# Misogyny and pop culture: don't yuck my yum! (Spoilers for the movie Poor Things) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2024, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107 "2024-02-04T22:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/41 "2024-02-05T03:06:37Z")
Yeah, it really didn’t come across to me that Eonwe was “scolding” or “lecturing” any other posters in the Cafe Society thread. (In this Pit thread, on the other hand, sure, but it’s the Pit.) I read what she wrote as a contemptuous dismissal of the way the movie looked to her, based on reviews and trailers etc. I didn’t see her telling any other posters that they were wrong for having a different opinion of the movie. People are allowed to have a general impression of what a movie they haven’t seen, or a book they haven’t read, is saying. And if somebody’s general impression is that this artwork they haven’t directly experienced seems to be reflecting common social biases, they are not automatically wrong just because they haven’t seen or read the work in question for themselves. Not even if you disagree with their impression. And if somebody describes why they don’t like the reflections of social biases that are present in their impression of the artwork, they are not automatically “lecturing” or “scolding” you for having a different impression. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What is the magic “not misogynist” recipe for a movie? Well-poisoning question. Obviously, you can’t make any movie in a historically and persistently (although of course not universally) misogynistic culture and have it be magically guaranteed “not misogynist”. Maybe Poor Things is to some extent lazily reflecting pervasive societal misogyny, and maybe it isn’t. I haven’t seen it, or even trailers or reviews of it, so I don’t know. But I think the amount of defensive bristling that Eonwe encountered in that thread, merely for describing her personal impression of the film (which she candidly acknowledged was not based on actually watching it) was a bit uncalled-for. (And I confess I kind of wish the laws of physics would permit in this case some kind of controlled experiment in which the Emma Stone “Bella” character is played by a fat and otherwise less conventionally-attractive actress, to compare the ways that viewers react to the portrayal of her development of agency.) ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/42 "2024-02-05T03:15:01Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I gotta say, from the descriptions of the movie in this and the other thread, given by people who saw it and liked it, it sure as hell sounds like a misogynistic movie informed solely by the male gaze. I haven’t seen the movie, but it sure is loved by a prominent _extremely_ feminist website: > **[You searched for poor things | The Mary Sue](https://www.themarysue.com/?s=poor%2Bthings)** ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/43 "2024-02-05T03:21:46Z")
It wouldn’t work because the dynamic was the interest men had in her as desirable property to possess and control based mostly on her attractiveness. Her “free spirit” was attractive only to very limited points. But at the risk of being a junior mod there is a thread to discuss the movie that allows open spoilers and I am afraid this thread is crossing into spoiler territory. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/44 "2024-02-05T03:26:54Z")
Note that, now that I’m actually looking for and at reviews of Poor Things, I also had no trouble finding ones by [feminist commentators who did see the movie and who largely agreed with Eonwe’s impression (as well as ones who didn’t):](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/24/bound-gagged-poor-things-feminist-masterpiece-male-sex-fantasy-oscar-emma-stone-ruffalo) > [@](#): > > [one commentator:] The feting of Poor Things – a heterosexual middle-aged man’s fantasy about nymphomania, with the flimsiest covering of “satire” and a tagged-on message about female genital mutilation being “bad” – merely confirms that feminism still has a long way to go. […] > > [another commentator:] _This kid loves her body!_ _She has no sense of limitations or propriety! She’s wild and free!_ Bella learns to enjoy her body. She learns to read. And then she learns to appreciate the joys of employment in a Parisian brothel where she “asserts herself” by bravely informing the punters that they stink. Don’t worry, though, she still loves having sex with them! By this point, I had lost the will to live. > > The grotesque, surreal comedy of this film is undeniable. […] We do not know the gender of the implanted infant brain. We are never told exactly what happened to her womb. Can Bella menstruate or get pregnant? Who cares? In a situation where transplants, hybrid animals and bubbles of gastric juice are portrayed in meticulous and fantastical detail, the inconveniences of the real-life body of a sexually active child-woman are too boring to explain. > > The film’s message is clearly one of personal discovery and freedom from shame. Yay to that. But how can it be that, in 2024, we are supposed to believe that it’s shocking and surprising for a woman to enjoy sex? And how liberating can it be to have the brain of your own baby implanted into you and then go and work in a brothel? I despair. […] > > [yet another commentator] For me, to declare Poor Things feminist would not only be reductive to feminism but also to the film. Yes, Bella has loads of sex and […] focuses only on her pleasure. While