How Insurance Works

What gender scholars get wrong about the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue | FACTUAL FEMINIST

For years, women’s groups have complained
about sexy SuperBowl ads. So many are hailing this year’s game as a sign of progress.
There were far fewer ads catering to the male gaze, and many new ones promoting women’s
causes and scolding men for their moral shortcomings. Well, apparently, Sports Illustrated didn’t
get the feminist memo. Just a few days after the SuperBowl, its annual swimsuit issue came
out. Gender activists were not amused. Are they right to be offended? That’s coming
up next on the Factual Feminist. Now, I can understand why many parents would not want
their kids to see this particular cover while waiting in grocery line. And there will be
many religious and culturally conservative adults who will take offense. I for one hope
that store owners find discreet ways of displaying it. But the gender activist critics are not
arguing for public decorum. Instead, they consider it politically regressive for women
to be treated as eye candy for men. Peggy Drexler, Cornell University psychologist,
put it this way: “if the point isn’t to objectify women for the pleasure of the male
gaze, why has no one created a counterpart magazine featuring a scantily dressed man?”
Here is the Factual Feminist’s reply: For better or worse, popular culture is full of
highly sexualized images of women—Consider a Beyoncé or Rihanna video. Or Cosmo. Scantily
clad bodies are everywhere.But feminist critics are not objecting to women being sexy or underdressed..
It’s the male gaze that troubles them. Anyone who studied gender theory will probably have
read about the evils of the “male gaze.” In 1975, a feminist theorist named Laura Mulvey
published a paper that faulted conventional cinema for its “phallocentric” assumptions
whereby men are active viewers, women are passive objects. In her words, “Woman then
stands in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order
in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions…” Whatever. For the record,
Gaze theory has no standing as social science. It has no
hypotheses that can be tested. It’s a fanciful theory confined to gender studies programs.
But graduates of those programs keep turning up in the media carrying on about the insidiousness
of the male gaze. What about Drexler’s point that if sexy images were empowering, men would
be posing for them too? Well, it’s been tried. There used to be a magazine called
Playgirl that featured sexy men in erotic poses. It went broke. Its primary market turned
out to be gay men. Women were far less interested. According to the Cambridge Women’s Pornography
Cooperative, this is what works for women. Women seem to be less focused on sexualized
imagery than gay and straight men. Gender activists mostly leave the gay gaze alone,
but declare open season on straight guys. Well here is the Factual Feminist’s verdict:
The rights and wrongs of mass media sexuality should be debated in terms of public manners—not
of gender power and selective shaming. The frenzied policing of straight male sexuality
is a dead end. Well, what do you think of the uplifting Super Bowl commercials? Do you
think it would promote gender equity if Sports Illustrated went in for images of beefy guys
in speedos and thongs? I welcome your comments. And if you like this series, please show your
support by subscribing and following me on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you for watching
the Factual Feminist.

Reader Comments

  1. This is sell-out pseudo-feminism, oblivious to the role of power. Male-gaze theorists aren't complaining that men look at women and sometimes find them attractive, nor necessarily that unusually attractive women can be featured in films or in magazines. Their issue is with something more subtle, it is on the inferred role of the woman implicit in the product.

    Regarding the swimsuit issue, you also miss the point. It is not really true that there are far fewer sexualized images of men in the popular culture. There are lots of sexualized images of men, they just don't look sexual, because they are thinly disguised as images of power or conflict. You couldn't find an episode of "Star Trek" without William Shatner giving authoritative orders to subordinates, getting involved with a female space alien, then getting his shirt torn off and swashbuckling with some male space alien. A rock and roll star is a sexualized male, as is a James Bond character, killing off enemies. The same sexualization appears in films and shows which focus on a powerful executive, like "Mad Men", or even a powerful deviant, there is a lot of leeway involved. These males are cartoonishly sexualized, they have no relation to real men, with the exception of a few usually psychopathic individuals in positions of extreme power.

