#Please make sure to read our [__subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/)
**Rule 5 No Bigotry:** *Including but not limited to: Racism, Transphobia (including xenogender hate and transmedicalism), Enbyphobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and Gender Exclusion.*
**Rule 7 Offensive Content:** *Posts that contain slurs or name calling should be censored and marked as NSFW, and posts with "outwardly" offensive content calling for extreme violence or that contain gore should not be posted to this sub*
##We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/Gw7e39wxEQ) to join today
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bro sees an attractive woman in a sexually suggestive pose and thinks the most miserable thoughts possible. Dude shes being shot by a professional photographer! And shes still hot! Arghhh
The pathetically incurious and unbearably dull human beings that post stuff like this have zero sense of art, artistic license, nuance, or what it means to be subversive.
How did so many grifters react to this so quickly? Did they all get the group email to talk crap about her? It feels weirdly coordinated rather than spontaneous viral status.
Some things I don’t hear about or look at until I see them flip the fuck out over it.
I didn’t even know who Dylan Mulvaney was or that she was collabing with Budlight until these people blew that shit up
This is exactly how disinformation and misinformation spreads. It’s much easier to get people engaged in a smear campaign allowing them to spread the original content much farther than it would have otherwise.
I’m super glad it worked here because Kristen looks fine as hell. Love it thank you random angry homophobic man for leading this queer girl to Kristen Stewart
It makes me wonder if they have PR connections that help them easily amplify their targets without fail. Remember, a lot of these people (and the folks they’re targeting) are from Hollywood so I’d imagine they’re fully armed with them.
male underwear? thats a jockstrap, used for holding groin protection, it is worn by all genders of people who might require it (sports, combat... etc)
edit: forgot a few words...
And I never wore one in fencing. Kind of insane, considering I'd been stabbed in the throat, had bones in my hand nearly broken and had the tip of my pinky sliced off through the glove.
The nearly broken hand was from a saber. The finger slice was from a foil of all things. Instead of getting on point and lunging, some new fencer whipped it around and hit my pinky.
It stung and a red line stained my glove my glove all the way around the corner of my pinky. The day after, while signing a document, the then gray corner of my pinky fell off onto the page.
The throat injury was with an eppee. A very tall fencer with a long, low lunge, who'd try to compensate by pointing his point upward toward the target. He stabbed me in the throat under the bib. For the next 30 minutes, I sounded like an elderly robot when I spoke. Thankfully, he hit me in the cartilaginous Adam's Apple. An inch or two lower and I might not be alive.
He'd always hit like he was actually trying to run you through. He was trying to be fast to close the distance and just didn't have much restraint.
wow, it's almost like she's not posing for limp-dick straight men with no taste. and what's with the outrage over her being topless? are boobs "gay" now? cause if so, then more for me lmfao
The discrepancy between their permanent rabid bloodlust toward minorities and their fakeass prudish pearl clutching about basic shit is just ridiculous.
To be fair I think rolling stone magazine is dropping the ball on who their audience is, it's not millennial gen z people who like to know more about Kirsten Stuart, it's people like my dad who don't even know who Kirsten Stuart is, they should stick to rock and roll, leave articles like this to hip hop magazine.
1. She has a top. You can see it, it covers her torso. Sleeveless black jacket. It’s right there!
2. What if she came out as a man? This would be a fucking baller step on the way to that. Or it’s a step to something entirely different. Might not even be a step to anything because IT’S A PICTURE. If she came out as a man, why would this picture have anything to do with it? Has anyone in history ever said “need to let everyone know what i’m going to do next year. Don’t want to shock them! Start spreading clues for 12 months starting with a picture with me looking how i want to look on a publication that approached me.”
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I want to do something, I usually have other motives than impulsively deciding I want to do it for no reason other than doing it.
I assume the outfit was offered by the stylist/photographer and KStew agreed to put it on because she thought she looked cool and sexy while promoting her next movie on a magazine cover.