shagging her way round Europe, she escapes men who wish to control her – another win for the “Poor Things is feminist” school of thought. > > But for everyone who felt empowered watching her story play out on screen, another five felt cheated out of a true depiction of the female experience. For some, the sheer amount of on-screen sex veered into a male fantasy of womanhood, directed and written by a man, and epitomising the male gaze. > > [and another:] Bloated wank fantasy or simple-hearted bildungsroman? Poor Things is both. The plot is this: Frankenstein creates a manic pixie baby dream girl who’s also a socialist PhD hooker who’s also a thoroughly modern Millie and striking fashion plate who makes no emotional demands and is also a really intelligent nymphomaniac without a jealous bone in her body. With her fresh mind, literal interpretation of events and gorgeous looks, she’s just so bewitchingly bold and artlessly instinctual and unspoilt that she drives men mad with lust and love and longing. But those men just want to control her. > > Bella’s “adventures” are 98% penetrative heterosexual sex and 2% conversation. I was particularly grateful for her foray into brothel life, because men who write stories can’t imagine any job for women except prostitution, and then they turn themselves inside out spaffing off about how it’s all just so philosophically interesting, and add insult to injury by putting these masturbatory, self-justifying thoughts into the mouths of fictional women. > > [one more:] […] Greta Gerwig’s Barbie, which featured a similar plot, an overwhelming reliance on fish-out-of-water humour, and a similar propensity for didactic, simplistic morality. In both films, a woman created by men goes on a quest for self-determination and meaning, realises she hates the horrors of the “real” world, and decides to settle for a sense of slightly enlightened equilibrium back in her cloistered old world. In both films, I found it astounding that the surface-level allusions to feminist ideals were greeted with such outsized praise. > > Poor Things reminded me of the Tumblr-level gender politics of my high school years, which dictated that a woman’s power is inherently linked to her anatomy and fucking as much as you can is a source of uncomplicated liberation. There’s nothing particularly wrong with those ideas, but Poor Things makes no effort at all to complicate or question them […] > > Some of my favourite films are women’s stories by men. But Poor Things struck me as self-congratulatory and fake deep, obsessed with its own radical approach to a female coming-of-age story. It feels like Barbie for people who thought they were a little too smart for Barbie, but still want their discussions of gender politics served up to them in neat little inspirational speeches. ---
**Author:** ![peccavi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peccavi/32/388_2.png) [@peccavi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peccavi)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/45 "2024-02-05T03:29:47Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I did not experience it as erotica in any way. If it was for my “gaze” it failed. Mine too. Until I encountered the threads here, the terms “erotic”, “sexual”, or “liberating sex” never occurred to me. Emma Stone has created an entirely novel character, a baby/child/teen/woman without filter or fear. And no one who has seen the sex scenes is going to be titillated. Emma Stone naked is a woman (attractive) who has lived a life, has a body that shows she’s had a child and one that makes it obvious that “hitting the gym” was not part of her preparation. The male characters are shown in the same way, with every flaw and misshapen body exposed to the camera’s gaze (I guess that would be the female gaze) and occupying a position of pathos and disgust in the narrative as it plays out. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/46 "2024-02-05T03:37:04Z")
I would submit that a movie which stirs so much debate from all sides (and disagreement even within the same sides) has something interesting going for it. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/47 "2024-02-05T03:39:00Z")
I think a big part of the problem is that most movies are still being made by men. There are tons of women out there who want to tell stories reflecting their own experience but they aren’t given the funding. I haven’t seen the movie but I probably will so I have been avoiding reading about it. Why couldn’t the Bella character be a man? Was the director specifically trying to say something about the female experience? Did he think maybe he should have hired more women on the production? There are some male directors who primarily make films about women, some with more success than others. Alex Garland comes to mind. I always kind of wonder what motivates that. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/48 "2024-02-05T03:40:33Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > Why couldn’t the Bella character be a man? At a guess because this is a re-imagining of “Frankenstein”. They wanted to flip the script a bit. Change scary man monster brought back from the dead (been done) to attractive young woman brought back from the dead. Again, just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/49 "2024-02-05T03:42:15Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > Why couldn’t the Bella character be a man? Was the director specifically trying to say something about the female experience? The director was adapting a novel from 1992. > **[Poor Things](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Things)** > > Poor Things: Episodes from the Early Life of Archibald McCandless M.D., Scottish Public Health Officer is a novel by Scottish writer Alasdair Gray, published in 1992. It won the Whitbread Award and the Guardian Fiction Prize the same year. > The novel was called "a magnificently brisk, funny, dirty, brainy book" by the London Review of Books. It is a departure from Gray's usual subject-matter of Glasgow realism and fantasy. However, its Victorian narrative takes in Gray's previous concerns with... ---
**Author:** ![peccavi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peccavi/32/388_2.png) [@peccavi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peccavi)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/50 "2024-02-05T03:42:35Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > Why couldn’t the Bella character be a man? Was the director specifically trying to say something about the female experience? Did he think maybe he should have hired more women on the production? Maybe you should read some of the interviews with the producer who spent 4 years co-creating the character and her arc? [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Emma_Stone_at_Maniac_UK_premiere_%28cropped%29.jpg) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Emma_Stone_at_Maniac_UK_premiere_%28cropped%29.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/51 "2024-02-05T03:44:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would submit that a movie which stirs so much debate from all sides (and disagreement even within the same sides) has something interesting going for it. Sure, I don’t think anybody at all is saying that the film has nothing interesting going for it. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/52 "2024-02-05T03:47:42Z")
> [@peccavi](#): > > Maybe you should read some of the interviews with the producer who spent 4 years co-creating the character and her arc? Good for him. I have spent 53 years being a woman. Like I said I plan to see the film eventually. ETA, I see you said producer. But I don’t think the fact that obviously he found an actress to take the part negates my points. ---
**Author:** ![peccavi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peccavi/32/388_2.png) [@peccavi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peccavi)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/53 "2024-02-05T03:51:13Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > Good for him. Is this a whoosh? The producer is Emma Stone, you may have heard of _him_, She and Lanthimos started talking about making this film while making The Favourite, she signed on as a producer and they spent 4 years shaping the character and her arc before the cameras rolled. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/54 "2024-02-05T03:53:35Z")
This all sounds vaguely familiar to me. With the same cast of characters. I opined I thought a school teacher shouldn’t be doing porn online in a thread about just that, even if she did get lots of money for it. I thought it mysogisnistic, degrading and demeaning for women. And should not be done. Some people in this very thread who blasted me for my opinion that’s it’s the “male gaze” that drives _Only fans_ is a horrible thing for a woman to do , now say a presumedly well paid actress should not have done this movie _because_ it’s a movie by and for men to fantasize about. It’s mysogisnistic, you know. Bad for women. It degrades a sexy, slim beautiful woman. So…all the men in the teacher/Only fans thread wanted it to happen because well, yeah, oooh! Teacher boobies!! And all the woman posting said it’s ok because Teacher chooses to make a butt-load of money posting porn. Good for her and her bravery. I bet Emma Stone ran to the bank to cash that butt-load of a check. Laughing all the way. Huh? ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/55 "2024-02-05T03:57:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What is the magic “not misogynist” recipe for a movie? Being an adult, not a totally blank slate child. > [@Beckdawrek](#): > > Some people in this very thread who blasted me for my opinion that’s it’s the “male gaze” that drives _Only fans_ is a horrible thing for a woman to do , now say a presumedly well paid actress should not have done this movie Huh? I don’t think a single person has said that the actress shouldn’t have taken the part. Nor that the film shouldn’t have been made. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/56 "2024-02-05T04:03:16Z")
Misogyny is misogyny. It’s hard to have a firm opinion here sometimes. If @Eonwe opinion that this movie is not for them, for whatever reason, that should be the end of it. Their opinion is as important as anyone else’s. I know for certain, absolutely certain I won’t be watching Only fans stuff. I think it’s a bad look for women and doesn’t help anyone but the people who own the website. It’s degrading and stupid. That is my opinion and I stand by it. All porn is horrible for women as a whole. That’s not to say I think ‘Poor things’ is porn. Cause I do not. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/57 "2024-02-05T04:05:52Z")
