It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
And by titillation, I mean this:
the Renaissance Faire is at the other end of the social spectrum, a whiff of the occult, a flash of danger and a hint of the erotic.
And this about CSI:
All this stuff we're supposed to hate and be disgusted by is often done in lurid, creepy, obsessive detail. This allows the viewing audience a double-edged thrill: they can be horrified and morally offended that it happened, and also get the kinky zing of all the descriptions of nubile teenagers tied up in leather and violated. You can see these sort of things in a lot of old "pulp lesbian novel" cover.
You get the idea.
Are people really that repressed?
Comments
I'm not sure how to explain this one, other than repeating the words "yes" and "no" over and over again in quick succession.
And oddly what's not done in lurid and obsessive detail is actual investigation. Instead we get pulling crime scenes off a reflection from the cornea by enhancing a grainy CCTV 1000x, and GUI interfaces in Visual Basic to track the killer's IP address.
As for the point of the conversation, I get the feeling the article is more indicative of whoever was writing it than viewership on the whole. I went to ren faire because jousting and a pig roast. I don't think there even was occult stuff, and calling anything there erotic would be...strange.
Well there are usually 'gypsy dancers' at ren faires I've gone to.
We didn't really have gypsy dancers, so much as a "gypsy band". They did covers of Flogging Molly, so go figure.
I think the phrasing is far overblown, but 'whiff of the occult' isn't exactly wrong about ren faires. But it's D&D rather than demonology.
WITCHCRAAAAFT
I haven't watched CSI, but I suspect that description is accurate, because it's been accurate about sexuality in media going back a long time. (The earliest example I know of is Dracula, but I think it's been going on for several centuries.)
I don't actually know what this thread is about.
Isn't it obvious?
WITCHCRAAAAAAFT
Rule of thumb. Any time you finding yourself asking a question along the lines of, "are people really that [x]," the answer is almost always "yes, because if they weren't then I wouldn't need to even ask that question."
If the main audience isn't, the person making that commentary is probably projecting and looking for reinforcement, so regardless someone is.