    The whole field of sports is especially heavily sexual, including the Sports Illustrated magazine. It is full of images of powerful dudes in skimpy outfits, and there are whole genres approximately like sport (like kickboxing) which exist only to produce violent images of what looks like male sexual combat. These images of power are the counterpart of women in skimpy outfits, and they are just as pervasive.

    The conflict for the feminist male-gaze theorist you quoted, is the disparity in role for the sexualized man and woman, which ultimately results from base biological instincts of domination and submission during the sex act. When a man is imagined as sexually omnipotent, this man is also carrying unusual influence or power. In a film, he is important, he has an internal world, he is not a stock character, he carries motivations and is an end in himself. He is often the main character, the hero, although sometimes not. This is necessary for the work to succeed, because a physically attractive but powerless male is only marginally more sexually attractive than a vibrator. To make this point, physically attractive men are cast in a powerless role on purpose, as simpletons, or as clueless low-class foils to the main male character, simply to emphasize this distinction between their class-inherited powerlessness and the wily, shrewd, unusually powerful man. The woman will ignore the hunkier prop and fall in love with power.

    The opposite happens for female figures. The less they do, the less they speak, the more powerless they become, and their attractiveness is based on a male response to the damsel in distress. This impoverished characterization of women is purely marketed to the male-gaze, women generally get bored by this, as there is no one to relate to in the story. Shakespeare didn't do this kind of nonsense, because it makes for extremely shallow fiction. This is the source of nauseating commercial tropes that repeat on endless loop. A guy chases a girl, a guy has a conflict with other powerful guys, then he himself becomes powerful and gets the girl. The entire narrative is pure male on male conflict over power, and there is no significant input from the girl, who is ultimately is just a possession. She just goes along for the ride with whoever proves to be more powerful, by whatever trick.

    The complaint here is that the figures in the Sports Illustrated are heroic males, while the figures in the Swimsuit issue are trophies. Perhaps this is mitigated by the realization that the modeling worlds is equally competitive.

    Mocking the gender theorists is annoying, especially so when the stated goal is equality under the market. This is the bourgeoise empowerment feminism marketed to the public in the 1970s, and it is not at all what the original Marxist inspired movement was about.

  2. I really enjoy these videos and are a good thing to view after watching Sargon's This Week in Stupid videos.

    But this time, I can not stop hearing 'Male Gays' instead of 'Male Gaze'.  Maybe I'm just juvenile, but I can't stop laughing now.

  3. I kind of do not get it.  Is it wrong for a man to be attracted to attractive women that choose to pose in swimwear.  It is not like these men or harassing women in public.  I am not tooting my own horn, but when ever I go to the gym, I catch many women sneaking peeks at me some desirable some not.  If I really had a problem with being seen, I would wear long sleeves all day or hide at home.  I just don't understand why people can't see that both men and women are objectified.

    While S.I. does not have a male version of the swimsuit issue, ESPN Magazine has an annual issue called that body where male and female athletes do implied nude photo shoots in the same issue.

    Also, let me clarify one thing, I would never purchase an S.I. swimsuit issue, lol. Magazines like that just don't move me but I don't judge guys that like them.  So if radical feminists do want  do away with them, it would be fine with me.

  4. Gays get ignored because they're also oppressed which is true in some cases but surely a lesbian can enjoy playboy and other magazines in the same way a straight male can no.

  5. It's interesting how feminism and radical Islamists share similar beliefs. In this case, both share a common belief in the evils of the "male gaze," just different ways of dealing with it.

  6. Ah, Sports Illustrated. Once a year it puts out a issue of some of the most beautiful, young, curvaceous women in the world, wearing next to nothing. Yum! –Christina, as a scholar you should be ashamed to present us with only a partial view of the issue's cover.

  7. "The male gaze." I always greet that limp phrase with, "Which man, specifically? And, what are you claiming he see, thinks, and feels… specifically?"

  8. Ummm yeah, those images of scantily clad men are ALL OVER THE PLACE too. I see many women, just on my Facebook friends list posting pictures of them daily. Usually with captions like "yummy" or "ohh yeah, gimmie some of this"

    This behavior is NOT exclusive to men, nor is it even more COMMON in men. It's simply frowned upon by others when men do it.

