Comment on đĄđĄđĄ
Herr_S_aus_H@lemmy.zip â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠agoMaybe donât 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. itâs normal for men to see an attractive woman and be like âwow sheâs attractive.â
youâre pathologizing normal thinking and probably feeling incredibly satisfied with your lame response because you used the word âteenageâ and nobody would dare to cross swords.
grow up.
why is her outfit âsexualizingâ anyway?
even if her outfit didnât suggest âpantiesâ itâd still be sexy because it accentuates her form.
So we arenât allowed to sexualize Orlando Bloom anymore, then?
Keep talking if youâve ever taken offense to the way Orlando Bloom has been depicted, or been made uncomfortable by his depiction. Otherwise, Iâd say let it go.
Unless you your thing is teenage girls. Then itâs ok. /s
TwistedTurtle@sh.itjust.works â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
See, thatâs an example of a much better argument than âporn exists, stop being a creepâ.
MJKee9@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
I think you are mischaracterizing the assumption of the original âcreepâ as an âargumentâ 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 weâre 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 doesnât 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 â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Again, Iâm not defending this particular guy - Iâm criticizing his dadâs response, which is an attitude thatâs 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 âjust go watch porn you creepsâ.
Maybe Supergirl specifically shouldnât be sexualized (even though sheâs sexualized in most of the source material I remember), but if so, letâs come up with a better reason than âa containment genre exists for sex, and if you want to see it escape that box then youâre a degenerate!â.
MJKee9@lemmy.world â¨3⊠â¨weeks⊠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 canât 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. Itâs 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 protagonistâs 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 â¨2⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
Using âmaleâ as a noun to describe a person is dehumanizing
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works â¨2⊠â¨weeks⊠ago
The actual fuck? No itâs not. Get your stupid ass off the Internet for 5 fucking mins.
Its a bit presumptuous to assume itâs a âmaleâ who wants to oggle lady bits and not a âfemaleâ wanting to oggle lady bits.
But male and female are perfectly fine words for a topic whoâs context boils down to what sex you prefer to oggle