site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   2822 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for April 9, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Now that references to periods are considered acceptable in children's media, why weren't they before? Everything Disney has done so far on this subject has been pretty tactful. (Turning Red, the Baymax short, the Molly McGee episode)

My best guess is that it's because periods are associated with sexual maturity, making it a casualty of the larger taboo of references to sex in children's media (which is a perfectly understandable taboo). But my mental models of how other people think are usually wrong, especially in regards to Culture War topics, so I figured I'd ask you guys.

I don't think most people like being made to think about other people's bodily fluids, especially people whom they're not extremely close with. This likely comes from evolutionary drives regarding purity and pathogens. Sexual maturity and sex taboos probably has something to do with it as well.

I think the only reason feminists are interested in making periods non-taboo is because it's a hobby horse that they can ride which allows them to be loud and obnoxious and in your face and make men uncomfortable, which they can point to as evidence the patriarchy is putting them down.

But really, how would they or larger society feel about such standards being applied to semen as well as period blood. Does anyone want to watch Turning White? Does anyone really want to think about pubescent boys ejaculating?

I think the reason feminists are interested in making periods non-taboo is because it's something we have to deal with regularly and need to make accommodations to our lifestyle to do so. It shouldn't be mortifying to buy tampons at the store or have an accident in public.

I don't think we need to go running around yelling "yay, periods!" but it would be nice if it weren't an unmentionable thing. We have no problem making jokes about poop in public, and that's just another bodily function.

Well, how do you feel about what I said about comparable things for men? Do you think men should feel comfortable talking about their ejaculations and semen in more public situations? Do you think that men should not feel embarrassed or shameful about having visible erections? Those are just bodily functions.

Also, not everyone is keen on talking/joking about poop. I know I'm not.

Does anyone want to watch Turning White?

If box office and game sales are any indication, they do; Spider-Man is still a major franchise.

There are often strong period taboos in other cultures. For instance see period huts.

Menstruation blood is thought to be impure as Jewish Ethiopians believe the failure to give birth is manifested in the blood. If anyone were to come into contact with the woman during their menstruation, they would too have to stay in the hut.[3] Therefore to avoid contact, the family of the women in the margam gojos will leave food outside the door. If her blood is to touch food or drink, it would be thrown out. This is why women wear leather belts under their shirts with fabric tied to them to prevent any dripping. The same idea is conveyed in that a Jewish woman cannot go to or cross rivers during menstruation lest she drip and contaminate the river

The use of menstrual huts continues to be a cause of death, from exposure, dehydration, snake bite, smoke inhalation, and so on

The relationship to womens' sexual maturity, and the blood (ew) coming out of the vagina (taboo!), means it makes sense as a taboo i guess. I don't think 'not mentioning it in media' has any particular value

and the blood (ew) coming out of the vagina (taboo!)

It's also just inherently difficult to make jokes about it- vaginas aren't universal, periods less so, and also have a "this isn't funny, this is kind of a curse and sucks ass" effect to them. So women don't really like to talk about them.

A portrayal of someone shitting, on the other hand, is both universal (as in, everyone has done this) in feeling, body movement, and otherwise; it's also temporary (instances of digestive or urinary distress are also universal) and failing to deal with it in time won't break you for a week (though it certainly will make you stink and require a wash and a change of clothes).

That isn't to say that you can't make period jokes; I seem to remember at least one comic about high-pressure period blood spraying everywhere, but they're just comparatively rare and harder to pull off.

Therefore to avoid contact, the family of the women in the margam gojos will leave food outside the door.

Otherwise known as "standard operating procedure for women in the age before Midol"; it was probably the women that insisted on some of this in the first place. A week with far less expectation of making house when you're cramped up sounds like a decent ritual for a society to have... provided your culture is not being stupid about it in other ways, that is (i.e. failing to deliver food to the hut).

I seem to remember at least one comic about high-pressure period blood spraying everywhere,

Women need live performers of the caliber Till and Rammstein. Spraying down a screaming crowd is the way forward.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Rammstein/comments/tchvq3/i_love_this_video/

Not sure. Penises are as nonuniversal as vaginas (and most people with vaginas have periods at some point), but jokes about penises are very common! And "this isn't funny, this is kind of a curse and sucks ass" isn't a universal impediment to humor, see soviet humor.

Periods have long been taboo across many cultures, with many having menstruating women seen as impure or needing to isolate. So I think it makes perfect sense that it was taboo to be in children's media. A more complicated question is, why were periods taboo but not stuff like sneezing or pooping or vomiting? I think the answer to that is that periods were possible to hide. You can't hide sneezing or pooping or vomiting from a 5 year old, so they'll inevitably make jokes about it. You can hide menstruation, so adults did.

There’s no reason to glorify it or celebrate it in popular media, and is something mothers teach their daughters about. For this same reason, we don’t have cartoons about people taking a shit on the toilet. I imagine once we have such a cartoon of lauding someone dropping a load, some will be out cheering about the destruction of another taboo. It’s a gross facet of the human body, hence why it can only be represented implicitly.

The more interesting question is what the Disney psychologists are trying to engineer when they portrayal the development of sexuality. What kind of relationships are they promoting, what kind of love interests, is this “equitable” etc? Because you can engineer someone to develop a preference or fetish based on what shows you shill them when they are young. But I haven’t watched Turning Red so I can’t dive into that. But I wonder, if most fathers knew that their daughter’s media exposure in youth informs their preferences when they are older, whether they would not take greater control over media exposure.

