352
submitted 3 weeks ago by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/196

Lemmy reacts to a non-sexualized silly outfit pic in a totally normal way…

Previous posts in this series…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 68 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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)

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.)

[-] pupbiru@aussie.zone 46 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[-] panic 19 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] pupbiru@aussie.zone 7 points 3 weeks ago

and if someone wears a shirt with text over their boobs, people are gonna glance at their boobs while they read the text

[-] superb 2 points 3 weeks ago
[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 3 weeks ago

LMAO LITERALLY

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
352 points (100.0% liked)

196

16773 readers
2230 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS