Log in

View Full Version : Thoughts On This Article - "The Myth Of The Ugly Male Body"



RA89
19th October 2014, 14:49
http://bereniceteh90.hubpages.com/hub/The-myth-of-the-Ugly-Male-Body



The myth of the "ugly" male body

The body is meant to be seen, not all covered up.

-Marilyn Monroe

You might be surprised, but the vast majority of straight men do not have any awareness of their own physical attractiveness whatsoever. A man may know what it is to be appreciated as a provider and/or confidant; he may know what it feels like to be loved and adored, and looked up to as a leader and role model, but I can assure you with good authority that very few men have actually had the sense of being longed for in a physical sense. You see, we boys have been indoctrinated by society into thinking that the female body is a work of art worthy of display, while the male body is a horrendously hideous hunk of junk, practical enough for the menial tasks of killing sabre-tooth tigers and skinning wooly mammoths, but nowhere near comparison to the female body in terms of aesthetic attractiveness. In other words, while the female body is an indication of The Creator's artistic genius, the male body is a representation of His artistic mistakes. In this essay, I attempt to debunk the myth of the male body's aesthetic inferiority, and maintain that the male body is no less beautiful and worthy of physical longing than the female body.

Unless you've been living under a rock, it should come as no surprise that contemporary Western women enjoy more fashion freedom than their male counterparts. The average woman's wardrobe contains a vast array of garments which exist in all shapes and sizes, and these range from sleeveless blouses to backless tops, from suits to trousers and ankle socks. When you compare it with the average man's highly restrictive choice of garments (no skirts, no backless tops, and Lord forbid you wear anything other than a conservative 3-piece shirt and pair of long slacks on formal occasions), the world of fashion does seem pretty bleak for the boys. Is it any surprise why many of us guys wear women's clothing? It's because we can't find anything that suits us within the rigidly defined norms of male fashion! In fact, with the exception of that one rule of decency which forbids women from exposing their bare breasts in public (a double standard no less, but soon to be abolished in our highly feminist society), I think most of us can agree that women have much more leeway as to how much skin they can expose in public. It certainly doesn't help with the running dogs of the patriarchy, the so-called guardians of male dignity, rambling on about how men should cover up to be cool. Here's a snippet of what a male blogger whose name I will keep anonymous has to say about men showing off their physiques through their clothing:

"They wear tank tops all the time (the ones they call ''wife beaters'')... or those sleeveless T shirts. These are the same guys that wear Under Armour shirt to the gym (hint... all of us look much more muscular in those shirts, but they are really corny). Make sure and wear fashionable clothes that ''happen'' to show off your nice physique. Maybe a fitted short sleeve vintage T shirt instead of a tank top. Wearing clothes that are blatantly meant to show off muscle mass make you look totally cheesy. Show off your body in the context of ''good fashion''.

However, this same blogger contradicts himself with regard to handing out fashion advice to women:

'I think women are too conservative at times. There are times when it is appropriate to wear skimpy clothing, especially if you are in great shape. You won't look good forever, so enjoy it while you can!''

So let me get this straight. This guy is basically saying, "If you're a bloke, then please cover up. Nobody wants to see your ugly male body anyway, especially not women! But if you're a woman, then please bear all! Because everybody wants to see the beautiful female body as opposed to the horrid male body which is better left to the imagination." I don't know about you, but from what I can see, the undertones of his advice simply reeks of patriarchal conditioning. So this guy is basically saying that a woman who shows off her body looks sexy, but a man who shows off his looks stupid. It's funny though, how these so-called straight male fashion gurus seem to have the world all sorted out, especially since "the world" is a phenomenon that occurs through their rigid, hetero-normative viewpoints. Perhaps they haven't considered that women also possess libidos, and that straight women also lust after the sexualized male body in the same way men lust after the sexualized female body. Don't believe me? Then go ahead; go and pay Madame Josephine's a visit on Hen's Night, and see what I mean! And check out what this lady had to say about the current trend of today:

The male body is an exquisite miracle that should be honored. I, for one, am so tired of the female body and it's glamorous position in our society. Give it a rest girls and let they guys turn it on.


