Might sound old fashioned but you wear lingerie when you want to have sex not walking down your local high street 
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Exactly, lingerie is very...deliberately sexual. Public displays like that are rightly frowned upon as you don't have everyone's consent and you may run into minors. None of these concepts are difficult for her to understand, surely?
There have been so many really thought provoking, insightful comments under the Nelly post. All Alex and Em have done is invalidate them because they donât align with their shallow, faux-feminist, uneducated drivel.
the underwear, as someone pointed out, caters to the male gaze.
The sphere of body inclusivity and positivity has been co-opened by largely white, middle class women with bodies that are acceptably attractive. nelly still has a slim, attractive figure.
Nelly walking around London isnât appropriate for that reason. It isnât empowering because sheâs only able to do it because her body and her lingerie cater to the male gaze and ultimately, misogynistic ideals.
thereâs nothing wrong with wanting your children to not have to see a womanâs body if itâs being sexualised. In fact Iâd argue itâs healthier for children to be protected from sexualised female bodies since womenâs bodies are overly sexualised and I wouldnât want my child to internalise that view. When a womanâs body is dressed in lingerie, it is ultimately being sexualised for the male gaze.
emâs recent post in a bikini, making a jab at women wanting to protect children from sexualised female bodies, doesnât make sense. Because bikinis arenât sexualised in the same context that lingerie is. The whole concept of that type of underwear is that itâs sexual and to be worn as part of sex.
if Alex, Em or Nelly had a brain cell between them, they could maybe understand that. Could maybe begin to question how the beliefs they are parroting, are perhaps byproducts of a patriarchal society.
but since the trio are
utter idiots They arenât capable and resort to what amounts to bullying and name calling their own following.
The worst part is? They donât care. Because the arguements they are embroiling themselves in, amount toengagement and all Em cares about is money. As per her rant earlier in the year because people dared to report her.
no wonder people kept reporting her. She is toxic AF and an entitled bully.
the underwear, as someone pointed out, caters to the male gaze.
The sphere of body inclusivity and positivity has been co-opened by largely white, middle class women with bodies that are acceptably attractive. nelly still has a slim, attractive figure.
Nelly walking around London isnât appropriate for that reason. It isnât empowering because sheâs only able to do it because her body and her lingerie cater to the male gaze and ultimately, misogynistic ideals.
thereâs nothing wrong with wanting your children to not have to see a womanâs body if itâs being sexualised. In fact Iâd argue itâs healthier for children to be protected from sexualised female bodies since womenâs bodies are overly sexualised and I wouldnât want my child to internalise that view. When a womanâs body is dressed in lingerie, it is ultimately being sexualised for the male gaze.
emâs recent post in a bikini, making a jab at women wanting to protect children from sexualised female bodies, doesnât make sense. Because bikinis arenât sexualised in the same context that lingerie is. The whole concept of that type of underwear is that itâs sexual and to be worn as part of sex.
if Alex, Em or Nelly had a brain cell between them, they could maybe understand that. Could maybe begin to question how the beliefs they are parroting, are perhaps byproducts of a patriarchal society.
but since the trio are
utter idiots They arenât capable and resort to what amounts to bullying and name calling their own following.The worst part is? They donât care. Because the arguements they are embroiling themselves in, amount to
engagement and all Em cares about is money. As per her rant earlier in the year because people dared to report her.no wonder people kept reporting her. She is toxic AF and an entitled bully.
Also, I don't understand where this body positivity thing has come from where you aren't 'positive' about your body unless you're happy to parade it around nude/nearly nude. I remember hearing about her doing that 'naked' catwalk thing. It feels like 'the lady doth protest too much'? I can't quite place what it is that bothers me about it. Maybe because they're all able-bodied and conventionally attractive so they have nothing material to be concerned about anyway? Or that it's used in conjunction with shilling crap on Insta? Or that if you were truly confident you wouldn't need to make such a production of it all? I'm not sure.
They were also saying Nelly's thing was no different to seeing lingerie ads in the street, but I don't think anyone is saying that's ideal either? Make it make sense, please!
They were also saying Nelly's thing was no different to seeing lingerie ads in the street, but I don't think anyone is saying that's ideal either? Make it make sense, please!
âomg guys itâs fine that Nelly is traipsing around catering to the male gaze under the guise of female empowerment because LOOK! Those billboards are catering to the male gaze too! And they arenât even pretending to be empowered about it!â
Yes! Thatâs the thing I donât like about it - the shrieking!
I love Em and the podcast and as you say, theyâve covered some great topics
Reading the comments under that post is genuinely terrifying. So many people totally unaware and clueless posting about how much âworkâ others âneed to doâ. The lack of self awareness is baffling. The comments just donât seem to understand that someone isnât chosing to sexualise Nelly when she puts on sexual lingerie. And they canât recognise the different between a bikini and lingerie. And they also canât recognise that men donât suffer the same scrutiny because menâs bodies are never sexualised the way womenâs are: there isnât a whole industry dedicated to sexualising menâs undies.
the worst part is Em and Alex and co have a podcast and repeat these mantras and are so off the mark in so many ways.
the worst part is Em and Alex and co have a podcast and repeat these mantras and are so off the mark in so many ways.
Curious, as this is a rave thread really, are there any Tattlers who agree with what Em is saying?
Iâd be intrigued to have a (balanced) discussion about how this would be considered appropriate?
Iâd be intrigued to have a (balanced) discussion about how this would be considered appropriate?
I usually like a lot of what sheâs trying to say but Iâve had to unfollow her now. She seems unable to cope with any differing opinion and instead of either conceding and admitting maybe she was wrong, or coming back with a thought out counter argument, she just posts lots of passive aggressive stories âthink of the childrenâ etc.
emâs logic seems to be that Nelly finds this empowering and so thatâs ok. That itâs an individual thing and therefore we each do what empowers each of us.
Itâs a problematic (very individualistic) logic with loads of holes that doesnât stand up to much scrutiny. Itâs feminism for the uninspired, to be harsh about it.
I am also in the camp that strutting along a public road in lingerie, designed to be worn to be sexually alluring, is not empowering (to me). Iâm disappointed that they are getting so strongly behind this and not aiming for the body neutrality position of having so much more to offer than what you look like. Whatever way you cut it, Nelly (and both Alex and Em) are able-bodied, straight-sized women who have not been marginalised.
they are also all very upper middle class and white and speak from a place of extreme privilege, that they donât seem to acknowledge. No doubt they attribute all their successes in life purely down to their work ethics⌠Em in particular because of who her father is. She was able to buy him a car I believe, for his birthday. How many 20 somethings can do that?
It would have been fine if you hadn't spent 2 days of your holiday wasting it by getting on your high horse, Em. We all know you're from a rich family and can afford this one way or another. Just seemed bizarre to waste your holiday arguing with people just because they think differently to you?!
Attachments
I certainly wouldnât be arguing with internet people while on that beach
Would love to be there right now!
Look at the comments itâs gotten though. Just under 1300. That means engagement, even if the comments are negative. And ultimately engagement is money to these people.I certainly wouldnât be arguing with internet people while on that beach
Would love to be there right now!
Look at her other posts - some have as little as 41, a rough average seems to be about 150 (at a glance). Sheâs improved her engagement 10 times over with that Nelly vid.
If youâre under the illusion that Em gives a fig about the beliefs and values she claims to, you have to question why she monetises it. The Nelly post has indirectly earned her money. Plus Nelly has more of a following than she does, so she is aligning herself to bigger players so to speak. Sheâs upping her engagement and potential following by posting that. To the people asking what the point of it was - that was the point. Em has shown no real desire to engage in meaningful dialogue over it, she hasnât even offered much food for thought. Plus Iâve commented earlier about how Em is all about empowering women but will also promote fast fashion brands which exploit women.
Simply put: she doesnât care about empowering women. Em is a wealthy, privileged, cloistered young woman. Sheâs grown up with an opinionated entitled father, and she herself is every bit as entitled and opinionated (but ill-informed). Just as her father curated an affable, laddy image for his TV show (but then showed his ugly side when he assaulted someone at their place of work, losing his job for it), Em too curates an image of being a feminist defender of minorities and social issues. Donât be fooled, her priority is making money.
She didnât care about female empowerment when she posted that Nelly vid. She posted it because she knew it could be, ultimately, financially profitable for her, which is precisely why she shouldnât be the voice for any of the issues she wades in on.
I know this isn't a Jeremy Clarkson thread, but I'm still angry that he didn't see ACTUAL consequences for that and not just a job loss. Someone I know actually served time in prison for a similar assault, but Clarkson gets off scott-free because he tits about on the telly for a living and writes a column full of inflammatory drivel. Then he strikes up a deal with Amazon. tit doesn't stick to these people.
No wonder Emily's like that with such a role model.
I
Is this the same Nelly with the large bottom section or someone else?There have been so many really thought provoking, insightful comments under the Nelly post. All Alex and Em have done is invalidate them because they donât align with their shallow, faux-feminist, uneducated drivel.
the underwear, as someone pointed out, caters to the male gaze.
The sphere of body inclusivity and positivity has been co-opened by largely white, middle class women with bodies that are acceptably attractive. nelly still has a slim, attractive figure.
Nelly walking around London isnât appropriate for that reason. It isnât empowering because sheâs only able to do it because her body and her lingerie cater to the male gaze and ultimately, misogynistic ideals.
thereâs nothing wrong with wanting your children to not have to see a womanâs body if itâs being sexualised. In fact Iâd argue itâs healthier for children to be protected from sexualised female bodies since womenâs bodies are overly sexualised and I wouldnât want my child to internalise that view. When a womanâs body is dressed in lingerie, it is ultimately being sexualised for the male gaze.
emâs recent post in a bikini, making a jab at women wanting to protect children from sexualised female bodies, doesnât make sense. Because bikinis arenât sexualised in the same context that lingerie is. The whole concept of that type of underwear is that itâs sexual and to be worn as part of sex.
if Alex, Em or Nelly had a brain cell between them, they could maybe understand that. Could maybe begin to question how the beliefs they are parroting, are perhaps byproducts of a patriarchal society.
but since the trio are
The worst part is? They donât care. Because the arguements they are embroiling themselves in, amount to
no wonder people kept reporting her. She is toxic AF and an entitled bully.
Dont forget, he verbally abused the guy too. He âsuffered verbal abuse that no-one should endureâ over a steak dinner
Does anyone else need therapy after seeing this story?
All I can see when I look at her now is an Angry Potato
- Status