Still considered fully clothed on a technicality. XD
If this is what they want to do to advertise themselves, or feel empowered, sure go ahead. But I’m somewhat bothered by the naked dress in front of the Barbie livery. Wasn’t that movie targeted at a young audience?
I don’t have an issue with it. Nudity is natural. It’s an American thing to think people need to be sheltered from it.
However, I don’t know if Barbie was targeting a young audience. They certainly weren’t excluded, but I think at least half of their target were millennials. I’m a man, and I know a lot of my peers, and myself, watched it and enjoyed it. I’m pretty sure the thought was probably a movie for the parents that the kids will also want to watch.
(Also, kids are not watching these events. Even if they love the movie, they aren’t going to watch this press event.)
What’s the intention? It’s just part of their outfit. It’s not sexual. If you think it is sexual than that’s something you’re reading into it. Showing ankles isn’t sexual, for example. At one point in time people made the same argument against that though.
You can’t just create an image in a culturally-sexual style and pretend there is no cultural context.
You can do it anyway as a form of protest. You can say “there shouldn’t be anything sexual about this image.” But to say there isn’t is ignoring culture and just incorrect. It is like saying racism doesn’t exist.
Still considered fully clothed on a technicality. XD
If this is what they want to do to advertise themselves, or feel empowered, sure go ahead. But I’m somewhat bothered by the naked dress in front of the Barbie livery. Wasn’t that movie targeted at a young audience?
I don’t have an issue with it. Nudity is natural. It’s an American thing to think people need to be sheltered from it.
However, I don’t know if Barbie was targeting a young audience. They certainly weren’t excluded, but I think at least half of their target were millennials. I’m a man, and I know a lot of my peers, and myself, watched it and enjoyed it. I’m pretty sure the thought was probably a movie for the parents that the kids will also want to watch.
(Also, kids are not watching these events. Even if they love the movie, they aren’t going to watch this press event.)
I don’t have an issue with nudity at face value. But intention drives a lot of things.
What’s the intention? It’s just part of their outfit. It’s not sexual. If you think it is sexual than that’s something you’re reading into it. Showing ankles isn’t sexual, for example. At one point in time people made the same argument against that though.
No, I’m reading exactly what those outfits are. Ignorance is not an excuse.
I was just arguing this point in another thread.
You can’t just create an image in a culturally-sexual style and pretend there is no cultural context.
You can do it anyway as a form of protest. You can say “there shouldn’t be anything sexual about this image.” But to say there isn’t is ignoring culture and just incorrect. It is like saying racism doesn’t exist.
Pretty much this.
Ignorance of what? You didn’t really answer my question earlier.
Can you tell us what you think the intention of those outfits are
There is nothing wrong or indecent of youth seeing the human body. Nudity is not obscene.
“…officer.”
I draw a line between educational nudity and tantalising nudity.
“I know it when I sees it”