• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    “Italians do it better” is an intentional double entendre, so I feel moving to a more sexual commentary is not wholly out of the ballpark of reasonableness.

    Fuck “Is this your first day on the internet” response, though, and the other two weird comments.

    We really 95% male here, though? I thought it was more like 70-30.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 days ago

      Nope, rare PugJesus L I’m sorry. It’s not a double entendre, it’s an obvious Madonna reference.

      Wearing Madonna’s clothes, especially clothes that reference a pretty serious non-sexual video, is not a reasonable invitation to body objectification.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days 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, particularly objectionable, 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. 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.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days 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.)

          • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            12 days 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

            • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              paying attention ✅ good, fine, cutesey, demure, inside thoughts… but not what im talking about :)

              making comments ❌ bad, objectification, gross and mean. this is what im talking about and we seem to agree. keep these thoughts inside unless given permission.

            • panic@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days 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

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 days 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.

            Sure, which is why context is important, and why rando selfies uploaded by someone other than the rando are difficult to place in context and pretty inherently uncomfortable to me. Sexual jokes about other people are also generally uncomfortable to me, but I also recognize that it’s a form of humor that is not inherently illegitimate.

            My point here is only that “On a pic of someone with a shirt with a sexual joke on it, a commenter makes a sexual joke related to the shirt’s sexual joke” is not entirely out of left field. There is a clear chain of thought that is not inherently absurd, not just “The first thing thought of when they saw a woman is ‘comment on her breasts for no reason’”. Your view is that he misread the context - that the context is NOT sexual and humorous, his view is that the context was sexual and humorous to begin with; mine is that these contextless selfies who aren’t posted by the, uh, self, lend themselves to this kind of clash.

            (To answer your question yes it is a double entendre in the video but this isn’t the video. Fans wear merch all the time, and merch that has suggestive content still doesn’t give an OK to sexualization.)

            I know this is secondary to the main point, but I can’t held but return to it - if it’s a double entendre in the video and a double entendre in common usage, how is its usage on the shirt not a double entendre?

            • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              12 days ago

              “On a pic of someone with a shirt with a sexual joke on it, a commenter makes a sexual joke related to the shirt’s sexual joke” is not entirely out of left field.

              Okay agree. Just please approach this “well technically” rhetoric with caution. Can be easily misread, as I did, just in the opposite direction.

              …how is its usage on the shirt not a double entendre?

              It is, I just phrased it weird. Let me go edit it.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                12 days ago

                Okay agree.

                Cool, we’re in agreement. 🙏

                It’s not appropriate (as the context of the selfie originator is unavailable, and absent that context or other signifiers, any selfie should be assumed to be non-sexual), but it is dependent on an assumption of or misreading of context (presumably in good faith) rather than a sheer bloody-minded determination to give a passing woman the metaphorical wolf-whistle.

                • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  12 days ago

                  Completely off topic but it’s funny to me that when we have a cordial disagreement I get pummeled with downvotes—even if we come to an understanding in the end.

                  The power you wield, PugJesus. Use it responsibly.

                • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 days ago

                  yeah exactly. i dont really know why i censored my name but im the one who made the “its not intrinsically evil” comment, i want to give people the chance to see that what they did was weird rather than coming down hard right away.

                  also if you want the original video: here haha. fair warning the video is nonsensical and verging on word salad.