That context matters, though. We live in a world where women are historically predated on by men, which would make the gender-swapped version insensitive. Absent that context, I think this works he fine in either gender position, but because of that context, showing it this way isn't as bad as showing it with the genders reversed. With that in mind the difference isn't hypocritical.

[–] demlet@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a roundabout way of saying that all men should be okay with it because some men have historically done the same thing to women, which is what I meant by the word "payback". I disagree with the premise that one is acceptable but not both. Either both are or both aren't, that's the only position that actually describes equality.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This image illustrates why pure "equality" isn't the right goal pretty well I think. I'm not saying all men or any men need to be OK with anything. It's not payback, it's that each has a different impact based on context of the reality that we live in.

[–] demlet@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we want people to have an equal outcome. That's perfectly fine, and something I fully support. The difference is that no one in the right image has to be treated badly for everyone to be happy. If we accept that, in the abstract and lacking full context of possible consensual behavior between adults, objectifying people sexually is treating people badly, then we shouldn't want it for anyone, nor find it amusing.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

OK well if you find objection in the depiction regardless of gender I respect that