Author: has written 5284 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

129 Responses

  1. SarahMC
    SarahMC July 24, 2008 at 1:08 pm |

    Heheheh

    I have never heard of Romain Duris before, but now I will not be able to get him out of my mind.

  2. Cara
    Cara July 24, 2008 at 1:11 pm |

    SAYEED!!!! *drools*

    Is that Jake Gyllenhal (sp?) at the end? The first random eye candy guy is pretty hot, too.

  3. PhysioProf
    PhysioProf July 24, 2008 at 1:11 pm |

    Hey, no wai! You’re like totally objectifying dudes, dammit!

  4. Renee
    Renee July 24, 2008 at 1:13 pm |

    Sayeed just totally does it for me…he is the reason I watch lost Thanks for the mid day eye candy!! Whoo Hooo

  5. Doug
    Doug July 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm |

    I think you’ve inadvertently found yourself a new slogan: “I came for the titties, I’m stayin’ for the antipatriarchical social/political commentary!”

  6. SarahMC
    SarahMC July 24, 2008 at 1:16 pm |

    Hold up. I got distracted by the menz for a bit but then I went and clicked on those links you provided.

    What the…!?!?

  7. Hugo
    Hugo July 24, 2008 at 1:26 pm |

    The only thing I can say at this point is that on behalf of bespectacled and near-sighted men everywhere, I am glad to see that not one, but two lads with eyeglasses on made the vice-den line-up.

    You get props for inclusiveness, Filipovic.

  8. elle
    elle July 24, 2008 at 1:31 pm |

    My critical analysis of this post:

    OMG! Idris Elba!

  9. Cara
    Cara July 24, 2008 at 1:34 pm |

    I thought so. I’ve always had a bit of a thing for Jake, and I’m not sure why. I don’t normally go for the pretty dudes. But he does have the tall dark and handsome bit.

    As for Lost, I don’t watch for the hot men, but that’s really just because I got lucky in that I also really love the show. But Sayeed, Sawyer, Jack and Desmond (when he has a beard)? There’s some desert island fantasies for ya.

    Also Jill, if you could please try to be less what I consider to be pretty and more what I consider to be ugly for my own personal satisfaction, it would be greatly appreciated. Anything other than hiding the face that I consider to be pretty is not only rude but also very anti-feminist. The good news is that I hear paper bags don’t cost much if you want to join the good side and stop offending my feminist sensibilities with the way that you happen to look.

  10. Holly
    Holly July 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm |

    wtfjill, where are these titties you promise!? My CSS reader automatically paged me, as usual, when the word “titties” appeared in a post on Feministe, as it does eight or nine times a week, but all I see here is pecs, abs and hot manly ass!! How am I supposed to get down and worship our new crypto-islamic black-nationalist overlords without a balanced diet of pecs AND tits, huh?

  11. exholt
    exholt July 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm |

    What?!!! No nekkid pictures of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho, Pot, the two Kims, et al after implicit promises of such through posting a graphic referencing communist symbolism??!!! This constitutes false advertising/fraud!!! ;)

  12. Chel
    Chel July 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm |

    Wow, that was a little too much heterosexuality for me. Jake is so pretty though.

  13. Hot Tramp
    Hot Tramp July 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm |

    Not to spoil the hot men with pedantry, but it’s “Sayid,” not “Sayeed.”

  14. Caroline
    Caroline July 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |

    Yeah, have to confess FemAnon provoked titties from me. And she was NOT impressed. Said I wasn’t a real feminist. I was gutted.
    Hey, is that the guy from Ugly Betty? And thank you for introducing me to Romain Duris! :)

  15. Red Stapler
    Red Stapler July 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm |

    Mmm…Christopher Gorham….

    (I have lots and lots of love for Naveen Andrews and Jake Gyllenhall as well, but they’re getting all the love in this thread!)

  16. Daomadan
    Daomadan July 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm |

    Sayid! <3 OH nummy Naveen Andrews. You made my day, Jill, from one Fake Pretty Feminist ™ to another.

  17. Aishwarya
    Aishwarya July 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm |

    Romain Duris. Why had I never seen this man before?

    [Also a fan of glasses, by the way. On people of any gender.]

  18. Anderson Cooper
    Anderson Cooper July 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm |

    Jill: Please don’t ever call me again.

  19. RenegadeEvolution
    RenegadeEvolution July 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm |

    no worries jill, I mean, you’re in good company…you evil antifeminist you!

  20. meggygurl
    meggygurl July 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |

    Wow! That is way to much boy for me!

    Though, Jake *is* pretty. I prefer his sister though. :D Mmmm… Maggie. My girlfriend might leave me for her one day. :D

  21. Rachel
    Rachel July 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm |

    And the actor who plays Sayid is Naveen Andrews. Man can dance…

  22. Roxie
    Roxie July 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |

    Oh Jill, I think you’ve broken Anderson’s heart!

    Sayid is so damn sexy.

    Also, I’m going to add Joe Anderson, Jim Sturgess, Ben Barnes, Robert Pattinson, and of course Orlando Bloom.

    I’ve got a thing for Brits.

  23. ilyka
    ilyka July 24, 2008 at 4:51 pm |

    I AM SO HAPPY I WORK FROM HOME TODAY. Thanks, Jill!

    As for that testament . . . you know, when you seriously in-all-earnestness type that you are not afraid to hate some woman in your so-called “feminist testament,” that’s about the point my eyeballs roll clean out of my head at your dumbness. What bravery! Why, I don’t know anyone like that among political conservatives at all!

    And just to preemptively Godwin the whole ugly thing, you know who else wasn’t afraid to hate?–HITLER!!1!

  24. J
    J July 24, 2008 at 5:08 pm |

    That post is all kinds of ridiculous, BUT man (uh-oh!) do I love a good rant! This line in particular:

    “They’ll be too busy buffing their nails and deodorizing their vaginas, ha!”

    is kind of amazing. She could have left out the many, many paragraphs about how you’re all just frivolous whores, and just summed it up with this one line. Drop the nail files and douches, ladies, and take up arms! The revolution will not be televised!

  25. PhysioProf
    PhysioProf July 24, 2008 at 5:50 pm |

    Hey, my abs are kinda ripped, too!

