Lemmy reacts to a non-sexualized silly outfit pic in a totally normal way…
Previous posts in this series…
- incredible find: https://lemmy.cafe/post/10217719
- epic ratio: https://lemmy.cafe/post/9597634
- lemmy is a worse platform for women than reddit was: https://lemmy.cafe/post/4821164
Nope, rare PugJesus L I’m sorry. It’s an obvious Madonna reference.
Wearing Madonna’s clothes is not a reasonable invitation to body objectification. Really, wearing any clothes should never be considered a sexual invitation without further context or permission.
… is it not a double-entendre when she wore it in that video? I’ve only ever heard it (and adaptations) used in the context of a double-entendre, and the song’s lyrics and visuals don’t seem to contradict any such interpretation. I mean, it’s literally used in the scene where the boy who presumably impregnates the girl of the lyrics/video/Madonna’s depiction first catches her eyes in a clear depiction of a sexually charged first meeting/attraction/whatever.
I mean, commenting on a rando’s selfie that’s not posted by said rando is so devoid of context that I often have trouble discerning what is and is not appropriate (regarding the behavior of the commenters, not myself - I generally don’t have the urge to comment on said photos), so it’s more of a general observation, but, absent all that, “Woman wearing a shirt with a sexualized message gets a sexualized joke directly related to the content of that message” does not seem, on a first reading, absurd, other than in general crassness that can be applied to sexualized jokes about people in any circumstance.
If she was uncomfortable with it, it would be unambiguously wrong instead of just lacking in context that would make it appropriate (ie an offense rather than a mistake). But, as I said - unless a rando’s selfie is uploaded by said rando, there’s no context, so my observation of whether the comment is appropriate is in a vacuum, and may not fit the context of the conversation or atmosphere of the comment thread.
(edited for clarifications)
Okay… let’s back up. Forget the text on the shirt— A woman’s clothes do not make an invitation to objectification. Period. Other context might, but just clothes does not do it. Hope this is clear haha.
(To answer your question yes it is a double entendre in the video. But if some in-universe character sexualized Madonna’s character in the video simply over the shirt it would still he inappropriate. Fans wear merch all the time, people wear revealing clothes all the time, and none of that gives an OK to sexualization.)
if someone wears a shirt specifically designed to draw attention to their larger than average breasts, perhaps people should not be surprised when people… yknow… pay attention to said breasts?
with that being said, the actual content of the comments, pretty gross and degrading… but the fact that the comments are about breasts should not be surprising in the slightest
I’d like to point out that MOST SHIRTS with text on them have it over where the boobs would be, regardless of what that texts says
and if someone wears a shirt with text over their boobs, people are gonna glance at their boobs while they read the text
LMAO LITERALLY
paying attention ✅ good, fine, cutesey, demure, inside thoughts… but not what im talking about :)
making comments ❌ bad, objectification, gross and mean. this is what im talking about and we seem to agree. keep these thoughts inside unless given permission.
Sure, which is why context is important, and why rando selfies uploaded by someone other than the rando are difficult to place in context and pretty inherently uncomfortable to me. Sexual jokes about other people are also generally uncomfortable to me, but I also recognize that it’s a form of humor that is not inherently illegitimate.
My point here is only that “On a pic of someone with a shirt with a sexual joke on it, a commenter makes a sexual joke related to the shirt’s sexual joke” is not entirely out of left field. There is a clear chain of thought that is not inherently absurd, not just “The first thing thought of when they saw a woman is ‘comment on her breasts for no reason’”. Your view is that he misread the context - that the context is NOT sexual and humorous, his view is that the context was sexual and humorous to begin with; mine is that these contextless selfies who aren’t posted by the, uh, self, lend themselves to this kind of clash.
I know this is secondary to the main point, but I can’t held but return to it - if it’s a double entendre in the video and a double entendre in common usage, how is its usage on the shirt not a double entendre?
Okay agree. Just please approach this “well technically” rhetoric with caution. Can be easily misread, as I did, just in the opposite direction.
It is, I just phrased it weird. Let me go edit it.
Cool, we’re in agreement. 🙏
It’s not appropriate (as the context of the selfie originator is unavailable, and absent that context or other signifiers, any selfie should be assumed to be non-sexual), but it is dependent on an assumption of or misreading of context (presumably in good faith) rather than a sheer bloody-minded determination to give a passing woman the metaphorical wolf-whistle.
I mean, it’s more than a technicality considering your response was to accuse him of having his first thought upon seeing a woman to comment on her breasts unprovoked. “This your first time on the internet?” implying that such comments are inherently acceptable is a dick response from him, so fuck him, but a defensive response of some sort was going to be inevitable given the (ha) context.
If I mess up cleaning a pan because I rarely use pans (tinfoil brigade reporting), messing up cleaning the pan is not made okay by the fact that I do it rarely (I should have been prepared, I should have been more attentive, etc), but if someone accuses me of having left the pan dirty on purpose, I will absolutely respond with vitriol, when otherwise I would have inquired as to what I did wrong or been apologetic (not to imply that that’s the average response from someone objectifying someone else inappropriately, simply pointing out that IF they’re reachable, they then become less reachable by that human reaction). Because then it’s been transformed from a mistake to a deliberate offense.
Completely off topic but it’s funny to me that when we have a cordial disagreement I get pummeled with downvotes—even if we come to an understanding in the end.
The power you wield, PugJesus. Use it responsibly.
Some people just want to dogpile, sadly.
pugpile, if you will
yeah exactly. i dont really know why i censored my name but im the one who made the “its not intrinsically evil” comment, i want to give people the chance to see that what they did was weird rather than coming down hard right away.
also if you want the original video: here haha. fair warning the video is nonsensical and verging on word salad.