  9. The money shows you the empirical center. If women wanted nude male pictures made available for purchase (on average) then the product would be available. No interest, no sellable product. Now shoes on the other hand are something I don't understand. I have a pair for home and a safety pair for work. That's it. Therefore there is no giant (and I do mean huge) market for shoes for men. Honestly doesn't all this stuff seem really simple?

  10. Sad to see Lacan's terms (The Other, The Gaze) taken sooooo far out of context that his work is almost meaningless in current discourse.

  11. Females have scantily clad men to exercise the 'female gaze' though, not on magazines (unless they are avid readers of muscle magazines) but by very trashy romance novels (seriously go to your local market/bookstore and walk up the magazine/books aisle and I can almost guarantee there will be a bare chested man on the covers of the books) until I see public outcry that these men are being used as sexual objects, to cater to the female gaze, as well, then they need to get off their high horses and chill out

  12. yes beefy guy would be good not in tiny tiny short as the v ugly in both male and female models why not have all four most common swim suits in the mag ie straight male straight female gay male gay female and a page of gender queer models

  13. Reading the post I am thinking that it is not the nakedness either of women or men but the way a person is projecting false and unhealthy assumption on the other and themself. That way it's the fact of seeing a naked women as someone stupid, without any interiority or wathever. Why people would think that it is systematically a symptom of perversion to like to see womens whom show and puts their physical beauty and sexuality in first plane? I think the answer to that might be the false and unhealthy assumption involve in the fight against nakedness. If there are unhealthy assumption (like women are to please men sexually at any cost, or sexual attraction is in itself a perversion) then we must separate then from their object not getting rid of the object. While fighting against that ads it might suppose they (those who oppose it for pseudo-feminist reason) see those women as object. I suggest they question their relation to their sexuality because if they feel that a men sexually attracted to them is considering her as an objet they might feel bad with their sexuality, It's like saying "Your desire is the proof that I transform you in a evil person" when you suppose that referring to the sexual part of a women is provoquing men to see this women as whatever they mean by object. But then we can go back and say It's X's fault if women sexuality (and so women) provoque men to see them as object(whatever they mean by it). However the assomption that mens sees women like they think men does seems obscur.

  14. Umm…Every year there are hundreds of calendars featuring shirtless and sexually objectified men marketed towards women. there are firemen calendars, cowboy calendars, etc. Even Steve Harvey produces a calendar every year for his predominantly female audience. The double standard is ridiculous.

  15. The ONE reason women are shown as they are in our culture, is that it sells. Straight men respond to beautiful women, and women respond to them by buying more stupid shit they think will make them prettier and their lives better.

    Trying to make it about anything else only shows that you're to stupid to understand how the world works, AND in love with your role as a victim.

  16. Go to any magazine section, and there are fitness magazines with half naked ripped guys on the cover. Or just do a quick google search for male fitness models.

  17. Every time someone sez 'male gaze' I get confused for a few seconds. I thought we were talking about straight men? Oh gaze. Pretty funny that some people find men checking out chicks sexist. I would average a few 100 times per day or every eligible female I see (in media or real life). How could I change that? I would basically have to just look at the ground permanently or women would have to cover up, but then I still check out covered Muslims eyes and figure to see if I can work out if they're hot or not. Feminists should set up secret cameras and film their male feminist friends. They would so catch them out having a quick look when they turned around or bent over. Accept if they looked like Rebecca Watson or were a hybrid creature like Laura Mulvey. Feminists don't need evidence and articles for this subject thou. Surely they know that all straight men check out chicks and this is just a fact of life. They can't be that out of touch. I know females try to change men's behaviour all the time but are they really that stupid not to realise that nothing will work unless they dig out our eyeballs. Every weekend at my local mall many chicks are no longer wearing bras. One last weekend totally forgot pants. It's burned into my memory now. WTF do feminists expect?

