Re: Nicholl 2015...
OK. Let me take another stab at it.
A woman writes a sex comedy (let's forget the euphemism "raunchy" for the time being) and is offended that a reviewer (who gave it a positive review) suggested it could be rewritten (maybe as a joke) as a porno, some of which, I suppose, could as also be called "sex comedies" (and/or raunchy if you prefer).
So, essentially a reviewer (especially if he's a man) is supposed to review a "sex comedy" and leave out any reference to (you know) the sex part, or risk being called a "sexist"? Is that the gist of it?
I mean -- think about it -- is there any comment he could make about the sex while reviewing this sex comedy, that would not be construed as "sexist" by someone, somewhere out there?
Because as we all know, women (being non-sexist) write "serious and compassionate" sex comedies, whereas men (being sexist pigs) can only write "frivolous and misogynistic" sex comedies.
Originally posted by cp6267a
View Post
A woman writes a sex comedy (let's forget the euphemism "raunchy" for the time being) and is offended that a reviewer (who gave it a positive review) suggested it could be rewritten (maybe as a joke) as a porno, some of which, I suppose, could as also be called "sex comedies" (and/or raunchy if you prefer).
So, essentially a reviewer (especially if he's a man) is supposed to review a "sex comedy" and leave out any reference to (you know) the sex part, or risk being called a "sexist"? Is that the gist of it?
I mean -- think about it -- is there any comment he could make about the sex while reviewing this sex comedy, that would not be construed as "sexist" by someone, somewhere out there?
Because as we all know, women (being non-sexist) write "serious and compassionate" sex comedies, whereas men (being sexist pigs) can only write "frivolous and misogynistic" sex comedies.
Comment