> [@peccavi](#): > > Maybe you should read some of the interviews with the producer who spent 4 years co-creating the character and her arc? I think you might be overselling that argument a bit? In the interviews I’ve read, [such as this one](https://www.vogue.com/article/emma-stone-yorgos-lanthimos-poor-things-interview), Stone has been pretty clear that Lanthimos’s direction, based on Gray’s book and McNamara’s script, was the primary shaping force: “Yorgos was the one making those decisions”, “I trust Yorgos implicitly”. I’m not in any way dissing the hard work and creativity wielded by Stone to bring the character to life, but I think it might be an overstatement to say that the character and her experiences were “created” by Stone in any other sense. While I’m reading stuff about this movie, [a male reviewer likewise skeptical about its “feminism” claims weighs in:](https://www.thelantern.com/2023/12/movie-review-poor-things-is-emblematic-of-larger-issues-in-current-cinema/) > [@](#): > > 2023 […] will most likely be known for the cultural phenomenon that was “Barbenheimer,” or the dual release of Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” and Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” in July. > > While both films received wide acclaim, they also had their small share of critics, with a common judgment of “Barbie” being that its messages of female empowerment were shallow, and for “Oppenheimer,” Nolan’s continued inability to write female characters with depth. > > It’s bizarre, although fitting, that “Poor Things” — one of 2023’s final big releases and contenders for Best Picture at the next Oscars — makes the same mistakes that held back this year’s other award competitors from being all-time classics. […] > > The issue is that “Poor Things” ends up reading more like a work of feminist literature written by a man whose only experience speaking to women is mansplaining philosophy to them on a first date that will not lead to a second. […] > > Bella’s intellectual growth is irrevocably tied to her escalating sexual experiences, from her repeated acts with her lover to her working as a prostitute in order to gain her own money after splitting off from him. > > As a result, “Poor Things” feels like a commercial empowerment fantasy forced down many modern-day women’s throats: They can “have it all,” from a loving husband — who Bella does find at the end of the film in the form of Godwin’s lab assistant, who helped raise her — to an exciting and empowering sex life, to a fulfilling career. > > While it does seem like “Poor Things” attempts to deconstruct and poke fun at this notion — Bella’s empirical “experiments” juxtapose the all-knowing auras of her scientific male caretakers, whose knowledge is mostly derived from books — it doesn’t do enough to subvert the reality that what viewers are actually seeing on screen is fundamentally problematic. > > Aside from Bella’s burgeoning independence and intellect being correlated to her exponentially large number of sexual partners, her development is shaped by men at every turn. She’s introduced to philosophy by a man she meets on a boat, with the pinnacle of her career being marked by her becoming a surgeon like her father and performing the same morally flawed operations as him, in a way proving that she has learned nothing. […] > > On a surface level, “Poor Things” is enjoyable enough as a decently funny movie that is more unconventional than mainstream blockbusters, fueled by an award-worthy performance from Stone and some absolutely gorgeous set designs that also draw similarity to those seen in Gerwig’s “Barbie.” > > If audience members are perturbed by the disturbing connection between Bella’s sexuality and intelligence, thinking about it one layer deeper can provide some solace as the link attempts to play on the small-minded worldview of sexist men. But if they go one layer deeper, they may begin to realize that just because a movie pokes fun at sexism does not make it inherently feminist. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/58 "2024-02-05T04:07:52Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Being an adult, not a totally blank slate child. Well…at its most basic, a totally blank slate child in an adult female body finding her way is the basis of the movie. Is that inherently misogynistic? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/59 "2024-02-05T04:08:06Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > I know for certain, absolutely certain I won’t be watching Only fans stuff. I think it’s a bad look for women and doesn’t help anyone but the people who own the website. It’s degrading and stupid. That is my opinion and I stand by it. > > All porn is horrible for women as a whole. You are staring down a generation gap. Modern feminism is largely sex-positive. (The Mary Sue, which I mentioned earlier, certainly is.) > **[Sex-positive feminism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism)** > > Sex-positive feminism, also known as pro-sex feminism, sex-radical feminism, or sexually liberal feminism, is a feminist movement centering on the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women's freedom. They oppose legal or social efforts to control sexual activities between consenting adults, whether they are initiated by the government, other feminists, opponents of feminism, or any other institution. They embrace sexual minority groups, endorsing the value of coalition-building ... ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107/60 "2024-02-05T04:09:27Z")
But even today’s young feminists are not unanimous in support of the notion that “sex-positive” implies “porn-positive”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/misogyny-and-pop-culture-dont-yuck-my-yum-spoilers-for-the-movie-poor-things/997107.md?page=4)