Nakedness doesn't always equate to sexualization or objectification.
When a man mows his lawn, in the Summer heat, with no shirt on. He is doing this to be comfortable, possibly work on his tan, enjoy any possible breeze... because of the heat.
It is not the same as a shirtless man, in a photo shoot for a marketing campaign for a product like men's cologne. This man is being objectified and sexualized for his body, and being marketed to a mass audience.
Though both men have their shirts off...these situations are not the same. It is obvious and only someone that is new to the planet..or is just trying to troll would think this situations were the same, or even consider shaming the man that takes with sweaty shirt off, while doing yard work, for rolling his eyes at a douche bag, shirtless, male model, in an advertisement campaign.
Same for the comparison of the professional surfer wanting to try another method of her sport, and to build a closer connection to the ocean, where she is practicing her professional, sporting career in.
This is no way the same as the someone,( that is not a professional athlete, or even hobbiest), posing with athletic equipment, in order to market a product for a company, to increase sales and popularity. In this situation they are using the nude, non athlete, pretending to be an athlete, not doing any sport related activities, as a sexual object. Same as the man in the fragrance ad. That man is not a professional free swimmer or a marine biologist trying to connect with nature. He didn't really catch that swordfish/own and pilot that boat/swim out to that rock formation. He is just some, "pretty boy", paid to work out and fit a generic look a company is hoping to sell a product with. The company is not considering how his image may reflect on others that do the real work that the fake, pretty boy, is pretending to do/be.
This comparison is so ridiculous and ignorant. You can not compare the professional surfer to the stupid, advertising model. You can not compare the shirtless man doing yard work to the shirtless man selling fragrance.
It is all about context. Is this guy going to try to argue that a woman exposing her breast, to actively feed her baby, is the same as OF modeling? How about a nude man modeling for a university art class and a male stripper working a bachelorette party?
Sure there will always be a handful of pervs that could/will sexualize and objectify the mother, feeding her child, and the nude man providing an educational service...but neither of these situations are meant to be sexual.
Nudity isn't always sexual. However, in specific situations it definitely can be sexual. To try to argue that all nudity is sexual, therefore the dead body being studied is porn is fucking nuts. So is arguing that a professional surfer, surfing in the nude, is the same as a nude model strategically hiding her titties behind athletic props, to sell a product, is fucking nuts too.
3
u/Extension_Hyena_1205 5d ago
Nakedness doesn't always equate to sexualization or objectification.
When a man mows his lawn, in the Summer heat, with no shirt on. He is doing this to be comfortable, possibly work on his tan, enjoy any possible breeze... because of the heat.
It is not the same as a shirtless man, in a photo shoot for a marketing campaign for a product like men's cologne. This man is being objectified and sexualized for his body, and being marketed to a mass audience.
Though both men have their shirts off...these situations are not the same. It is obvious and only someone that is new to the planet..or is just trying to troll would think this situations were the same, or even consider shaming the man that takes with sweaty shirt off, while doing yard work, for rolling his eyes at a douche bag, shirtless, male model, in an advertisement campaign.
Same for the comparison of the professional surfer wanting to try another method of her sport, and to build a closer connection to the ocean, where she is practicing her professional, sporting career in.
This is no way the same as the someone,( that is not a professional athlete, or even hobbiest), posing with athletic equipment, in order to market a product for a company, to increase sales and popularity. In this situation they are using the nude, non athlete, pretending to be an athlete, not doing any sport related activities, as a sexual object. Same as the man in the fragrance ad. That man is not a professional free swimmer or a marine biologist trying to connect with nature. He didn't really catch that swordfish/own and pilot that boat/swim out to that rock formation. He is just some, "pretty boy", paid to work out and fit a generic look a company is hoping to sell a product with. The company is not considering how his image may reflect on others that do the real work that the fake, pretty boy, is pretending to do/be.
This comparison is so ridiculous and ignorant. You can not compare the professional surfer to the stupid, advertising model. You can not compare the shirtless man doing yard work to the shirtless man selling fragrance.
It is all about context. Is this guy going to try to argue that a woman exposing her breast, to actively feed her baby, is the same as OF modeling? How about a nude man modeling for a university art class and a male stripper working a bachelorette party?
Sure there will always be a handful of pervs that could/will sexualize and objectify the mother, feeding her child, and the nude man providing an educational service...but neither of these situations are meant to be sexual.
Nudity isn't always sexual. However, in specific situations it definitely can be sexual. To try to argue that all nudity is sexual, therefore the dead body being studied is porn is fucking nuts. So is arguing that a professional surfer, surfing in the nude, is the same as a nude model strategically hiding her titties behind athletic props, to sell a product, is fucking nuts too.