  26. Anderson Cooper 360
    Anderson Cooper 360 July 24, 2008 at 6:03 pm |

    OK Jill, we’re back where we started.

  27. Margalis
    Margalis July 24, 2008 at 6:10 pm |

    From the Fat Princess post:
    We’re complaining about mocking, objectified portrayals of fat people and over-representation of certain other body types as sexpots, heros, and sexpot heroes.

    Well, you were complaining a day or two ago anyway – before the “certain body types” were hot muscular dudes rather than thin busty chicks.

  28. bibliothecaire
    bibliothecaire July 24, 2008 at 6:13 pm |

    I have a complaint to make. There is a sad lack of Clive Owen in this post.

  29. Holly
    Holly July 24, 2008 at 6:25 pm |

    Well, you were complaining a day or two ago anyway – before the “certain body types” were hot muscular dudes rather than thin busty chicks.

    I wrote that quote you quoted, and I’m not particularly interested — at least not exclusively — in either of those body types, probably because I’m a huge queer.

    Plus, having experienced both kinds of pressure and impossible standards first-hand, here’s my expert opinion: the over-representation of muscular dudes affects the average guy in far less severe or ubiquitously pressuring ways than the over-representation of thin busty chicks affects the average woman. They may both be problems, but they’re not even on the same scale or level of severity as far as I can tell. And that’s from the horse’s mouth, having dealt with both.

  30. Natalia
    Natalia July 24, 2008 at 6:27 pm |

    FA is like a piece of dog poop that sticks to your shoe. She ranted and raved on my blog until I banned her. Then she ranted and raved elsewhere, and got banned as well. If her rants and raves weren’t so damn entertaining at times, it wouldn’t really matter.

    There’s been some speculation as to whether or not she’s a sockpuppet or maybe some guy trying to discredit feminism. I don’t know. Maybe she’s both. Or maybe she’s just another sewer goblin who has suddenly come to the surface and decided to stick around and fling some crap and see if it sticks. If she’s not a sockpuppet, she’s probably one of those sad people who think that feminism is really only about getting back at people she doesn’t like by using high-falutin’ rhetoric. Wouldn’t be the first time or the last time.

    As per hot guys, I’m always up for Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortensen, Naveen Andrews (yes!), James McAvoy, Gerard Butler, Mark Dacascos, Javier Bardem… and Anton Chekhov. YES, Anton Chekhov. He was a very beautiful man.

  31. Manju
    Manju July 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm |

    I’m surprised Quadaffi doesn’t get more attention, though he’s aged like a rock star (bad). Stalin had great hair. JFK, overrated. Obama, great jaw-line, but not in Quadaffi’s league.

  32. Cola Johnson
    Cola Johnson July 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm |

    I agree. Clive owen. Daniel Craig, too. They don’t have to be shirtless… >>.

  33. Manju
    Manju July 24, 2008 at 6:40 pm |

    Interestingly, Malcolm X was better looking than Denzel Washington, the man who played him. Only time I’ve ever seen that happen.

  34. Manju
    Manju July 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm |

    Oprah has won.

  35. Cedar
    Cedar July 24, 2008 at 6:54 pm |

    ZOMG JILL WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO RUIN TEH FEMINISMZ?!?!

    lol, boobs.

  36. ilyka
    ilyka July 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm |

    James McAvoy

    O bless you, Natalia. YES PLS.

    Oprah has won.

    loldongs

  37. Margalis
    Margalis July 24, 2008 at 7:14 pm |

    the over-representation of muscular dudes affects the average guy in far less severe or ubiquitously pressuring ways than the over-representation of thin busty chicks.

    When you were ragging on Fat Princess you dismissed a litany of defenses – that the game is satire, that it’s “just a game”, that you are humorless, that there are more important things to worry about. And now that last one is your defense?

    Why should the feminist lens be turned off in this thread, and why are the excuses that weren’t good enough before good enough when you employ them? (Other than “it’s ok when I do it”) Rather than lodge any complaint about this thread you’re happily joining in and defending it, even though it is a celebration of traditional, heteronormative and dare I say fat-negative conceptions of attractiveness.

    In the Fat Princess threads you linked to there were plenty of young dudez stating their preference for big or “thick” women. Here the stated preference ranges from thin muscular dudes to thin hipster dudes. It seems that the commenters here have bought into societal norms more than the gaming dorks you’ve been bashing.

    That it’s fine to buy into media-packaged traditional views of attractiveness for men but not for women is a tough sell. The message here is essentially attractive = thin, with nary a voice of complaint.

  38. bibliothecaire
    bibliothecaire July 24, 2008 at 7:24 pm |

    Funny you should mention that. I spent about 20 minutes googling “shirtless Clive Owen” but came up empty-handed, and eventually decided that I should learn about Corporations instead.

    Hey, there are far worse ways to spend your time than Googling “shirtless Clive Owen”!

  39. timothynakayama
    timothynakayama July 24, 2008 at 7:27 pm |

    I am not that familiar with US celebrities, but I definitely know Jake. He’s pretty, with dark smokey eyes. And I like that he’s sexy without being overly muscled either. A lot of guys I know have his body: leaned, toned and healthy, so it’s a body type that is not unreachable for those who don’t wish to become gym junkies.

    Regarding the Clive Owen shirtless thing….has Clive Owen EVER appeared in a movie shirtless? I’ve seen a few films with him in it, but don’t ever remembering seeing him shirtless.

    I enjoyed these pictures very much! Any chance of more pictures of half naked men in the future??? Please???

    Plus, having experienced both kinds of pressure and impossible standards first-hand, here’s my expert opinion: the over-representation of muscular dudes affects the average guy in far less severe or ubiquitously pressuring ways than the over-representation of thin busty chicks affects the average woman. They may both be problems, but they’re not even on the same scale or level of severity as far as I can tell. And that’s from the horse’s mouth, having dealt with both.

    I think the reason behind this is there is WAY more representation of “thin busty chicks” in any media form than of “muscular dudes”. I mean, when so called Men’s Magazines (all those banal lad mags) have women on their covers, AND Women’s magazines ALSO have women on their cover, that does tell you a bit about which sex gets seen more in the media, which consequently leads to more pressure to fit the ideal. But men are certainly catching up in terms of pressure to fit the image of the ideal body and look: men’s skincare and cosmetics have boomed a LOT, and isn’t even close to reaching saturation point yet (except for the UK, where men don’t seem to be spending any money at all). Give it another 15-20 years…then men will probably reach near the levels of pressure that women currently have. It all starts with Clive Owen being the spokesman for night moisturizing cream…and who knows, there might be ads for men’s makeup one day……men wearing makeup is already a growing industry in Japan, and other parts of Asia, so I’m pretty sure it will spread in the West too.

