6 ms·

Madonna explicitly wanted to be seen that way and did not attempt to suggest otherwise.

by jb1991 5y ago

kstenerud 5y ago
Yes, she did. And she wanted the right to do it. She wanted the right to do with her body as she pleases, and the right to be seen as she pleases. And in doing so she fought censors, TV networks, the FBI, you name it. She fought her whole life against this kind of bullshit. And now Naomi has taken up the fight too, and is probably discovering just how unnecessarily heavy a burden it is.
- jb1991 5y ago
  My point is different. Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization? Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?
  - kstenerud 5y ago
    It's the same thing. It's fighting against the stupid view that two lumps under your flesh are somehow evil and must be hidden away or punished somehow (but only if you're a woman), or that touching your crotch on television is an arrestable offence, or any other thing in that long list of stupidity. It's about having rights over your own body, such that you can say "You don't like what you see? Well too bad, because it's my body and my right and you can't do a damn thing about it, nor do I have any obligation to explain myself." It's primarily women who fight this battle because the rules are tilted far more against them. Most men can't even see the problem. Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?
    - jb1991 5y ago
      > Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy? I’m curious if you are suggesting that is perfectly acceptable that, in a society that prohibits topless women from walking around, it would be perfectly acceptable for a man to implant breasts on himself and then walk around topless.
      - dsr_ 5y ago
        That's what Facebook enforces, yes. "Male" chests are fine, "Female" chests are not.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - chrischen 5y ago
    Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder. In most cases, men. So men can’t keep it in their pants so women have to surgically reduce their breast sizes to accommodate some boundary of sexualization set by men?
    - drekipus 5y ago
      You don't believe they're real, right?
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        She said she had implants. Do you think she can remove them without surgery?
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Why she shouldn't have the right to be seen as sexualized if she wants to? Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).
    - jb1991 5y ago
      She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized. I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.
      - coldtea 5y ago
        >I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that? Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...
        jb1991 5y ago
        This is not about the body, this is more about the choices. For example if you’re going to wear practically a thong in a bunch of videos unrelated to something sexualized, and then claim you are not trying to make it sexualized, a lot of people will think that’s being disingenuous. Doesn’t even matter what the actual body type is, it’s a question of what people consider to be appropriate in relationship to what someone says they mean by their dress.
        marcellus23 5y ago
        They can certainly do that, but then they need to be aware of how it appears. It’s all well and good to imagine a society where you never have to care what people think, but unfortunately neither men nor women live in that kind of society. People will draw conclusions from how you present yourself.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization? Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.
    - jb1991 5y ago
      Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted other comments that she’s made on the subject. It does feel like a lot of the debate is caused by miscommunication perhaps, or misleading intent.
- stale2002 5y ago
  Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point). But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright. Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Except advertisers can’t make a choice to advertise on her channel through YouTube so this comparison misses the point.
    - Zak 5y ago
      It seems to me Youtube could solve the problem by providing advertisers fine-grained controls. I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.
  - SexyCyborg 5y ago
    >Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content. You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?
    - rvnx 5y ago
      Seems like he is not the only one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/love-sculpture https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/lov...
    - chme 5y ago
      A lot of people think that looking at flickering colorful lights on a planar surface can be sexually arousing. There are so many fetishes... ;) However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.

Madonna explicitly wanted to be seen that way and did not attempt to suggest otherwise.

by jb1991 5y ago

Madonna explicitly wanted to be seen that way and did not attempt to suggest otherwise.

Yes, she did. And she wanted the right to do it. She wanted the right to do with her body as she pleases, and the right to be seen as she pleases. And in doing so she fought censors, TV networks, the FBI, you name it. She fought her whole life against this kind of bullshit. And now Naomi has taken up the fight too, and is probably discovering just how unnecessarily heavy a burden it is.

jb1991 5y ago
My point is different. Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization? Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?
- kstenerud 5y ago
  It's the same thing. It's fighting against the stupid view that two lumps under your flesh are somehow evil and must be hidden away or punished somehow (but only if you're a woman), or that touching your crotch on television is an arrestable offence, or any other thing in that long list of stupidity. It's about having rights over your own body, such that you can say "You don't like what you see? Well too bad, because it's my body and my right and you can't do a damn thing about it, nor do I have any obligation to explain myself." It's primarily women who fight this battle because the rules are tilted far more against them. Most men can't even see the problem. Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?
  - jb1991 5y ago
    > Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy? I’m curious if you are suggesting that is perfectly acceptable that, in a society that prohibits topless women from walking around, it would be perfectly acceptable for a man to implant breasts on himself and then walk around topless.
    - dsr_ 5y ago
      That's what Facebook enforces, yes. "Male" chests are fine, "Female" chests are not.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- chrischen 5y ago
  Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder. In most cases, men. So men can’t keep it in their pants so women have to surgically reduce their breast sizes to accommodate some boundary of sexualization set by men?
  - drekipus 5y ago
    You don't believe they're real, right?
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      She said she had implants. Do you think she can remove them without surgery?
- coldtea 5y ago
  Why she shouldn't have the right to be seen as sexualized if she wants to? Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).
  - jb1991 5y ago
    She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized. I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that? Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...
      - jb1991 5y ago
        This is not about the body, this is more about the choices. For example if you’re going to wear practically a thong in a bunch of videos unrelated to something sexualized, and then claim you are not trying to make it sexualized, a lot of people will think that’s being disingenuous. Doesn’t even matter what the actual body type is, it’s a question of what people consider to be appropriate in relationship to what someone says they mean by their dress.
      - marcellus23 5y ago
        They can certainly do that, but then they need to be aware of how it appears. It’s all well and good to imagine a society where you never have to care what people think, but unfortunately neither men nor women live in that kind of society. People will draw conclusions from how you present yourself.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization? Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.
  - jb1991 5y ago
    Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted other comments that she’s made on the subject. It does feel like a lot of the debate is caused by miscommunication perhaps, or misleading intent.
stale2002 5y ago
Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point). But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright. Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Except advertisers can’t make a choice to advertise on her channel through YouTube so this comparison misses the point.
  - Zak 5y ago
    It seems to me Youtube could solve the problem by providing advertisers fine-grained controls. I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.
- SexyCyborg 5y ago
  >Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content. You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?
  - rvnx 5y ago
    Seems like he is not the only one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/love-sculpture https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/lov...
  - chme 5y ago
    A lot of people think that looking at flickering colorful lights on a planar surface can be sexually arousing. There are so many fetishes... ;) However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.