I heard something recently about 50 Shades of Grey being made into a movie. As a libertarian/anarchist, I will respond the same way I do to other things I'm apathetic about: I will ignore it. Or I will make fun of it.
Apparently, although people are excited that the movie is coming out, they are upset about the choice of actors.
And of course, there's the whole issue of female porn, which this falls into.
Apparently, although people are excited that the movie is coming out, they are upset about the choice of actors.
the decision to cast Dakota Johnson and Charlie Hunnam has been met with a deluge of angry tweets.Never heard of them. No idea why fans of this book would be upset by their selection.
And of course, there's the whole issue of female porn, which this falls into.
Female pornography, however, seems to be more of an all-consuming fantasy that becomes confused with reality. The fictional beautiful maiden being ravished by some marauding sheikh, to be carried off to live in the opulence of a desert harem, becomes a part of the self-identity of the housewife reading the porn. The sheikh becomes her dusky lover, and all that stands in the way is that schlub of a husband who expects her to fix him dinner and get his suit ready for work (the nerve!). Her imagination runs away with her, and next thing we know she’s fooling around with some guy named Habib from the local Halal market (feel free to mix and match ethnicity of lover according to porn setting).
I wonder why men don’t take this female porn as seriously as feminists take the male variety. It seems to me that it’s more consequential, after all.I never could get my ex-wife to understand that the emotional porn women fall into (like her Twilight, True Blood, and Secret Life of the American Teenager type stuff) is at least as damaging as the visual porn men fall for.
No comments:
Post a Comment