Objectifying Men

We've all seen it - the use of hot men to sell things.  I guess it began overtly back in the 80s when Levis took to the air in 1985 with Nick Kamen stripping off in a laundrette.  It was followed by Calvin Klein shoving up a billboard of Marky Mark in his underwear in New York in the early 90s. Apparently the billboard caused a storm (every advertisers' dream) and as a 14 year old I remember being mildly scandalised by the Levis 501 advert.  Watching it now (click on the link) it is so mild it's untrue.  Perhaps this is a sign of the distance we have travelled in those twenty five years in accepting "male flesh" and the general sexualisation of men.

Sex Sells: Abercrombie and Yeo Valley

Anyone can have their photo taken with an A&F "hunk"

Abercrombie & Fitch are of course the real "masters" of this, with their shop assistants selected for their model looks (to be an A&F model you have to have worked in one of the stores first), their shirtless men in the doorways of the stores who will have their pictures taken with you, and their adverts which seem to show a lot more flesh than they do actual clothing.  Sex sells: A&F London apparently outperformed their first two years' sales targets within 3 months of opening.  There are queues round the block on Saturday mornings.

For heaven's sake, even Yeo Valley are using an attractive faux-boyband made up of male models to sell their yoghurt and milk during X-Factor.  The advert seemed to attract as much attention on my timeline last night as the actual acts.  We've gone way beyond the sphere of selling clothing with an attractive model (there's a certain logic there) to just using men as sex objects to sell anything.

Hot young "farmers" selling milk?!

Hottie or Nottie?

I was in the pub on Friday with 3 women from Twitter.  There was a very attractive man at the table next to us and let's say we were enjoying the view.  There were in fact a LOT of attractive men in that bar for some reason.  I posted his picture on Twitter with the hashtag "#hottieornottie".  If you're not aware of it, people (mainly gay men but also women) take photos on their phones and invite comments as to whether people think the subject is a "hottie" or a "nottie".  The guy can be in a shop, the pub, a park, down the gym etc.

This was the second time ever I'd posted a guy in my entire time on Twitter.  The result was a lot of enthusiastic responses (25 hottie, 2 maybe, 0 nottie).  Most responses were from straight women, some from gay men, one from a straight man and one from a lesbian (she asked for double points because of her objectivity).  The man wasn't aware he'd had his photo taken, it was a public place, and the question is whether this is unacceptable objectification or just harmless fun.

Likewise there is now the Tube Crush website where women (60%) and gay men (40%) take pictures of "hot men" using the Tube and post them to a website.  If you read the BBC story on this you will see the legalities aspect and the fact that during the site's period of operation only 3 men ever have asked for their images to be removed.  You'll also note that only photos of men, but not women, are allowed, but there is no real explanation given as to why.

Double Standards?

Yesterday on Twitter I also posted a picture that a gay man had posted of himself on Grindr.  FYI this is the "hook up" app on iPhones etc, which has incredibly strict rules about "decency" and what may and may not be shown; there is a maximum distance below the belly button that can be displayed etc.  The picture in my view wasn't porn or anywhere close to it (my MUTTI follows me on Twitter after all). It was just a picture a very good looking guy had voluntarily put out there of himself.  He was seeking attention on a hook up app, no doubt as he thinks is his just reward for the hours and weeks he must spend in the gym.

I then got talking to another gay man about the "types" we found attractive.  My friend showed me a sweet coupley pic of him and his ex-boyfriend and I commented that the ex was "beautiful".

Our conversation was interrupted by a 3rd party who said (in a nutshell, this went on for almost 6 hours) that we were applying a double-standard, we wouldn't say this about women and were pleading special treatment for the gay community.  He went on to say (and I quote) "Your defence is akin to 'it can't have been rape, she was dressed like a slut" / "of course your argument applies to women & children.  You're proposing a public sexualisation of others" / "I'm suggesting it makes others victims and creates a sexualised power differential. Same as porn objectifies women."

Pretty strong stuff and quite a leap to go from a picture a guy had posted of himself to suggesting that I was proposing a "public sexualisation of children" and that all 3 billion men in the world are "victims" because of my tweet.

Sexual Politics

Like a good few men I believe extremely strongly that women should be given equal political, economic and social opportunities and rights.  However, like many men I am also very nervous to express a view about feminist subjects and sexual politics because:

a) they are many people who know a lot more about this specialist are than I do;
b) I don't know what it is like to be the subject of daily prejudice because of my gender;
c) I do not want to say the wrong thing and offend or be taken as a sexist.

I am however a man, and I am aware of the objectification that exists (particularly within the gay community) towards men.  I therefore feel safer on this subject and hence this blog.

The question is therefore is it actually a double-standard to talk about hot men and to use images of them to "publically sexualise" men in general?

Tying it in to the above, there is no way, for example, that Yeo Valley could get away with a female version of their advert with pretty women with skimpy tops and big breasts milking cows: it would be considered crudely and unacceptably sexist.  It wouldn't help their sales: it would more likely lead to a boycott.  Likewise whilst A&F do employ waif-like women in their stores, the imagery on their adverts is much more male oriented and the men are much more overtly sexual than the women in the way they are shown.

Of course other advertising does still use attractive women, but in more subtle ways than these two examples.

My Viewpoint

My (entirely amateur) viewpoint is this has to start from the position that there *is* still a massive distinction between the way that men and women are treated in society.  The major argument in the objectification of women is that it greatly reduces the personal and intellectual abilities of a woman; it defines her as solely or predominantly an instrument of sexual pleasure.  This comes from a position where for millennia women have been in a "lower" position in male dominated societies.  Where some women are depicted in this way, it reinforces an image that all women are of the same (inferior) value.

Hot Man in the Office

Men as a category are NOT a victimised group in our society.  If I meet an attractive guy in an office, or indeed see one of the "hunks" at the Abercrombie store, do I think of them purely as sex objects, or do I see their physical make up as one immediately apparent aspect of them... but then quickly move on to make judgements (as we all naturally do) about their personal and intellectual abilities when we interact?

I'm not coming from a default setting of "oh he's sexy, therefore he can't have a brain and is only good for a shag".  The A&F model may be good looking and also not very bright; equally he could be finishing his training as a doctor.  Because I do not have centuries' worth of social conditioning that sexual attractiveness of a man equates to that being their *only* defining factor, I don't automatically pigeon hole him.

I would genuinely contend that men are still in a very different position to women in this regard and we unfortunately have a long, long way to go before the intentions of the "slut walks" (which I personally think superb) will filter through and become a reality. 

I find it fascinating that Tube Crush has only had 3 requests during its existence from men to remove their images.  Others are presumably either flattered or indifferent to being featured on it.  I can fully understand why some would view taking secretive photos of strangers as creepy.  I however certainly don't mind being objectified: I post a shirtless pic of myself on Grindr and would actually be chuffed to bits if someone took my picture and put it on Tube Crush.  I'm operating, as I assume most men are, from a position that we know our physical appearances are *not* our sole defining factors in society.  We therefore don't have a fear or insecurity we will be just be seen as a "sex thing".  Women, it seems, sadly do not yet have this luxury.

That in a nutshell is why I reject the "double-standard" argument as being utterly out of synch with the position our society is in.  There is a demonstrable difference between "sexualising" men and women today in Britain - to ignore it is just plain silly.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

One could of course argue that "two wrongs don't make a right".  It's not right to objectify and sexualise men just because women have always been objectified.  I've no idea how time will move on.  Will the rapid move from Levi Boys stripping in laundrettes in 1985 to Young Farmers in 2011 with suggestive "milk moustaches" lead to men being seen purely as "shag toys"?  All I can comment on is now, not extrapolate forward.  Instinctively, given the dominant position men still hold in society, I have serious doubts this will happen, however.

Much more informed commentators can make the link between sexual objectification and sexual violence in a society.  The overwhelming bulk of sex crimes are currently directed at women; a small (but often forgotten) proportion are aimed at men.  Will the existence of A&F adverts make men more the subject of sexual attacks? Again I find that proposition fanciful personally and would be intrigued to know if there is any data on increase in sex crimes aimed at men since, say 1985.

We are Sexual Beings

In addition I think it is a very artificial and essentially dehumanising to deny that we ARE sexual beings.  If we don't go out dressed in a burqa, people do see us, at least in part, in terms of our physical and sexual attractiveness.  It happens.  If you are good looking, or choose to dress in a particular way, people will notice you and react partly through a presence or lack of sexual attraction.  The problem only comes, as I see it, when this is seen as our ONLY defining factor.

I will happily comment on a woman I know looking great in her avatar, or saying she looks stunning in a new dress.  I guess I have the fortunate position of her knowing this isn't some form of come-on; but equally I'm sure many straight men can pass the same compliment and it will not be seen as stripping her of her identity and seeing her only as a sex-object.  Her appearance is PART of her identity; we need to get to the point where, as with men, it is not the defining or exclusive part.

Context is also important: I'd say it's fine in a pub over a drink to comment about a guy there.  At the work place it is clearly not acceptable, even if we inevitably think it, to verbalise our impressions whether it's about a man or a woman.  Work should be a "sexuality neutral" location in my opinion: a position broadly upheld by the law.

I'd definitely say "nice"

Outside of work, you might personally object to seeing young male flesh on display and being bombarded by sexy singing young farmers drinking milk.  I actually don't: I rather like it.  I don't subscribe to the puritanical view that skin should be covered up and I really enjoy seeing beautiful images.  Sex is important to me and it's part of my human make-up.

We have advertising standards to define what is and what is not widely regarded in society as acceptable.  If those lines aren't crossed, you have to accept this is part of being in a diverse society.  The Haribo advert is pretty bad, I don't <like> watching it, but I don't think it should be banned because of my personal taste.  Going back also to my "sex sells" point, clearly I'm not the only one who quite likes seeing attractive men on TV.  Yeo Valley didn't spend a fortune on their rather funny 2 minute advert for nothing: it must make commercial sense to them.

If you don't like my talking about which type of guy I find hot on my Twitter stream, you are of course welcome to either ignore it, or unfollow me.  It's a bit like rugby, cricket or F1 tweets: I'm not interested in them, so I whizz on by.  If it's *all* someone tweets about, I would probably unfollow.  I will not however be censored in my self-expression by someone (the man who objected to my conversation with my gay friend) who calls himself a "liberal" and who somehow reached the point that I'm arguing for the sexualisation of children.  I have no problems with anyone of either gender or any sexuality talking about whom they fancy - as long as it isn't the only thing they say (boring) and it isn't directed in a way that a recipient might find offensive or threatening (wrong).

The Gay Position

I do just need to finish up on the "Gay Position".  The objectification of men in the gay world, in magazines like Attitude and Gay Times etc., is on a whole other level to the position in wider society.  Sex sells and covers that feature horny shirtless men will fly off the shelves.  Many gay men clearly want this.  The gay world is much further down the line of only seeing sexual attractiveness as a defining feature.

Personally I do think this is somewhat unhealthy and it's not rocket science to say it can lead to very real negative self-esteem in some gay men.  Still I think, though, that we're a long way from the stage even in the gay world where a man is stripped of all identity because of his looks.  A charming smile, a good chat up line, a pleasant way of interacting will still attract people as much (or more) as a perfect set of pecs and abs.  Yes, I'll be drawn to a guy I find physically attractive as much as any other gay man would, but we are all (hopefully) still aware that personality maketh the man - even for a one-night fling, and certainly for anything more.  A 6-pack on a guy who happens to be dull as dishwater just wouldn't work for me.

In a similar way I don't buy Attitude just for the hot men - it's an integral part of my enjoyment and it's why I might pick a copy up - but the stories get 90% of my attention in terms of time spent reading.

Summary

My personal position is very clear.  I think we respond to sexual imagery and that's part of who we are.  Using fit men to sell things has progressed rapidly, I see no real problem with it, and I actually *really* quite like it.  There is rightly much more sensitivity when it relates to female sexual imagery than male, and it is not a double standard to act in accordance with the very obvious difference that still exists in our society.

The position I would hope we would get to is not a prudish "everyone should be covered up" position of the past, but instead to one where both male and female sexual imagery can be appreciated and seen just as that; it does not make the whole identity of a person, nor should it ever.  We are some way from this with women; perhaps "levelling the playing field" by using male imagery will actually contribute to it.

Hottie or Nottie? Yes, I'll go on playing it every now and then: it is, I believe, harmless acceptable fun.  Talking about whether rugby players are cute or not? Yes I will.  Talking about what's happening on Grindr? Yes if I've got something vaguely interesting to say.  Being censored in my speech by someone not party to my conversation? No, that's something I've never been too keen on.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Wow :)