  18. LOL. Women objectify men all the time! Based on their "status" – social, financial, political, whatever – and, as the image shows, domestic helpfulness, generic prowess, masculine features, grooming acumen and ability to flatter.

    But somehow those harder to achieve things make the objectification all the more acceptable and unworthy of criticism.

    What women are actually objecting to (always have to read between their lines) is that they fall for these things and are less capable of making the distinction between a good person in a mate and what they simply found attractive (i.e. easy to objectify).


  19. What happened with PlayGirl reminds me of what also happened with the attempt to open a all male brothel in Nevada catering to female clientele the result was a miserable failure. The documentary chronicling the infamous Hollywood Madams endeavor had a scene where a female bar owner told her that the only clients that she'd get were gay men if that taking the words right out of my mouth!

    Leftist Political Correctness the new secular cult. For some reason people strive not to think for themselves & absolutely refuse to embrace reality.

  20. the thing with these magazines is no body is holding a gun to their head making them take the pictures and would you rather this open and *acceptable * artistic representation of the female form or would you rather repress it and force it into a warped but less obvious and more oppressive form

  21. the thing with these magazines is no body is holding a gun to their head making them take the pictures and would you rather this open and *acceptable * artistic representation of the female form or would you rather repress it and force it into a warped but less obvious and more oppressive form

  22. one thing that needs to be mentioned. there are plenty of magazines with topless men in shorts or underwear/swim wear. they are MEN'S fitness magazines!

  23. All I'm saying is, if it's a SWIMSUIT issue, I expect the models within to be scantily clad. I'm assuming feminists don't shop for their husbands or boyfriends often. If you want a scantily clad man, go to the men's section and get some Hanes or another underwear product. Shoot go to chip and dales

  24. Objectification of men or women is equally repulsive to me.

    I never watched Magic Mike(s), though I watched most other films that star Matthew McConoughy, or Channing Tatum.
    I am disgusted by everything fashion industry and modeling, Beyonce, or Rhianna represent.

    Who the fuck are Beyonce and Rhianna for you to cite them to me as some sort of examples.

    Also the gaze theory is stupid and straight men are boring…

    I hate this planet… Also I am not sure I like you, you are a creepy old lady who has been this society's trick pony for so long, you cite Beyonce as some sort of example to me?

    Beyonce is as empowering as any crack whore I can possibly imagine and just as much a product of patriarchy.

  25. I may be wrong and Cristina may know more but I remember reading that the reason bikinis even exist is to be a symbol of female empowerment. They were meant to be a symbol that women were proud of bodies. For the record female swimwear before this was extremely conservative and enforced by men. Women created bikinis to resist men.

  26. It amazes me how so many feminists can engage in the cognitive dissonance of claiming to be for sexual liberation yet condemning nearly every aspect of male sexuality.

  27. Surprise, surprise… The woman who wrote the 1975 paper that all these super angry feminists parrot, looks like she's a horrible bitter human being that's probably just really jealous and anti social because she didn't get the same sexual attention as the women on the big screen.

  28. 3rd wave Feminists think that men are less likely to pose for Centrefolds? Really?

    Two Words: Matthew Lewis….

  29. The women who complain about objectification are often the ones with a black and white poster of a hunk in his underpants holding a kitten, or who push to the front row at Chippendales concerts!

    Okay, it's a gross generalisation, but we all like to look at attractive people, and regarding an individual in a sexual way doesn't mean we think that's all there is to them, or that their entire gender are objects to us.

  30. The boys with be boys argument is weak. It demeans men as being nothing more than mindless sex beasts who cannot control their sexuality. Women do not exist for men to consume. As well, saying that it is just a fact of life is also shitty and unimaginative.

  31. Female sexuality is valued more highly than male sexuality. Male sexuality is seen as having zero value essentially. How is that "patriarchy"?

  32. When she brought up Playgirl and how its primary audience was gay men, I had to pause the video and laugh. In trying to cater to a female audience, they ended up catering to more men.

