? I assume there's something else in She-Hulk that's qualitatively different from those two examples of shallow sexuality?)

Also, I really did not expect on HN to see the "what are you, gay?" deflection to somebody's dislike of something in media just because it involves a person/character of the opposite sex.

Further, what's wrong with an "ewww" response in the first place, in this case? You're implying there's something wrong with a person having that reaction, but haven't explained why.

Overall, this is a surprisingly un-generous post.

Tone doesn't come across that great here; people are of course allowed to like and hate whatever, I suppose that's what I was trying to get at with "to me it's wild," it's pretty close to what I mean -- if one thinks about it in the abstract it's kind of funny. And also (to get revealing) yeah, I kinda dig the booty-shaking of this sort, funny it doesn't resonate elsewhere.

I didn't mean to make that particular example the focus (and forgot perhaps where I was) -- but I stand on a broader idea: Superhero stuff as practiced in the movies today has made things very much less "adult/mature" in the literal senses of those words. They're "cartoons."

They end up being very simplistic childlike stories of GOOD v BAD, without a lot of grown-up nuance. So along with, e.g. philisophical stuff that you lose, you also lose what I think could properly be called "sexiness;" because there's nearly zero grownup treatment of human relationships, that includes the sexy ones?

I don't think it was as simple as "Booty shaking? Ewww.", it's just that the booty shaking scene serves as an excellent proxy for "this show isn't what we expected, wanted, or like".

By all means, write different shows for different people, there are plenty of shows that aren't for me and that's fine. You just have to be careful when you're counting on an existing audience to be your fans while also trying to write something that's not at all for them. Write a Star Trek spinoff crossed with The Bachelor if you want, but my TNG-loving self certainly isn't going to watch it, and I will be mad if you try and trick me into thinking it's more of something I love.

It's just that we don't communicate with any nuance anymore, maybe because it doesn't fit into our 140-character attention spans? So "ewww, booty shaking" is about the best we get.

> It's wild to me how ostensibly straight dudes got confronted with a little booty-shaking in their superhero story and they were all like "ewwww."

I don't really consume MCU stuff, but having seen the scene in question, I think the "ewww" has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the weird, annoying, try-hard-to-be-trendy vibe that it represents. It's the same cringe as the Hillary Clinton dancing on Ellen thing from a few years back.

There was a time when comics were counter-cultural, niche, and interesting, bringing new ideas and stories and art into the world. Now, they're under the control of the Mouse, downstream of the cultural shit funnel and as a result, completely, laughably uninteresting - and worse - no longer cool.

Sure -- but again, you're talking about SUPERHEROES as translated to BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES, which contain piles and piles of cringe all around.

For better or worse (I actually wasn't much at all intending to judge, just observer) it's interesting to consider why that particular cringe was some of the most notable?

Most shows seem to drip with contempt towards their original fanbases lately. Many many creatives seem to want to make shows for themselves or some mystical non existing ultra nice demographic.

She-Hulk is great example of all that especially the finale. The creators on Twitter insulted Marvel Fans, mocked Marvel, and attacked Kevin Feige.

She-Hulk WAS made for the original fan base. It was the original she-hulk. The problem was that people didn't realize what that original she-hulk was.

Jessica Gao (Showrunner for she hulk) literally asked herself: "“I was more squeamish about it than they were. I was like, ‘Are we going too far? Are we throwing Marvel and fans under the bus by putting down Marvel films?”"

So she was very self-aware of what she was doing.

Deeply sexual content can’t be distributed. People says it’s “wrong” and stop it.

There almost seems to be something simple as a basic polynomial in our brain that are sexy, which can be encoded into a picture and nonverbally extracted. I just know because artists who knows how to stroke that function gets accounts banned anywhere.

There's something more nuanced going on here. Depictions of sex and romance have essentially disappeared from American mainstream cinema as it has become dominated by franchise films. While prestige television is frequently more sophisticated and thematically 'adult', here too we've seen the 'love scene' disappear (with notable exceptions like Normal People).

It's harder now to include any element in a screenplay that will offend either the moral majority, or their mirror images on the left. Both of whom are deeply suspicious of anything approaching depictions of sex and sexuality for approximately opposite ostensible reasons.

Even shooting such scenes today is beset with issues with the rise of 'intimacy coordination' as a profession, and the perception that a director seeking to address these themes is lecherous. Sum total of this is a weird eliding of sex on screen. Where it is depicted, there's a clinical careful quality, often political (e.g.: I May Destroy You) rarely eroticism.

There are plenty of straight white dudes buying comic books that that are serialised, and they find sexy (just look at the front covers in most comic book stores), one MU movie with bad CGI doesn't disprove that.

This is excellent bait, and I'll take it.

You (hopefully) know as well as I do that twerking with Megan Thee Stallion is more of a "yas queen" than a "does this please you, viewer?"

The thing that takes an ostensibly (lol) enticing sexual act and turns it into an "ewwww" is when it's wrapped up in a big box emblazoned with the letters "POLITICAL POWER PLAY." Oh yes please, that's exactly what I want, serve me some tits and ass with a side of "why are you threatened by strong women?"

I like a hate-fuck as much as the next guy, but I'm kind of tired of being hatefucked by the media industry. To call this stuff propaganda is an insult to propaganda. At least propaganda has to be smart. This is just the writers and artists' daddy issues on full display. We all know it, and this hatred of the simple straight male has infected everything.

I disagree harshly with the parent, but I think your point of view is much more damaging. The artists don't need to exhibit any of these dramatic subversive attitudes, personality flaws, or political psychology plays to simply shoehorn booty-shaking into their superhero show (Occam's razor). I think your layering-on of all these other horrible things is actually indicative of a much more hateful attitude than the one you are accusing them of.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I'm not. The kinds of things that people say that you are probably thinking of when you make a criticism like in your original post absolutely are real and deserve your criticism (in fact, I'd put jrm4's tone in that category!) - but over-applying that criticism does harm to a position that is justified in other contexts. Remember, when you see somebody (e.g. maybe a writer or fan for a show...) make a criticism of a group you are a member of, they are sometimes referring to something truly deserving of criticism. Always try to keep your criticisms as focused as possible in turn, to avoid the vicious cycle of political/social hatred (especially in the context of fictional media, where it produces a tone that is particularly obnoxious/petty).

> The artists don't need to exhibit any of these dramatic subversive attitudes

True, but if we take She-Hulk as an example, all the other stuff in the movie imply they do. In other words, they didn't simply shoehorn in booty-shaking, but rather included it in a political context.

If you disagree these layers exist, please, engage with the discussion and reason why - but simply gaslighting the poster, and implying they have a "hateful attitude" is itself a political play.

Of course.

But, I mean, we've now REALLY entered Rorschach-blot-test territory.

I think where you and I might agree: yes, that probably isn't much about "sexiness" but "power."

And that's about as far as our agreement goes, I think. I don't really have a problem with it. Perhaps, you're so vain, I bet you think that "yas queen" is about you?

Again, excellent trolling. I commend you.

This is such a weird thing to say. I genuinely don't understand what about I'm saying makes you think I'm "trolling?"

If anything, I find the idea of booty-shake cut-scenes as being remotely connected to anything called "political" extremely silly? Like, sure, it's not about "hey boys look at us," but instead "Go 'head, girl, do your thing!"

Seriously -- where does the concept of "politics" fit here? Even in the BROADEST sense of the term, it's just a (to me funny, because, you know -- booty-shake empowerment?) "hey girl" kind of thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com