Is dressing in a sexualised manner empowering or objectifying

>>35880365
i Iove this pic XD

>RRREEE I'M NOT MAD BECAUSE I'M ON MY PERIOD
>constantly joke among themselves about raging on their period

What did women mean by this?

>>35880365
It's neither. It's a wardrobe choice. We're not in Saudi Arabia, it's not brave or daring to dress like a slut. It's just slutty.

>is it objectifying
Who the fuck cares? People have opinions about everything and anything. If you're okay with being seen as a slut, go for it. If not, wear a turtleneck.

>>35880443
>feminist
>normie
Women are not a monolithic entity, Anon-senpai.

There's two types.

>>35880365
The first if she's consciously choosing to sexualize herself. The latter if she's coerced into it(by another person, her peer group etc.).
Always choose for yourself, fembots.

Depends on the crowd.

In a crowd of cowering betas - yes

In a crowd of drunk clubbers -

It's subjective.

Bumping originally, in an original manner, because I want to see where this goes

>>35880365
Both. Because the greatest, and only asset of the type of vapid women who would dress like that is their bodies.

Depends on who's looking. If attractive people are looking at you or you're making money off of it then its empowering. If they're unattractive or you're not making money then it's objectification.

>>35881142
Most women I know are both normie and feminist, anon.

>>35881951
What exactly do you mean by that? That a woman cannot be attractive and intelligent, or that no intelligent woman would ever dress like this?

>>35882002
>implying feminists won't get triggered either way

>>35882031
Oh, they may say they're feminists, but only because of feminist propaganda saying you're a sexist if you're not.

Everyone objectifies everyone regardless of what we wear. If you find the attention of people validates you when you dress sexually, then go with what makes you feel good. No reason not to really

>>35882281

True enough, but a lot of girls are feminists because no men or the "wrong ones" look at them more than they would like. Even if the nice guy strawman is every inch the villain they paint him as, if Chris Hemsworth comes around and just wants to fuck or use her body, all of a sudden it's not a big deal, or can even be ideal. Being a callous objectifier isn't the cardinal sin of our age, it's being unattractive. Don't expect anyone to admit this though.

>>35882433
On account of no true scotsman fallacy, I just consider anyone who claims to be "feminist" a feminist. There's no actual definition for it. Obviously the women I'm talking about are massive hypocrites who take a public stance and contradict it with their actions, but I think they still genuinely believe themselves to be feminist as well.

>>35882263
The latter. Im sure you can give some ancedotes of women dressing slutty that you idolize for being so stunning and brave, but they still aren't intelegent.

It's objectifying, idk where they came up with nudity="empowerment" but it just goes to show how much they think of themselves and how much they follow their biological imperative almost every day of their lives.

I rarely see/hear women talking about their strides in their education or careers (and the ones who do are pretty much gloating about it, or and I hate to say it, painfully unattractive), they're more interested in looking and feeling sexy, which they already had no problems with in the first place.