<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Don Jon (2013)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/</link>
	<description>By and about sex workers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 06:09:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: jenny heineman		</title>
		<link>https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/#comment-13832</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jenny heineman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2013 19:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://titsandsass.com/?p=14671#comment-13832</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you both for your intriguing responses. I disagree, however, that the film &quot;does not address sex work&quot; or that Jon&#039;s materialism is more about maintaing order than anything else. In fact, in an interview with Gordon Levitt on the film&#039;s Tumblr, he criticizes Jon&#039;s character for his objectification of everything from cars to women. The maintenance of his apartment and porn viewing habits are part and partial of said objectification. That&#039;s all good and fine, but then Barbara--the objectifIED--is subsequently painted as the villain. I&#039;m certainly not trying to argue that she was a sex worker herself. My argument is that her character is the proverbial whore, used only as juxtaposition for Esther&#039;s altruism, which is deeply problematic considering superficial roles like these seem to be the only two roles for women in Hollywood films. 

To address another point-- yes, perhaps the film is supposed to be for young men, as you point out Ginger. But shouldn&#039;t films for young men--particularly films that are critical of gender relations and culture--at the very least pass the Bechdel test? Maybe Esther and Barbara could&#039;ve watched good porn together! And then the film could&#039;ve ended in a threesome! Now that would have been much more interesting...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you both for your intriguing responses. I disagree, however, that the film &#8220;does not address sex work&#8221; or that Jon&#8217;s materialism is more about maintaing order than anything else. In fact, in an interview with Gordon Levitt on the film&#8217;s Tumblr, he criticizes Jon&#8217;s character for his objectification of everything from cars to women. The maintenance of his apartment and porn viewing habits are part and partial of said objectification. That&#8217;s all good and fine, but then Barbara&#8211;the objectifIED&#8211;is subsequently painted as the villain. I&#8217;m certainly not trying to argue that she was a sex worker herself. My argument is that her character is the proverbial whore, used only as juxtaposition for Esther&#8217;s altruism, which is deeply problematic considering superficial roles like these seem to be the only two roles for women in Hollywood films. </p>
<p>To address another point&#8211; yes, perhaps the film is supposed to be for young men, as you point out Ginger. But shouldn&#8217;t films for young men&#8211;particularly films that are critical of gender relations and culture&#8211;at the very least pass the Bechdel test? Maybe Esther and Barbara could&#8217;ve watched good porn together! And then the film could&#8217;ve ended in a threesome! Now that would have been much more interesting&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ginger		</title>
		<link>https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/#comment-13599</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ginger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://titsandsass.com/?p=14671#comment-13599</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Personally, I didn&#039;t see the film&#039;s priority as an exploration of the sex trade so much as an exploration of consumer culture in the context of a young Jersey man&#039;s life. Gordon-Levitt&#039;s attack was primarily on the Catholic Church, traditional marriage, and the capitalist obsession with looks over substance. Barbara&#039;s character wanted to consume Jon, investing time in manipulating him into quitting his porn hobby and taking night school to change him to fulfill an image, and he in turn wished to consume her, as she fit his trope of all a woman could possibly be (&quot;she&#039;s the most beautiful thing I ever seen&quot; indicates she&#039;s only something to look at. Their personalities are irrelevant in this relationship). In contrast, Jon&#039;s relationship with Esther is communicative, honest and seems to be emotionally satisfying. It&#039;s apparent that both are damaged and the film hardly takes money or work as its subject matter. Sex is only viewed as a representation of the possible relationship and power balance between a man and woman, and the film encourages reciprocity and discussion of needs in a mutually satisfying romantic relationship. It does not address sex work. Jon does not even enter a strip club or buy a girl a drink in the course of the movie. If Barbara is to be viewed as someone a sex worker is to be empathetic towards, well Jesus Mary was her price ever steep-- she demanded Jon&#039;s complete sexual attention, control over his time and habits, and eventually his legal and teleological commitment in marriage. I would never demand such a thing of my customers.

The story was told from a male perspective because it was a message to young men. It is far time we had more movies about the commodification of sex and of the female body as told from a female perspective, but this was not a film about women. This was a film about one dude getting over his simple consumerist take on sex, relationships, and life. If it was longer, more detailed, and more feminist, it would have lost its core audience.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I didn&#8217;t see the film&#8217;s priority as an exploration of the sex trade so much as an exploration of consumer culture in the context of a young Jersey man&#8217;s life. Gordon-Levitt&#8217;s attack was primarily on the Catholic Church, traditional marriage, and the capitalist obsession with looks over substance. Barbara&#8217;s character wanted to consume Jon, investing time in manipulating him into quitting his porn hobby and taking night school to change him to fulfill an image, and he in turn wished to consume her, as she fit his trope of all a woman could possibly be (&#8220;she&#8217;s the most beautiful thing I ever seen&#8221; indicates she&#8217;s only something to look at. Their personalities are irrelevant in this relationship). In contrast, Jon&#8217;s relationship with Esther is communicative, honest and seems to be emotionally satisfying. It&#8217;s apparent that both are damaged and the film hardly takes money or work as its subject matter. Sex is only viewed as a representation of the possible relationship and power balance between a man and woman, and the film encourages reciprocity and discussion of needs in a mutually satisfying romantic relationship. It does not address sex work. Jon does not even enter a strip club or buy a girl a drink in the course of the movie. If Barbara is to be viewed as someone a sex worker is to be empathetic towards, well Jesus Mary was her price ever steep&#8211; she demanded Jon&#8217;s complete sexual attention, control over his time and habits, and eventually his legal and teleological commitment in marriage. I would never demand such a thing of my customers.</p>
<p>The story was told from a male perspective because it was a message to young men. It is far time we had more movies about the commodification of sex and of the female body as told from a female perspective, but this was not a film about women. This was a film about one dude getting over his simple consumerist take on sex, relationships, and life. If it was longer, more detailed, and more feminist, it would have lost its core audience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sheldon		</title>
		<link>https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/#comment-12946</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 03:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://titsandsass.com/?p=14671#comment-12946</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Sorry, when I referred to Barbara&#039;s agenda, I meant that I didn&#039;t see that her agenda as what you thought it was.

