• socsa@piefed.socialEnglish
    36·
    19 hours ago

    The saddest thing about the story of Jesus is that he never got to see Margot Robbie’s extremely hairy armpits.

  • daannii@lemmy.worldEnglish
    382·
    19 hours ago

    I stopped shaving mine years ago because it seemed like I was developing an intolerance to every razor blade.

    I told people it was cause I am a feminist.

    I also was sorely disappointed in what grew in.

    My whole life I thought if I let it go natural I’d have this majestic thick black beard under there. Something to be proud of, you know?

    However after it grew in, it’s a medium brown. And the hair is actually kind of fine and fluffy. And not dense. And

    I guess this is the feeling men have when they try to grow a beard and find out they are one of the ones who can’t do a decent job of it.

    I wanted something to make people uncomfortable. To challenge their preconceived notions of womanhood.

    Instead it just looks like I have a little brown, thin, soul patch under there.

    Very sad.

    Not even worth going sleeveless for.

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    16·
    19 hours ago

    Since it was important to the director for accuracy, did Margot take the time to grow them out, or might they have used the equivalent of merkins? And if so do such things have a separate name? (Edited for spelling)

    • Aneb@lemmy.world
      241·
      19 hours ago

      Should I tell you that women naturally have hair on their armpits

      • hirihit640@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        11·
        18 hours ago

        gp comment knows that, they were saying that sometimes such authenticity can be excessive. For example crooked teeth was also much more common back then, but we aren’t rallying for studios to start adding CGI crooked teeth

      • magnetosphere@fedia.io
        132·
        18 hours ago

        I’m an older American, and in some ways a product of my times. Many of us were heavily influenced to find women’s armpit hair unattractive. I know, and respect, that others feel differently. Hence, “just my own personal opinion”.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      27·
      1 day ago

      The Wuthering Heights director Emerald Fennell said it was “unfortunate” that a scene showing Margot Robbie’s hairy armpits did not make the final cut, because women in period adaptations are often shown with clean-shaven underarms.

      Robbie’s character, Cathy, had “extremely hairy armpits” in the 2026 adaptation of the novel, but “unfortunately the scene that we see them didn’t make it in there”, said the director.

      Cathy having unshaven pits “was so important to me”, she said, adding that she often wonders “where are the razors that these women are using?” when watching Jane Austen adaptations.

      “They’re all kind of hairless like eels. I’m like: ‘What’s going on? It’s completely mad.’”

      I think something pretty normal and understandable that people – who are used to being bombarded by other, very vocal, people’s paraphilias online – will immediately and erroneously assume is something sexual.

      • texture@lemmy.worldEnglish
        74·
        23 hours ago

        yeah id have just assumed the hair didnt make the final cut bc patriarchal bullshit. i dont see how this is a shitpost so much as just a shitty thing that happened? i figure we judge and control women’s bodies more than enough day to day that we dont really need it in the shitpost sub. idk, just struck a cord with me this time i guess.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          23 hours ago

          You’re just assuming that (practically unfalsifiably) when the director suggests nothing of the sort, when footage gets cut from movies literally all the time for every reason under the Sun, and when there’s shit in that movie an order of magnitude more provocative (see: the skin room) than a woman with hairy armpits (let alone historically accurately).

          • texture@lemmy.worldEnglish
            35·
            23 hours ago

            yeah thats why i said “id just assume” not “i think”

            also, youre really mixing up provocative with patriarchal and thats unfortunate.

            anyway, simple misunderstanding. cheers

            edit - my issue isnt with the decision or the details as they are given, its of this being a post in a sub i love. i’ll edit my comment to say “id have just”

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
              73·
              22 hours ago

              “I’d just assume” unprompted is functionally the same as “I think”; nobody first asked you “well if you had to assume, what would’ve happened?” We’re all adults here; we all understand what words mean.

              And I used “provocative” because you’re directly implying a form of patriarchical censorship for inherently one of two reasons or some combination: the patriarchical system 1) thinks it’s too provocative or 2) thinks it’s too superfluous, and (2) isn’t per se patriarchy; reasonable minds can differ on whether the scene merited inclusion. I’m sure it wasn’t like that scene from The Room where they make a big deal out of Mark’s clean-shaven face; I’m sure the protein filaments growing out of Robbie’s armpits weren’t the nominal objective of the scene. Thus I assumed you were referring to the only one that’s strictly, inherently patriarchical for which there wouldn’t be a more plausible explanation.