  33. feminists: FREE THE NIPPLE !!!1!!!111!!!!
    also feminists: STOP PUTTING UP NAKED PICTURES OF US IN MAGAZINE !!!1!!!!1!!

  34. The problem with redefining sexual images of women is that we shouldn't be glorifying overweight and obese women or men since it's unhealthy.

  35. this is where women need to learn about gay men, because all men are sluts, all men objectify, deal with it, males have a different sexual reproductive strategy, guys don't care if a woman is dumb, if she is hot, we will tap that ass. Men can be objectified, but not as easily, so the porn market for women is much smaller than for men. Women can publish magazines full of sexy men, nobody is stopping them, go ahead. See if they can make money, Playgirl failed, and would have failed faster but for gay male readers.

  36. those models make a ton of money to do that. they jump at the chance, and they make more money than men in the same business. so butthurt fems and SJWs can go suck there thumbs in a corner.

  37. There are abundant examples of male sexual objectification. Count the number of shirtless men on the cover of Rolling Stone, Men's Health magazine, GQ, Details, Neil Patrick Harris with a top hat over his penis. Those covers are not all for gay men and the shirtless man in public could very well fill a woman's need to forego pornographic material. 50 Shades of Gray. Magic Mike. Ask any male bouncer or bartender in America how many times a woman reaches out to grab his ass or arm. Women's objectification may be more subtle, and everyone is doing it.

  38. honestly my sex drive is like wisdom teeth or an appendix I don't need it. I wish I could just drug it away .

  39. Id like to ask these feminists why its ok for a lesbian woman to be sexually attracted to beautiful women and that is celebrated, and yet straight men, who are literally attracted to the exact same thing, ie beautiful women, are demonized? Why aren't we all allowed to be attracted to beautiful women? I also have a problem with the term "sex object" because it basically makes no sense. If your a straight man, women are literally the only "object" you are "sexually" attracted to, you cant expect straight men to think of men as objects of there sexual preferences. The truth is that every person is a "sex object" in some way to some person, its biology.

  40. While images of sexualised men may not be as prevalent, let's not forget, they're prevalent enough, and many of them are clearly targeted towards women. I remember in high school, there were a fair few girls with images of scantily clad men taped to the inside of their lockers, which is totally fine, but I can't help but feel that there is a double standard here, and that ignoring the "female gaze", if you want to call it that, is a big part of that.

  41. Men and women are different, they are turned on by different stimuli, that doesn't make either of them wrong. Feminists just can't get this concept.

  42. Jesus H Christ!! I'm sorry but does anyone else not see the elephant in the room? These "'feminists" are in fact saying that women, the ones doing the actual posing for these images videos etc, are attacking and oppressing other women. OH and lets not forget WHY they are doing it.. MONEY!!! Yup, that segment of humanity who's moral, ethical and spiritual motivations are purported (by other women and feminists of course) to be above reproach are the ones who are perpetuating what they would call rape culture. Suck it up girls, your sisters are selling you out!! C'mon LOOK…. LOOK AT IT!!! IT'S ANOTHER WOMAN THAT'S DOING THIS!! What will these "feminists" do now? Wouldn't attempting to limit actions or choices for the women who pose for these be in fact ANTI-FEMINIST? Maybe they'll be labeled as collaborators with orders by the matriarchy to be shot on site!. OMG WHAT A DILEMMA!!!

  43. There are publications with scantily dressed men. The majority of their readers are men. Men are just visually oriented. And I'm referring to hetero-oriented publications like Men's Fitness, GQ, even most sports magazines.

  44. Did they actually think that magazine companies had not even thought about making magazines sexualizing men? With all their money making incentive, it's absolutely ludicrous to think that magazines have such a patriarchal agenda that they'd turn down millions in profits.

  45. I'm glad you acknowledge the moral argument. Pornographic and titillating imagery is a problem, but not because it limits women, but because of the effect on men. Sexy photos do not change the intrinsic value of women, but it does lead mean towards acting out of sexual desire rather than on higher order goals for relationships.

