• spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “On a pic of someone with a shirt with a sexual joke on it, a commenter makes a sexual joke related to the shirt’s sexual joke” is not entirely out of left field.

    Okay agree. Just please approach this “well technically” rhetoric with caution. Can be easily misread, as I did, just in the opposite direction.

    …how is its usage on the shirt not a double entendre?

    It is, I just phrased it weird. Let me go edit it.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Okay agree.

      Cool, we’re in agreement. 🙏

      It’s not appropriate (as the context of the selfie originator is unavailable, and absent that context or other signifiers, any selfie should be assumed to be non-sexual), but it is dependent on an assumption of or misreading of context (presumably in good faith) rather than a sheer bloody-minded determination to give a passing woman the metaphorical wolf-whistle.

      Just please approach this “well technically” rhetoric with caution. Can be easily misread, as I did, just in the opposite direction.

      I mean, it’s more than a technicality considering your response was to accuse him of having his first thought upon seeing a woman to comment on her breasts unprovoked. “This your first time on the internet?” implying that such comments are inherently acceptable is a dick response from him, so fuck him, but a defensive response of some sort was going to be inevitable given the (ha) context.

      If I mess up cleaning a pan because I rarely use pans (tinfoil brigade reporting), messing up cleaning the pan is not made okay by the fact that I do it rarely (I should have been prepared, I should have been more attentive, etc), but if someone accuses me of having left the pan dirty on purpose, I will absolutely respond with vitriol, when otherwise I would have inquired as to what I did wrong or been apologetic (not to imply that that’s the average response from someone objectifying someone else inappropriately, simply pointing out that IF they’re reachable, they then become less reachable by that human reaction). Because then it’s been transformed from a mistake to a deliberate offense.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Completely off topic but it’s funny to me that when we have a cordial disagreement I get pummeled with downvotes—even if we come to an understanding in the end.

        The power you wield, PugJesus. Use it responsibly.