The Jaimie Alexander/Lady Sif thread

[Feenix]

Stop being a prude.

I already posted about not being a prude. You don't know who I am and no one I know would say I'm a prude. The dress is ridiculous, no one needs to see that.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

In honor of this thread, I just took my pants off.

You're welcome.

 

[Darkness Falls]

In honor of this thread, I just took my pants off.

You're welcome.

well played whiskey

 

[jmc]

I already posted about not being a prude. You don't know who I am and no one I know would say I'm a prude. The dress is ridiculous, no one needs to see that.

Who are you to determine what people 'need' to see?

 

[Feenix]

Who are you to determine what people 'need' to see?

Clearly I'm the Master of the Universe. Everyone should wear clothing from right below the chin to the ankles. And thigh high boots so there's no chance of "accidental" slip ups. And sunglasses. Because eyes are sinful.

 

[DarthDorranceBane]

Spoiler

 

[Incredible Hans]

Oh my god, that's not a slip. She didn't wear underwear and her crotch can clearly be seen numerous times. This was on purpose. For shame.

I'll bet Jaimie even makes use of her right to vote, has a driving license and drinks alcohol.

Let's send her to Riyadh for reeducation!

 

[balanda]

No one is calling Jaimie a ****. She's free to choose the dress she wants to wear, but others are free to dislike her choice and be vocal about it. She had to know that this dress would generate a lot of press; no doubt that's why she chose it in the first place.

Wearing clothing that reveals your pubic mound, breasts, and butt all in one shot does not, in my mind, necessarily equate "comfort with ones sexuality".

I think that the choice to wear a dress like this one buys into the very concept you object to--that a woman's body is her main worth.

The ad hominem dislike of Jamie for the choice of dress she wears is very telling and sexist. And you say here in the last paragraph that Jamie obviously feels insecure for making that choice, and is hence unfeminist. Wow, that's a long bow to draw. She's selling out women by being loose, trashy, trampy, just the old discourse about good women and loose women who let us down by not being ashamed of showing their bodies. Yet somehow she is ashamed. Double think.

It's not about being a prude at all. It's about knowing that there's more to a person than their looks. Jaimie has obviously lost that knowledge. A woman can get attention and look good without having to purposely show her crotch and ass crack.

I'm all for expressing sexuality, in an appropriate setting. If she wants to be taken seriously as an actress, she should probably cover up and let her talent and personality shine through instead of her body. She's on par with Miley Cyrus now.

"Jamie has obviously lost that knowledge". WOW. What a stupid, wayward, woman who has lost her sense of self-control and pride amirite? And you're kidding yourself if you don't see women on the red carpet, no matter how much they're showing, oozing conformity to the male gaze, in her face, makeup, hair, unusually thin and appropriate body shape, youth, femininity, shoes. WHY draw the line here, knowing that she is chosen for her looks, displays her looks no matter whether we can see her crotch her not. Jamie knows exactly much how she's worth, crotch shot or not.

Yes, criticisms of revealing dresses means we're catty. Keep telling yourself that next time you think Miley Cyrus dresses ****ty or those idiots from the Housewives show. It doesn't say much for us when women feel they need to wear crap like Jaimie did to get attention. More self respect would be nice, especially since you can see her crotch in numerous pictures.

I'm sorry, you're saying Jamie has no "self-respect" for showing off her body only slightly more than every other female actress on the red carpet? What an asinine (and yes, typical sl**-shaming) distinction.

And yes, we should have an issue with this kind of thing. Mainly because of why she felt the need to wear something like that.

And you wouldn't have had a vocal problem had the dress been slightly more opaque... despite female actors being forced to conform to an extremely narrow standard of attractiveness for men. I think your concern is misplaced, and telling.

I'm not arrogant. But people obviously wear what they wear for a reason and even more so with women. You are clearly not a woman so you wouldn't have the tiniest inkling of why a woman would wear something. I'm saying that whatever her reasons are for wearing a crotch revealing dress to a movie premiere, they're probably much more deeply rooted than you think.

I think Jamie experiences the pressure that all female actors do. And yet you shame her. Nice one. Not at all old-fashioned.

You'd think but here people are using 'Feminism' to excuse someone showing their public mound in public. There is sexy and there is too much.

As for **** shaming. Is anyone discussing Jaimie's sex life? Because that is what that means, insulting women for having a lot of sex where men would be praised

Many, many insinuations have been made about Jamie in this thread about her sexuality/sexual presentation, and sl** shaming definitely involves criticising cultural signifiers of sexuality such as clothing. So nice try, but this is exactly what you are doing.

Obviously she would have shaved. So "pubes" wouldn't be there.

And no, it's clearly nudity. Why else would it be censored? It's inappropriate.