  46. Mulvey is against the 'male gaze' towards pretty &/or thin women because she is neither and is jealous that these other women are getting the attention she never got

  47. Thank you so much for mentioning gays. I worry about my straight brothers who are under the knife! If they come for them with censorship, they will eventually come for me. Let's celebrate our bodies! I will never have six pack abs but there are models that do and they make great wallpapers. Not all of us were born to be astrophysicists! Do what you do best and be proud 😉 shaming is so prehistoric. And yes, I bought a lot of playgirl when I was 18 😉

  48. I'd love the beefy guy photos in speedos.

    But then again, I'm one of those left alone gay guys, so my desire to see sexualized men more often can be written off as…sexist? Wait, I confused myself

  49. Women aren't sex objects ( actually sex and reproduction is a primary human directive without which we wouldn't be here. Many species choose partners based on looks, most of the animal kingdom it's the females that sexually objectify males.)
    Men are not money making objects (well, they are supposed to find resources such as food protection and labour in reproductive endeavours)

    Human beings seem to have lost the plot.

    The main reason that some women object (excuse the pun) to objectification is because they know they can't all compete so they are attempting to level the playing field as sexual hierarchy ompetition amongst women is strictly policed… by women…

    Most slut shaming is done by women to stop women from utilizing a powerful comodity in the control of male choice … namely sex. Men are drawn to women who give themselves easily and that loosens control over how men react to the women that are not giving themselves freely.

  50. Some "feminist" think "you cannot over sexualized" but they're the first once who wants to get in some male celebrity's pants. Logic? I think not

  51. It would be funny as fuk if ppl wit the letters "m" "a" & "n" (in order, spelling the WORD "man") NAME'S were CENSORED. We'd have to say "anda" instead of "Amanda" or ""Satha" instead of "Samantha"…I think it's in the near future considering the eating of TIDE pods, and idiots refusing to acknowledge the gender of their OWN kids.

  52. Its funny these freaks have no problem with the raunchy stuff Cosmo has on its front page, can you imagine if S. I. had written on its front page 1% of what Cosmo does ?

  53. I really like your content and observations but here's one from me regarding the term Theory.

    As I understand it is a late person one starts with a belief, and moves on to the hypothetical stage of development in which they must be sent to the world their scholarly work on that subject and if accepted by the world the scientific community it may then reach the status of Theory.

    So perhaps you can help me in my understanding for it seems that the very best counterproductive to ascribe a term such as Theory to something that is nothing more than a belief.

  54. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the 'grid girls' losing their jobs as a pandering response to PC orthodoxy. I am not particularly interested in sport, generally, or motor sport, in particular, and, therefore, don't really see much of the 'grid girls' or cheer-leader type thing but I am concerned that these young women have lost their incomes, presumably, because they are pretty, feminine and possibly objects of jealous obsession by those who for (presumed) ideological reasons, despise them.

  55. These days with the feminist movement. It’s severe brainwashing. It’s Role reversal, women want to act like guys and want guys to act like girls. It’s unnatural. That’s why women are nuts these days and and men want nothing to do with them. I’ll keep my house thanks you can fuck off

  56. Feminism is cancer. However it does have one thing correct the male gaze is definitely a factor in life. But men and women are turned on by different things. Why do you think there are so many romance novels on the shelves at bookstores? Should we as men be boycotting and blocking the publication of romance novels?

  57. Thank you for being so sane. I am jealous of your husband or manfriend. Thank you for being here speaking sensibility.

  58. This could've been summarized with two words; Sex Sells!
    Simple. Besides there shouldn't be an issue if the women are volunteering to do this, and are paid, and treated respectfully like any other employee, or free lance worker. Modelling is in fact a career, and if it pulls in more money due to men PEACEFULLY gazing upon them, then who are we to say anything? We need to stop thought policing people.

  59. "The frenzied policing of straight male sexuality is a dead end." You might be partly right, but I fear that will never stop these radicals from attempting to push a less "phallocentric" publishing industry. Not that that is completely a bad thing, mind you. in fact it may be nice to see a "femellocentric" industry grow out of this movement. Of course, the better solution would be a drawback to a more "origocentric" one that is less primal. Unfortunately any of these conditions would have a lot of push-back. Warning –> these other two words are my own design, not found in any dictionaries.

