this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
176 points (88.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43843 readers
668 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Why does the title need to be worded like that? The worst part is that I've only seen them phrased like this with women celebrities.

all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 97 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's clickbait. The fact that the clickbait is demeaning is incidental. They're maximizing whatever sensational clickbait title they can get. At least their heart isn't intentionally evil, just incidentally evil.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 53 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I wish we had more actresses with muscles. Imagine a wonder woman movie where wonder woman actually looks like an Amazon who has been working out all day every day for decades

[–] mysoulishome@lemmy.world 49 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Target is both to hit your sense of justice (I’m a male feminist) but also engage the innate urge to see the photos. Example

Anne Hathaway criticized by chauvinists for being too sexy on the red carpet

Oh wow, I hate sexism so much I better check out these photos!! so I can…support women?

It CAN work for men but is usually not demeaning. Chris Pratt went from adorable pudge to sexy muscleman, click here to see him shirtless! Not the same I guess.

[–] KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol 9 points 3 weeks ago

My instinct would be to click just to find out what exactly is "too sexy" for chauvinists. Same logic applies to the original post's article I guess.

I think these articles exploit this instinct. And I'm pretty sure it works for all kinds of people. When you put an opinion piece in some other people's mouth, everyone will want to find out if the opinion makes sense to them or if it's completely outrageous.

"Some people said this about this subject, come judge by yourself (and prove them wrong/right)"

[–] Vanth@reddthat.com 43 points 3 weeks ago

The correct answer is to block that news site or whatever they call themselves, and don't give them clicks.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 weeks ago

The whole article is almost certainly demeaning, as you would expect of a celebrity gossip rag.

[–] Lurkinney@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Florence Pugh has never been shy about her body.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Imo the article writers probably feel that they are decrying the way people are demeaning her, but it's just adding visibility for the judgemental.

[–] limitedduck@awful.systems 3 points 3 weeks ago

It's a double edged sword. Everybody's got a different line for when something descriptive inadvertently becomes prescriptive

[–] Facebones@reddthat.com 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thats not even a weightlifter body lol.

Incels just think anything other than questionable consent with somebody who looks like a child is actually gay.

It's not, but it will upset viewers and bait people into clicking or sharing.

She did star as a wrestler in a movie not long ago, which I believe I saw during covid and was the only reason I recognized her.

[–] lath@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The title is clickbait, a regular thing for "magazines", while the article itself clarifies things.

You aren't wrong. It is in poor taste. More so considering the article says the comment was made by "fans" who felt disappointed her body shape didn't fit their imagination.

[–] lefaucet@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yup. Don't click that link; this kinda bullshit cant be rewarded

If you want to see pics just Google her.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 15 points 3 weeks ago

At least it contains the word β€œshamed”. Shaming someone is usually seen as unfair and judgmental.

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.org 12 points 3 weeks ago

This "shaming" or the "shit storm" is usually (and I think here too) just some Incels commenting on Instagram. As Instagram optimizes for maximum engagement, the stupidest and most controversial take is always at the top of the comments, that's how we end up with these idiots getting their platform. And these "news sites" then make a big deal out of a few losers also as engagement bait. This whole system is fucked

[–] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 3 weeks ago

I don't know what this article is about, and I'd rather not engage with this segment of society to find out, but from a quick Google images search it seems like she recently (?) caught flack for a Valentino dress, which was very sheer and through which her nipples could be seen. But anyone who's been paying any attention to fashion at all would know that sheer is very much "in". The latest Yves Saint Laurent line is a prime example of this. As for the quality of her body, which seems to be an unusually frequent topic, why's it anyone's business? Can a woman exist anywhere on this planet and not be objectified and scrutinized like livestock?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm guessing you have not been alive long enough to remember that newspapers, especially tabloids, have always been demeaning of women. To be honest I think headline is timid sounding compared to twenty years ago, when tabloids were more popular and running sensationalist headlines, and the picture of the person being always the most unflattering. I don't really see that kind of reporting nowadays, but it is now on social media where sensationalist shaming happens.

[–] EABOD25@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

I have been, and it's just as demeaning, but I think constant attention needs to be brought to it

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeaahh I'm gonna need to see the pic so..uhh.. so I can answer your question, yeah that's it.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You can read this article here which has images, I can’t see what they mean though. She looks fire!

I did try to add images directly here but I’m on a low signal area right now.

If you’re curious how to do this yourself, just type the headline into Kagi and then you’re done. I am on mobile so was lazy and screenshotted this post and then copied the text directly from the image to avoid trying, I then wrote all this so kinda defeated my not wanting to type.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah she does! Whoo!

(Of course I was just joke horny-posting, but goddamn, I'm not complaining you delivered lol. They're crazy, she looks great!)

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Right. I think this is my first time hearing about this person.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago

Same here, I don't really do new movies/tv too much.

Right. I think this is my first time hearing about this person.

[–] EABOD25@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'm afraid I'm not going to provide a source because that would just make me a hypocrite lol

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago

I think it would be best if they drew attention to the people who are being horrible, instead of repeating the horrible things they said. So yeah, you're not wrong for thinking this is demeaning.

[–] zante@lemmy.wtf 3 points 3 weeks ago

Every time those perfect faces or perfect bodies are projected into media, it demeans us all.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] EABOD25@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Afraid not. That would be contradictory to what I'm saying lol

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

I just mean pictures

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In a just world the publisher of this article would need to submit for anti-misogynist reeducation.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"anti-misogynist reeducation" wouldnt be needed in a just world

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A just world isn't a perfect world, just one where justice is present.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A just world isn't a perfect world

I wholeheartedly agree and still say that a just world wouldnt need "anti-mysoginist reeducation"

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I think having higher publishing standards is a good start.

Im not sure if it is more extreme, but Its a good start.

But im not opposed to more extreme measures, and im a fan of giving businesses more conditions to operate at all so maybe?

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago

You claim to dislike it, yet you gave it greater reach by posting it on Lemmy. Good job! Or maybe your actual job, assuming you are being paid to shill for whatever rag this came from.