Hi, I'm a long time reader and occassional poster under Anonymous. This my first comment under a pseudonym. As you can guess, I'm a lawyer in real life.
Sarkeesian is right about the problems with the damsel in distress trope. My issue is one that comes up with a lot of conflicting fantasies though, how do we determine what fantasies and daydreams are appropriate, who gets to indulge in them, and how should they be indulged. A lot of the male audience for damsels in distress tropes love believing that they are the hero thats going to save the girl and be rewarded with romance and/or sex. Its not necessarily a healthy fantasy for the reason Sarkeesian outlined and because real world romance doesn't work that way. DNL made a plausible argument that a lot of the dating or even interactions with women in general problems that nerd boys have can be traced back to the damsel in distress trope. It should also be noted that not a small number of women have fantasies about being rescued to but they tend to enjoy these fantasies through books, movies, and tv rather than video games. So the damsel in distress fantasy is troubling but common. Should people be educated not to indulge in this fantasy or should it be considered as harmless.
What I'm trying to get at in a rambling sort of way is that this a variety of the debate concering problematic entertainment and its impact on the real world. Whether its violent movies, pornography or rescue the princess fantasies, people have argued that certain forms of entertainment are inherently problematic. Are they? If they are, what can or should be done about it?
Thats true. The Tanakh doesn't shy away from the more unpleseant aspects of life.* The Tanakh ranges from very clear to rather vague in the meaning of its pasages. "Thou shall not commit adultery" is a pretty clear in its meaning. "You shall not cook a calf in its own mother's milk" is not. To understand the meaning you need to debate the pasages and make comparisons. Its what gave us the Talmud.
*The Tanakh is also more open to the joys of life. There is nothing in the New Testament that celebrates romantic love and sex like the Song of Songs. The Tanakh is much less puritanical than the New Testament and the Qu'Ran.
+1. I'm really pissed off at people who keep shitting on the Tanakh. At least to me, its endlessly more sensible than the New Testament and leads to more rigorous intellectual activity.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Anita Sarkeesian and the Damsel in Distress Trope”
Hi, I'm a long time reader and occassional poster under Anonymous. This my first comment under a pseudonym. As you can guess, I'm a lawyer in real life.
Sarkeesian is right about the problems with the damsel in distress trope. My issue is one that comes up with a lot of conflicting fantasies though, how do we determine what fantasies and daydreams are appropriate, who gets to indulge in them, and how should they be indulged. A lot of the male audience for damsels in distress tropes love believing that they are the hero thats going to save the girl and be rewarded with romance and/or sex. Its not necessarily a healthy fantasy for the reason Sarkeesian outlined and because real world romance doesn't work that way. DNL made a plausible argument that a lot of the dating or even interactions with women in general problems that nerd boys have can be traced back to the damsel in distress trope. It should also be noted that not a small number of women have fantasies about being rescued to but they tend to enjoy these fantasies through books, movies, and tv rather than video games. So the damsel in distress fantasy is troubling but common. Should people be educated not to indulge in this fantasy or should it be considered as harmless.
What I'm trying to get at in a rambling sort of way is that this a variety of the debate concering problematic entertainment and its impact on the real world. Whether its violent movies, pornography or rescue the princess fantasies, people have argued that certain forms of entertainment are inherently problematic. Are they? If they are, what can or should be done about it?
On “Thursday Night Bar Fight #3: The Thinking Person’s Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins Quandary”
Thats true. The Tanakh doesn't shy away from the more unpleseant aspects of life.* The Tanakh ranges from very clear to rather vague in the meaning of its pasages. "Thou shall not commit adultery" is a pretty clear in its meaning. "You shall not cook a calf in its own mother's milk" is not. To understand the meaning you need to debate the pasages and make comparisons. Its what gave us the Talmud.
*The Tanakh is also more open to the joys of life. There is nothing in the New Testament that celebrates romantic love and sex like the Song of Songs. The Tanakh is much less puritanical than the New Testament and the Qu'Ran.
"
+1. I'm really pissed off at people who keep shitting on the Tanakh. At least to me, its endlessly more sensible than the New Testament and leads to more rigorous intellectual activity.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.