  40. Lauren
    Lauren July 24, 2008 at 7:50 pm |

    Margalis, I’m composing my bear post right now.

  41. AUSA and body image « Ideologically Impure

    […] from that to something rather more annoying: the current mongoosefight** between various feminists/”feminists”/avowed-non-feminists over that most high-school of topics, personal fucking […]

  42. In Sexxxayfunfeminist Land, Where the Shadows Lie « Natalia Antonova

    […] Jill has given us another form of beauty – this one a bit more frou-frou but no less […]

  43. Margalis
    Margalis July 24, 2008 at 8:27 pm |

    Margalis, I’m composing my bear post right now.

    Ha. The guy from Top Chef springs to mind.

    I think the reason behind this is there is WAY more representation of “thin busty chicks” in any media form than of “muscular dudes”.

    Any form? Including video games and comic books? Without doing a comprehensive survey that sounds wrong. Most video game characters are male, and most of them are “muscular dudes.”


    But men are certainly catching up in terms of pressure to fit the image of the ideal body and look…

    Although it is equality if men are also forced to spend hundreds of dollars on Axe body spray and moisturizer it seems better if instead women have to spend less. Every dude in the pictures above is slathered with makeup I imagine.

  44. figleaf
    figleaf July 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm |

    Dang, I’ll never be that kind of buff! Nice choices.

    I’m with Hugo, though, that it’s nice you had men in glasses. And with Cooper thrown in the mix you’ve even got your men-aging-gracefully contingent! So that’s pretty cool.

    Also, not to go too far off topic, Jill, but I was surprised when you said “I never got the whole ‘men don’t make passes’ thing.” Because I always figured the quip was a plaintive plea on behalf of the glasses-less. I mean, with just a teensy little type it’s “Men, don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses.”

    Finally, sounds like I’ve taken FA waaayyy too seriously in the past. Good to know.

    figleaf

  45. exholt
    exholt July 24, 2008 at 8:45 pm |

    ….men wearing makeup is already a growing industry in Japan, and other parts of Asia, so I’m pretty sure it will spread in the West too.

    Looks like a Hong Kong born buddy’s teasing comment about my being a perfect boyfriend to a Japanese woman because of my thin physique and what he considered my “feminine looks” more than a decade ago was quite prophetic.* And yes….I do hear grumblings from the Japanese and Korean classmates about how Japanese and Korean adolescent and young adult males are becoming too “sissified” by the recent “cult of cute” fashion trend which in their view, puts the Western metrosexual phenomenon to shame.

    * Comment partially based on his stereotype of Japanese regarding themselves as “White” and thus, better than other Asians….which was meant to be more insulting considering the privileged colonialist position the Japan held from the late 19th century till 1945.

  46. Theora
    Theora July 24, 2008 at 8:57 pm |

    Could you please fix it so that the actors names are posted instead of their characters? For instance, Romain Duris is an actor’s name but Stringer Bell ought to be Idris Elba.

    As to Duris, I recommend “Dans Paris,” so that you can also have Louis Garrell in the same film.

  47. Miss Sarajevo
    Miss Sarajevo July 24, 2008 at 9:09 pm |

    Romain Duris………….err…uh…oooh…rrr

    ::brain malfunctioning from hotness overload::

  48. Ashley
    Ashley July 24, 2008 at 9:11 pm |

    First, Jill, I have to say I am totally offended that you invited me to guest blog. How could you insult me so?

    If only I had known you were pretty, I never would have been such a fool and accepted.

    and Margalis,

    I’ve yet to hear you say you liked any post here, but maybe that’s my oversight.

    I agree that it is shitty to feel like you’re being evaluated by a standard you can never meet. I know some people feel differently, but the feeling of my body being evaluated at all makes me feel quite self-conscious, even if the evaluation is “positive” (as in cases of street harassment). On that point, I actually empathize with you.

    I think what Holly was trying to say was that given the very different power positions and experiences of men and women in our culture, objectification of men and objectification of women, even when presented in exactly the same way, have very different cultural meanings and impacts.

    Whether the goal of feminism should be to democratize visual objectification of people or to get rid of it all together is a question for someone who loves theory. I am not that person. But I’m sure you could find stacks of books on the subject.

  49. StarStorm
    StarStorm July 24, 2008 at 9:15 pm |

    Holy SHIT. I not only WISH I had that ass, but I’d snuggle up to it.

  50. Cara
    Cara July 24, 2008 at 9:16 pm |

    Theora — I disagree. Sayid totally turns me on, but Naveen Andrews? Eh. He’s obviously still good looking, since it’s the same person, but I am very much attracted to personalities. Sayid’s does it for me, but not Naveen Andrews’. Same with Sawyer/Josh Holloway. They have totally different personalities, and though I probably wouldn’t like Sawyer much in real life, his is the only one that turns me on.

  51. This is the “Othering” I Was Talking About « random babble…

    […] This is the “Othering” I Was Talking About And, basically sometimes Jill just cracks my shit up. […]

  52. Cara
    Cara July 24, 2008 at 9:18 pm |

    Oh dude, I just saw that you added the Silver Fox! He’s very much not my type either, but come on, you have to love the Coop.

  53. Meraydia
    Meraydia July 24, 2008 at 9:34 pm |

    Someone, please tell me who that first random eye-candy guy is! Me wannnnt :D

  54. Sepra
    Sepra July 24, 2008 at 9:38 pm |

    Oh my goddess, between the top troll awards and this, I think this site has made me laugh every day this week.

    Someone needs to trademark “Den of Antifeminist Vice” and make a million t-shirts. I could totally see it on glarkware. You know, with a background of feminists throwing dice and drinking and a “kill the patriarchy” shooting game.

    You are wrong about one thing though: you should totally respond to things like this. This isn’t the average troll, this is a troll flameout of such proportion that it will probably garner legendary status one day. Like, the “Delete My Fucking Account, Kos” diary on Daily Kos that was like a living tribute to trolling everywhere. I mean, it’s only once in a rare while when you see that mixture of incoherence and stupidity raised to such a level that it practically approaches art.

