Vice recently posted a fashion spread today called “Groin Gazing.” It features a series of photos by Claire Milbrath with styling by Mila Franovic, and the photos are framed tight on the clothed junk for your viewing pleasure. The models are identified by the type of guy they depict, such as “The Boyfriend” or “The Artist” or “The Businessman,” and even “The Boy Next Door.” And taken together, they are also exactly the sorts of men, anonymous, real, and imagined that a woman (or man) might lust after.. But what makes it remarkable is that, for a moment, you can indulge what it would actually be like if most of the photographs you saw in advertising or fashion were meant to cater to your desire. Not your desire to be more beautiful, or thinner, or more glamorous, but simply your desire for the opposite sex. This is something men take for granted. This is something women must overlook when watching popular TV shows and movies (*cough*gameofthrones*cough*truedetective*cough) that purport to be for everyone, and then instantly betray that when it’s time to show naked bodies, which are largely female, and which are nearly always and only filmed for an assumed hetero male viewer.
This discussion at Jezebel also made me think about how a big part of feeling desire is about feeling desired. Years ago I read an interview with a feminist stripper and she was asked about the difference between doing lap dances for male and female customers and she said that male customers tipped more. She put that down to men being more able to believe the fantasy that the stripper really, truly desired him. Female customers, she said, enjoyed the lap dance but understood that the stripper was working, that it was her job to pretend. But male customers believed the stripper wanted him and it was exciting and he tipped accordingly. What about when women watch male strippers instead? It’s quite difficult to objectify men. As John Berger (Ways of Seeing) says:
Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves….. The surveyor of women in herself is male: the surveyed female … thus she turns herself into an object-and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.
Might the patriarchal history of objectifying women mean that, for women, feeling desirable is an especially important part of feeling desire? Women often complain that mainstream images of men aren’t particularly erotic. Maybe it is partly because we don’t see evidence of desire for us in those images of men? Yes, male model, you look hot and you’re making serious bedroom eyes at me in this photo but I see from your crotch that you’re just posing. We know it’s all pretend. We don’t get the kick of excitement that is knowing this person is excited too, and that they’re excited about us.
See below the line for an example of these “groin gazing” photos. (Sorry about the lack of diversity – only slim white guys were used in the VICE fashion spread).
Categories: Culture, gender & feminism, media, Sociology
What strikes me is that you can’t really see all that much in these pictures. You can’t even tell for sure that they even have, uh, male organs. These could be pre-op F-to-Ms, for all we can tell.
The usual objectification pictures of women (in ads, in shows, etc.) don’t have women wearing shapeless sweaters or baggy sweat pants; they wear clothes which reveal the shape of what’s underneath, especially the breasts, butt, and crotch. Preferably a bikini, but at least a form-fitting semi-sheer blouse (one where you can see if she’s got a bra on) and pants that show the shape of her crotch and butt. Remember ladies, you gotta show the product!
To get something similar for men, they’d need to wear a speedo and a tight, stretchy T-shirt, preferrably somewhat sheer. At the very least, the old-fashioned tights and codpiece. This wouldn’t completely counteract the meme that men are always viewers and women are always viewees, but it would be a step in that direction.
FWIW, I notice that there’s a category of websites showing men in kilts. Now, in the usual man-in-kilt picture, you don’t see much, but the ones in kilt websites set up by women seem to always include a sudden breeze or an unanticipated sightline which reveals what the man has under his kilt.
Yes, I noticed that a while ago. And then took way too long to notice this.
@AMM – exactly! Bring on the tight hose :-D. Situations count too. Dude in an unmade bed with a boner – hot. Dude at the bus stop with a boner – not so much….
I agree with the, uh, “thrust” of the article, but feel the need to point out that pictures of women who are obviously aroused are not often used in advertising, at least not mass market advertising. You definitely won’t see any in Cosmo, for example, not even in the sealed sections.
I recall much discussion of Playgirl back in the day and exactly how obviously erect the models were allowed to be before the publication was indecent full stop, rather than just “in the hands of a person under the age of 18″. The UK has their “Cornwall Rule” (thanks to The Last Leg for that one), for example.
Part of the reason why men are more receptive to the “plastic breasts, bedroom eyes, dry crotch” images is training. They’re told frequently and vigorously that that is what they’re supposed to be attracted to. I’m sure that over time “what women want” will change, quite possibly towards half-naked steroid freaks with erections. Stranger things have happened.
If you get in touch with Ampersand Duck you’ll probably be able to get yourself a copy of her fine zine, ‘Groin’, focusing on similar matters.
Er, sorry. I think the zine is called ‘Crotch’.
This feels like the right time for some Flight of the Conchords: Sugar Lumps
Moz – I agree, but I think women’s arousal is more biologically hidden, even when quite genuine, and so the mismatch between apparent desire and lack of physical signs of desire are less conspicuous.