Yes… Americans are to blame for the BBC show…
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
IDK it says BBC America, so I guess the explanation is quite simple.
It’s because Americans are crazy. An having perfectly natural hair under her armpits would be unacceptably disgusting for an American audience.
whatstatersprecious@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
It was a BBC America show, which is a subsidiary of AMC Networks.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
No Americans are to blame for what was reported about Americans. Because the report is true.
If it was false, BBC would be to blame.
Do you claim the story is false?whatstatersprecious@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Wtf are you talking about
OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Do you make obnoxious broad generalizations about every massively diverse country on earth, or just the USA?
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I don’t know of any other country where it’s considered a scandal if a famous woman has hair under her arms.
American audience doesn’t mean everybody in that audience, Americans doesn’t mean everybody either, just enough to make it an issue.
And in both cases it’s more than enough to make it an issue. Because it’s not just a couple of weirdos, it the mainstream media too.
So the broad generalization was made by you in your head, maybe because you felt included, why did you feel included?
Do you think hair under the arms is disgusting?
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Or this actress didn’t want to grow out pit hair for a comedy show. Not everything is that deep
remon@ani.social 5 weeks ago
Make-up department exist. It being a deliberate choice by production makes much more sense.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
It’s very possible it just never came up. Especially if it’s a male-run production. The male gaze just assumes a woman doesn’t have pit hair, and if she doesn’t think of it and bring it up, nobody does.
She probably takes her hairless pits for granted through long habit as we ll.
The rest of the job is basically rub “mud” product through her hair and all over her body. More attention paid to the face for closeups. (She’s got lipstick and contouring and probably mascara as well, a “no makeup” makeup.) Should some makeup artist have thought of it and glued some hair trimmings to her pits? Yes. But while it would be easy in this scene/pose, it would be uncomfortable and easily shed during scenes where she needs to use her arms, and then you run into continuity problems. (I don’t know the show but I assume she doesn’t spend the whole time crucified like that)
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Which goes back to the above: “Americans are crazy. An having perfectly natural hair under her armpits would be unacceptably disgusting”
velma@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Wouldn’t want to accurately portray women’s natural bodies lest they think it might be acceptable to be unshaven.
EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
Or maybe she, the actress, prefers it, and she, the actress, didn’t want to change something superficial for the show.
Gaslov@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Natural body is a polite way of framing ungroomed. Men nor women like seeing poor hygiene. Some types of poor hygiene are seen as worse than others. Dirty hair? Sorta gross. Body hair? Disgusting.
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I know American women with armpit hair, I don’t retch when I see them
velma@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
As an American woman with armpit hair, I get a lot of unsolicited comments.
It would be nice if there were more representation of adult women’s bodies in media.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
There’s probably a merkin for pits, or there could be. That would have been funny.
I just learned there’s a fly, for fly fishing, called the strong arm merkin. Yes, they’re furry:
Image
4am@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Anyway “Pit Merkin” is a great metal band name, you’re fuckin’ welcome