4 ms·
I remember getting a book on spirituality whose author is an attractive young woman. She had rather suggestive photos of herself throughout the book and the boo
by akudha 5y ago
I remember getting a book on spirituality whose author is an attractive young woman. She had rather suggestive photos of herself throughout the book and the book's content had nothing to do with the photos (and it was wasting space, the book would have been a few pages shorter without the photos). The book itself was pretty good, but it was really annoying to see her photos everywhere. There is not one reason for suggestive photos and yet here we are.
This to me, is disingenuous. If I am attending a math lecture, I do not want to see my professor's abs (or balls or whatever) even if he was the most attractive man on the planet.
The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc). It can be a completely fun and educative channel, instead there is more discussion about her clothes than the good stuff she makes and the good education she provides. All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized. All this unnecessary controversy can probably be shut down if she had two channels - one for fashion and one for electronics.
Having said all that, maybe we should grow up as a society and learn to not put so much thought into body parts. I get that viewpoint too.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spacechild1 5y agoHer appearance is part of her (sexual) identity: https://twitter.com/realsexycyborg/status/1396605407817129986?lang=de https://twitter.com/realsexycyborg/status/139660540781712998... Of course, she could hide it, but she just doesn't want to.
- coldtea 5y ago>The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc). So? Why should people be compartmentalized, and not be allowed to feel and look sexy whne doing tech stuff? That's the puritan dichotomy, where the body/sexual is bad, and should be kept inside marriage and procreation, or -as adjusted in more permitting puritans- to specially allocated sexy-time. And, that said, the premise that her channel has nothing to do this is wrong. Her intention is not to show how some technical stuff. It also isn't to show that women in general can too do some technical stuff. It's to show how a sexy, sensual woman, a category often dismissed as bimbos, can also do technical stuff. And that technical stuff can be part of a fun and sexy thing, not just something that's relegated to bookish somber asexuality. I mean, it's even in the channel's name... >All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized. She's not "trying", that's who she is.