Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Jillian Michael comments about Lizzo

12357

Replies

  • 7elizamae7elizamae Posts: 751Member Member Posts: 751Member Member
    Any pop performer dancing on a stage wearing minimal clothing is going to attract commentary on their body. I'd say it's par for the course in the world of that type of entertainment. If Lizzo (or any other performer) doesn't want attention paid to her body, she could wear different clothing and find a new choreographer. That would put less focus on her body and more on her singing.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,551Member Member Posts: 7,551Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    Regarding Lizzo... Lizzo rubs her body in people's faces in a way that seems like a PR stunt. As an example just google Lizzo Lakers and warning what she did at the Lakers game is NSFW. Lizzo does the same thing other celebs do but she is appealing to a different demographic so she is using a different tool.

    I interpret JM as saying Lizzo should not be defined by and should not get value by her body but more so by her singing. While it doesn't objectify via reduction to Lizzo's body, it is wrong also.

    IMO the saddest thing about this and most movements is companies & celebs are telling people what emotions are ok to feel - and now we should only feel positive emotions about our bodies. It should be ok to feel all emotions about our bodies because we are human, our self worth and value is not based on external changeable factors but on the sole fact we are human.

    Unless she made physical contact with people's faces, she is not rubbing her body in people's faces. She's just going out in the world in the body she lives in, and how other people react to that is their choice. (I don't click on NSW videos, so I don't know what she did, but since it's "the same thing other celebs do" I have to assume it's not illegal, like indecent exposure.)

    It's not a literal term and you know that. She wore a dress that had a giant circle cut out of the rear that showed her complete *kitten* which was only covered by a thong. She then, in a public place, with tens of thousands of people present - many of them young children, twerked that uncovered *kitten* for everybody to see.

    Nice "whataboutisms" further down - but I don't think Madonna, Howard Stern, or any other celebrity that I can think of has done something like this at a sports game in recent memory... maybe on stage or in Howard's case to promote a stupid movie.

    So the parents of these young children are okay with the uniforms of the Laker Girls, which expose nearly as much, but seeing Lizzo's body is the bridge too far? We see as much of other celebrities all the time. Opposing it as a general trend, I get, but claiming that Lizzo is somehow worse is ridiculous. She's not the first celebrity to appear in the thong, she's not the first celebrity to twerk, she's not the first celebrity to reveal to kids that adults have butts.

    Has Madonna done something like this in *recent* memory? Not that I'm aware of. But come on, you're acting like bringing up *Madonna* isn't relevant in a discussion about how Lizzo isn't the first female singer to display her body? That's not "whataboutism," it's acknowledging the reality that Lizzo is part of a hearty and longstanding tradition of female singers, she's just one of the biggest people to engage in it.

    @janejellyroll I agree. I like how some people seem to forget that nowadays children have the whole world (internet) in their pockets. Her whole *kitten* was hanging out? Yeah.... and? Lizzo isn't the first-born only Madonna, but is everyone forgetting Miley Cyrus post Hannah Montana? - and certainly won't be the last. I do believe people are making a big deal about her size. What I don't understand is why it's anybody's business

    I am not saying that what Jillian Michaels said was right, or even in good taste, but I also feel that its ridiculous to not expect people to have a reaction to the way she dressed at the game. As you pointed out, she is definitely not the first person to display her body publically like that, but everyone in the past had to accept the attention they received for it whether it was positive or negative. There was a ton of negative feedback after the whole "wardrome malfunction" at the superbowl, and I don't think that everyone should just be forced to accept the idea that she is exploring her body by dressing like that. As the father of three young daughters, I would absolutely not be ok with them dressing like that in public, and I don't think that it would be considered body shaming to make them aware I felt that way. There is a big difference between loving the body you are in, and deliberately doing things to draw attention to yourself which I think was exactly the goal at that game. With that said, I don't think that gives Jillian Michaels(or anyone) the right to discuss her body the way she did, nor do I think it was ok for the interviewer to ask the question. I may think the way she dresses at times is in bad taste, but that doesn't necessarily mean I am body shaming her.

    And the Laker Girls uniforms are different because . . . the bootie shorts or bikini bottoms are just a little more coverage (not much)? . . . they're paid to be professionally underdressed at the event? . . . they're slim and fit? . . . or . . . ?

    :lol:

    I'm not the parent of young daughters, but I think if I were, I'd be more inclined to be distressed** about these young women - fit and skilled as they absolutely are - being the formal representation of women at this kind of event, vs. what some random person (celebrity or no) does up in the audience to draw attention. Others absolutely are entitled to feel differently about this, of course.

    ** In actual real-life practice, I'd consider either of these displays to be a thing that would take some 'splaining to my daughters. Again, just me, not a required opinion for others.

    The conversation wasn't surrounding the Laker Girls uniforms, and I think that is a completely different debate topic. There are plenty of things I worry about as a parent, and I wouldn't want my daughters leaving the house dressed as skimpy as they are either. When I said what Lizzo was wearing was in bad taste, that in no way meant that I agreed with what everyone else in the arena was wearing that day.

    I really don't see what your daughters have to do with what an adult woman chooses to do so (I'm assuming your daughters are children since they're living under your roof and you feel you have a role in deciding what they wear). I imagine there are lots of things Lizzo does that you wouldn't want your daughters doing.
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Posts: 801Member Member Posts: 801Member Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    Regarding Lizzo... Lizzo rubs her body in people's faces in a way that seems like a PR stunt. As an example just google Lizzo Lakers and warning what she did at the Lakers game is NSFW. Lizzo does the same thing other celebs do but she is appealing to a different demographic so she is using a different tool.

    I interpret JM as saying Lizzo should not be defined by and should not get value by her body but more so by her singing. While it doesn't objectify via reduction to Lizzo's body, it is wrong also.

    IMO the saddest thing about this and most movements is companies & celebs are telling people what emotions are ok to feel - and now we should only feel positive emotions about our bodies. It should be ok to feel all emotions about our bodies because we are human, our self worth and value is not based on external changeable factors but on the sole fact we are human.

    Unless she made physical contact with people's faces, she is not rubbing her body in people's faces. She's just going out in the world in the body she lives in, and how other people react to that is their choice. (I don't click on NSW videos, so I don't know what she did, but since it's "the same thing other celebs do" I have to assume it's not illegal, like indecent exposure.)

    It's not a literal term and you know that. She wore a dress that had a giant circle cut out of the rear that showed her complete *kitten* which was only covered by a thong. She then, in a public place, with tens of thousands of people present - many of them young children, twerked that uncovered *kitten* for everybody to see.

    Nice "whataboutisms" further down - but I don't think Madonna, Howard Stern, or any other celebrity that I can think of has done something like this at a sports game in recent memory... maybe on stage or in Howard's case to promote a stupid movie.

    So the parents of these young children are okay with the uniforms of the Laker Girls, which expose nearly as much, but seeing Lizzo's body is the bridge too far? We see as much of other celebrities all the time. Opposing it as a general trend, I get, but claiming that Lizzo is somehow worse is ridiculous. She's not the first celebrity to appear in the thong, she's not the first celebrity to twerk, she's not the first celebrity to reveal to kids that adults have butts.

    Has Madonna done something like this in *recent* memory? Not that I'm aware of. But come on, you're acting like bringing up *Madonna* isn't relevant in a discussion about how Lizzo isn't the first female singer to display her body? That's not "whataboutism," it's acknowledging the reality that Lizzo is part of a hearty and longstanding tradition of female singers, she's just one of the biggest people to engage in it.

    The way I understand it she was an audience member showing her *kitten* at a game not a performer. The last time I saw a sporting event none of the cheerleaders or scheduled entertainers were wearing visible thongs.

    NBD, she is most likely somewhere around 14:30 on her 15:00 minutes if she feels she needs to do that to get attention.

    So the argument is that it is appropriate to show parts of your body if you're performing, but if you're merely part of the audience it isn't? I am not convinced of this. What's the relevant difference?

    If she had been performing at halftime in that uniform, it would somehow be more acceptable?

    The spectators generally know what the cheerleader look like at a sporting event and the leagues have certain standards they must abide by. They also have rules for costumes used by any of the entertainment at the game. If a spectator doesn't want to see the league approved dress (cheerleaders or entertainment), they have the right not to go to the event.

    If the NBA says a thong is fine dress for an entertainer, go for it with my blessings. If a publicity hound chooses to drop his or her drawers at a sporting event not really a fan of that.

    She didn't "drop her drawers." She was wearing a revealing dress, one that is legal. You've seen just as much of other pop stars. We don't have a right to control what others wear just because we're buying a ticket to an NBA game.

    Do you think that if you as a spectator at a game wore the same outfit, revealed yourself and acted in the same way you wouldn't at the very least be told to quit or possibly, more likely get kicked out and/or get a disorderly conduct violation?

    It was a cheap publicity stunt that people paying good money to attend the game shouldn't be subjected to IMO. If the team authorized it another story.

    My thoughts don't change regardless of her appearance.

    The "team" (in the sense of the business) let her in dressed that way and apparently chose to play one of her songs knowing she was sitting court-side, and then apparently chose to display her thong-exposed rear while she was dancing to her song on the jumbotron, so, yeah, I don't think there's any "if" to whether the team authorized it.

    You have obviously researched this more than I have (afraid what ads, suggestions, etc I would get if I Googled Lizzo twerking). It sounds like a publicity set up. Let them go for it. Fans that don't like that type of thing at a game can vote with their wallets and stay home.

    That said, my earlier comment still stands - "she is most likely somewhere around 14:30 on her 15:00 minutes if she feels she needs to do that to get attention".

    edited January 16
  • shunggieshunggie Posts: 1,009Member Member Posts: 1,009Member Member
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    I see nothing wrong with what she said. She wasn’t being insulting. We are entitled to our opinions

    @nooshi713 I like how someone disagreed when your last line is we are entitled to our opinion. I'm assuming they don't disagree with that part :)
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,530Member Member Posts: 21,530Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    When I go to a major league sporting event, there are drunk people yelling profanities at the players, occasionally people getting into fights, weirdos hanging around the bathrooms, folks smoking weed in the parking lot. I had no idea sporting events in most of the country were paragons of virtue that are expected to pose no awkward moments you need to explain to your kids! Clearly I'm mistaken and need to choose different venues :smile:

    I think maybe you do need to choose different venues. I have been to all sorts of sporting events all over the country, and I believe you are mistaken if you believe that everything you described above is common place.

    Fair enough. While I'm not saying those things are "commonplace", in my experience they are something you need to be prepared for. They sell metric tons of alcohol. Some people get passionate and angry about their team. The tickets warn you if you get knocked unconscious by the ball or puck flying into the stands, it's on you. It just would never occur to me that a professional sporting event would be a place I should expect my children would be shielded from adult or inappropriate behavior, like an overweight woman twerking in the stands.

    I am not claiming that none of what you described never happens, but I can't say I have ever had a bad experience with my ladies at a sporting event. Yes, it's possible to get hit by a baseball, but thats why I don't seat a 3, 5, and 7 year old down either foul line. I make sure we have seats somewhere with a good view which allows me to react if a foul ball were to come our way. Yes, there are people drinking, but not all sporting events are equal in that aspect either. A college or pro football game is far more likely to involve tailgating and heavier drinking which in turn leads to more profanity and fighting. As a parent, I wouldn't imagine taking my girls to see the Raiders and Broncos play in Oakland, because that is one of the environments where what you described probably is more common place. The thing is, any environment packed with lots of people can be suspect(go people watch at a state fair in the midwest...its crazy), but thats when a parent should be on the greatest guard anyways. I just don't think its fair to single out sporting events as the issue, because I have never been at any game where someone "performed" like Lizzo did. If its done in public, I think its classless regardless of the venue, and the fact that its done in public leaves it open for scrutiny.

    I feel like you're missing my point, so maybe I'm not expressing myself well. There were posts before mine that seemed to me to be suggesting that parents shouldn't have to worry about their children being exposed to something as inappropriate as non-professional twerking at a sporting event, where that sort of thing simply doesn't happen. I was merely suggesting that I'm surprised people think of professional sporting events as some kind of safe-space for children. I'm not singling out sporting events as a bad place, I'm expressing surprise that some posters are singling them out as a wholesome place, at least as I'm reading their posts.

    I understand the point you are making, and I still stand by mine. I think that her actions at the game lacked class, and I would feel that way regardless of her body type. I wouldn't say that all sporting events are wholesome places, but I would say that there should at least be a level of decency at these events. If a fan gets drunk and verbally or physically abusive, they get booted. In my experience, 99% of the other fans don't tolerate crude behavior like that, and security has always been quick to act. People keep throwing out the cheerleaders uniforms and asking what the difference is, and with all due respect, that's an absurd comparison. Although I might not want my girls to leave my house dressed as a cheerleader, I have never seen a cheerleader in a thong grinding on people at a game. Like I stated earlier though, there are various degrees of these types of things depending on the sporting event. I would insist that a baseball game is indeed a wholesome event. The womens college basketball game I took my girls to last week was also a wholesome event. The Lakers game might be a different story simply because its LA, but I still stick to my assertion that what she did at that game was classless.

    I was the one who brought up the Laker Girls and it was to illustrate that it's perfectly normal to see large areas of the female body exposed at sporting events, it wasn't to say that they were "grinding" (although I have seen cheer routines that certainly seemed designed to spark more than just admiration for athletic ability, I'm not sure what the style of the Laker cheerleaders are).

    Is that you in your profile pic? If your daughters left the house in cheerleader uniforms, they'd be wearing more than you (or the gentleman in your profile pic). I bring this up because it sometimes seems that expectations for "class" in displaying one's body aren't always proportional between boys and girls, men and women. I don't know if that is the case here, but if you had sons would you okay with them wearing a sport-standard uniform that displayed their body (say, they wanted to be an Olympic-style diver)?

    Yes, that is my profile pic. It was taken at the age of 39 after working myself back into shape after 2 grueling years of fighting cancer and round after round of chemo. It was taken when I won a fitness competition and my picture was used later by the company that sponsored the competition for marketing purposes. Both men and women compete in these competitions, and both men and women pose for their pictures. Comparing my picture(which my face is cropped out, unlike in the competition) to dressing a certain way at a sporting event seems to be a giant leap Jane. I understand the point you are trying to make, and I generally agree with you, but I think you have missed the mark on this one.

    I apologize.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,530Member Member Posts: 21,530Member Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jm_1234 wrote: »
    Regarding Lizzo... Lizzo rubs her body in people's faces in a way that seems like a PR stunt. As an example just google Lizzo Lakers and warning what she did at the Lakers game is NSFW. Lizzo does the same thing other celebs do but she is appealing to a different demographic so she is using a different tool.

    I interpret JM as saying Lizzo should not be defined by and should not get value by her body but more so by her singing. While it doesn't objectify via reduction to Lizzo's body, it is wrong also.

    IMO the saddest thing about this and most movements is companies & celebs are telling people what emotions are ok to feel - and now we should only feel positive emotions about our bodies. It should be ok to feel all emotions about our bodies because we are human, our self worth and value is not based on external changeable factors but on the sole fact we are human.

    Unless she made physical contact with people's faces, she is not rubbing her body in people's faces. She's just going out in the world in the body she lives in, and how other people react to that is their choice. (I don't click on NSW videos, so I don't know what she did, but since it's "the same thing other celebs do" I have to assume it's not illegal, like indecent exposure.)

    It's not a literal term and you know that. She wore a dress that had a giant circle cut out of the rear that showed her complete *kitten* which was only covered by a thong. She then, in a public place, with tens of thousands of people present - many of them young children, twerked that uncovered *kitten* for everybody to see.

    Nice "whataboutisms" further down - but I don't think Madonna, Howard Stern, or any other celebrity that I can think of has done something like this at a sports game in recent memory... maybe on stage or in Howard's case to promote a stupid movie.

    So the parents of these young children are okay with the uniforms of the Laker Girls, which expose nearly as much, but seeing Lizzo's body is the bridge too far? We see as much of other celebrities all the time. Opposing it as a general trend, I get, but claiming that Lizzo is somehow worse is ridiculous. She's not the first celebrity to appear in the thong, she's not the first celebrity to twerk, she's not the first celebrity to reveal to kids that adults have butts.

    Has Madonna done something like this in *recent* memory? Not that I'm aware of. But come on, you're acting like bringing up *Madonna* isn't relevant in a discussion about how Lizzo isn't the first female singer to display her body? That's not "whataboutism," it's acknowledging the reality that Lizzo is part of a hearty and longstanding tradition of female singers, she's just one of the biggest people to engage in it.

    The way I understand it she was an audience member showing her *kitten* at a game not a performer. The last time I saw a sporting event none of the cheerleaders or scheduled entertainers were wearing visible thongs.

    NBD, she is most likely somewhere around 14:30 on her 15:00 minutes if she feels she needs to do that to get attention.

    So the argument is that it is appropriate to show parts of your body if you're performing, but if you're merely part of the audience it isn't? I am not convinced of this. What's the relevant difference?

    If she had been performing at halftime in that uniform, it would somehow be more acceptable?

    The spectators generally know what the cheerleader look like at a sporting event and the leagues have certain standards they must abide by. They also have rules for costumes used by any of the entertainment at the game. If a spectator doesn't want to see the league approved dress (cheerleaders or entertainment), they have the right not to go to the event.

    If the NBA says a thong is fine dress for an entertainer, go for it with my blessings. If a publicity hound chooses to drop his or her drawers at a sporting event not really a fan of that.

    She didn't "drop her drawers." She was wearing a revealing dress, one that is legal. You've seen just as much of other pop stars. We don't have a right to control what others wear just because we're buying a ticket to an NBA game.

    Do you think that if you as a spectator at a game wore the same outfit, revealed yourself and acted in the same way you wouldn't at the very least be told to quit or possibly, more likely get kicked out and/or get a disorderly conduct violation?

    It was a cheap publicity stunt that people paying good money to attend the game shouldn't be subjected to IMO. If the team authorized it another story.

    My thoughts don't change regardless of her appearance.

    If I began dancing when the camera was focused on me while audio of me singing was playing? Hard to imagine the situation, but no. I don't think they would ask me to leave and I don't think I would get a legal citation. What on earth would I be cited for? If the venue had a problem with it, the fastest solution would be to immediately take the camera off me.

    It wasn't like she took clothing off when she realized the focus was on her. The decision was made to play her song and highlight her on camera while they knew what she was wearing.

    Saying that anyone was "subjected" to anything seems like a substantial overreach.
  • Go_DeskerciseGo_Deskercise Posts: 965Member Member Posts: 965Member Member
    raven56706 wrote: »
    JM said the truth and the truth hurts

    I'm not sure if you did that on purpose or not LOL

    edited January 16
Sign In or Register to comment.