[ SECRET POST #2721 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2721 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[intrigueing]

The psychology of the two are somewhat different, and the ways this usually happens in movies/TV is usually REALLY different. Basically: men getting beaten bloody doesn't have the same real life connotations as women being beaten bloody. Men being beaten bloody (IRL) = war, combat, torture, animal attacks, enemy attacks, etc -- usually for some "big" "important" or "heroic" context. Women being beaten bloody (IRL) = domestic abuse, rape, misogynistic kicks. That combined with RL power imbalances just skews the experience a lot.

It's not a fundamental distinction, but it's still a practical-enough one to affect how people view it in fiction. I'm sure it's possible to write a hot women-getting-beaten-bloody story that isn't gross if the context is done right; it's just a LOT more difficult because there are so many more RL associations that can turn into squick-pitfalls that need to be avoided.

On that subject, I recall an old black-and-white comedy-western movie that featured a massive fistfight (NOT a catfight) between fictionalized versions of Annie Oakley and Belle Starr, in which they got really visibly bruised-up and muddy, and IMO it was pretty badass and hot, even though it was intended, at the time the movie was made, to be funny.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the Tomb Raider reboot?

Re: OP

[intrigueing]

No, sorry.

[(Anonymous)]

To put it another way: we find it societally acceptable for men to be injured and killed. That's part of the male social role. It's why the hero can kill thirty bad-guy thugs, but the villain is the one threatening or killing a woman; that's how you TELL he's the villain.

So beaten-bloody guys are not violating a taboo by being beaten bloody; they're doing what they're supposed to do. Beaten-bloody women are, we've been taught, a sign that horrible and transgressive things are happening.

TL;DR: I agree with you, and it's creepy.

[intrigueing]

I don't think that's exactly right. I think that it would feel okay to see women being beaten bloody if we could maintain the same illusion that women are strong and invincible as we tend to do for men. After all, we don't mind seeing women *beating* other people up. And in this thread, we're all talking about "men" being beaten up, but what we all really mean is big *strong* capable badass men, not some poor sweet skinny fifty-year old science teacher husband and father (unless he's secretly a war vet with a black belt in karate or something.)

[ketita]

Orphan Black is relevant to this comment, imo: because there, the girls get a bit bloody because of fighting, and it's triggering the same unf-so-badass feeling I usually get from watching guys fight.