>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.