...When I see the male form, I stare in awe at the incredible beauty of the shape, form and texture. It's not strength, power or any of those other typical male associated attributes that stand out, it's the sexuality, the passion, the way they are enjoying the way they look and sharing it with others, particularly me.

...I can't describe how sick I am of having to see the female body sexualized all over the place. I can't go anywhere without being exposed to the images of scantily clad women posing in provocative ways. It's everywhere, t.v., magazines, movies, games, anywhere and everywhere. It just doesn't reflect what I want to see when I go out into our over-the-top commercial society.

The fact is that:

"Males have always determined and governed the rules of modesty—both for women and for themselves. Men have always decided, in this and every other culture, how the body will be displayed, and where, and to what effect."

(Kevin Esser, Baggy Pants)

It's interesting to note that in Ancient Greece and Rome, it was not the female body that was glorified as it is today, but rather, the male body. Ancient Greco-Roman society was of the impression that the male body was essentially more artistically pleasing than the female form, in the same way that contemporary Western society is of the impression that the female body is more artistically pleasing than the male form. Of course, it is important to note that these societies were under a powerful gay influence (I don't mean to sound homophobic, but many of the big men of Ancient Greece were actually homosexual men; prior to the advent of Christianity, homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was not at all considered taboo). As Esser puts it, it was men who have always more or less been the governors of the body's modesty. In that regard, Ancient Greece and Rome could well be said to have been no less patriarchal than contemporary Western society; the only difference being that while the former was a gay male patriarchy which catered for the homosexual male gaze, the latter is a straight male patriarchy, which caters for the straight male gaze. In my humble opinion, neither of these phenomenon is healthy; both of which undoubtedly end up repressing a certain segment of the population from expressing their sexuality, and a certain segment of the population from enjoying the aesthetic value of the opposite sex.

If you were to observe the trend from the 60s, onwards to the present day, you would notice that boys and men did enjoy a brief period of liberty with their bodies during the liberal era of the 60s, onwards to the 80s. It was the era of Jimi and Elvis, an era which celebrated freedom and diversity over conformity. In fact, I even managed to get hold of a photo of a male model from the 1960s in a (manly) dress! (Fig. 4) Men proudly strutted around the beaches with their speedos and short shorts, which came in a wide assortment of colors from red to yellow. They weren't afraid of donning tank tops and tight tees, of growing long hair and toying with the androgynous.

The original Flower Child exuberance gave way, in the Seventies, to the feral excess of punk and glam, a carnival of hedonism and sexual ambivalence featuring the likes of Queen, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, David Bowie. Long hair on girls, long hair on boys. Short-shorts on girls, short-shorts on boys. The teen idols from these years—tender boytoys such as Davy Jones, David Cassidy and his brother Shaun, Leif Garrett, Tony DeFranco—were the perfect avatars of this new androgyny.

There was a unisex worship of the id, a unisex celebration of the Body Erotic that reached its heyday with disco, with Village People and Frankie Goes to Hollywood, with macho men doing the milkshake and having fun at the YMCA. Suddenly, remarkably, gay and mainstream were one and the same, no segregation, no distinction between queer and straight, an entire culture cheerfully and unwittingly homo-eroticized. The hetero aesthetic and the homo aesthetic had become indistinguishable among young males—in matters of music, hairstyles, and, yes, clothing—no thought or care given beyond looking good and feeling good.

(Esser, Baggy Pants)

Hell, it was not until recently when I discovered that straight women DID indeed desire the male body, and that most straight guys were wrong in their assumptions that women had no interest whatsoever in the male body. Until of course, that fateful day 2 years ago when my dad remarked that there was a woman who was checking me out. At the time, I still could not believe that women saw the male body in the same way men regarded the female body - it was all too incredulous for my patriarch-indoctrinated mind. But secretly, I had hoped that it was true; that I might be longed for by women in the same way I longed for them. Soon, I would meet women who were honest enough to voice their desire for the male body; women who were not ashamed of admitting that they found the male body, and mine in particular, to be attractive. (Many men are actually under the assumption that all women are asexual, in that they have absolutely no visual interest in men) And it wasn't as if I am some single-digit bodyfat underwear model-esque type either. I'm a boy with a healthy weight for my body type, with good muscle tone, but I'm not unrealistically lean either.