For this same reason, we don’t have cartoons about people taking a shit on the toilet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_Poops

I imagine once we have such a cartoon of lauding someone dropping a load, some will be out cheering about the destruction of another taboo.

South Park has a few episodes like this, but doesn't get credit from the people who would normally be cheering that for what should be obvious reasons.

Because you can engineer someone to develop a preference or fetish based on what shows you shill them when they are young.

Indeed; the furry fandom is relatively new since the medium over which that fetish propagates is similarly recent. That said, the protagonist from Turning Red (and indeed, all the pandas) was a fat CalArts blob and not Lola Bunny, so it's not likely to have much of a seductive effect on the men or women who watch it.

whether they would not take greater control over media exposure

"Mom good dad bad" (or its related "mom good dad missing") has been room temperature in media for the past 20+ years for a bunch of reasons, and that's not generally something the parents who want that control are going to base their criteria on- their objections tend to be more short-term about "it encourages kids to be more hyper or selfish" (or the general "it seems today that all you see is violence in movies and sex on TV") rather than the background temperature.

Now, you could conceivably get away with this if you carefully curated the media selection they had access to ensure they don't grow up assuming that men are all as stupid and shallow as the TV suggests they are, but the problem is that, like escaping any gravity well, you need some serious effort to pull that off and not end up doing the equivalent of (topically) intentionally failing to deliver food to the menstrual hut (and through those actions prove the TV is right).

For this same reason, we don’t have cartoons about people taking a shit on the toilet.

Aren't bathrooms / toilets / urine and feces common sources of the crude humor often found in cartoons?

The more interesting question is what the Disney psychologists are trying to engineer when they portrayal the development of sexuality

From their perspective, not discussing periods is just an example of conservative sexism and body-shaming, and keeps important information away from girls and women?

Potty humour appears endlessly in children's media. I'd say you'd probably have a harder time finding a cartoon that doesn't mark poop/fart jokes than finding one that does. No one's going to laud a cartoon about dropping a load because it's already common place.

Which cartoon do you have in mind whose plot is about taking a poop (versus a poop joke)?

Captain Underpants has a major antagonist who's a giant toilet. Silent Butt Deadly is an episode of the cartoon 6teen that revolves around a character trying to poop.

Feces is referenced in cartoons all the time. It's almost never showed on screen because of S&P stuff, but it's talked about.

You say that "you can engineer someone to develop a preference or fetish based on what shows you shill them when they are young", but isn't that anecdotal? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'd just love to see research on people who watched Willy Wonka as a kid and developed inflation fetishes.

The implicit view our media-makers seem to take is that taboo-breaking is intrinsically good. Turning Red, whatever it did, was sold as a boundary-pushing film with scatological subject matter discussed frankly. But is that itself venerable? Why are we celebrating that as an unmitigated good?

Our culture, our art, tends toward this destructive impulse. Watch the language: we break taboos, smash sacred cows, subvert expectations, break stereotypes, and so on. Correspondingly, what is traditional, conservative, or restrictive to nearly any capacity is represented as backwards and fearful, rather than as healthy and signalling a robust community.

What movies have been made in our lifetimes wherein a character's negative snap-judgments on an outsider have proven correct? When has art made within the last fifty years even come close to endorsing a societal taboo as good and wholesome? When has "boundary-pushing" for its own sake ever been represented as the deeply lazy and pathological trait it often is in reality? Barely ever.

Mainstream superhero films.

It's a fundamentally conservative genre where heroes exist to defend the public from change. Obvious, stylized costumes signpost good and evil. Problems are not subtle, though occasionally, only the heroes can see through a villain's deception. Fortunately, they tend to be able to bring overwhelming force to bear. After the violence is over the heroes settle down to eat shawarma and wait for the next ideologue to threaten dramatic changes to their way of life.

Comics have been through a series of deconstruction/reconstruction cycles on the subject. Blockbuster movies haven't kept up with comic-book weirdness, and continue to play it straight. Marvel may play around with genre and storytelling, but they consistently remain in the bounds of heroic, straightforward narratives.

Frankly, I think you're wrong to identify the destructive impulse as foundational to our art. It's a trend that comes and goes, an ongoing Hegelian synthesis. Yeah, "subverting expectations" got a lot of mindshare in the wake of Game of Thrones' disastrous conclusion; when people talked about prestige TV, they had a ready-made catchphrase. But those catchphrases, those trends, exist on a substrate of quality art. They are attempts to differentiate in a market with higher production values than any time in history. They're working on you, right now, when you can bring examples to mind for one trope but not another.

And when audiences wise up and roll their eyes at "subversion," its edge will be lost, until some fresh-faced exec pitches an honest, refreshing show about interesting people doing interesting stuff.

My go-to for this is Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs - the technological improvement is a disaster, and the father is proven correct in his impulse to not partake nor support it. He never eats the food from the invention!

It's been a while since I've seen the film, but I do remember that.

Also, the Lego Movie. Its message is that sometimes "conformity" is good! Being a teamplayer means following some rules and sometimes curbing your impulse to be your own peculiar creature.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats