a man: hm. see I wouldn’t have phrased it exactly like that. I might have said “hello” or perhaps “salutations.” but the way you said it is cute though.
Gee i dunno, maybe the way they had her spread her legs and make an o-face???
She has to pose, he gets to play
Asking “what’s sexual about this” is almost insidous. Sure, she’s not naked and she’s not performing any sexual acts, but that’s not what sexualization necessarily means. The girl-child is looking longinly,
languishingly into the camera. She has her legs in a short dress spread, her lips separated, and very much make-up making her look older. She is passive, for the camera/viewer, while the boy is active, joking, playing, relaxed and as a child, respected as a child. I’m sure someone might say, “but that’s you sexualizing her, with your gaze” but come on, who are we kidding here? We know the industry sexualizes young girls, we know this isn’t a coinscidence. We know this is the pattern, the model for woman according to the male gaze or woman performing for the male gaze, and we know she is 13 and that everyone knows she is. And we know this destroys girls.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
Protect Millie Bobby Brown.
(Also, as the grown-ups, that’s our job - not hers).
nothing sexier than a girl whos just a little out of it. asked the girl serving me at mcdonald’s 2day where the straws are and she said “straws? why would we have hay here” really sexy of her