In that bygone era, the dark ages of conservative, homophobic tyranny had yet to befall the world. The baggy surfer shorts which have become a uniform of sorts for beach-going men of today had not yet come into existence, and all men, regardless of their sexuality and/or body type, wore speedos without shame. Our forefathers enjoyed a much greater degree of personal liberation than we do today, and would doubtless be ridiculed in this present day and age, in today's highly conservative, hetero-normative era of GQ and Esquire.

It is not only men who have bought into the notion that the male body is detestable, and should be deliberately kept hidden away from the naked eye. It seems that some women also seem to regard the male body with a certain disgust that resembles that of our hardcore conservative brothers. In the article by The Guardian UK writer Jess Cartner-Morley titled The male cleavage: put it away, boys!, the author seems to be highly critical of even a slight display of male chest.

I have tried, really I have, to look on the bright side and welcome this development as a step toward gender equality. But (a) is it not a little depressing that of everything women have contributed to civilisation, it is displaying your naked chest that men have picked up on, and (b) well, just, eew. I can't take it any more. Those photographs of Cowell in his boxfresh white drawstring trousers and mirrored sunglasses, an overgrown Ken doll dressed unconvincingly for kung fu, were bad enough, but then Cowell has long famously struggled with the concept of where one's waistband should sit, so it is only to be expected that he would misjudge how much chest to display. No, the final straw came when Jude Law – the 11th best-dressed man in Britain, according to GQ magazine – took Sienna out for dinner in Mayfair, dressed in a V-neck sweater slashed as low as a wrestler's vest. Gentlemen, please. Put it away.

How any heterosexual woman can come up with something like this is beyond me. It does not seem, in this case, that the author is simply pointing out a fashion faux pas made by men. It would seem that her vilification of male sexual expression results not from personal sentiment, but rather, through social conditioning, which manifests itself in the highly prudish manner we as a society treat the male physique. It almost seems as if the author is deliberately going out of her way to vilify the male body with choices of words, such as "ew", in order to conform to social expectations of her gender. You certainly don't hear of men telling women to "cover up"; it would certainly be unusual, for instance, of a man saying something to the extent of, "ladies, I've tried. I've tried really hard to appreciate your boobs, to be visually turned on by your bodies, but I just can't! So please, for the sake of us all, and for the sake of your own dignity, please cover up"! I imagine that a man who said something to that extent would either A) Have his sexuality thrown into question B) Be regarded as a fundamentalist religious nut whose delicate sense of propriety is offended by the slightest display of female flesh. C) Be labelled a sexist misogynist pig who has no right to tell women what to wear. But it would seem that it is perfectly acceptable, heck, even admirable, for women to say that men should cover up, which reflects the misogynistic attitude that implies women have absolutely no interest in the male body, that they have sex not because they enjoy it, but simply to please their husbands/boyfriends. (Which is an extremely male chauvinistic as well as misandrist way to look at it, because you're implying the notion of woman as a prostitute who rewards the man in her life with her body, and the man as a pimp who provides for his wife/girlfriend in exchange for sensual and visual pleasure)

Boys in contemporary Western society have been taught that women are a type of being which exists on a higher plane of existence than themselves; we're taught that women are more gentle, less aggressive, more hygienic, less animalistic, etc (Homer and Marge Simpson for instance; while Homer and his son Bart are bumbling incompetent slobs, his wife and daughter are the complete opposite), and that the female body is a work of art, while the male body is somthing disgusting best kept hidden away. You see it on TV all the time; the stereotype of the male body as grotesque is certainly nothing new. In the last scene of The Hot Chick (2002), Rob Schneider's body is portrayed as a hairy, sweaty, bumbling lump of flesh; the very caricature of humanity. On the other hand, his female counterpart, dressed in a tux, is seen as being possessed of a certain dignity which is the very anti-thesis of Schneider's cross-dressing portrayal. The message is clear: While women can successfully pull off men's clothes without making fools of themselves, the male body is so ugly that if men were to try donning clothes of the opposite sex, they would simply fail, and be humiliated in the process.

And then there is the school of thought which maintains that women are interested in the male body, but they are only interested in ONE particular type of male body (e.g. Calvin Klein models with <10% body fat). The obvious lack of "plus-sized" male models gives men the impression that in order for women to desire their bodies, they have no choice but to strive for that "ripped" ideal, despite the fact that it may not be in their genetic cards. You certainly do not hear of men being told to "love their bodies". The moment a man brings up his body issues, he more often than not gets rebuked. He is often told (by other men no less) to "stop making excuses", that everyone can get a six pack if they try hard enough. (That may be true, but the fact is that six pack abs may not be healthy in the long run for certain individuals, it would be like naturally curvaceous Marilyn Monroe trying to attain and maintain Gwyneth Paltrow's naturally slender frame; not a healthy pursuit at all). Society has finally began to admit that female beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, and this is reflected by the success of the so-called "plus-sized" female models, e.g. Crystal Renn and Lizzie Miller. However, society still lack a solid "plus-sized" male modelling scene, which is an issue that I feel needs to be addressed, for the sake of men who do not meet the impossible-for-some ideal espoused by Abercombie/Calvin Klein/etc. I mean to say that while women of all shapes and sizes are beginning to be represented in the media, society still has a very skewed perception on what the ideal male body should look like. To you boys out there who have been trying for six pack abs, you need to realize that you may be hotter than you think you are; just as straight men can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of different female body types (don't believe that men are only attracted to thin women; that is absolute bullsh*t), women are not only attracted to male bodies with six pack abs and V-cut torsos. Male beauty also comes in different shapes and sizes, and to say that a Calvin Klein model has a better body than say, me, for instance, would simply not be a valid comparison. That would be like saying Kate Moss has a better body than Mae West, when in fact neither is essentially "better" than the other. They are simply different, that is all.

Men's fashion only comes in one type these days: Fitted/Baggy and ALWAYS painfully modest. The men's department is devoid of backless tops, short fitting shorts, tube tops, etc. It almost seems as if there is no market for figure-hugging/daring cuts in the straight men's wardrobe. Women often remark how boring men's fashion is, and I have to agree. And don't tell me it's because women aren't interested in viewing the male body, and men aren't interested in showing their bodies. They ARE interested, but for some reason, it seems that most women are'nt too keen on voicing their desire for the male body, and men don't seem to keen on voicing their desire for personal liberty. We like to condemn the fundamental Muslims for their repression of female sexual expression, but have we considered that we are indeed a case of pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps some day we may even be covering men's heads with the contemporary male version of the Hijab, lest any sight of male flesh were to upset the delicate sensitivities of the patriarchal male gaze.

Conclusion

My point in writing this hub was not, as many people seem to think, in order to place men in a subordinate position to women, nor to place women in an authoritative position over the male body. I simply want to make people aware that the male body is in no way any less beautiful and worthy of display than the female body, and that men would do well to realize that their bodies have a wonderful kind of beauty that is not only appreciated by gay men, but also by straight women. It has perhaps been one of the most reassuring things for me to know that straight women desire the male body in the same way straight men desire the female body, and that I didn't need to look like a single-digit bodyfat Calvin Klein man in order to be construed as having an attractive body. And if you really love your husband/boyfriend, you will take my advice and tell him how beautiful he is in your eyes. You will tell him how much you long for his body, how much you long for its touch, its smell, its taste, its texture. You will tell him that his body is a work of art, no less desirable in any way than yours.

Zanthorus
19th October 2014, 15:47
There's a point in this, somewhere. But it's obscured by a lot of silly details:


prior to the advent of Christianity, homosexuality in Greco-Roman society was not at all considered taboo).Homosexuality is a modern concept dating from the end of the 19th century. The kind of same sex relationships that were praised in Ancient Greece were relationships between an adult male erastes who was always the penetrating partner, and an adolescent eromenos who was always the receptive partner. Adult men taking the receptive role in sex was definitely taboo. Anything like contemporary gay male culture was strictly off the cards in ancient Greece.

Male nudes also aren't necessarily evidence of widespread homoeroticism. Christian artists have sculpted male nudes c.f. Michelangelo's David.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
19th October 2014, 15:52
A girlfriend of mine once told me I looked like a model when I was putting some nice jeans on and was topless. I think that was one of the first times I realised that I myself could be 'beautiful' in the sense of 'desire'. I think it is, obviously, possible to admire both women and men in terms of the beauty of their aesthetics.

I'm attracted to women, but I do find certain features on men attractive in a non-erotic way - nice hairstyles; certain shapes of body etc. I think part of reducing the heteronormative nature of society can come from being open in showing appreciation for people's physicality in a non-erotic way, as well as an erotic way. For example, I don't fancy men but I admire some physical characteristics in men. Perhaps I am just admiring the work that has gone into a good body, or the contours of a good hairstyle?

It would certainly be an improvement to be able to regard the human body, of all genders, as unique, beautiful and aesthetic, rather than a thing to be judged as hot or not, and whose only utility is to be used as a thing, disconnected from the soul and the mind.

Rosa Partizan
19th October 2014, 17:16
well, let me quote some of the article and where I see the flaws.


In fact, with the exception of that one rule of decency which forbids women from exposing their bare breasts in public (a double standard no less, but soon to be abolished in our highly feminist society)

this won't be happening anytime soon. We live in a highly feminist society? Right. You don't want me to start listing all the things in media, relationships, work, family etc where this "highly feminist society" still hasn't come out on top. As a woman, walking around topless without being looked at and judged in a sexualized manner is still impossible. If your breasts look good, you're a slut, if they don't, you're an ugly *****. And if you "use" them in a nonsexual way like breastfeeding, you will be told to "cover up for God's sake" and people will be confused and disgusted.


So let me get this straight. This guy is basically saying, "If you're a bloke, then please cover up. Nobody wants to see your ugly male body anyway, especially not women! But if you're a woman, then please bear all! Because everybody wants to see the beautiful female body as opposed to the horrid male body which is better left to the imagination."

So not true. If you're not young and hot as a woman, nobody will want to see you walking around barely clothed. But yeah, if you're young and hot, guys will tell you to show it off, so that they can sexualize and objectify you. You will be considered come piece of fuck meat, while a good looking, topless guy will still be "relationship material". No woman would think "Wow, I'd grab a piece of that and afterwards this slut could gtfo".


I think most of us can agree that women have much more leeway as to how much skin they can expose in public. It certainly doesn't help with the running dogs of the patriarchy, the so-called guardians of male dignity, rambling on about how men should cover up to be cool. Here's a snippet of what a male blogger whose name I will keep anonymous has to say about men showing off their physiques through their clothing:
[....]
In the article by The Guardian UK writer Jess Cartner-Morley titled The male cleavage: put it away, boys!, the author seems to be highly critical of even a slight display of male chest.

I summarized these, because it's the same point: You know why no one wants to see guys with cleavage, tube tops etc? Because dressing and looking like a woman (as a male) is ridiculous. You don't face the same ridicule when you do it vice versa because being a man is not shameful, or weak, or degrading. Let's leave the weakness and all the obession with fashion to the women so that we can judge their looks.


You certainly don't hear of men telling women to "cover up"; it would certainly be unusual, for instance, of a man saying something to the extent of, "ladies, I've tried. I've tried really hard to appreciate your boobs, to be visually turned on by your bodies, but I just can't! So please, for the sake of us all, and for the sake of your own dignity, please cover up"!

you don't hear that from men when these are situations when they just want to objectify you. But you hear this when it's about a woman they "respect", like, their girlfriend they want to present to their parents, the daughter that goes out for the first time etc. There is a very strong connection between "little clothing = self-esteem issues, attention whoring, no self-respect" etc.


The message is clear: While women can successfully pull off men's clothes without making fools of themselves, the male body is so ugly that if men were to try donning clothes of the opposite sex, they would simply fail, and be humiliated in the process.

I already hinted at that. It's not about ugliness, it's about perceived feminity that is not accepted with men. You won't have any problems walking around in shorts and tank top as a guy. In the worst case, when you're not in shape, people will chuckle, in the best case, when you look good, you will be admired by both men and women. If you do this as a woman, you're a slut without self-respect, and we all know that there's nothing worse for a woman to be a slut. No one will make a connection to sexual availibility when you're a guy.


Society has finally began to admit that female beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, and this is reflected by the success of the so-called "plus-sized" female models, e.g. Crystal Renn and Lizzie Miller.

Actually, no. This is a very marginal phenomenon. Female plus size starts at size 10 or so, which is extremely ridiculous. If you see such women in mail order catalogues, they're designated as plus size, which suggests "this is more than you should weigh". As a guy, you don't need "plus size" or it starts waaay later. You need way more weight to be plus size as a guy. But it doesn't matter anyway, because media shows us (like in many sitcoms) that if you're goofy, witty and funny, you get the super hot chick anyway (KoQ anyone?). Once the super hot chick gains some pounds, however, it's a scandal (that was what happened with Leah Remini). So just lay back and eat your pizza, because some model type will fall for your charme anyway.

Hit The North
19th October 2014, 18:04
Partly, I think it is the result of physical human beauty being constituted through the male gaze which is the dominant lens through which cultural representations of gender are articulated.

Decolonize The Left
19th October 2014, 18:20
My point in writing this hub was not, as many people seem to think, in order to place men in a subordinate position to women, nor to place women in an authoritative position over the male body. I simply want to make people aware that the male body is in no way any less beautiful and worthy of display than the female body, and that men would do well to realize that their bodies have a wonderful kind of beauty that is not only appreciated by gay men, but also by straight women. It has perhaps been one of the most reassuring things for me to know that straight women desire the male body in the same way straight men desire the female body, and that I didn't need to look like a single-digit bodyfat Calvin Klein man in order to be construed as having an attractive body. And if you really love your husband/boyfriend, you will take my advice and tell him how beautiful he is in your eyes. You will tell him how much you long for his body, how much you long for its touch, its smell, its taste, its texture. You will tell him that his body is a work of art, no less desirable in any way than yours.

I just want to add that I think this is totally backwards.

I believe that, quite the opposite of the final claim here, that men should be more expressive in such a caring and loving manner about their partner's bodies. Rather than viewing them under the lens of patriarchy and objectification, a nuanced and human approach to the female human body would probably be much welcomed.

Finally, men don't really need a pat on the back that their bodies are just beautiful as they are. The male body is the norm - it is accepted to be 'fat' as this might imply that one has enough money to eat as one wishes and work little. Furthermore it is accepted to be 'less than ideal' because the attractiveness of the male is tied directly into patriarchy and the male as dominant member of society. Hence males are considered and conditioned to be considered attractive for a variety of personal traits rather than just looks.

I certainly agree that patriarchy affects men negatively. That said, articles like this take the focus off patriarchy and the oppression/subordination of women and turn the focus (unsurprisingly) back onto the male.

Loony Le Fist
19th October 2014, 18:23
...
this won't be happening anytime soon. We live in a highly feminist society? Right. You don't want me to start listing all the things in media, relationships, work, family etc where this "highly feminist society" still hasn't come out on top...


Totally agree. We have made progress, but we have a long way to go.



So not true. If you're not young and hot as a woman, nobody will want to see you walking around barely clothed. But yeah, if you're young and hot, guys will tell you to show it off, so that they can sexualize and objectify you. You will be considered come piece of fuck meat, while a good looking, topless guy will still be "relationship material".


Yes. The patriarchy does a splendid job indoctrinating everyone that practically the only thing of value a woman has is her physical appearance. We have a long way to go before we start seeing eachother as fellow humans. It seems to be more a matter of dignity and respect to not objectify others. I don't see this as having to do with gender.



No woman would think "Wow, I'd grab a piece of that and afterwards this slut could gtfo".


I'd just like that add, that it's extremely ironic how that is itself a product of the patriarchy. You are right in implying that women aren't allowed to objectify men the way men objectify women. I have met only a small number of women in my whole lifetime that would do the reverse. Perhaps they got off on that taboo.



I summarized these, because it's the same point: You know why no one wants to see guys with cleavage, tube tops etc? Because dressing and looking like a woman (as a male) is ridiculous. You don't face the same ridicule when you do it vice versa because being a man is not shameful, or weak, or degrading. Let's leave the weakness and all the obession with fashion to the women so that we can judge their looks.


That's a very interesting point you bring up. It does seem more socially accetable for a woman to dress in clothing that is stereotypically male than vice-versa. It's also fascinating how you bring up fashion as being a product of the patriarchy. Do you think it is possible to care about one's appearance, want to dress sexy, and simeoultanouesly be liberated from the patriarchy? I think you answer in the next block. However, I'd be curious to read more of your ideas.



you don't hear that from men when these are situations when they just want to objectify you. But you hear this when it's about a woman they "respect", like, their girlfriend they want to present to their parents, the daughter that goes out for the first time etc. There is a very strong connection between "little clothing = self-esteem issues, attention whoring, no self-respect" etc.


I never really thought about the differences between the way men (in general) treat women that they respect. Admittedly, I have done no scientific studies on the matter, but I have never experienced any correlation between someone wearing sexy clothing and self-esteem issues, attention whoring, or problems with self-respect. Even if there does happen to be a positive one, I would still say the blame lies with the patriarchy for setting up the game. After all, it would be easy to end up with self-esteem issues, no self-respect, and have attention seeking behaviour when one's needs go mostly ignored.



I already hinted at that. It's not about ugliness, it's about perceived feminity that is not accepted with men. You won't have any problems walking around in shorts and tank top as a guy. In the worst case, when you're not in shape, people will chuckle, in the best case, when you look good, you will be admired by both men and women. If you do this as a woman, you're a slut without self-respect, and we all know that there's nothing worse for a woman to be a slut. No one will make a connection to sexual availibility when you're a guy.


Very true about sexual availability and clothing choice. Of course, I'm sure that's deeply rooted in the objectification of women. Women's clothes is designed to turn them into objects. The little black dress often reffered to in popular culture and fashion generally has no pockets. They are designed to show off a woman's form, not to be functional. Even tuxedos have pockets.




Actually, no. This is a very marginal phenomenon. Female plus size starts at size 10 or so, which is extremely ridiculous. If you see such women in mail order catalogues, they're designated as plus size, which suggests "this is more than you should weigh". As a guy, you don't need "plus size" or it starts waaay later. You need way more weight to be plus size as a guy. But it doesn't matter anyway, because media shows us (like in many sitcoms) that if you're goofy, witty and funny, you get the super hot chick anyway (KoQ anyone?). Once the super hot chick gains some pounds, however, it's a scandal (that was what happened with Leah Remini). So just lay back and eat your pizza, because some model type will fall for your charme anyway.

It's terrible calling these women plus size. What's with the damned size numbers in the US too? Health and beauty is a wonderful thing. This cult of vanity and self-obsession is destructive. This is why shows like Big Bang Theory make me barf.

Rosa Partizan
19th October 2014, 18:39
Yes. The patriarchy does a splendid job indoctrinating everyone that practically the only thing of value a woman has is her physical appearance. We have a long way to go before we start seeing eachother as fellow humans. It seems to be more a matter of dignity and respect to not objectify others. I don't see this as having to do with gender.

well, you say, it has nothing to do with gender, but at the same time you admit that women get way more objectified? Am I missing something? Please explain.



I'd just like that add, that it's extremely ironic how that is itself a product of the patriarchy. You are right in implying that women aren't allowed to objectify men the way men objectify women. I have met only a small number of women in my whole lifetime that would do the reverse. Perhaps they got off on that taboo.

of course, you could "objectify" a guy in the sense that you're chatting with your girlfriends and go like "wow, I'd make him f**k me blahblah", ignoring his personality or whatever, but there's not the societal structure for that to make this an accepted norm, because society would call you slutty, desperate, whatever. Even an objectified male will still appear strong, tough etc and in the end HE fucks YOU, know what I mean? So even if you get him, you're the one that's degraded anyway.




That's a very interesting point you bring up. It does seem more socially accetable for a woman to dress in clothing that is stereotypically male than vice-versa. It's also fascinating how you bring up fashion as being a product of the patriarchy. Do you think it is possible to care about one's appearance, want to dress sexy, and simeoultanouesly be liberated from the patriarchy? I think you answer in the next block. However, I'd be curious to read more of your ideas.

you can't be free from patriarchy in patriarchy. The best thing is that you gain awareness about yourself and your environment in the sense that "do I dress this way because I'm TOTALLY desperate for attention?" If the answer is yes, there is nothing to be ashamed, because, as you already noticed, patriarchy makes women think that their worth is defined by male attention. In this case, it's time to work it out with yourself. Find your own definition of yourself, your own self-esteem. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with trying to look good and going out, enjoying male attention etc, I do that myself, but the thing is: I don't NEED it necessarily. I could go out in a sweatshirt and little to no make up and that's the point: to feel that you have the choice and that your worth is not defined by how many guys hit on you.



Very true about sexual availability and clothing choice. Of course, I'm sure that's deeply rooted in the objectification of women. Women's clothes is designed to turn them into objects. The little black dress often reffered to in popular culture and fashion generally has no pockets. They are designed to show off a woman's form, not to be functional. Even tuxedos have pockets.


the same goes with high heels. They're so not practical and even unhealthy as fuck and still they're considered the most feminine clothing, especially when going out. Or think about tight skirts. This is all stuff that males who don't want to be ridiculed would never wear.

Loony Le Fist
19th October 2014, 18:55
well, you say, it has nothing to do with gender, but at the same time you admit that women get way more objectified? Am I missing something? Please explain.


I'm saying that both men and women are socially conditioned to objectify women. There is barely any objectification of men.



of course, you could "objectify" a guy in...

This is all stuff that males who don't want to be ridiculed would never wear.

Total agreement.

Tim Cornelis
19th October 2014, 19:14
The male body is the norm - it is accepted to be 'fat' as this might imply that one has enough money to eat as one wishes and work little.

Wha'? Maybe you have a different culture where you live, but over hya it's not really accepted to be fat. It's associated, as I understand elsewhere as well, with laziness.

Rosa Partizan
19th October 2014, 19:15
Wha'? Maybe you have a different culture where you live, but over hya it's not really accepted to be fat. It's associated, as I understand elsewhere as well, with laziness.

that's true, but guys can compensate it with humor/character and/or wealth/power, women can't.

Lily Briscoe
19th October 2014, 20:07
Lol, this is definitely one of the most ridiculous, whining articles I've read in recent memory. I see fat middle aged men with massive tits shamelessly walking around shirtless in public all the time in the summer, I really think this guy is on one.

Decolonize The Left
19th October 2014, 20:19
Wha'? Maybe you have a different culture where you live, but over hya it's not really accepted to be fat. It's associated, as I understand elsewhere as well, with laziness.

I can see how that would seem the case. I encourage you, if you're really interested in this topic, to look at prominent male politicians, corporate higher-ups, generally people with lots of money. They're body type, so long as they're male, comes second at least to their sense of 'power' or 'influence.' Furthermore, as Rosa notes, while they may not be as accepted as a skinnier person, all males are encouraged from birth to rely on their own personhood rather than their looks for achievement. This means that women are encouraged from birth to look for a male's sense of humor, personality, material situation, etc... over his looks. As we know, patriarchy establishes the opposite situation for women.

Quail
20th October 2014, 10:12
This article is a load of bollocks. I think it's more to do with the way that women are seen as objects to be desired and look pretty rather than human beings to be taken seriously, and men are valued for their other traits, than society viewing male bodies as "ugly".

Besides, if the UK is anything to go by clearly male bodies aren't seen as ugly enough to cover up because as soon as we get the smallest amount of sunshine there are topless guys everywhere.

Lily Briscoe
20th October 2014, 10:30
For real, though, I think the article makes some valid points, for instance:
We like to condemn the fundamental Muslims for their repression of female sexual expression, but have we considered that we are indeed a case of pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps some day we may even be covering men's heads with the contemporary male version of the Hijab, lest any sight of male flesh were to upset the delicate sensitivities of the patriarchal male gaze.
This warrants a serious discussion.