I do my own housework - so am I a materialist?  Jon has hobbies but he doesn&#039;t seem hung up on the acquisition of things.  If anything, he&#039;s all about maintaining order in the various facets of his life

I didn&#039;t see the film as needing to end with them watching porn together.  They have just discovered each other, and when two folks who are attracted each other also like porn, that&#039;s a very intense, deep connection (the way Jon and Esther stared at each other at the end, I really could identify with that).  So it makes sense that they&#039;re going to have lots of sex before doing anything else.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, when I referred to Barbara&#8217;s agenda, I meant that I didn&#8217;t see that her agenda as what you thought it was.</p>
<p>I do my own housework &#8211; so am I a materialist?  Jon has hobbies but he doesn&#8217;t seem hung up on the acquisition of things.  If anything, he&#8217;s all about maintaining order in the various facets of his life</p>
<p>I didn&#8217;t see the film as needing to end with them watching porn together.  They have just discovered each other, and when two folks who are attracted each other also like porn, that&#8217;s a very intense, deep connection (the way Jon and Esther stared at each other at the end, I really could identify with that).  So it makes sense that they&#8217;re going to have lots of sex before doing anything else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: jenny heineman		</title>
		<link>https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/#comment-12910</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jenny heineman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Nov 2013 05:07:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://titsandsass.com/?p=14671#comment-12910</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Barbara&#039;s &quot;class-baiting&quot; and insensitivity towards Jon&#039;s housework brings up interesting points--first, the scene you&#039;re speaking of feels misplaced, almost as if Gordon-Levitt was scrambling to articulate the depths of Barbara&#039;s villainousness. Second, and more importantly, Jon&#039;s apartment grooming is initially built up as one piece of his encompassing materialism, yet in this &quot;class-baiting&quot; scene, we&#039;re supposed to root for him and his grooming habits! It&#039;s as if Jon&#039;s materialism suddenly become palatable when compared to Barbara&#039;s girly cattiness. Boys rule and girls drool. And, for the record, my statement about Barbara&#039;s so-called agenda comes directly from the film. Indeed, the only words Jon&#039;s sister mutters are, &quot;Barbara has her own agenda.&quot; 

To your other point, Esther briefly chastises Jon&#039;s taste in porn and suggests alternatives, yes, but in the end, Jon&#039;s heroism is linked to the eradication of materialism in his life, porn included (although I imagine he still polishes his apartment like a string of pearls). Had the film ended with Jon and Esther nestled on a couch watching great porn together, I&#039;d feel differently. But it doesn&#039;t. It ends with the glorification of a white, heteronormative relationship between a privileged man and an altruistic woman.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barbara&#8217;s &#8220;class-baiting&#8221; and insensitivity towards Jon&#8217;s housework brings up interesting points&#8211;first, the scene you&#8217;re speaking of feels misplaced, almost as if Gordon-Levitt was scrambling to articulate the depths of Barbara&#8217;s villainousness. Second, and more importantly, Jon&#8217;s apartment grooming is initially built up as one piece of his encompassing materialism, yet in this &#8220;class-baiting&#8221; scene, we&#8217;re supposed to root for him and his grooming habits! It&#8217;s as if Jon&#8217;s materialism suddenly become palatable when compared to Barbara&#8217;s girly cattiness. Boys rule and girls drool. And, for the record, my statement about Barbara&#8217;s so-called agenda comes directly from the film. Indeed, the only words Jon&#8217;s sister mutters are, &#8220;Barbara has her own agenda.&#8221; </p>
<p>To your other point, Esther briefly chastises Jon&#8217;s taste in porn and suggests alternatives, yes, but in the end, Jon&#8217;s heroism is linked to the eradication of materialism in his life, porn included (although I imagine he still polishes his apartment like a string of pearls). Had the film ended with Jon and Esther nestled on a couch watching great porn together, I&#8217;d feel differently. But it doesn&#8217;t. It ends with the glorification of a white, heteronormative relationship between a privileged man and an altruistic woman.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sheldon		</title>
		<link>https://titsandsass.com/don-jon-2013/#comment-12894</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Nov 2013 03:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://titsandsass.com/?p=14671#comment-12894</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[We did not see the same film.

Barbara does not have her &quot;own&quot; agenda.  She is a materialistic princess who is appalled that working class Don Jon buys Swiffer mops because he likes doing his own housework.  She engages in class-baiting throughout the movie, and she tries to manipulate him so that he can become Harry to her Leona Helmsley.

The Julianne Moore character likes porn!  And she recommends that he watch a porn film made by a Danish woman.  And by the end of the film, the two porn consumers end up in each other&#039;s arms.  And that, in a quiet way, is Hollywood making history.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We did not see the same film.</p>
<p>Barbara does not have her &#8220;own&#8221; agenda.  She is a materialistic princess who is appalled that working class Don Jon buys Swiffer mops because he likes doing his own housework.  She engages in class-baiting throughout the movie, and she tries to manipulate him so that he can become Harry to her Leona Helmsley.</p>
<p>The Julianne Moore character likes porn!  And she recommends that he watch a porn film made by a Danish woman.  And by the end of the film, the two porn consumers end up in each other&#8217;s arms.  And that, in a quiet way, is Hollywood making history.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