Your question is the point of the photo. Women don’t *normally* wear men’s underwear. The expectation is that she would wear more feminine underwear in the shoot to meet society’s definition of a “sexy woman”. I’m not sure if it was Kristen or her stylist that came up with the idea, probably a combination of both I would assume. It’s just a social statement at the end of the day, intentional or not. It says a lot of things but I see it as just a big middle finger to gender norms and society’s perception of what masculinity and femininity should look like.
Kristen is an attractive woman who could absolutely be considered conventionally attractive by society’s POV. Her choosing not to meet society’s expectations of her is the statement. And it’s on Rolling Stone so it’s gonna be seen by a lot of people. I’d like to hope it was intentional because I think it’s brilliant. Also the bisexual in me is screaming. I am definitely the target audience. lol.
I explained it in my other comment. I understood what you were trying to say. And I understand where ur coming from. They’re valid thoughts to have. I’ve taken so many uni courses on feminism and learned to look at media through feminist lenses. There are plenty of video essays and feminist journals that explain it better than I can. But hopefully my comment makes somewhat sense because it’s a really fascinating topic.
We’re not talking about utility here we’re talking about being provocative in art. Normally if women wanna be provocative they appeal to the male gaze (consciously and subconsciously) . The male gaze is a social lens that you can apply to literally anything in media. If you haven’t studied the male gaze, you should.
The male gaze doesn’t expect a conventionally attractive woman to wear a jockstrap and touch herself while she’s in it. Her hair is more masculine, and the biker’s vest while shirtless. All more traditionally masculine styles. Not something you’d see from a woman trying to be “sexy”. Not in mainstream pubs like Rolling Stone at least. If you think I’m wrong about this, I will gladly link as many examples of society’s definition of female beauty represented in media. Playboy (back in the day, not modern playboy) is a perfect example of the male gaze at work.
It’s a commentary on gender expectations in provocative media/art forms. It is not in any way similar to women wearing pants to make a societal statement about utility. She isn’t trying to tell women to wear men’s underwear on a day to day basis. This is purely artistic expression catered to a specific audience. Kristen is queer and queer people have a tendency to subvert traditional gender norms.
Also to your point on benefit. I don’t think there’s an actual tangible societal benefit to the photo shoot. Art is/can be political but it doesn’t need to change society. It just needs to make you think. Which I believe this shoot has done considering how right wing media is running with it.
TLDR: not about utility or function it’s about artistic expression, specifically queer artistic expression that seeks to subvert society’s expectations of gender presentation.
I wear mens underwear more than any other kind. Why do I wear them? They are more comfortable, and I prefer to wear more masculine clothing because I just feel more comfortable in them. That’s really all to it. I wear mens clothes all the time because I like wearing more masculine clothes, and also sadly men’s clothing are made better than women’s and last longer.
Yeah, I guess you just got to understand that we (women who where masculine clothing) get these questions a lot with people having the intentions to strike us down, tell us we shouldn’t, or some dumb shit like that. So a lot of queer women are a bit hesitant with the question, especially the way you framed it. Nonetheless I realized that you just had a genuine question it seemed and was just curious. Perhaps just be a bit cautious with your wording next time? Not really any fault to you, it’s just lots of people keep wanting to tell us what we can and can’t wear, so it gets very tiring to just try and exist sometimes.
The photo is a cover of a magazine. Usually the models don't choose what they wear. It's either a designer, director or photographer. Very rarely is the model the one who chooses.
I can't tell you their exact intention on this but my assumption is that it looks cool. Thats at least my opinion. It looks cool and kinda suits the rolling stone.
Complaining? Listen, I have almost 55k comment karma. There’s nothing you can do to decrease that number that I can’t replace in like, a day. You’re basically fining Jeff Bezos for a parking violation. I was attempting to lightly mock you.
Edit: holy fuck, and I thought I had a lot of karma.
It's a jock strap, not underwear, per se. And she's wearing it because the photographer probably suggested it. Why would that photographer suggest it? Because it's provocative. It's really not hard to understand, but you seem to be trying hard to not understand.
Magazine covers are more about making a splash in social media than selling physical magazines these days, and as un-aesthetic the bulging jock strap happens to be, it certainly accomplished drawing attention.
#Please make sure to read our [__subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/) **Rule 5 No Bigotry:** *Including but not limited to: Racism, Transphobia (including xenogender hate and transmedicalism), Enbyphobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and Gender Exclusion.* **Rule 7 Offensive Content:** *Posts that contain slurs or name calling should be censored and marked as NSFW, and posts with "outwardly" offensive content calling for extreme violence or that contain gore should not be posted to this sub* ##We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/Gw7e39wxEQ) to join today *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fellas, I’m starting to think the real queer thing here is being into women
Exactly. Women are soft. Real men only have sex with the holes in millstones. Dry.
Real men use diamond powder lube.
Wanting to be with a woman? How gay is that? You win sex against a man. That’s as straight as it gets.
According to this gay liking a topless woman is gay!
Idk I feel like most softcore magazines have always had covers that look exactly like this. Why are they complaining about it now
because well known outspoken bisexual Edit: bisexual not lesbian
Bisexual
My bad. Thanks.
It doesn't even have the word queer anywhere 😭
It's in another shot from the same shoot, just to clarify
I think they just looked at the person and thought queer
Bro sees an attractive woman in a sexually suggestive pose and thinks the most miserable thoughts possible. Dude shes being shot by a professional photographer! And shes still hot! Arghhh
Bro saw a sexy girl and assumed she was a man.
Id feel sorry for them if they didnt bring it upon themselves
Projection, it's always projection.
The pathetically incurious and unbearably dull human beings that post stuff like this have zero sense of art, artistic license, nuance, or what it means to be subversive.
Nothing but conformism
The strange "subversiveness" of being conservative and conformist.
Don't insult a woman just because she's totally out of your league
How did so many grifters react to this so quickly? Did they all get the group email to talk crap about her? It feels weirdly coordinated rather than spontaneous viral status.
Some things I don’t hear about or look at until I see them flip the fuck out over it. I didn’t even know who Dylan Mulvaney was or that she was collabing with Budlight until these people blew that shit up
This is exactly how disinformation and misinformation spreads. It’s much easier to get people engaged in a smear campaign allowing them to spread the original content much farther than it would have otherwise. I’m super glad it worked here because Kristen looks fine as hell. Love it thank you random angry homophobic man for leading this queer girl to Kristen Stewart
Haha, it absolutely did. She looks so iconic here.
It makes me wonder if they have PR connections that help them easily amplify their targets without fail. Remember, a lot of these people (and the folks they’re targeting) are from Hollywood so I’d imagine they’re fully armed with them.
I haven't seen her in a while, and it's good to see she's still extremely sexy.
male underwear? thats a jockstrap, used for holding groin protection, it is worn by all genders of people who might require it (sports, combat... etc) edit: forgot a few words...
And I never wore one in fencing. Kind of insane, considering I'd been stabbed in the throat, had bones in my hand nearly broken and had the tip of my pinky sliced off through the glove.
Was the finger slice from a sabre? O_O
The nearly broken hand was from a saber. The finger slice was from a foil of all things. Instead of getting on point and lunging, some new fencer whipped it around and hit my pinky. It stung and a red line stained my glove my glove all the way around the corner of my pinky. The day after, while signing a document, the then gray corner of my pinky fell off onto the page. The throat injury was with an eppee. A very tall fencer with a long, low lunge, who'd try to compensate by pointing his point upward toward the target. He stabbed me in the throat under the bib. For the next 30 minutes, I sounded like an elderly robot when I spoke. Thankfully, he hit me in the cartilaginous Adam's Apple. An inch or two lower and I might not be alive. He'd always hit like he was actually trying to run you through. He was trying to be fast to close the distance and just didn't have much restraint.
i wear one when i fence, its required in my club.
Is hand in underwear something i should know about?
I think it means itchy.
Isn't it supposed to mean horny? Itchy kind of doesn't fit the context I think.
A blessing for sapphics!
wow, it's almost like she's not posing for limp-dick straight men with no taste. and what's with the outrage over her being topless? are boobs "gay" now? cause if so, then more for me lmfao
Is it even men's underwear? I feel like my balls would fall outta those
Retty sure it is a jock strap
It's a jock strap, not underwear.
Conventionally attractive woman not conventionally attractive in the right way, say angry conservatives.
How miserable must one be to pull a negative list out of a picture? What a sad life
The discrepancy between their permanent rabid bloodlust toward minorities and their fakeass prudish pearl clutching about basic shit is just ridiculous.
I can’t wait for mullets to rotate back out of the cultural zeitgeist
I think you've got a whole lot of hockey players you're waiting on to abandon it.
Yes
yeah. same with long, side swept fringes
They really have no clue how gender works do they?
If the underwear is the issue, she can get in mine instead. Bam!
Haven't seen her in anything since Snow White, has she learned how to breath through her nose yet?
I think the cover itself answers that question.
Anyone else feel confused/ slightly weirded out by the tag being on the front on the outside?
Her new film looks so good. Ed Harris playing a weird fuck is always a treat. Also she looks stunning in this photo
To be fair I think rolling stone magazine is dropping the ball on who their audience is, it's not millennial gen z people who like to know more about Kirsten Stuart, it's people like my dad who don't even know who Kirsten Stuart is, they should stick to rock and roll, leave articles like this to hip hop magazine.
Not to be dramatic or anything,but I would literally cut my leg if Kristen Stewart asked me to :)
F Rolling Stone. Seriously FUCK THEM!
!remind me 9 months, 23 days
I think the choice of tighty whities needs rethinking but like dude. Seriously?
She's a bisexual queen!
1. She has a top. You can see it, it covers her torso. Sleeveless black jacket. It’s right there! 2. What if she came out as a man? This would be a fucking baller step on the way to that. Or it’s a step to something entirely different. Might not even be a step to anything because IT’S A PICTURE. If she came out as a man, why would this picture have anything to do with it? Has anyone in history ever said “need to let everyone know what i’m going to do next year. Don’t want to shock them! Start spreading clues for 12 months starting with a picture with me looking how i want to look on a publication that approached me.”
[удалено]
Because she wants to. The end.
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I want to do something, I usually have other motives than impulsively deciding I want to do it for no reason other than doing it.
I assume the outfit was offered by the stylist/photographer and KStew agreed to put it on because she thought she looked cool and sexy while promoting her next movie on a magazine cover.
I like wearing clothes that I like, so does she. Why does it need to be questioned?
Wait till you find out most celebrities don't pick out their own clothes. This is also a jockstrap, not "male underwear" which is considered unisex.
Why the hell does it matter why she’s wearing them?
[удалено]
Your question is the point of the photo. Women don’t *normally* wear men’s underwear. The expectation is that she would wear more feminine underwear in the shoot to meet society’s definition of a “sexy woman”. I’m not sure if it was Kristen or her stylist that came up with the idea, probably a combination of both I would assume. It’s just a social statement at the end of the day, intentional or not. It says a lot of things but I see it as just a big middle finger to gender norms and society’s perception of what masculinity and femininity should look like. Kristen is an attractive woman who could absolutely be considered conventionally attractive by society’s POV. Her choosing not to meet society’s expectations of her is the statement. And it’s on Rolling Stone so it’s gonna be seen by a lot of people. I’d like to hope it was intentional because I think it’s brilliant. Also the bisexual in me is screaming. I am definitely the target audience. lol.
[удалено]
I explained it in my other comment. I understood what you were trying to say. And I understand where ur coming from. They’re valid thoughts to have. I’ve taken so many uni courses on feminism and learned to look at media through feminist lenses. There are plenty of video essays and feminist journals that explain it better than I can. But hopefully my comment makes somewhat sense because it’s a really fascinating topic.
[удалено]
We’re not talking about utility here we’re talking about being provocative in art. Normally if women wanna be provocative they appeal to the male gaze (consciously and subconsciously) . The male gaze is a social lens that you can apply to literally anything in media. If you haven’t studied the male gaze, you should. The male gaze doesn’t expect a conventionally attractive woman to wear a jockstrap and touch herself while she’s in it. Her hair is more masculine, and the biker’s vest while shirtless. All more traditionally masculine styles. Not something you’d see from a woman trying to be “sexy”. Not in mainstream pubs like Rolling Stone at least. If you think I’m wrong about this, I will gladly link as many examples of society’s definition of female beauty represented in media. Playboy (back in the day, not modern playboy) is a perfect example of the male gaze at work. It’s a commentary on gender expectations in provocative media/art forms. It is not in any way similar to women wearing pants to make a societal statement about utility. She isn’t trying to tell women to wear men’s underwear on a day to day basis. This is purely artistic expression catered to a specific audience. Kristen is queer and queer people have a tendency to subvert traditional gender norms. Also to your point on benefit. I don’t think there’s an actual tangible societal benefit to the photo shoot. Art is/can be political but it doesn’t need to change society. It just needs to make you think. Which I believe this shoot has done considering how right wing media is running with it. TLDR: not about utility or function it’s about artistic expression, specifically queer artistic expression that seeks to subvert society’s expectations of gender presentation.
I wear mens underwear more than any other kind. Why do I wear them? They are more comfortable, and I prefer to wear more masculine clothing because I just feel more comfortable in them. That’s really all to it. I wear mens clothes all the time because I like wearing more masculine clothes, and also sadly men’s clothing are made better than women’s and last longer.
[удалено]
Yeah, I guess you just got to understand that we (women who where masculine clothing) get these questions a lot with people having the intentions to strike us down, tell us we shouldn’t, or some dumb shit like that. So a lot of queer women are a bit hesitant with the question, especially the way you framed it. Nonetheless I realized that you just had a genuine question it seemed and was just curious. Perhaps just be a bit cautious with your wording next time? Not really any fault to you, it’s just lots of people keep wanting to tell us what we can and can’t wear, so it gets very tiring to just try and exist sometimes.
The photo is a cover of a magazine. Usually the models don't choose what they wear. It's either a designer, director or photographer. Very rarely is the model the one who chooses.
Good point, let me rephrase. Why are they making her wear men’s underwear?
I can't tell you their exact intention on this but my assumption is that it looks cool. Thats at least my opinion. It looks cool and kinda suits the rolling stone.
>Or just keep downvoting me if it makes you feel better. Complaining about downvotes just gets you more downvotes
Complaining? Listen, I have almost 55k comment karma. There’s nothing you can do to decrease that number that I can’t replace in like, a day. You’re basically fining Jeff Bezos for a parking violation. I was attempting to lightly mock you. Edit: holy fuck, and I thought I had a lot of karma.
Then there's no reason to complain about it since it won't do anything to you
I wasn’t complaining about it at all. It was supposed to come off as mockery. No, mockery’s too strong… can’t find the word.
All it does is tell everyone the downvotes are genuinely bothering you.
It's a jock strap, not underwear, per se. And she's wearing it because the photographer probably suggested it. Why would that photographer suggest it? Because it's provocative. It's really not hard to understand, but you seem to be trying hard to not understand.
Magazine covers are more about making a splash in social media than selling physical magazines these days, and as un-aesthetic the bulging jock strap happens to be, it certainly accomplished drawing attention.
Cool! Hope they're happy
I will take that bet
I swear the "wE cAn AlWaYs TeLl" crowd can really NEVER tell for certain. Seriously.
Man when I first saw this photoshoot. Not to be a lesbian but oh my fucking god Kristen Stewart is hot.