There’s An Inherent Fear In This Country Of Pictures Of Naked Men

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,290
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Is that really why there were no naked men in this issue of Vanity Fair but plenty of naked women? Some of the photos are beautiful but I prefer to see them in clothes-for example, I prefer Angelina's St John's ad in the same VF to her butt crack photo :wink: Some of the photos I just didn't care for at all.

I love the photo of Joaquin Phoenix, MUCH sexier than if he was naked. So is that it, are they catering to the fact that most women might feel that way, or is there just a double standard? These same men and women don't get naked in movies on the same level either. Men in Hollywood don't have to be sexy but women do?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11507815/

"NEW YORK - Pick up this month’s Hollywood issue of Vanity Fair and you’ll see two lovely young stars-of-the-moment, Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson, posing alluringly in the altogether. Open the foldout, and you’ll even see Johansson’s bare buttocks.

What you won’t see is a third, equally lovely young actress, Rachel McAdams of “Wedding Crashers” fame. It seems McAdams arrived at the photo shoot and decided she didn’t want to take her clothes off.

Is it arty and fun, or does it say something about sexual politics in Hollywood? In 2006, four decades after the launch of the feminist movement, does a serious actress still need to take her clothes off to get attention?

And where, oh where, are the naked men?

The reason female stars disrobe is simple, says Janice Min, editor of the much-read celebrity magazine US Weekly. “It’s tried and true. You show some cleavage on an actress. You make her look sexy. You make her look hot.” She NEEDS to be hot — because in Hollywood, “you have to be sexy to be a successful actress. You just have to be.”


So where’s the nude photo of Brad Pitt? Or George Clooney, who appears later in the issue, dressed, amid a bevy of women in flesh-toned bras and panties? Let’s face it, Min says: Women do like to see sexy men — just not with all their clothes off.

“Men just aren’t viewed as sex objects in the same way that women are,” Min says. “Women don’t think about men being naked in the same way that men think about women.” In fact, she says, at her magazine’s offices, when photos come in of a male star with no shirt on, “We say, ‘Gross! Put some clothes on!”’ (Imagine that being uttered about an attractive female)

For one expert on the magazine industry, it’s a little more complicated. “There’s an inherent fear in this country of pictures of naked men,” says Samir Husni, a journalism professor at the University of Mississippi. “We’ve been trained to look at pictures of naked women, but we haven’t been trained yet to look at pictures of naked men.”

Some of that buzz has been negative. “The whole cover just seems faux-racy to me,” says Siobhan Burns, a New Yorker in her mid-30’s who reads the magazine in her office. “And why, in 2006, do women still have to take their clothes off and look pouty, rather than being heralded for their accomplishments?”

Writing in Salon.com, Rebecca Traister called the cover an “over-the-top orgy of self-love, misogyny and idiocy” by Ford. Of McAdams, who also starred in “Red Eye” and “The Family Stone” in 2005, she wrote: “There you have it, ladies, straight from Vanity Fair. We don’t care if you star in three successful movies in one year; if you won’t get naked for a ‘threesome,’ you can forget your spot in our pages!”
 
Perhaps the qualities that make a man desirable (to women) are more readily perceived when they're slickly dressed rather than naked?

:hmm: I don't fully buy this women-don't-want-to-see-men-naked thing though--my sense is that there is a generational divide among women on this.
 
yolland said:
:hmm: I don't fully buy this women-don't-want-to-see-men-naked thing though--my sense is that there is a generational divide among women on this.

I doubt this is driven by women not wanting to see men naked.

Take a look at magazines marketed to specific genders. Women's magazines will have pictures of partially clad women. Men's magazines will have pictures of partially clad women. There just isn't a huge market for pictures of partially clad men.
 
Tradition dictates that women and men have different methods of "titillation." That is, when women read raunchy romance novels, it is absolutely no different than when men look at pornographic magazines.

Melon
 
hairy_beach_dude_for_jesus.jpg


nothing to fear

this man loves the Jesus :up:
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

For one expert on the magazine industry, it’s a little more complicated. “There’s an inherent fear in this country of pictures of naked men,” says Samir Husni, a journalism professor at the University of Mississippi. “We’ve been trained to look at pictures of naked women, but we haven’t been trained yet to look at pictures of naked men.”




well maybe it is time for these magazines to change this. I for one would welcome it! :D
 
Re: Re: There’s An Inherent Fear In This Country Of Pictures Of Naked Men

MissVelvetDress_75 said:



well maybe it is time for these magazines to change this. I for one would welcome it! :D



hear, hear, sister!

