Comment on 📡📡📡
Herr_S_aus_H@lemmy.zip 1 month agoMaybe don’t sexualize the character that, at least in part, is aimed at teenage girls.
the actress is probably 35, who cares who the character is aimed at. it’s normal for men to see an attractive woman and be like ‘wow she’s attractive.’
you’re pathologizing normal thinking and probably feeling incredibly satisfied with your lame response because you used the word ‘teenage’ and nobody would dare to cross swords.
grow up.
why is her outfit ‘sexualizing’ anyway?
even if her outfit didn’t suggest ‘panties’ it’d still be sexy because it accentuates her form.
So we aren’t allowed to sexualize Orlando Bloom anymore, then?
Keep talking if you’ve ever taken offense to the way Orlando Bloom has been depicted, or been made uncomfortable by his depiction. Otherwise, I’d say let it go.
Unless you your thing is teenage girls. Then it’s ok. /s
TwistedTurtle@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
See, that’s an example of a much better argument than “porn exists, stop being a creep”.
MJKee9@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I think you are mischaracterizing the assumption of the original “creep” as an “argument” and are misplacing the intents of the original response. The point of the post and the reason for calling the guy a creep (I say guy because we’re definitely dealing with a male here) is because he wants a movie that is not designed to be pornography to have elements that would be better placed in a pornographic movie. You are inserting a degree of kink shaming into the post that doesn’t actually exist. Watching pornography and having a healthy attitude about sex is different from wanting to sexualize a story that is not trying to be sexual. That is creepy.
TwistedTurtle@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Again, I’m not defending this particular guy - I’m criticizing his dad’s response, which is an attitude that’s prevelant today, especially amongst the youth. A lot of people hate on sex/nudity of any form in mainstream art, and their argument is generally “just go watch porn you creeps”.
Maybe Supergirl specifically shouldn’t be sexualized (even though she’s sexualized in most of the source material I remember), but if so, let’s come up with a better reason than “a containment genre exists for sex, and if you want to see it escape that box then you’re a degenerate!”.
MJKee9@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Not arguing with you, but you misunderstand the point of the post. A guy that would get so mad that he would refuse to use a ticket he already has purchased (which is almost certainly a fictional scenario) because he can’t see the crotch of the protagonist is a creep… The reference to porn in the response hammers the point home because it is a movie that you can watch that will definitely contain visible crotches. It’s not commentary on the presence of sex in movies or that it should be limited to pornography. But a specific comment about that one person who seems to be taking a moral stand over not being able to see more of the protagonist’s crotch. Keep trying to say the post is a broader comment on sex in movies. That assumption is not supported by the post. I only responded because you seem well intentioned, maybe drawing upon a personal event that is not applicable to the post itself.
blarghly@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Using “male” as a noun to describe a person is dehumanizing
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The actual fuck? No it’s not. Get your stupid ass off the Internet for 5 fucking mins.
Its a bit presumptuous to assume it’s a “male” who wants to oggle lady bits and not a “female” wanting to oggle lady bits.
But male and female are perfectly fine words for a topic who’s context boils down to what sex you prefer to oggle