Oh, honey.

Yeah, I don’t see how it can be labled as exploitive, especially since it’s a book. There aren’t even any real people involved. A lot of us have wierd sex kinks and as long as they aren’t harmful to anyone else, I don’t see a reason why you have to be ashamed of them.

I don’t think of it as exploitive really. I mean, we get turned on by the things that turn us on. For a lot of women, the idea of two dudes is what does it. Also, they’re writing fiction, not keeping a basement full of twinks as sex slaves.

I don’t know if it’s so much exploitive as it is fantasy. And I don’t want to discredit or shame people for their fantasies. If people want to explore that, maybe it could lead to opening up different avenues of sexuality exploration they haven’t venture into before. Isn’t that what most porn is?

Many women prefer same-sex erotica to male-female erotica. I can attest to that anecdotally ( although I identify as bisexual, so maybe my anecdotal evidence should not be considered). Slightly less anecdotally, Pornhub’s 2014 demographic information shows the top two searches by women as “lesbian” and “gay (male)“.

(Disclaimer: I’m a bisexual cis-female writer of queer erotic romance, M/M among the pairings.)

I don’t disagree. And not to defend it, but think of how much lesbian porn there is out there (and it’s definitely not for actual gay women)

It’s a really popular romance genre right now (and has grown over the past several years). It’s primarily written by women, for women. Not unlike yaoi from Japan.

Pretty sure it’s straight women. I think most M/M books sold are written by, and targeted for straight women.

He may as well of condemned the Catholic church while he was at it. Plenty of organizations either passively accepted, condoned or even supported in the holocaust, but primarily blaming them for it instead of Hitler is asinine and wrong. Phrasing matters and ignoring the Nazi’s plans for Jews and others is doing a…

THIS is why I love Jezebel. When the author misses the mark, so, so many smart, educated commenters show up and politely explain why this movie is popular, why it’s beyond ‘ok’ that they made this movie and how the subtitles didn’t help, nor did the translation. That’s all.

Netanyahu obfuscated the facts of history to advance political hate speech. A history that led to the creation of the state he presides over. Which is considered sacred by his constituents.

Considering how Hollywood continues to make movies that ignore/make light of the genocide of Native Americans for no other reason that laughs and ducats, I’m much more inclined to forgive a Hitler movie if it’s intent/purpose is to shed light on past evil rather than to cover it up.

I’ve read the book (in German) and it’s not that kind of comedy. Think of the full-body cringe you get from the British version of The Office, not something ha-ha funny. The plot is that Hitler awakens in the present day and goes around trying to regain popularity; he’s still Hitler, but everyone else thinks he’s some…

Satire is protected free speech, just like in the States.

With all due respect, this post makes it sound like you didn’t really read the Guardian article. As described in the Guardian, the circumstances surrounding the movie are far more nuanced than your post indicates.

Yes, mocking evil in general and Hitler in specific is a thing. Breaking news. Would you have written this about Chaplin’s Great Dictator? Hogan’s Heroes? The Producers? The re-subtitling-of-the-bunker-scene-in-Downfall meme?

It’s illegal to portray them in a positive way. Criticism, ridicule and parody are allowed.

We live in a world where the Israeli PM hates Muslims SO MUCH that he’s willing to blame them for steering Hitler toward Holocaust.