[ SECRET POST #3647 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3647 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[America's Next Top Model]


__________________________________________________



03.
["9"]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Westworld]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Trek: The Next Generation]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #521.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Why are you hating on prostitutes? Aren't we supposed to respect sex workers and treat them like legitimate contributing members of society now?

[(Anonymous)]

Frank Miller is not writing sex-positive portrayals of prostitutes. You can think prostitutes are fine while also thinking there's a feminist problem with prostitutes and the depiction of women in media.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Because the book goes into so much detail about how female sexuality is packaged for male consumers, but there's never any sense of what's sold to female consumers. It's like the author never even considered the idea that women buy things and have a part in determining how marketing is targeted. Their only purpose in the world of the novel is as objects to be marketed themselves.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Well...MOST things related to sex that aren't explicitly for women ARE marketed toward men. So...you're blaming someone for reflecting reality?

Oh, is this one of those "fuck anything realistic ever being in sci fi! It should be full of social justice because it's fiction and can be!!" rants?

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

What the hell are you even talking about

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Take the President as an example. For better or worse, real-life candidates need to be marketable to men and women, and even Trump is marketable to a certain type of woman. But the President in the book is considered only in terms of how she's marketed to men. I'm not saying women wouldn't vote for her, but her rise feels incomplete without any examination of what kinds of women would look at this candidate and think "Yeah, this is who I'm gonna vote for."

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt

So what you're saying is that it's written basically entirely in terms of a male perspective without even considering that another perspective exists?

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

That's a slight overstatement, but only slightly. There is a POV character who's female and gets to be sympathetic and nuanced, but she's never considered as a consumer or an active participant in society, only as a victim and survivor of it. Plus she's definitely a part of the author's Madonna-whore complex, even if she appears on both sides of it at different times.

I didn't know I had it in me to be this harsh. It's a good book! It's just kinda incomplete.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like this comment was crafted by a particularly nuanced Redditbot. It's juuuust off enough to not be human, but the general atmosphere is there.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I was just watching "Hysterical Literature" on Youtube, and that branched off into hypnosis-induced orgasms, and the thing that struck me was how women are always the ones shown off being brought to orgasm for the audience. In fact the only male versions I've seen thereof are parodies.

I definitely think the comment about packaging of female sexuality for male consumers is spot-on in that light.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Well, hell, there's a market opportunity right there. No reason we can't make this happen.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I wouldn't mind seeing a male version of "Hysterical Literature" TBH.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Though to be fair, that's did what happen historically.

Re: OP

[tree_and_leaf]

There is very little reliable evidence for this - see here: http://www.lesleyahall.net/factoids.htm#hysteria - from an medical archivist and historian of sexuality.

[dethtoll]

Considering the original comic this is an edit of was aimed at Frank Miller, I think you hit the nail on the head.

[(Anonymous)]

I know that this is a troll comment (or else you are a tremendous twat), but this is no way "hating on prostitutes." It's requesting female characters that aren't prostitutes because, like, not all women have sex for money.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, if you think about it, it's really very stupid to say that because you want to see different types of characters, you must hate the ones that exist.

It's the same logic that claims diversity on TV equals white genocide.

[(Anonymous)]

And there are a female characters existing in the world who are not prostitutes. This guy writes about prostitutes. Why shouldn't they get representation, since we're not supposed to stigmatize sex work anymore?

[(Anonymous)]

"Since we're not supposed to stigmatize sex workers now"

"They're considered contributing members of society now"

Fuck you in the deepest parts of hell. You are disguting. You don't stigmatize sex workers because they're human beings. The fact that you use wording like thistells me you see them as less than human and that respecting them is just "something you are supposed to do".

[maskitheclown]

This. That comment was so gross.