Are we having a discussion about feminism or Biblical morality?

For the record, I'm not a prude (far from it if you actually knew me personally). But, there is a time and a place for expression. Our culture is overly sexualized and overly violent (as others pointed out). Less of both would be better.

<snip>

Wearing Jaimie's dress, we would probably see comments like "Ew, gross" and "Put on some clothes."

...Are you SERIOUSLY comparing consensual expressions of sexuality to violence? OH MY GOD. *facepalm*

As for the latter, agreed, though it doesn't take wearing Jamie's dress, and she'd never get to play Jamie's role, so I laugh that you don't seem to have the same vehement response to this promoting negative societal effects too.

And yet you have people in this very thread who have called her a tramp, called her trashy, compared her to Paris Hilton, tossed out accusations of having no self-respect, no knowledge of human qualities beyond looks, setting back feminism, etc.

It has nothing to do with Jaimie. Sure.

Yeeeeeppp..... "let her personality shine through" lol as if personality is the main quality looked for in most female actors... it's an added bonus.

The person who brought up feminism was 'defending' Jamie while being sexist themselves. They didn't seem to know that dressing provocatively doesn't mean she's asking for sex. Because the **** shaming must be about having sex as a **** is someone who has lots of it.

"Provocatively"... provoking what? That's a very telling (and negative) term. It implies agency to gain a reaction. Deliberately trying to get men to want to have sex with her. Nope. Not at all anything to do with the way women put down other women who do this. Nooope.

The cultural hatred of sex workers has so very much relevance and similarity to the negative reactions towards Jamie's presentation, in this thread. You should hear women talk about prostitutes and porn stars. As me how I know. They are routinely blamed for everything that is wrong with how men treat women. Blame the employers not the workers, and don't draw the line at the most obvious manifestations of a system that rewards women for conforming to male expectations in all spheres, virgin, madonna, wh***.

 

[Anita18]

Oh the joys of being bored and clicking "New Posts" late at night....

Dude(tte)s, Jamie is a Hollywood actress. She ain't any regular woman, so all the observations about her self-esteem or "feminism" or some other higher cultural message go immediately out the window.

Her job, as a celebrity, is to stay in the spotlight. What she's willing to do is up to her. (And Miley Cyrus, for the record.)

Looks like she did just that.

Yes, the way that female celebrities dress is being a part of the male gaze, but ya know, getting attention IS the name of the game. Male gaze, female gaze, we're all gazing at the whole proceedings. That's their motive.

And I don't believe men treat women like trash just because of the way women dress. Men treat women like crap because they think they can get away with it, that we can't fight back. I stopped getting hit on at the gym when I started lifting weights, because the guys could see exactly how strong I am. I may look like a delicate flower, but I don't lift like one.

Something tells me leery men would steer clear of Ms. Alexander for the same reason, even when she dresses like that.



And as a woman, all I have to say about that dress is that I commend the invention of double-sided tape.

 

[spider-neil]

I stopped getting hit on at the gym when I started lifting weights, because the guys could see exactly how strong I am. I may look like a delicate flower, but I don't lift like one.

That's the last time I pick an argument with you

 

[Herolee10]

 

[LadyGeek]

The ad hominem dislike of Jamie for the choice of dress she wears is very telling and sexist. And you say here in the last paragraph that Jamie obviously feels insecure for making that choice, and is hence unfeminist. Wow, that's a long bow to draw. She's selling out women by being loose, trashy, trampy, just the old discourse about good women and loose women who let us down by not being ashamed of showing their bodies. Yet somehow she is ashamed. Double think.

I find it almost hilarious that you read my comment and interpreted it this way, as if I need to be lectured in feminism. My comment was in response to others preceding it, and in my post I said all I wanted to say regarding the now infamous dress!

I did not say, nor do I believe, that Jaimie "obviously feels insecure," "is hence unfeminist," "selling out women," etc. Don't put your cliched words in my mouth. A poster before me, for example, implied that wearing a dress like this one shows that the wearer is confident in her sexuality. I don't believe that. I think that a woman can be confident in her sexuality and wear a revealing dress or a non-revealing one; likewise, she can have absolutely no confidence in her sexuality and still wear a revealing dress (or a non-revealing one).

Just like Jaimie gets to choose the dress she wants to wear, I get to choose my words, and I tend to choose them with care.

 

[Feenix]

The ad hominem dislike of Jamie for the choice of dress she wears is very telling and sexist. And you say here in the last paragraph that Jamie obviously feels insecure for making that choice, and is hence unfeminist. Wow, that's a long bow to draw. She's selling out women by being loose, trashy, trampy, just the old discourse about good women and loose women who let us down by not being ashamed of showing their bodies. Yet somehow she is ashamed. Double think.