    I mean, “Put some clothes on if you care about women at all” or “If you come to a bad end, remember that the real feminists saw it coming.” It’s like finding a rich vein of comedy troll gold in the least likely spot. And it all must be true because the author DOES NOT LIE.

  55. annaham
    annaham July 24, 2008 at 9:48 pm |

    Not since “I am aware of all internet traditions” have I lol’d so hard at obvious trollishness.

    I DO NOT LIE THOUGH.

  56. ouyangdan
    ouyangdan July 24, 2008 at 9:53 pm |

    ummm…what, no Stephen or John?

    well…I guess they are just my other boyfriends. ;)

  57. Kakalina
    Kakalina July 24, 2008 at 10:11 pm |

    I seem to belong to a slightly younger demographic than most of the people posting here…and with that in mind, may I point to the ridiculous amount of traffic that Potterverse website get to account for the popularity of bespectacled young men? ;)

    lols this was a fun read (er…look ^__~)! I have no tolerance for people who argue that others in the same ilk have to be just like them, or of a specific line of thought. Part of the reason is that it doesn’t take into account the differences of culture that others have been raised in, and secondly is a pretty jerk-ess thing to do…

    Can you give some movies with Romain Duris in them please??? (french ones preferably ;P) I love french actors “`\^-^/“`

  58. Jack
    Jack July 24, 2008 at 10:47 pm |

    Um… you guys everyone?

    I don’t think I can blog here anymore. Feminist Anonymist Explained It All. It was kinda like the more explicitly feminist sequel to “Clarissa Explains It All,” where Clarissa goes to college and hears of radical feminism for the FIRST TIME EVER).

    I know realize that being asked to blog here was pretty much the most disgusting insult ever invented by a Fake Pretty Psuedofeminist. And that’s saying A LOT.

    I have seen the light, and am now a convert to Church of the One True Feminism. I believe in one feminism, Feminism, the only daughter of the Dworkin, eternally frozen in the 70s, Feminism from Feminism, Anti-patriarchy from Anti-patriarchy, true Feminism from true Feminism, second wave, not third, of one Being with MacKinnon. Through her all things were made.

  59. Lauren
    Lauren July 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm |

    What is with that guy’s bandanna? Is that Chuck Norris?

  60. Peter
    Peter July 24, 2008 at 11:09 pm |

    Crap. This thread was a total psyche-out. I saw the words stilleto heels and lipstick, and like an idiot I clicked hoping there’d be something for the hetero guys, and possibly lesbian ladies, to enjoy.

    What a gyp!

    just kidding….nothing wrong with the ladies enjoying some beefcake.

  61. Hugo
    Hugo July 24, 2008 at 11:20 pm |

    Oh Jack, without permission, let me continue what you have begun.

    “For us and for our salvation
    the Second Wave arose
    and became briefly incarnate in the person of Shulamith Firestone.

    For our sake Mary Daly wrote
    and Susan Brownmiller labored
    they suffered under Schlafly
    and the Holy ERA was buried.

    On some bright as of yet undesignated day
    the true right (white) Wave will rise again
    (not this false one of bikini waxes and self-indulgent vice)
    and descend into the great Womb
    and be seated at the right hand of the Mother
    as Riane Eisler foresaw.
    Betty Friedan will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and Her center-left Democratic Party will have
    no lavendar menace. (Or sexy faux feminists.)

    We believe in the enduring spirit of True Feminism
    Which is never Fake and never Pretty
    It proceeds from the great cosmic Womb
    and is generally clad in a functional Mao jacket.

    It has spoken through the prophets
    who are all white and over forty-five
    and generally tenured.

    We believe in the One True Feminism
    We acknowledge one theoretical perspective
    from which and with which to confront the patriarchy
    We look for the resurrection of the pantsuit
    and the life of the world to come.”

    Amen.

  62. Rosemary Grace
    Rosemary Grace July 24, 2008 at 11:44 pm |

    Ohhh! I’m so glad that I’m a better feminist than when I was 17, since I’m conventionally pretty BUT now I’m “plus-sized” AND have a couple of surgery scars on my face. I must immediately quit my skincare regimen so I can get some good zits going and be an even! better! feminist!

    Thanks for the eye candy, nice distraction from the presentation I’m working on.

  63. timothynakayama
    timothynakayama July 25, 2008 at 12:36 am |

    just kidding….nothing wrong with the ladies enjoying some beefcake.

    I’m a heterosexual bloke, and I like looking at these pictures too.

    Is it really a very big taboo in the US for heterosexual men to enjoy looking at other men? I mean, I see it in the movies, but are the movies really a representative of American men?

  64. rawi
    rawi July 25, 2008 at 12:54 am |

    I came for the feminist rant, was promised some titties, and then nearly began to reconsider my straightness.

    p.s. Believe it or not, that guy at the end was my commencement speaker. And he was really good, too.

  65. exholt
    exholt July 25, 2008 at 12:55 am |

    Is it really a very big taboo in the US for heterosexual men to enjoy looking at other men? I mean, I see it in the movies, but are the movies really a representative of American men?

    In some heterosexual male circles…especially the more homophobic set, a male admiring the naked bodies of other men is considered suspect as it is considered a sign one is homosexual and thus…”disgusting”. Don’t know how representative or prevalent it is…but IME it exist and I have witnessed male classmates in junior high using homophobic taunts against each other for staring “too long” at pictures of naked/half-naked muscle-bound men. Only exceptions I know of are if one is reading bodybuilding magazines to learn how to build their muscles to desired specifications.

  66. NancyP
    NancyP July 25, 2008 at 12:59 am |

    The history of male beefcake shots in this country is the 1940s-1960s “physique magazine”, which sold 10% to fitness enthusiasts and 90% to gay men. Ever since, American men have not been too willing to look at photos of near-naked men or be photographed in a Speedo.

  67. Margalis
    Margalis July 25, 2008 at 2:29 am |


    I agree that it is shitty to feel like you’re being evaluated by a standard you can never meet. I know some people feel differently, but the feeling of my body being evaluated at all makes me feel quite self-conscious, even if the evaluation is “positive” (as in cases of street harassment). On that point, I actually empathize with you.

    I find it fascinating that you’ve cleverly changed the subject to my apparent personal shame and self-consciousness at not living up to the standards that these dudes set. (LOL) Of course that is exactly the same trick the Neogaf crowd pulled when they photoshopped Liss’ face onto the Fat Princess body – clearly her objection was nothing more than “I’m fat waah” and my objection is nothing more than that I’m ugly and ashamed.

    At least the Neogaf crowd gets right to the point instead of this passive-aggressive nonsense about how you empathize with a problem I never even hinted at having. I’d actually prefer if you came right out and said “you must be complaining because you’re ugly” instead of subtly implying that my lackluster personal appearance is the issue here.


    I think what Holly was trying to say was that given the very different power positions and experiences of men and women in our culture, objectification of men and objectification of women, even when presented in exactly the same way, have very different cultural meanings and impacts.

    Tell me then, what is the “cultural meaning” here? It’s subversive or inclusive because a couple of the guys have glasses? That’s it’s a celebration of different body types, or sends the message that a variety of shapes and sizes are attractive? That’s it’s a rejection of media-packaged conceptions of beauty? And the issue here is not just gender but size. It’s not just men being objectified (some of them don’t even have names attached) but thin, muscular, “healthy” men – because normal amounts of body fat aren’t healthy apparently.

    I read complaints about how the media portrays certain body types, then come back a day later and see people celebrating attractiveness exactly as defined by the media – it’s incoherent. What struck me about this post is not that it’s a bunch of guys, it’s that it’s a bunch of guys who exactly conform to an extremely conservative conception of beauty that rates normal amounts of fat as unattractive – a conception that applies to women as much or moreso than men.

    It’s not doing women any favors to celebrate thinness as the holy grail of hotness, and as I pointed out before this thread is much less progressive than threads at sites populated by neanderthal teenage boys who don’t claim to spend any time thinking about body-image issues. In those threads I’d see a lot more “I prefer some meat on the bones” sentiment. Despite all the bluster a lot of people here have wholesale bought into and reinforced exactly what the media is selling.

  68. Margalis
    Margalis July 25, 2008 at 3:31 am |

    Hmm, that’s a lot of text. In my defense I have fast fingers.

  69. Rebecca
    Rebecca July 25, 2008 at 3:38 am |

    Kakalina: Romain Duris was in The Spanish Apartment, and it’s sequel, The Russian Dolls – I’m a big fan of both of those.

  70. Cass C. Carter
    Cass C. Carter July 25, 2008 at 4:18 am |

    After a week of being severely depressed by the antics of radfems running about the feminist webs, this thread cheered me back up. It’s good to know sometimes that you’re not the only one tired of Feminist Fundamentalism declaring women anti-feminist for not doing it their way.

    Of course, I’m the kind of person who believes women when they tell me things, rather than attempt to find a reason to dismiss them immediately (“You’re a funfeminist, you’re too bubbly to know what’s real,” “You’re a tranny, get out of here,” “Oh, you like porn? You lack agency,”) if they discuss an experience that doesn’t match radfem theory.

  71. KaeLyn
    KaeLyn July 25, 2008 at 6:06 am |

    Who is Ramian Durris and why is he so f’ing hot?!

    And thanks for supplying the beefcake! Apparently, my porno-meal was too vegetarian for most. (Wait…why am I gendering dietary lifestyles?) I like a man in eyeliner, personally…but genderfuck is just my thing to begin with. Tim Curry in the RHPS is my illicit lover.

  72. Jennifer-Ruth
    Jennifer-Ruth July 25, 2008 at 8:18 am |

    Margalis has made some very, very good points.

    I know it is all in good fun, and I know men aren’t objectified as much as women…but I still feel iffy about this post. None of those men look real – it’s all six packs and weird bubble butts.

    Just sayin’

    (omg, i’m such a spoil sport…sorrrrrieeee! but i just can’t help but feel uncomfortable with this)

  73. Natalia
    Natalia July 25, 2008 at 8:56 am |

    Despite all the bluster a lot of people here have wholesale bought into and reinforced exactly what the media is selling.

    I think you raised a number of interesting points, But is there anything particularly strange about that though? We like some things that the media presents, and reject others.

    If you’re a woman, idealized body types probably make you react stronger to your *own* thoughts surround your body.

    If you’re a man, you think about the idealization of certain men.

    But, conversely, you’re into what you’re into. And no amount of re-education is going to change that, I don’t think. I’ve always liked men with curly dark hair (probably because they were so rare where I was growing up) and olive skin. I noticed that my man (who has curly dark hair and olive skin)? He liked girls who looked like me, before he met me. We weren’t carbon copies of each other, but there were similarities – big eyes, pale skin, etc.

    There’s objectification involved in that too. And there’s a difference between celebrating different people, and, you know, fantasizing about what *you* consider hot. Is FatPrincess a fantasy? Well, I don’t see it that way at least. But this post – it’s chock-full of fantasy.

    Also, Naveen Andrews doesn’t have a six-pack, I believe. He’s actually got a bit of a belly on ‘im, or so I’ve noticed after closely examining him on many episodes of Lost.

    Oh, and come ON guys, someone needs to agree with me about Chekhov (not an ideal body type either, though the ladies adored him). I feel all alone here.

  74. Holly
    Holly July 25, 2008 at 9:32 am |

    Suffice to say that:

    1) turnabout is fair play;

    2) if I may apply an ecological metaphor to the damage wrought by the overvaluing and objectification of certain body types, then what women have had to go through in living memory is equivalent to deforestation into a vulnerable monoculture, and this thread is more akin to a bunch of people having a raucous picnic in the woods who’ve historically been forbidden from even going there;

    3) because objectification is actually not such a bad thing unless it gets out of control or is against the will of a particular individual, I can see a positive good in enabling the historically marginalized and sometimes-suppressed “female gaze,” even if I’m not quite straight enough to partake it myself; this positive good is rather more important, as far as I’m concerned, than things like “why won’t you let me enjoy my video game in peace without making me think about the politics of what I’m doing!”

    4) since I don’t see this kind of objectification of men / unequal distribution of attraction along the spectrum of male bodies turning into any kind of rampant problem in society at large for men, I really can’t get worked up to kick a bunch of women out of the forbidden forest that men used to have all to themselves (at least in public).

