No!So she should take unflattering pictures because of what, men?
No!
She can pose how she wants as long as it is really what she wants and so can any woman. I just find it suspicious how often men in the thumbnails are simply acting goofy and don't care about how attractive they look and on the other hand the girls even when goofing off seem to always take flattering photos. I'm just not sure that's entirely their choice.
She can pose how she wants as long as it is really what she wants and so can any woman. I just find it suspicious how often men in the thumbnails are simply acting goofy and don't care about how attractive
Yeah, like, if they are being objectified by their bosses or whoever would make those decisions, we're all here to support them if that's the case and the situation should be rectified, but the answer isn't taking away their agency based on a assumption. Of course people want pictures up where they look their best, that's not even a woman thing, it's a human thing, but especially for women who can't apparently win either way. If they look good, it's a problem, it must not be their choice. If they look bad they have to deal with the other spectrum of sexist people who will criticize every single thing they consider unattractive.And then that photo should be spoiler tagged! Aren't you keeping up at all ?
i think i finally understand. she should do something like this. thumbnail vs video:There is not one of those photos where she is posing in a way that is natural and/or unattractive.
A> Yes, I agree that many of the examples of dudes in this thread are sourcing from a bunch of neckbeards who don't dress well.
B> That still isn't a mark against women
C> Just cause a woman makes a goofy pose doesn't mean that it's sexual just because she has breasts.
Atractive girls Can have unflattering photos thoBREAKING NEWS: ATTRACTIVE GIRLS LOOK ATTRACTIVE EVEN WHEN GOOFING OFF
IN OTHER NEWS: WATER IS WET, FIRE IS HOT
that's going to the extreme but she should be allowed to pose like that if she WANTS to,i think i finally understand. she should do something like this. thumbnail vs video:
I'm not a woman but if I had to venture a guess, I don't think women want to have to reaffirm their agency at the behest of complete strangers. Ideally, people could just not be shit and not look at them as objects and the problem is solved, that goes equally for the people who make the decisions on those pictures and the people viewing them, both in a positive or a critical light.But don't misunderstand I am not trying to blame or shame any woman for how they dress or act.
Yeah, the lengths that people are going to go pretend that crop tops and unbuttoning one's blouse are "normal, everyday office wear" is pretty laughable. Sex appeal sells. She clearly understands this. Personally, that's fine. I don't have any problem with titty streamers either.I think IGNs been doing this for a long long time. Kinda surprised by how many people disagree.
I work at an animation studio. Nothing she is wearing would be considered out-of-place, nor would it look out of place if anyone was wearing a bulky sweater and some ratty pants.
If only it was that easy.I'm not a woman but if I had to venture a guess, I don't think women want to have to reaffirm their agency at the behest of complete strangers. Ideally, people could just not be shit and not look at them as objects and the problem is solved, that goes equally for the people who make the decisions on those pictures and the people viewing them, both in a positive or a critical light.
Difference is, most of us aren't having photos of ourselves taken daily to be plastered on the internet.
I wonder tho, How would girls react if the outfits on the video were their uniforms and they had to wear them?I work at an animation studio. Nothing she is wearing would be considered out-of-place, nor would it look out of place if anyone was wearing a bulky sweater and some ratty pants.
Difference is, most of us aren't having photos of ourselves taken daily to be plastered on the internet.
You have a really hard time believing that a woman would have autonomy over her own body.I wonder tho, How would girls react if the outfits on the video were their uniforms and they had to wear them?
Atractive girls Can have unflattering photos tho
that's going to the extreme but she should be allowed to pose like that if she WANTS to,
The thing is, do you honestly believe that IGN would allow that on their thumbnails? from a girl? Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt it.
Where are you getting this information she is forced into that wardrobe against her will? Like it is very well possible she changes her outfit before a shoot and wears sweats with her hair tied back the rest of the day. Hell If i know.I wonder tho, How would girls react if the outfits on the video were their uniforms and they had to wear them?
Did you read the thread? People were arguing hella hard that the thumbnails were her objectifying herself and thus adding to the problem of objectification.
Yeah, her Instagram is awesome after reading this thread.while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
You have a really hard time believing that a woman would have autonomy over her own body.
I wonder what kind of clothes she wears in her daily life.
https://www.instagram.com/sydsogood/?hl=en
Look at how she's FORCED to wear that outfit! They're even making her talk about it on Instagram!
Ya'll seem to just jump at the extremes for everything. It is a real possibility and you know it is. Her choices can be nudged specially by someone who hold financial power over her and again I cannot know if that is the case but she is not the only person working therere. A better question would be are all of the females that work in IGN that physically attractive? or are they picking a female with a specific look for those videos and if they do why don't they do the same for the guys.Where are you getting this information she is forced into that wardrobe against her will? Like it is very well possible she changes her outfit before a shoot and wears sweats with her hair tied back the rest of the day. Hell If i know.
But I'm not going to be so condescending to say she's incapable of making her own damn choices.
No one said this.Does the fashion industry not objectify women because the models may post pictures of themselves on social media in bikinis?
No one argued this.I guess the argument is that there's no such thing as objectification of women if women are willing participants to the activity, so only forceful coercion or unapproved use of media counts.
Yeah, because of post like yours.
You have a real time understanding that the argument is not about her in specific but about IGN the company.You have a really hard time believing that a woman would have autonomy over her own body.
I wonder what kind of clothes she wears in her daily life.
Or is filled with people who use WOMAN and her agency as a example on why apparently IGN does not objectify WOMEN.Did you read the thread? People were arguing hella hard that the thumbnails were her objectifying herself and thus adding to the problem of objectification.
No one argued this? Then please explain the rationale behind the post made on this very page about the Instagram post.No one said this.
No one argued this.
Yeah, because of post like yours.
No one argued this? Then please explain the rationale behind the post made on this very page about the Instagram post.
You keep saying they she's being forced to wear those clothes, she's not. So what about IGN am I supposed to criticize? Because so far you've done nothing to show us what IGN is doing. Your argument that IGN was forcing women to make provocative thumbnails was beyond ridiculous. THen you tried to argue she's being forced to wear specific clothes, well, she's not.You have a real time understanding that the argument is not about her in specific but about IGN the company.
I'm sorry, so is her agency not in question anymore? Because you were talking about it earlier when you told us she had none and the fact that IGN was taking her agency was an issue.Or is filled with people who use WOMAN and her agency as a example on why apparently IGN does not objectify WOMEN.
No one argued this? Then please explain the rationale behind the post made on this very page about the Instagram post.
Where in that post is it saying objectification doesn't exist? It's saying if it's possible for a person to objectify themselves, and if it is, is it valid to criticism them for it. For that question to even be pose, you have to also believe objectification is real. So, no, no one argued what you said.while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
Read the thread.
I can accept that. But what about the second bikini picture? The point being made I took is that she's comfortable with her body and is not afraid to show it publicly. However that doesn't really disprove that IGN doesn't objectify women. Unless one holds the position that as it's a matter of choice from her then it can't be objectification.The original Instagram post was to show that she was not being forced to wear clothes that she was uncomfortable with as she was wearing the same outfit in the post as she was in one of the daily fix videos.
This is such a weird thread.
Does the fashion industry not objectify women because the models may post pictures of themselves on social media in bikinis? I guess the argument is that there's no such thing as objectification of women if women are willing participants to the activity, so only forceful coercion or unapproved use of media counts.
If that's where the conversation has moved towards, then I hold the same position as you do.Let's not change the definition of concepts here. Objectification is objectification regardless of whether the "object" in question is willing or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
I think the more compelling question is whether objectification is inherently wrong by itself given the participant's agency - it's unquestionably wrong if against the participant's will or knowledge (I doubt anyone here would argue against that), but is it morally acceptable given the participant's willing submission? Some here are arguing yes, I would argue the contrary, given its generally regressive influence on the current social climate.
Can you point me to the specific part where I said she had no agency?You keep saying they she's being forced to wear those clothes, she's not. So what about IGN am I supposed to criticize? Because so far you've done nothing to show us what IGN is doing. Your argument that IGN was forcing women to make provocative thumbnails was beyond ridiculous. Then you tried to argue she's being forced to wear specific clothes, well, she's not.
I'm sorry, so is her agency not in question anymore? Because you were talking about it earlier when you told us she had none and the fact that IGN was taking her agency was an issue.
Where in that post is it saying objectification doesn't exist? It's saying if it's possible for a person to objectify themselves, and if it is, is it valid to criticism them for it. For that question to even be pose, you have to also believe objectification is real. So, no, no one argued what you said.
Read the thread.
Did you forget when you kept trying to argue that she was forced to wear the things she wore in the video?Can you point me to the specific part where I said she had no agency?
did you forget I said Specific example?Did you forget when you kept trying to argue that she was forced to wear the things she wore in the video?
Can you point me to the specific part where I said she had no agency?
She takes orders from someone and that someone is clearly that she as well as the rest of the Women in the thumbnails have to appear Sexy or at the very least Cute.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make with that first passage but as for the second, if you're not interested in summarising your opinion on the matter then I can't I care about your opinion to the extent of trawling through 20 pages of a thread to learn about your position on it.Where in that post is it saying objectification doesn't exist? It's saying if it's possible for a person to objectify themselves, and if it is, is it valid to criticism them for it. For that question to even be pose, you have to also believe objectification is real. So, no, no one argued what you said.
Read the thread.
while y'all clutching your pearls she uploaded this to her ig 5 hours ago lol
can someone objectify themselves, and if yes, is it valid criticism?
Bro, I'm not gonna go back and read all the times you argued that IGN was forcing her to wear specific outfits or not allowing her to not be 'sexy' or making her be 'provocative'. Like, this whole thread is people arguing with you about these points.did you forget I said Specific example?
Or are you going to ignore this with a question as well?
Yeah, you didn't seem to understand it the first time so why would you the second?I don't understand what point you're trying to make with that first passage
I don't even know what you want me to summarized, there's been multiple discussions in this thread. If you're not willing to actually understand what people are talking about, then I'm not willing to try and figured out what exactly it is you want me to summarize. I'm not here to do the leg work for you.but as for the second, if you're not interested in summarising your opinion on the matter then I can't I care about your opinion to the extent of trawling through 20 pages of a thread to learn about your position on it.