"Jamie has obviously lost that knowledge". WOW. What a stupid, wayward, woman who has lost her sense of self-control and pride amirite? And you're kidding yourself if you don't see women on the red carpet, no matter how much they're showing, oozing conformity to the male gaze, in her face, makeup, hair, unusually thin and appropriate body shape, youth, femininity, shoes. WHY draw the line here, knowing that she is chosen for her looks, displays her looks no matter whether we can see her crotch her not. Jamie knows exactly much how she's worth, crotch shot or not.


I'm sorry, you're saying Jamie has no "self-respect" for showing off her body only slightly more than every other female actress on the red carpet? What an asinine (and yes, typical sl**-shaming) distinction.


And you wouldn't have had a vocal problem had the dress been slightly more opaque... despite female actors being forced to conform to an extremely narrow standard of attractiveness for men. I think your concern is misplaced, and telling.


I think Jamie experiences the pressure that all female actors do. And yet you shame her. Nice one. Not at all old-fashioned.


Many, many insinuations have been made about Jamie in this thread about her sexuality/sexual presentation, and sl** shaming definitely involves criticising cultural signifiers of sexuality such as clothing. So nice try, but this is exactly what you are doing.

Are we having a discussion about feminism or Biblical morality?


...Are you SERIOUSLY comparing consensual expressions of sexuality to violence? OH MY GOD. *facepalm*

As for the latter, agreed, though it doesn't take wearing Jamie's dress, and she'd never get to play Jamie's role, so I laugh that you don't seem to have the same vehement response to this promoting negative societal effects too.


Yeeeeeppp..... "let her personality shine through" lol as if personality is the main quality looked for in most female actors... it's an added bonus.


"Provocatively"... provoking what? That's a very telling (and negative) term. It implies agency to gain a reaction. Deliberately trying to get men to want to have sex with her. Nope. Not at all anything to do with the way women put down other women who do this. Nooope.

The cultural hatred of sex workers has so very much relevance and similarity to the negative reactions towards Jamie's presentation, in this thread. You should hear women talk about prostitutes and porn stars. As me how I know. They are routinely blamed for everything that is wrong with how men treat women. Blame the employers not the workers, and don't draw the line at the most obvious manifestations of a system that rewards women for conforming to male expectations in all spheres, virgin, madonna, wh***.

Too much time on your hands? I barely skimmed over this. There's no point in addressing comments that were already taken back or explained.

Ps, I wasn't comparing sexuality to violence. Get with the times on the thread, you're way behind

PPS. I'm an atheist, so I don't give a rat's ass about "Biblical morality."

 

[LadyGeek]

Too much time on your hands? I didn't even read this. There's no point in addressing comments that were already taken back or explained.

Ps, I wasn't comparing sexuality to violence. Get with the times on the thread, you're way behind

You're right, I started addressing this because I feel uncomfortable when my words are misinterpreted, but in-print discussions tend to be that way. If we were all in the same room talking, we'd probably understand each other better.

Often I see posters use others' comments as jumping-off points without really getting the original context.

And no, you ain't no prude--just someone with an opinion! And if your opinion isn't popular, some folks will attack you. When I started reading this board, two posters with great insight--who happened to be women--were bullied for their opinions by a couple of other posters--who happened to be men. Now that was sexism at its finest.

 

[LadyGeek]

In honor of this thread, I just took my pants off.

You're welcome.

That's the spirit!

 

[Mjölnir]

Too much time on your hands? I barely skimmed over this. There's no point in addressing comments that were already taken back or explained.

Ps, I wasn't comparing sexuality to violence. Get with the times on the thread, you're way behind

PPS. I'm an atheist, so I don't give a rat's ass about "Biblical morality."

I'm an atheist too but that doesn't mean that I'm not affected by the views on sexuality brought in by Christianity, which were a reaction to the Roman Empire. Just because some countries are becoming quite secular doesn't mean that they still don't have a lot of cultural baggage from the hundreds of years where the church had a lot of influence.

I'm glad it's starting to wane around me though since making sex a sin is nothing I'm on board with. If people were more comfortable with the subject there wouldn't even be as much need to "chock" people with statements and behavior. It will all take a long time though and who knows where we'll end up as we currently have people applauding violence and executions, while being shocked at a semi-exposed boob. That's weirdness that doesn't follow the religions either.

 

[Herolee10]

 

[Feenix]

You're right, I started addressing this because I feel uncomfortable when my words are misinterpreted, but in-print discussions tend to be that way. If we were all in the same room talking, we'd probably understand each other better.

Often I see posters use others' comments as jumping-off points without really getting the original context.