  60. I call feminism the “we can objectify people too!” movement among other things. I’d be for more modesty in culture, by choice not force of the government.

  61. whats wrong with a kid seeing a woman in a bikini? they see that all the time at the beach. its not like they're having gangbangs in these magazines.

    would these feminists be ok with lesbians looking at these magazines? they act like a woman cant appreciate a pair of tits

  62. I may die to laugh seeing sexy women on Cosmo's covers.
    The magazine is full of feminist articles about the poor objectified women and horrible men.

  63. "Women tend to be less focused on sexualized imagery than are gay and straight men." That is a universal truth, but to mention it in certain circles would cause an intersectional tantrum.

  64. 1:16
    They tried that before. Ever hear of Playgirl? Yea, it was a magazine from Playboy that featured content for women, including sexy men getting naked and female-centric articles. Want to know why most people don't know about it? Because women weren't interested, the primary audience was gay men.
    The true female equivalent to porn magazines are romance novels. The reason being, men's sexuality is primarily aroused through visual stimuli – photos, videos, erotic lingerie, etc. Women's sexuality is primarily aroused through feelings – graphically descriptive stories, talking, cuddling, etc.
    While there is quite a bit of crossover in both genders, there's enough truth to the "stereotypes" to make them reliable, hence a porn magazine directed toward women will never be as popular or successful as a similar magazine directed towards men, just as a series of romantic novels written for men will never be as successful as a magazine line.

  65. Um, I'm pretty sure there are magazines and other stuff you can buy with scantily-clad guys. Why aren't they complaining about those calendars full of half-naked firefighters or whatever?

  66. We are a culture of Tits & Ass – women should appreciate the fact that you are appreciated ! ! Women (fems) MUST stop "crying" about anything & EVERYTHING !!!!!

  67. The popularity of muscular men in film and tv seems to suggest that at least some women enjoy looking at men’s bodies. For example, every Marvel movie has a shirt off six pack shot. I don’t think men would try and look good naked if women didn’t have any interest. Of course some men like looking ‘good’ for their own vanity, but I think the point is still valid.

  68. Women be offended who cares? what arrogance to believe everything hinges on what offends women. I couldn't care less what offends women.

  69. What family didn't start out with a man appreciating the looks of a particular women and then engaging her personally? If you are stuck on objectifying people you have a problem. But attraction starts with the appreciation of some, often physical, quality and then proceeds naturally to getting to know the person.

  70. this is why men think women are nuttier than squirrel have this feminist woman bitching about men looking at women.however, there are other feminist that will say,if you got it, flaunt it.Its the models right to be shown in a sexy way, independence.So just shut the hell up.

  71. Men who are attracted to women tend to look at women and women who are attracted to men tend to look at men. At sometime during all this looking these men and women make babies together and the existence of human beings continues in the world. 🥰

  72. As a male and a husband and a father.I really do not give a toss about these female dictatorial crones. If women did not wish to look good and attractive, why is the cosmetic industry so vast. Most men myself included admire a woman by her stance, not the war paint, not the clothes she wears, not the jewelry. Go to any beach or night club and you will see all the bodies you need if that is your inclination. but the dictatorial crones need something more. they need their 15 minutes of fame it is all self-effacing and has nothing to do with the welfare of the female gender. HYPOCRISY at its FINEST

  73. Seems not too many females commenting. When are they going to take the “male” and “man” out of their gender descriptors?

  74. Sexual depictions have been in art through most civilisations throuought history.

    Sexuality and the human body were considered natural concepts.

    Altho they did publically shame sex and outside marriage.

    Wasn't till during the medieval age when sexuality was starting to be condemned and the human body seen as sinful.

  75. There are lots of magazines with scantily clad dudes! Any men's health magazine is just textured pics of extremely buff guys

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *