But representation without the idea of agency even fictional agency isn't positive. It's the difference between Jessica Rabbit choosing to be a scientist and Jessica Rabbit being put in a labcoat and called a scientist while doing nothing else to establish her as a scientist.
Would you not assume that someone who became a scientist must have chosen, at some point, to become a scientist?
Failing to establish a character who is meant to be a scientist as a scientist would be an issue of characterization, not agency.
Also your comment about sexy inside and outside of media. Thank you for helping support my case that on some level people who dislike sexy women in media have similar distain for their real life counterparts.
Actually what you just said illustrates pretty perfectly what I'm talking about, in that it kind of implies you aren't capable of distinguishing between the deliberate attempt to pander to or appeal to your sexual fantasies and the real human beings who sometimes do that.
If a woman is wearing a push up bra on the internet so that you will think they are sexy and give them views or money, that's a job. It's just a job. When the job is done, those women will change into a sports bra and hit the gym. They aren't fundamentally interested in whatever fantasies you have about them because they don't know you, it's just pretend, and there's nothing wrong with it as long as you're capable of understanding that it's just pretend.
There is a huge difference between fictional characters and real people. Fictional characters are created entirely to meet the needs of the audience, including sexual fantasies. If you want a real person to meet your sexual fantasies, you need to give them something they want in return. If you treat real people like fictional characters, that is crossing a very clear line.
There is absolutely no problem with women being sexy. There is a
huge problem if you assume that those women being sexy grants you the same entitlement towards them as you would have towards a fictional character.
I dunno maybe she is from the era when that look was the style and it's not some idea of her dressing up as a throwback.
Of course, but she's a fictional character.
We aren't from that era, and we're the audience.
Pretty sure that was just the general sexual repression of the era.
I mean, it was definitely a certain type of sexual repression yes. However, most Victorian men were not particularly sexually repressed, certainly not as sexually repressed as Bram Stoker, who had a largely sexless marriage and yet wrote extremely ardent letters to men he liked.
Yeh and in Jennifer's body two hot chicks totally made out
That's kinda gay bro.
Like it or not it still comes back round to the idea of suggesting a 3 way could be possible.
How exactly does two women kissing each other suggest that a three way is possible?
Like, what kind of logic is that? These two women are attracted to each other so naturally they
must also be attracted to mediocre straight men. Because we all know any sexual encounter is incomplete without being awkwardly prodded by a penis for exactly two minutes.
Or how it's frame kinda for dudes lol
You know the writer and director were both outspokenly feminist women, right? They've talked very openly about who they made this film for and how it was mismarketed. If you got something out of it, that's great for you, but it wasn't intentional. Actually, this film is not kind to dudes at all, it spends a lot of time laughing and cringing at them, but that's part of the fun.
Yes but again the argument is who it was done for. I dunno if I'd really argue the film was done specifically to appeal to people who are Bi considering the camera angels and shots don't really have that much for people interested in sexy guys (or at least not that I remember).
The film doesn't have much interest in guys at all. The guys are all background characters, villains, campy stereotypes and/or awkward teenage boys. Since this film is made for guys, tell me. Which characters did you relate to? Was it Colin, the emo who gets eaten because he's a horny idiot. Jonas, the jock who gets eaten because he's a horny idiot? Chip, the most mediocre teenage boy in history who nearly gets eaten because he's a horny idiot? Ahmed from India?
There's a line where Needy confronts Jennifer and yells at her that she's killing people, and Jennifer replies "No, I’m killing boys." From Jennifer's perspective, which is half the perspective of this film, boys are just interchangeable horny placeholders who exist to be eaten. Did that make you feel seen?
Weirdly, and I know this is hard to accept, appealing to bi people doesn't mean putting lots of hot guys and girls in your film. That's not bi, it's just a normal film. Most of the men and women in Hollywood are very attractive. What appeals to bi people is recognizable, authentic representation of distinctively bi experiences, because bi people don't get to walk into any movie and see their lives reflected on the screen, and when you don't have that, it feels incredibly nice when it does happen.
