lemm.ee

1 point

1 year ago

Absurdity?? You said you found some unspecified aspect of OP that was sexualized, and I countered by pointing out how even in your example, someone could find something sexualized about it. That seems perfectly normal to me.

And I still don’t have any idea what you’re talking about! At this point I’m the one that should be asking about good faith! Do you actually have anything or not? If so, why haven’t you just said it? You should’ve explained your reasons in your very first comment.

report

Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

You countered by finding the worst argument possible. That doesn’t seem good faith to me. Maybe it does to you.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Look if you have nothing you can just say so, you don’t need to accuse me of bad faith just to save face.

E: What a strange conversation.

report

Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

It seems like you still don’t understand what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to tell you to engage people earnestly instead of attacking them.

report

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

I guess we have different understandings of what that looks like. I didn’t percieve what I said as a personal attack at all, I just saw it as a critique of your position. It was never my intention to imply that you would consider ankles scandalous, if that’s how you interpreted it.

My point was that any drawing of a person could be argued to be sexualized, and tenuous connections like a raised finger or a revealed ankle aren’t sufficient to classify it as such.

If you’d like, you could point out what about OP you consider to be overtly sexual, and we can go from there. Because as it stands I legitimately have no idea what you or other people are talking about, I feel like I’m looking at a different picture, the one I’m seeing looks like they’re about to invite me to play volleyball or something, not to have sex.

report

Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

How is that a reasonable interpretation when my image has similar levels of exposure as OP’s image? It’s not a reasonable interpretation, and I’ve been trying to point that out this whole time. That was my problem with you.

Now that you are engaging without trying to somehow “win” an internet argument, here’s my take - flushed faces, contortion of spine and the body and direct “eye contact” with the viewer taken together seem to be suggestive to me.

You may choose to disagree with me, and honestly, I do not care for the topic strongly. What I do care strongly about is your manner of hostile argumentativeness which is why I bothered responding for such a long time.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

How is that a reasonable interpretation when my image has similar levels of exposure as OP’s image?

They don’t? There’s considerably more exposed skin in OP and some of their clothes are more form-fitting. I don’t see how you think that’s an unreasonable interpretation.

here’s my take - flushed faces, contortion of spine and the body and direct “eye contact” with the viewer taken together seem to be suggestive to me.

I guess I can see what you’re talking about with the spine with Russia’s pose, but none of the others are posed in a suggestive way. Adding blush is a pretty common stylistic choice that I see in non-sexualized contexts all the time. Eye contact expresses connection to or interest in the viewer, but not necessarily of a sexual nature.

The impression I get from the image is a vibe of friendly competition, like I said, about to invite me to play volleyball or something. I think this makes sense as a political statement - it presents the the BRICS nations as a rising group that’s beginning to challenge Western power, but without being threatening or hostile or something to be afraid of. I could see how the friendly taunting could come across as flirtatious, but it’s still not really sexual, it’s well within the bounds of a platonic sports game.

report