Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> something in the individual's brain has realized that what it's getting from the eyes is supposed to be exciting.

If you motion captured someone dancing sexually I would recognize what it's supposed to be even if you applied that animation to a wireframe of bones. I could even do that even if I didn't find grown women (or men) dancing sexually attractive myself, just by osmosis, just like I know an ad for a car is supposed to elicit this or that association, while not caring much for cars myself.

> The self-disgust this causes is

an assumption of yours, and you might as well ask what makes you engage in these mental gymnastics. I don't find children dancing sexually arousing in the least, yet still recognize it as dancing sexually, which isn't weird or interesting at all, much less "ugly".




Except for the fact that I never said "arousing", I don't think we disagree. You're just not mortified by the recognition of what you see.


I do disagree with you say.

You say there is "something in the brain" of someone who recognizes this for sexual dancing, as something that is supposed to be exciting (which to me in this context is just an euphemism for arousing) -- but you don't say what that is, just call it an "ugly implication".

I say that all that's required in the brain is a passing familiarity with general society, and the same behavior/dancing in adults. That's neither ugly nor interesting nor an insight. The only interesting thing is how you first assume some sort of denial in anyone criticizing the movie, then turn around and can't even handle that I do, in fact, disagree with you, because you're wrong.


If you say so. I see our difference as being mostly semantics, but you're quite upset.

> because you're wrong

I'm okay with that.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: