It's the same thing.

It's fighting against the stupid view that two lumps under your flesh are somehow evil and must be hidden away or punished somehow (but only if you're a woman), or that touching your crotch on television is an arrestable offence, or any other thing in that long list of stupidity.

It's about having rights over your own body, such that you can say "You don't like what you see? Well too bad, because it's my body and my right and you can't do a damn thing about it, nor do I have any obligation to explain myself."

It's primarily women who fight this battle because the rules are tilted far more against them. Most men can't even see the problem.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?

> Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?

I’m curious if you are suggesting that is perfectly acceptable that, in a society that prohibits topless women from walking around, it would be perfectly acceptable for a man to implant breasts on himself and then walk around topless.

That's what Facebook enforces, yes. "Male" chests are fine, "Female" chests are not.

> Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization?

Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.

Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted other comments that she’s made on the subject. It does feel like a lot of the debate is caused by miscommunication perhaps, or misleading intent.

Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder. In most cases, men. So men can’t keep it in their pants so women have to surgically reduce their breast sizes to accommodate some boundary of sexualization set by men?

You don't believe they're real, right?

She said she had implants. Do you think she can remove them without surgery?

Why she shouldn't have the right to be seen as sexualized if she wants to?

Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).

She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized.

I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.

>I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized

What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that?

Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...

This is not about the body, this is more about the choices. For example if you’re going to wear practically a thong in a bunch of videos unrelated to something sexualized, and then claim you are not trying to make it sexualized, a lot of people will think that’s being disingenuous. Doesn’t even matter what the actual body type is, it’s a question of what people consider to be appropriate in relationship to what someone says they mean by their dress.

They can certainly do that, but then they need to be aware of how it appears. It’s all well and good to imagine a society where you never have to care what people think, but unfortunately neither men nor women live in that kind of society. People will draw conclusions from how you present yourself.

I remember getting a book on spirituality whose author is an attractive young woman. She had rather suggestive photos of herself throughout the book and the book's content had nothing to do with the photos (and it was wasting space, the book would have been a few pages shorter without the photos). The book itself was pretty good, but it was really annoying to see her photos everywhere. There is not one reason for suggestive photos and yet here we are.

This to me, is disingenuous. If I am attending a math lecture, I do not want to see my professor's abs (or balls or whatever) even if he was the most attractive man on the planet.

The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc). It can be a completely fun and educative channel, instead there is more discussion about her clothes than the good stuff she makes and the good education she provides. All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized. All this unnecessary controversy can probably be shut down if she had two channels - one for fashion and one for electronics.

Having said all that, maybe we should grow up as a society and learn to not put so much thought into body parts. I get that viewpoint too.

>The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc).

So? Why should people be compartmentalized, and not be allowed to feel and look sexy whne doing tech stuff?

That's the puritan dichotomy, where the body/sexual is bad, and should be kept inside marriage and procreation, or -as adjusted in more permitting puritans- to specially allocated sexy-time.

And, that said, the premise that her channel has nothing to do this is wrong.

Her intention is not to show how some technical stuff. It also isn't to show that women in general can too do some technical stuff.

It's to show how a sexy, sensual woman, a category often dismissed as bimbos, can also do technical stuff. And that technical stuff can be part of a fun and sexy thing, not just something that's relegated to bookish somber asexuality.

I mean, it's even in the channel's name...

>All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized.

She's not "trying", that's who she is.

Her appearance is part of her (sexual) identity: https://twitter.com/realsexycyborg/status/139660540781712998...

Of course, she could hide it, but she just doesn't want to.

Wow, that thread. Sexual identities have become very complicated.

I suspect they always were. Society just had an easier time pretending that they were not.