    5) I’m looking forward to this bear thread, since I think bears deserve a little more sex-objectification, which as has been said many times, can be a good thing in small doses and consensually.

  75. Peter
    Peter July 25, 2008 at 9:44 am |

    Objectification in and of itself isn’t a bad thing. I don’t care if women objectify some buff dudes. Admiring someone’s body is perfectly natural. I think objectification is only a problem if it get institutionalized more broadly in other contexts.

    And I think its healthy if we also recognize that sexiness or hotness comes in more forms than simply a 6 pack abs, or a D-cup bra size.

  76. Randomizer
    Randomizer July 25, 2008 at 10:33 am |

    Double standards and hypocrisy are not cool. And using the “woman have it worse” rationalization doesn’t cut it.

    Why is this ok and enjoyable for (some) women and the same thing on a guys blog with a “hot” chick would get him flamed.

    I’m honestly not buying into the rationalizations.

    Maybe it’s because I grew up as a rather pudgy boy and was subjected to all the abuse a person could want about my weight in school. I still carry the legacy around and have body issues that are the equal of my female peers.

    Now I get that the male gaze thing is more pervasive and that there is a power dynamic to that, but really….

    …try not to be, as women, what you despise in men — shallow consumers/enablers of media-defined images of beauty that normal people cannot, realistically, aspire to.

  77. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax July 25, 2008 at 10:38 am |

    @Manju: Actually, Quadaffi looks considerably less attractive to me than Obama or even JFK. Malcolm X, on the other hand, was quite good looking.

  78. Natalia
    Natalia July 25, 2008 at 11:07 am |

    Why is this ok and enjoyable for (some) women and the same thing on a guys blog with a “hot” chick would get him flamed.

    I can only speak for myself – but I don’t flame guys for merely posting pictures of hot chicks on their blogs.

  79. Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Friday Random Ten: the long dead eye candy edition

    […] one’s for Natalia Antonova, because she says she finds Anton Chekhov hot: A whole page of photos of Anton Chekhov. Readers are invited to offer photos of other long dead […]

  80. Jha
    Jha July 25, 2008 at 11:24 am |

    Well, to all the complainers of the “there isn’t enough representation of real men!” school, why don’t you find us some pictures of attractive men who don’t fit the narrow, media-defined ideal of “sexy man”?

    I’ve never seen a problem with objectification per se – only that it happens to women in uncomfortable amounts, is not consensual, is overly critical, dehumanizing and even invasive. What is wrong with this thread? We like these actors not just based on their looks, but also on their merits. We’re not stereotyping or making assumptions on what they’re like based on their looks.

    You want us to not use the “women have it worse” argument? In your real life, start encouraging all your male friends not to objectify women and police them. Once you’ve successfully done that and achieved the goal, then you’ll get to come in here to be a scold.

    Yeesh. Let your hair down just once…

  81. Holly
    Holly July 25, 2008 at 11:26 am |

    Why is this ok and enjoyable for (some) women and the same thing on a guys blog with a “hot” chick would get him flamed.

    Like Natalia, I don’t think it’s inherently bad at all. It’s only questionable in that it contributes to a much larger trend that involves sexism AND body prejudices. And in this case, the larger trend is not only smaller, but doesn’t involve sexism. But for the record, I am definitely for “hot guy” threads that include larger guys too.

  82. Natmusk
    Natmusk July 25, 2008 at 11:33 am |

    I agree with Peter. My husband and I both have women and men that we find attractive. I am not offended if we watch a movie with Thandi Newton in it and I know he sees her as attractive just as he deals with my obsession with Cillian Murphy.

    However, there is a difference between admiring or finding someone attractive and having fantasys about them and making them nothing more than their looks or making their value based on their looks alone to the point where they seem to exist just to please you. That is the issue that women run into. The fact that any women is expected to get naked on the cover of some magazine at some point if they’re famous and that women often encounter men who feel they have the right to say offensive things to them or even grab and grope them.

    Jill is pointing out that finding men attractive and wanting to have sex with them does not make us bad feminists. Treating men like they are only worth their bodies, expecting them to fulfill our desires at the expensive of their health, emotional stability, and placing them in uncomfortable position where they consistently feel threatened by those who are objectifying them

  83. Randomizer
    Randomizer July 25, 2008 at 11:58 am |

    We all enjoy fantasies and I am not just trying to be a killjoy. However there is a documented trend that can be traced to media images of idealized male bodies (like those portrayed in this thread) that are damaging to men.

    I find it odd that one can simultaneously descry the harm caused by the media normalizing unhealthy bodies for woman, while encouraging the same kind of harmful portrayals of men.

    Tracy Tilka of Ohio State has explored this question and concludes that “Instead of seeing a decrease in objectification of women in society, there has just been an increase in the objectification of men. And you can see that in the media today.”

    Is this something to celebrate?

    And just in case you can’t see the harm:

    ==========

    … Tylka surveyed 285 college men to find out how much pressure they were under to have a muscular physique.

    The more the surveyed men felt under pressure through media, friends, and family, the more they were compelled to live up to the ideals, Tylka reported Aug. 10 at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.

    “They start to believe that the only attractive male body is a muscular one,” Tylka said. “And when they internalize that belief, they judge themselves on that ideal and probably come up short, because it is not a realistic portrayal of men.”

    Those who felt their bodies didn’t measure up to the ideal reported that they worked out so much that weight training interfered with other parts of their lives. They also took protein supplements, were likely to report eating disorder symptoms, and thought about using steroids to enhance muscle growth.

    “It is good to exercise, to lift weights, and to eat the foods that make your body function well,” Tylka said. But it is not good to be preoccupied with working out just to bulk up, she said. These men were not eating healthy, but cutting out major food groups like carbohydrates and consuming massive amounts of protein.

    While men in American society are feeling increasing pressures to achieve the perfect body, Tylka said women still get a disproportionate share of the pressure.

    “Women still get objectified more than men, but men are feeling the pressure too.”

    Contact: Tracy Tylka
    Ohio State University

  84. exholt
    exholt July 25, 2008 at 12:15 pm |

    After a week of being severely depressed by the antics of radfems running about the feminist webs, this thread cheered me back up. It’s good to know sometimes that you’re not the only one tired of Feminist Fundamentalism declaring women anti-feminist for not doing it their way.

    Those radfems sound very similar to my undergrad campus culture discourse where judging anyone by their clothing/appearance….even if it is meant to be complementary was deemed “antiprogressive” enough to merit a tongue lashing and social ostracism unless an self-critical “apology” was rendered.

    Got my first taste of it a couple of days into orientation when I witnessed a returning upper-class female student ripping into a first-year female student for making a random comment about how “sloppy” most of the students dressed/looked. Some of the words used in the haranguing included criticisms of being too “judgmental” and something about being a “tool of the capitalist-driven fashion industry”.

    It is one reason why I am still dealing with the fear that even complementary comments or even glancing at another women would end up with my being surrounded and harangued by said woman and her friends about my “shallowness” and “lookist attitudes”.

  85. norbizness
    norbizness July 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm |

    My response the last time around. I say we stick to my Eleventyeighth Rule of Blogging: Rex non potest peccare.

  86. belledame222
    belledame222 July 25, 2008 at 1:09 pm |

    I have to say, I totally get the Anderson Cooper thing. I included ‘im on my male section of the Really Long Objectifying Pictures threads. I imagine FA would not approve of the female Objects Of Desire, and, you know, I had a good long cry over that thought, committed hara-kiri a few times, and then had lunch.

  87. belledame222
    belledame222 July 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm |

    btw, separately, this was my own modest proposal for all those tired of the Endless Appearance Battles:

    http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2008/07/sigh-okay-you-want-solution-here.html

  88. Randomizer
    Randomizer July 25, 2008 at 1:42 pm |

    Thanks Jill. I buy alot of that. Particularly the dichotomy between male success and female sexual attractiveness / availability. Both aspects of the currrent state of gendered relations have negative consequences for those who can’t achieve the ideal. Can’t wait for the unemployed Prince video game.

    Now if only short guys could find a date :-)

    I’m average height, FWIW and don’t need a date. My very tall 13 year old son should have no shortage of datable girls based, at least, on that particular height differential ideal — just gotta get him a paper route so he can be “successful” and pick up the tab as expected on dates.

    p.s. I thank feminism that my five teen-age (or soon to be teen-age) daughters will have more choices than ever. Still — long way to go …

  89. Margalis
    Margalis July 25, 2008 at 2:51 pm |


    It’s a tired line, but the idea that women are valued for their beauty and men are valued for their success is certainly not untrue. It’s a fucked up and unhealthy ideal, but for men, being physically attractive is culturally assumed to be less important than being a breadwinner.

    Most if not all of the men in your pictures are well-off, so I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

    This is what I’m hearing:

    1: “Turnabout is fair play:” Sorry, this one is just nonsense.

    2: “Objectification of men does not have the same negative consequences as of women” : this is true by degree, but it still has negative consequences. The number of men with eating disorders is on the rise, and while the numbers are unclear it is clear that men make up a significant portion of that population. In addition anecdotally (and I’m sure there is data to back this up) the number of beauty products targeted towards men has skyrocketed. Ten years ago using a body wash and a body spray and all sorts of other junk wasn’t even on most men’s rader. Also again anecdotally if you go to any website populated by young males you *will* find a thread about losing weight and getting in shape, and the most popular question in that thread *will* be “what supplements should I be taking?” To pretend that none of this stuff is a problem is willfull ignorance.

    I would also point out that objectification of men and women are not as easily separable as some here would like to pretend. If you place a high value on traditional attractiveness of one sex that is going to spill over to the other. The messages here, that only thin people are attractive and that traditional attractiveness as defined by the media is where it’s at, can’t be easily compartmentalized by gender.

    3: “I find attractive who I find attractive.” : I’m not suggesting that being attracted only to certain types of people is wrong, that’s life. What bothers me is the purposeful reinforcement of certain conceptions.

    There is a difference between thinking to oneself that only certain types of people (thin) are attractive and sharing that with the world while soliciting agreement. You can’t control what you think and what you are attracted to, but you certainly can control what you post and how you present those thoughts.

    I’m not trying to be a killjoy and the pictures don’t offend me personally or drive my crazy with rage. I’m just pointing out that if you look at the pictures and the previous conversations here about body image, size acceptance, etc, there are clearly very mixed messages being sent and this sort of post sabotages a lot of the intelligent criticism done previously.

  90. Caroline
    Caroline July 25, 2008 at 4:04 pm |

    Randomizer – I tried to respond here.

  91. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub July 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm |

    Oh, FFS, boys. Your whinging about how this hurts the Menz just makes me want to start posting my Tuesday Lecheries again.

    When men are objectified on the same level and at the same intensity women are, and when men are called a bunch of uptight prudes for not liking this level of bullshit, you’ll have a point. When there are as many strip clubs and prostitutes for women as there are for men, you might have a point. When a woman can act like Hugh Heffner with a bevy of young hot studs and not be called a slut and a whore (as opposed to being “The Man!”) you might have a point.

    That day has not come. Until then, STFU.

  92. Margalis
    Margalis July 25, 2008 at 5:42 pm |

    I like every post that I don’t explicitly dislike. (I rarely post “right on!” style comments, ’cause I wasn’t hugged enough as a child and spent too much time in debate club. I realize that can be annoying.)

    The notion that applying feminist thought to your post is concern-trolling strikes me as more than a little odd. I’m not claiming that I’m a better feminist (lol) or that you’re doing it wrong, I’m just saying compare your post to recent conversations on the subject of body-image and there is an obvious (to me) disconnect.

    I don’t see how you can look at what you posted and not see the thin = attractive message. Look at this comment:


    A lot of guys I know have his body: leaned, toned and healthy, so it’s a body type that is not unreachable for those who don’t wish to become gym junkies.

    See the skewed normalization going on here? The scale has Tyson Beckford on the end and Jake G in the middle. Even though realistically 95% of people are fat compared to Jake G. It’s like saying that while Twiggy is clearly an edge case Gisele Bundchen is a look that women can reasonably obtain; the entire scale is shifted far towards the thin end. Clearly the commenter above has internalized this shifted scale.

    That’s what the saturation of these types of images does. This is not a novel concept I just invented on the spot.

