No need to go to 1934 for that, just look at David Bowie. His teeth were crooked until he got them fixed in his 50s (and supposedly ruined his vocal signature). Or even more recently, Hugh Grant's teeth were pretty bad in 4 Weddings... and Notting Hill.
Eh, kinda. Luther? Sherlock? Global sex-symbol superstars right there. The same forces at play in Hollywood are at work in London, it's just that the best-looking ones move out to California as well.
Not sure if it's a taste thing, but I don't find any single character on Sherlock to be particularly attractive, having just binged on the entirely of the show in the past two weeks.
Luther, okay, I'll grant you, it's Idris Elba. But everyone else around him (aside from his ex) looks rather, well, normal and British.
Ruth Wilson is a great actress, and, in my opinion, somewhat attractive, but she's not of the "Moved to LA and looking for stardom" mould that a lot of American actors and actresses fall into.
“Somewhat” attractive? Ruth Wilson is very hot, if you excuse my objectifying. She’s had interesting career moves, but would definitely not look out of place in any US movie or tv series...
> The public had infinite access to the sexual equivalent of gourmet food
If you think porn is "gourmet", you've not watched enough of it. Porn is the McDonalds of sex: repetitive, predictable, largely "safe" (with minimal care, you won't see what you don't want to see), and purposedly all-encompassing but still largely detached from the real thing.
I'm an unabashed porn consumer and I have to tell you, I yearn for anything resembling the sexual chemistry you get in good movies of old. Two people flirting and exchanging double-entendres is a billion times sexier than 99% of mainstream porn.
I bet there's a cottage industry of porn that specializes in serving you that kind of experience. Even if it's just packaged from existing movies and more "softcore" or something.
Porn isn't gourmet or not gourmet, it can be whatever you want it to be. And if there's enough demand (and it's legal), people will make specialized porn to serve it.
Porn isn't gourmet or not gourmet, it can be whatever you want it to be.
It seems like you're using something like the efficient market hypothesis without looking at the evidence.
I'm not a huge porn consumer but I've seen enough and know enough of the industry to say you're basically wrong, at least wrong as far as any "cottage industry" for porn with decent production values, acting or "sincerity" goes. The key thing is decent production value in a movie can't be created in home-grown way, it requires serious dollars. Oppositely, there are actors and there are "adult actors" and the two jobs are considered very distinct (in the way that receptionist and sex-workers are segregated and should be segregated, as mentioned on another thread).
But hey, prove me wrong. I'd love to see a counter example.
> But hey, prove me wrong. I'd love to see a counter example.
Based on another commenter's suggestion that you basically want "sex in movies that aren't about sex", it only took me a few minutes of googling to find sites which seem relevant to your interests:
- r/watchitfortheplot
- mrskin.com
It seems like you want porn which feels more organic and authentic than stereotypical porn. Sure the material in these sites wasn't expressly made to be porn, but it is porn in the way its packaged by these sites and subsequently used. And it's probably better that way, because it gets you what you're looking for in this case.
The Western porn market is a monopoly (the same company owns Pornhub and approximately every studio.) If you want something different, you'd have to train your tastes until you can handle something foreign like JAV[1], or scrounge indies like random onlyfans accounts.
[1] which are all really boring, seriously they're like four hours long and nothing happens, and that's besides the completely different set of morals and expected fetishes
There is. But like with all markets, it's more expensive and will always have less mass appeal than the lowest common denominator. That downward pressure is felt in that industry just like in all others.
I mean gourmet by comparison. McDonald's is gourmet compared to sand. Likewise, porn is gourmet compared to cinema from a sexual perspective (at least the kind of cinema the article is about), because cinema had to stop at sanitized teasing where porn can go all the way. For the average viewer, that's fine wine in terms of sexual gratification, even if the execution is the joyless jackhammering that as you rightly point out is typically what hits the front pages of mainstream tube sites.
Have a look at Cindy Gallop's Make Love Not Porn https://makelovenotporn.tv/ - it's been going for a few years now.
It's kind of what you describe. It's like pornhub's "home" videos idea but a 1000 times better - actually curated, personal and real. Haven't followed them recently but at the beginning they actually organised camera setups for people who wanted to be featured.
Thank you so much for recommending us! MakeLoveNotPorn is 'Pro-sex. Pro-porn. Pro-knowing the difference.' We're pioneering the whole new category of social sex (what Facebook would be if Facebook allowed us to socially sexually self-express). If porn is the Hollywood movie, we're the real world documentary :) Our mission and manifesto is here: https://socialsexrevolution.com/
This just depends on what you search for and think of as porn. I was exposed to a world of more female friendly hardcore porn by a female friend which I had little idea about. Other than that, porn bodies have a range that is far wider than mainstream media, you can find everything from SSBBWs to super skinny women, and lot of variations inbetween.
You’re attacking a straw man here. Your experience and personal anecdote may be completely true— however, you are skirting OPs very interesting idea so succinctly stated: that “a populace thoroughly satiated in private can afford to be puritanical in private.” My immediate hunch is that this is generally true.
What the fallacy for correlation is not causation?
Because as far as I agree that porn is so widely accessible now, I’m not sure it’s in itself enough to explain why mainstream movies are so safe.
I would look toward spécialisation : yes. We’re talking exclusively about super hero action movies here. And even if the idea and the article really interested me: other movies exists. Some are horny as fuck; in 2021.
The article author mentioned Disney a few times; for once I think we can’t blame the military industrial complex but a entertainment company that is obsess with being us-white-middle-class family friendly.
So again, because I’m rambly, I would personally blame cultural aplanissement because of fear of loosing markets, than porn or 9/11.
So the fate of a conversation is shaped by the people who are most likely to know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand (or they would have contributed to the thread).
But is that a problem? You don't usually need technical expertise to judge whether someone is speaking in a productive way or not. The purpose of moderating a conversation isn't to try to remove technically incorrect arguments, surely? It's to stop conversations from being derailed by snarky, aggressive comments, or outright trolling, etc.
> The purpose of moderating a conversation isn't to try to remove technically incorrect arguments, surely?
... and this is why we can't have nice things.
Sadly, mainstream discourse works in exactly the same way. You can utter the most outrageous lies, as long as you whisper while smartly dressed; but if you shout the truth with uncombed hair, you will be sanctioned.
There are reasons why a calmly-spoken lie is more welcome than a shouted thing-the-shouter-is-really-sure-is-a-truth: the lie can be challenged in a productive conversation, the "thing" can't. We all _think_ we've got the truth on our side, you know: your opponents aren't going to be persuaded by you bluntly shouting your arguments at them, any more than you would be persuaded by them bluntly shouting their arguments at you. What can we do about this situation? We can either hive off into separate bubbles, where we rely on the "moderation" of like-minded friends to remove "incorrect" arguments of the opposition, or we come together and make an effort to talk to each other productively and understand each other. The second option is _really difficult_, particularly in anonymous internet forums. But I think it's worth striving for: one of the greatest advances civilisation has offered is the ability to consider which argument is best through rational discourse rather than a shouting match. This requires civility, though, because people shut down if they feel they are being treated dismissively.
tl;dr: Rational discourse is the "nice thing" that's worth striving for; treating those with different views with respect is the way to get it; none of us has a monopoly on truth.
