Matt's back? I though you two spit.Okay, I put it to my guy, Matt, and here's what he got out of it, quote:
"As far as I can tell, he seems to think that a woman wanting to look sexually attractive on her own terms means she's trying to gain something and sexualized means ...wait no. Umm. I dunno, this is kinda hard to decipher. It's almost Trumpian in its language. He seems to assume that sexualized means the woman is still in control and is basically the same as sexy, as far as I can tell. Dunno if I'm right there though. That is quite hard to decipher. Okay, so sexy means she's doing it for gain and sexualized means men assuming she's doing it for gain. That appears to be what he's saying? I think? Seems like a misunderstanding of your point."
I provide his remarks just so you know that it was NOT just me. That was objectively a difficult post to decipher.
In any event, okay, whatever. I guess I take the "troll" remark back then. *shrugs*
I still think even your version is BS. I'm distinguishing between contexts where women (or female characters in this case) express ownership of their sexuality versus contexts that promote male control of female bodies. I don't see how there's any double-standard there. That's pretty straightforward. I think he (and you) are just trying to disingenuously fabricate a double-standard in the OP that doesn't exist just so you can have some excuse to object to everything I say because I'm a feminist.