And no, you ain't no prude--just someone with an opinion! And if your opinion isn't popular, some folks will attack you. When I started reading this board, two posters with great insight--who happened to be women--were bullied for their opinions by a couple of other posters--who happened to be men. Now that was sexism at its finest.

Thanks, LadyGeek t:

I read about the women who were bullied off the threads. Let me guess, too much "fangirlism?" I find it hilarious how the guys hate on "fangirls" without realizing how ironic it is, especially since they spend pages and pages nitpicking every aspect of a movie/character.

 

[Feenix]

I'm an atheist too but that doesn't mean that I'm not affected by the views on sexuality brought in by Christianity, which were a reaction to the Roman Empire. Just because some countries are becoming quite secular doesn't mean that they still don't have a lot of cultural baggage from the hundreds of years where the church had a lot of influence.

I'm glad it's starting to wane around me though since making sex a sin is nothing I'm on board with. If people were more comfortable with the subject there wouldn't even be as much need to "chock" people with statements and behavior. It will all take a long time though and who knows where we'll end up as we currently have people applauding violence and executions, while being shocked at a semi-exposed boob. That's weirdness that doesn't follow the religions either.

I agree that making sex a sin is ridiculous. I'm German and very open with my sexuality and sex in general. The issue I have with this whole thing is I don't believe the dress was worn to express womanhood or sexuality, I think it was to get attention and to get the attention of particular men in the industry. It would be different if our culture was different in that these dresses would be worn out of celebration or expression, but given what we know about Hollywood and our hyper sexualized culture, I think the dress was worn for the wrong reasons.

In Germany, people are more open with their sexuality because it's not seen as something bad and it's not a big deal. When Germans wear "provocative" clothing, it's not seen that way. It's something normal, not necessarily sexual. Here, it's all about sex, which is the odd thing. But when we wear provocative clothing, that's exactly what it's meant to be. In Europe, it's not.

I also think it's hypocritical because I'm sure had this dress not been worn by an attractive women, the comments would be different.

 

[Mjölnir]

I agree that making sex a sin is ridiculous. I'm German and very open with my sexuality and sex in general. The issue I have with this whole thing is I don't believe the dress was worn to express womanhood or sexuality, I think it was to get attention and to get the attention of particular men in the industry. It would be different if our culture was different in that these dresses would be worn out of celebration or expression, but given what we know about Hollywood and our hyper sexualized culture, I think the dress was worn for the wrong reasons.

We can only speculate about that. I don't think the slips were intended, but I can't really say much since I don't know her and far too much crap comes from people talking about things they don't know.

I also think it's hypocritical because I'm sure had this dress not been worn by an attractive women, the comments would be different.

Why is that hypocritical? Is anyone trying to say that sexy clothing isn't meant to show off beautiful people?

It's not like it's any different when people speak either. If I hear a celebrity speak on a subject I'll like it if it's a smart and educated opinion and I'll criticize it if it's something stupid.

 

[Herolee10]

Guys, you know there are plenty of other places on this forum that you can use to go into full detail regarding the matter at hand.

But we're definitely going way off track from this thread's original goal, which is to discuss about Jaimie Alexander.

 

[Incredible Hans]

I agree that making sex a sin is ridiculous. I'm German and very open with my sexuality and sex in general. The issue I have with this whole thing is I don't believe the dress was worn to express womanhood or sexuality, I think it was to get attention and to get the attention of particular men in the industry. It would be different if our culture was different in that these dresses would be worn out of celebration or expression, but given what we know about Hollywood and our hyper sexualized culture, I think the dress was worn for the wrong reasons.

In Germany, people are more open with their sexuality because it's not seen as something bad and it's not a big deal. When Germans wear "provocative" clothing, it's not seen that way. It's something normal, not necessarily sexual. Here, it's all about sex, which is the odd thing. But when we wear provocative clothing, that's exactly what it's meant to be. In Europe, it's not.

I also think it's hypocritical because I'm sure had this dress not been worn by an attractive women, the comments would be different.

Yes, and if Anthony Hopkins went shirtless instead of Chris Hemsworth, the comments would be different too.

 

[GriffinSTatum]

Guys, you know there are plenty of other places on this forum that you can use to go into full detail regarding the matter at hand.

But we're definitely going way off track from this thread's original goal, which is to discuss about Jaimie Alexander.

I completely agree, I come in here thinking Sif is going to be discussed, and it is still discussions about Jaimie's dress... This is the most active this thread has been, and it isn't even about her part in the movie...

 

[Nathan]

Well, doesn't seem that surprising. She is barely in the Movie after all, from what I have heard. If Marvel doesn't want to use her, I hope that WB casts her as Wonder Woman and actually gives her something to do.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There might not be much to dicuss because everybody keeps saying she is barely in the film. I'll try and see for myself this weekend.