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.
Nope, rare PugJesus L I’m sorry. It’s not a double entendre, it’s an obvious Madonna reference.
… 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.
Wearing Madonna’s clothes, especially clothes that reference a pretty serious non-sexual video, is not a reasonable invitation to body objectification.
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
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.
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.
(To answer your question yes it is a double entendre in the video but this isn’t the video. Fans wear merch all the time, and merch that has suggestive content still doesn’t give an OK to sexualization.)
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?
