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.
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