Lmao, I’m leaving it. It’s better this way.

I believe many libraries have ebooks now too, which makes it even easier if transposition is an issue!

She was imprisoned as a child/teen.

I think the joke was more that she doesn’t know what fruit shampoo is. She was excited to shower, she knows that bathing is even if she doesn’t do it often.

Does that mean she’s removing body hair? No, I get why it seems inconsistent. I do think humans have a very diverse expression of body hair and some people have barely any visible body hair even if they don’t remove it.

If I want to appear hairless I need to shave daily (or more, dark hair on pale skin RIP) whereas I have friends who appear hairless on their legs and armpits unless you get really close. No, it’s not from waxing or laser, it’s just the texture and colour of their body hair.

I’m not trying to suggest this is definitely what is going on here and it would be nice to see a wider expression of appearances in media. Maybe then we’d get over the narrow view of “acceptable” body hair.

Pornography is (typically) not just filming people having sex. It’s acting. The positions and sex acts chosen are ones that film well and are appealing to the target audience as fantasy, not ones that are necessarily the most pleasing. There is also no universally pleasing sex act.

There was another comment talking about taking assets and while I agree rich people often don’t have wages, I think what is missing is looking at the fundamental power dynamic.

Wherever it means now, “working class” has been meant to describe people who fund their lives with employment income, in contrast to aristocracy or those who make money off their investments. I’m using investments in a super broad way here: stocks etc, landlords, business owners pay wages to employees, sole proprietors, etc. basically anyone who isn’t paid for their time in the service of an employer.

The income of the working class is controlled by those who profit from their labour. It’s not even that “society” values certain jobs over others, it’s that the people with the money have the capital and own the means of production and therefore get to decide how much they will pay people to work for them.

The simple examples that are used to illustrate the means of production aren’t really adequate anymore, but they are still part of it. Say you own a saw mill. You can hire people to operate and maintain it on an hourly basis, pay your expenses from the revenue and any extra becomes profit. You aren’t earning an income necessarily. Adding a few more modern twists: You can take loans against the saw mill, sell stocks in the saw mill to raise money, use those stocks as collateral against loans, use your connections to get preferred access to feedstock, lobby the government for subsidies or to regulate the industry to make competition harder, etc. A lot of that isn’t taxable, and it prevents others from successfully challenging established businesses if they formed a co-op for example. That’s why taxes or redistributing some assets wouldn’t solve the problem.

Although the useful towels aren’t always clean. Despite that, they give off an air of “having your shit together”.

It’s not a sexy thing for me, it’s comfortable. I don’t need the support so no bra feels best.

Sorry if I am misinterpreting, but I wasn’t suggesting not wearing a bra is a choice I make to be “sexy”, either for myself or others.

The only reason I ever wear a bra is if I am concerned that people will perceive and sexualize the shape of nipples under clothing. Even then, I have tank tops with padded front sections and a bit of elastic for “support” (not needed). Despite being way, way better than a traditional bra, they are still a sensory nightmare by the end of the day.

I’m clarifying this more for the post as a whole. There are quite a few comments on the post that seem to think that when people say they should be allowed to wear what they want the main conflict is people being restricted from expressing themselves in a sexual manner. Sure, that is one reason people want to have freedom of choice with clothing. Like you mentioned, some people don’t want to be pressured into gender norms (“unnatural barbie doll look”). I guess my not wanting to wear a bra is also about gender norms. Nipples showing prominently on a male presenting person might be seen as uncomfortable sometimes but not nearly to the extent it is on female presenting people.

It feels like you are not understanding what I am saying (which isn’t meant as a criticism).

The person you replied to said:

Being naked is different from dressing in sexualized clothing.

This isn’t related to the fairness of a rule. Being naked may or may not be sexual to an individual, but when people say they should be able to dress how they want they aren’t necessarily saying they should be allowed to be nude.

This is not a direct reply to this comment: Even if I am fully covered in loose clothing (my preference) it could still be considered sexualized. Policing “sexualized” clothing is about control. Saying “okay well we should just be nude” is just another form of control. There is more than one type of body that is policed but I will speak from my experience: Neither the current social norms nor the idea what we should all be nude allow me to choose clothing that is comfortable, practical, or just enjoyable just because I am AFAB whereas AMAB people can wear such things.

(Eta: my comment comes off as anti-nudity. I’m not anti nudity. I just don’t want to be nude in public and not just because I don’t want to be seen nude. I burn easily and prefer the ease of changing clothes when I get home.)

How many montages of people being taught to walk in heels do we need to make this more common knowledge lol

Not without rules, without a ruler. Not the same thing in theory or practice.

I can see a conservative person thinking more things are sexualized than others, but that doesn’t impact what this person is saying.

I don’t want to be nude, I just don’t want to wear a bra. But that’s sexual for some reason because my nips are afab

deleted by creator

Does the urge to get the star wars quote in there override actually reading what I wrote?

I couldn’t watch the tiktok because there were no subtitles so maybe I am missing something.

I don’t understand how these glasses could be permitted in a medical setting. It’s becoming more normal for medical offices here to record visits and use AI to transcribe the visit. Sure, there are concerns about those in terms of accuracy, and there is a risk of unauthorized access and systems failing, but there is a list of vetted products build to meet privacy and security requirements. Kinda the same way I am only permitted to use Copilot at work because the data is not sent back to be used in training models.

I don’t believe Meta has any such programs or versions?

What am I missing about the comments here? It’s a satirical cartoon, so it’s not meant to be taken as these labels are what the author would apply to each group.

I read it as highlighting the hypocrisy of how Ukraine fighting Russia is self defence but Palestine fighting Israel is seen as terrorism.

Is this a controversial take?