„Needlessly Sexualized Female Movie Characters“…

Comment: ‚To answer the question: no one. There is no such thing as „needless“ sexuality. Who do you think you are by declaring which or whose sexuality is „needed“, and which or whose’s not? And why do you consider certain types of characters, you call sort of „classic“, like meant to be „sexy“, because of their body types or clothing? The only ones who „needlessly sexualize“ movies are the authors of this video: the character Leeloo for example was certainly not meant to be sexual, but was on the contrary portrayed as being innocent in every possible way, also in sexual regards. Likewise Disney’s „Peter Pan“ (1953) hardly tried to sexualize any character, therefore this video even sexualizes children’s movies – in both instances with a puritan notion, just because of a character’s lack of clothing. Yet J.J. Abrams and Michael Bay dared to give other characters a sexuality: a sexuality where no sexuality supposed to belong to, they dared to overcome the conventions of their movies genre. And instead of applauding those sexualities, you are offending those sexualities. Why? And why should only certain body types, body expressions, capabilities of clothing (or, again, lack of clothes) being considered as being „sexual“? What’s the matter with those body politics? For me, as a handicapped person, this video is very oppressive: it violates not only my own sexuality but also the existence of my body in this world by forcing other people’s body representations onto mine. And it also defines whose bodies could be sexual attractive, „sexy“, and whose not: this video therefore is just discriminating and plain hate speech. Spoken as a feminist: the whole notion of including anyone not capable of being a certain stereotype, like a so-called „femme fatale“, is very irritating to say the least. Or why should only the sexuality of a so-called „femme fatale“ be excluded from this list? I even ask myself, what consideration of reality and real women this is? And who’s how misogynstic towards anyone who considers any other sexuality? Again, who do you think you are by dealing with other people’s sexualities in a way like this? And how sexist is that?
I flagged the video in German: ‚Das englischsprachige Video verwendet Argumentationsmuster welche Körper in fiktionalen Darstellungen nach ihrer angeblich sexuellen Attraktivität beurteilt und dann in entweder sexuell „nötig“ oder als „unnötig“ sexualisiert kennzeichnet. Damit wird nicht nur suggeriert, dass andere Körper – wie etwa von Menschen mit Behinderungen wie mir selbst – von sich aus keine Sexualität hätten, das heißt erst „sexualisiert“ werden bräuchten, sondern werden auch bestimmte Kategorien diesbezüglich normiert“

Über pyri

PYRI / / (Pyri) / —— pyri. Steiermark/styria
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter "Kritik", Almrauschen, Alternative Lebensweisen, Amerika, Arbeitswelt und Realismen, Ästhetische Belange, BärInnendienste, Biologismus, Chauvis, Denkanstöße, Freiheiten, In eigener Sache, Post vom Mayer abgelegt und mit , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , verschlagwortet. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s