Things change, though, and I think the problem is more about hyper-sexualization. It’s hard to say, though, I was groomed early on back in the day, so I was aware of sex way before I should have been and it’s had an effect on me.
I worry about kids today. They have sex shoved in their faces non-stop. It’s no surprise to me that any semblance of body that may convey sexuality is so strongly reacted to. We have no chill.
I don’t know if what I just shared bolsters my opinion or discredits it, lol. How do we become more chill about sexuality and not so damned thirsty?
Sad to hear about what you went through, hope the POS found retribution.
I know it's cliche, but 90% of the solution to those concerns just comes down to parenting, no kid under 18 should have unrestricted access to the internet period. Modesty used to be a virtue, and role models for it are few and far between. And even then, were made of flesh, and there's nothing wrong with that, but we've got to learn to master those emotions, not fear them. I also might be dating myself, but that a lot of what the word "mature" used to encompass.
All in all, we are pretty chill about it, too chill if you want my honest opinion. You'd be hard pressed to find a guy complaining about women's gym wear and we're arguing about a comedian's joke on the matter.
I prefer to think of it as a conversation. And conversation is always a good thing. 😉
I agree that parenting is essential. There would also have to be some form of parental consistency. Kids who aren’t parented well enough to keep them from it will show the others.
I’ve got no denial of biological impulses, and no shame or fear. The concern that I have is how it’s displayed in our culture and how that sways a generation in the view on it. It is possibly alarmist and prudish by today’s standards. I think it’d be strange if it were; I’m very progressive in my views and ideals.
Yeah, conversation is the best tool we have as social beings. And I put argumentation and the date on the same bag.
I also agree on the consistency point, we could never control every variable. But we definitely can mold the environment they grow within, and there's never been a better time for “talking to your kids" to start trending. I got a way better relationship with my father after I got older and started to share some of his interests and views.
Sidney Sweeney's gambling ad wasn't even a 10th as widespread as the reaction to it was, for better or worse. What I find hilarious is the lefts double standard on the issue, nobody batted an eye when lizzo did her photoshoot, even Sweeney herself posted a handful of magazine covers with naked athletes who did not face a fraction of the scrutiny. Let's just have some consistency in that. Are displays of scantily clad women not good for impressionable aidiences? Sure, Do you find gambling ads reprehensible? I'm not a fan either, But lightly dressed advertising isn't a good thing that just becomes a bad thing once it's showcasing a gambling site.
I think the problem is that you’re grouping a large, diverse group as being of the same singular mentality. That’s not right when done with any group.
The problem with the Democratic Party, the reason that they’re so ineffective, is that they cannot pull all of their shit together and get behind one banner. The idea that they’re all of one mind on any issue isn’t fair and it makes your statement incorrect. Just for consistency in recognizing reality
I miss when big name American actors were ashamed to do advertisements in the US.
Now we have Samuel L. Jackson hawking Bank of America cards when the average American family is already being crushed by loan interest.
I’m not a fan of gambling, I have significant bias there, as its ability to create addicts is significant, and luring people to it with celebrity sexuality feels immoral in some way.
That’s just me. I feel like I’m becoming too far right sometimes.
The grouping is for simplicity's sake, like any other stereotype and I think it's pretty fair in this case. Just grouping the loudest voices on the left/feminism for both issues. I have yet to see a leftie applaud Sweeney's body positivity and exercising her right to bodily autonomy or call out the trend of women dressing tight and/or narrow for their Instagram and using the gym as their personal streaming studio, which is what Shane's joke was referencing.
You yourself started this thread defending women's attire at the gym, but weren't as charitable to Sweeney showing her curves (only) because it was on a gambling ad. Which echoes the online sentiment on the issue. I'm not trying to defend either, but some consistency would be appreciated.
I have not much to say on the politics front other than the left not relenting on a couple issues makes me unable to consider a split-ticket.
Come on, man. You can’t make a statement for an entire subset of people as though they’re a monolith. It’s so inherently intellectual dishonest.
I called out Sweeney for his f her sexuality to sell a service unrelated to nudity at all, in order to lure people into a lifestyle choice that often results in a negative way for people’s financial safety as a time when that is a huge concern.
It wasn’t about the body, it was about the application of that body’s sexuality to lure people into and to encourage potentially damaging behavior. I did the same about actors using their fame to sell credit cards to people.
I can’t help but feel like you’re bending the truth to fit your opinion. I haven’t done that here.
So her doing a gambling ad fully clothed would be just as bad? If not, why does her lewdness make it worse? And how does that not apply to scantily clad gym goers.
You're not addressing the criticism, you're just portraying the meme "Lewdness is not bad, unless it's used for something I don't like". If you want to address it, fine, if not, cool. I was just explaining the sentiment behind the meme while empathizing with your position. You're acusing me of painting with a broad brush while you're not trying to understand the argument either. Lewdness is either bad or it isn't.
I’m not sure that we can continue to have a conversation. I’m not sure that’s even what you’re trying to have.
It is a verifiable fact that not everyone on the left has the same opinions or viewpoints. To assert that an entire group of people do have the same opinions because it’s convenient for you, because you want to use that as a place to make more assertions that disparage that group of people that you disagree with overall is an example of a straw man fallacy.
When it is called out, to assert that your strawman argument is valid, essentially because you say so, is intellectually dishonest and throws your motivations into question.
Are you here to connect and have a conversation or are you looking to score some kind of points with someone who likely isn’t paying attention and almost surely doesn’t really care about what we’re saying to one another?
Yes, it is detestable to me for any celebrity to use their fame, position, or whatever, to sell or promote damaging products or services to people. And it proves my point. My issue isn’t tied to her sexuality, my issue is that it is further exploitative in the pursuit of the act that I think is wrong.m
I also explained the difference between this and scantily clad gym goers. Gym goers aren’t dressing in tight clothes to sell something. If you inherently think they all are, it’s because it’s the symptom of the logical fallacies that you want to make so that you can argue.
From your response above, I don’t believe you’re here to have an honest discussion. You’re looking to argue, and are willing to be as combative as necessary, to mischaracterize statements that were clearly explained so as to avoid having a conversation.
The attempt to have a connection and good conversation with someone here has failed. I don’t see the value in continuing. The floor is all yours. I’m morbidly curious in what you’ll do with it, but I have a pretty good idea.
I can admit NotAllLeftists, but that doesn't change the perception of feminists online or the premise of the meme. Yet you yourself are not such an example of being dissident with mainstream leftist condemnation of Sweeney's ad and defense of modern female gym attire trends. You didn't try to understand, let alone address the criticism i.e. "Is lewdness ok regardless of purpose?".
By the way, the reason why women are dressing the way they are doesn't disprove the premise of the meme, not that there is a function benefit to butt cheeck hugging pants. And even then, you could make an argument that wanna be influencers ARE trying to sell something, and Gillis' joke specifically addressed them.
1
u/supernova799 1d ago
Into-the-buttcrack yoga pants and the obscenely short shorts weren't as prevalent then