:hyper:
 
MissVelvetDress_75 said:
I am all for this:
calvin%20Klein2.jpg

just to play devil's advocate for a second...

wouldn't widespread dissemination of this type of media ultimately lead to the objectification of the male body, thus creating an artificial stereotype of beauty that very few of us can actually compare to? we've seen this happen with female models and young women.
 
Last edited:
Se7en said:

wouldn't widespread dissemination of this type of media ultimately lead to the objectification of the male body,.........

yeah yeah

Where are more pictures of men in their underpants?


:hyper:










But maybe if men are finally forced to come to terms with something women have dealt with for centuries, maybe they can facilitate a change. It's happened before. When men finally get a taste of what women go through, they get all huffy and change it.
 
martha said:

But maybe if men are finally forced to come to terms with something women have dealt with for centuries, maybe they can facilitate a change. It's happened before. When men finally get a taste of what women go through, they get all huffy and change it.



trust me when i say that i know exactly what that's like for a girl -- i totally have a distorted view of my body.

but i still enjoy pictures of idealized, impossible-to-attain-through-legal-methods pictures of men.

so, thank goodness for Abercrombie!

(and i was in their obnoxious new chain Ruehl last weekend, and omg, ladies and Melon, it is smoking in there :sexywink:)
 
martha said:
But maybe if men are finally forced to come to terms with something women have dealt with for centuries, maybe they can facilitate a change. It's happened before. When men finally get a taste of what women go through, they get all huffy and change it.

believe it or not there are already some of us who view objectification and fetishism to be problems within society. :sexywink:
 
Last edited:
Lovely, to see that the progressives and religious can get together on serious issues like people showing skin.
 
Objectivism and fetishism are not problems within society - I do not see any problem with people acting as they please or people being in some way gratified by other peoples dress or behaviour. Same goes for pictures of naked men, not my cup of tea but I am not going to take my uncomfortable reaction and proceed upon a crusade against pictures of naked men.

Now this is not you but pushed to limits you do see opposition to things such as prostitution and pornography from both religious forces who see it as immoral and some progressive forces who see it as exploitative of women.

People get paid money to show off their bodies, people pay money to gratify themselves with pictures and videos of this. Provided nobody is being forced to do things against their will or having their rights violated there should is nothing wrong with that. The morality police can fuck off and leave the rest be.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Objectivism and fetishism are not problems within society - I do not see any problem with people acting as they please or people being in some way gratified by other peoples dress or behaviour. Same goes for pictures of naked men, not my cup of tea but I am not going to take my uncomfortable reaction and proceed upon a crusade against pictures of naked men.

Now this is not you but pushed to limits you do see opposition to things such as prostitution and pornography from both religious forces who see it as immoral and some progressive forces who see it as exploitative of women.

People get paid money to show off their bodies, people pay money to gratify themselves with pictures and videos of this. Provided nobody is being forced to do things against their will or having their rights violated there should is nothing wrong with that.

i couldn't care less what people get off to in their spare time. anything goes as far as i'm concerned as long as adults are consenting, etc. (with the exception of children - call me a fascist bootlicker if you must).

my problem, and perhaps my clarity was lacking, is with a media creation of the archetype of beauty being a specific physical speciman that very few individuals are capable of imitating. i think the damage done to the psyche of young women over the years has been well documented and often discussed.

that said, i am in no way looking to censor skin.
 
I would counter by arguing that social pressures and the idealised form of impossible beauty trancend culture and civilization. That even in the absence of the mass media the same mental illnesses that lead to disorders

Depicting idealised beauty in painting, sculpture or in magazines and films with models and actors is a form of cultural expression. One that I think has an important place in the society and should exist freely.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I would counter by arguing that social pressures and the idealised form of impossible beauty trancend culture and civilization. That even in the absence of the mass media the same mental illnesses that lead to disorders

Depicting idealised beauty in painting, sculpture or in magazines and films with models and actors is a form of cultural expression. One that I think has an important place in the society and should exist freely.

wasn't ancient "impossible beauty" much more in line with the actual female body? i'm thinking of greek sculpture/art here. i seem to recall women with hips, thighs, and full figures...images that the majority of women could relate to.

what the individual deems to be his or her personal idealized beauty is a matter of preference and taste. it seems to me that if society as a whole is to offer up some sort of overarching image there should be an open discourse as to what/why that is.
 
Back
Top Bottom