  93. Natalia
    Natalia July 25, 2008 at 5:52 pm |

    We all enjoy fantasies and I am not just trying to be a killjoy. However there is a documented trend that can be traced to media images of idealized male bodies (like those portrayed in this thread) that are damaging to men.

    I don’t doubt it, as I’ve read as much (and steroids are a problem and they do wreck people). But it really is worse for women. Aaaaaaand, honestly, it personally doesn’t bother me if a guy has some idealized, airbrushed photo of Monica Bellucci up on his desktop. Hence, I don’t feel guilty when I’m looking at pictures of Konstantin Khabensky and James McAvoy.

  94. Natalia
    Natalia July 25, 2008 at 5:55 pm |

    Also, when I say that women have it worse, I don’t mean that as the actual justification. What I do mean is that very often, guys don’t have perspective. I’m not saying that *you* don’t, I’m saying I meet way too many guys who says things like, “it’s easy to be a chick, you can get laid any time you want and you basically have it made.” But it’s not that simple.

  95. Cedar
    Cedar July 25, 2008 at 6:09 pm |

    i just want to point out that, while the ‘male beauty standard’ depicted in these images might be unrealistic/hard to achieve for the majority of men, it is not an inherently unhealthy beauty standard. it’s not one they have to starve themselves or have surgery to achieve. and they won’t be resoundingly mocked if, at some point, they begin to ‘fail’ to conform to that standard.

    that said: i’ll have a helping of Jack Black, Oliver Platt, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the bear thread, plz.

  96. JetGirl
    JetGirl July 25, 2008 at 7:06 pm |

    Nice selection, but, ahem… Johnny Depp? He is where??
    Love the Romain Duris pics. Anyone who wants more of him check out “Le Divorce” and “L’Auberge Espagnol.”
    OK, back to being a feminist now.

  97. Ashley
    Ashley July 25, 2008 at 7:52 pm |

    I’d actually prefer if you came right out and said “you must be complaining because you’re ugly” instead of subtly implying that my lackluster personal appearance is the issue here.

    Holy moly, Margalis, are you projecting.

    I have never, ever seen a real person who looks like these pictures, and I’m fairly certain that even the guys in the pictures don’t really look like the pictures. I wasn’t implying that you are any more “ugly” than anyone else. I seriously was empathizing. When I see a picture of a female model, it makes me feel bad about myself. Not because I’m unattractive, but because no one actually looks like that, so there’s no way I can measure up.

    I wouldn’t argue that “women have it worse” is a convincing justification for posting pictures like this. What I was saying was that the cultural meaning of posting pics of women vs. pics of men is entirely different, not that posting pics of men is simply a “less bad” version of the same thing that our culture does to women.

    As Jill pointed out, it could be argued that asserting a “female gaze” is quite subversive and feminist.

    Like I said, I’d have a lot more thinking to do before I could say how I think the “gaze” should be constructed, ideally. But I agree with others that posting pics of men and pics of women is apples and steamrollers.

    Jill, speaking of the gaze, I don’t know if I agree that men are free of the gaze, actually. I think that most men actually see themselves through the male gaze as well… Not their independent and autonomous gaze—the male gaze. I think that’s where a lot of homophobia (really the fear of being seen as gay) comes from. I’d say that your average, unexamined d00d sees women through his own eyes, but then he sees himself looking at women (and doing everything else) through the male gaze. Kinda like a big daddy misogynist in the sky is watching him. The more strongly a d00d feels the big daddy watching, the more of a douchebag (which is not a sexist insult) he will be, even when no actual men are watching him.

    That’s my theory, anyway.

  98. Peter
    Peter July 25, 2008 at 8:50 pm |

    I agree with Peter. My husband and I both have women and men that we find attractive. I am not offended if we watch a movie with Thandi Newton in it and I know he sees her as attractive just as he deals with my obsession with Cillian Murphy.

    However, there is a difference between admiring or finding someone attractive and having fantasys about them and making them nothing more than their looks or making their value based on their looks alone to the point where they seem to exist just to please you. That is the issue that women run into….

    Jill is pointing out that finding men attractive and wanting to have sex with them does not make us bad feminists. Treating men like they are only worth their bodies, expecting them to fulfill our desires at the expensive of their health, emotional stability, and placing them in uncomfortable position where they consistently feel threatened by those who are objectifying them

    Well said.

    There a certain level of perfectly natural admiration for other people’s bodies or attractiveness. I’ve never felt threatened or bummed out if a girlfriend thought Johnny Depp was hot and had fantasies of wanting to jump his bones. I didn’t care, its cool and its natural. I certainly hope, and don’t think any women friends I’ve had would be astonished or bummed out if I thought Catherine Zeta Jones was unbelievably hot. Or that I might have checked out some pics of her in mags or the interwebs. I think Oprah Winfrey is kinda of hot too, and I would totally go on a date with Amy Goodman, but my tastes are kinda weird.

    I totally hear the rest of what your saying. Nicely done.

  99. Peter
    Peter July 25, 2008 at 8:50 pm |

    I agree with Peter. My husband and I both have women and men that we find attractive. I am not offended if we watch a movie with Thandi Newton in it and I know he sees her as attractive just as he deals with my obsession with Cillian Murphy.

    However, there is a difference between admiring or finding someone attractive and having fantasys about them and making them nothing more than their looks or making their value based on their looks alone to the point where they seem to exist just to please you. That is the issue that women run into….

    Jill is pointing out that finding men attractive and wanting to have sex with them does not make us bad feminists. Treating men like they are only worth their bodies, expecting them to fulfill our desires at the expensive of their health, emotional stability, and placing them in uncomfortable position where they consistently feel threatened by those who are objectifying them

    Well said.

    There’s a certain level of perfectly natural admiration for other people’s bodies or attractiveness, most of us have. I’ve never felt threatened or bummed out if a girlfriend thought Johnny Depp was hot and had fantasies of wanting to jump his bones. I didn’t care, its cool and its natural. I certainly hope, and don’t think any women friends I’ve had would be astonished or bummed out if I thought Catherine Zeta Jones was unbelievably hot. Or that I might have checked out some pics of her in mags or the interwebs. I think Oprah Winfrey is kinda of hot too, and I would totally go on a date with Amy Goodman, but my tastes are kinda weird.

    I totally hear the rest of what your saying. Nicely done.

  100. J.Goff
    J.Goff July 25, 2008 at 10:54 pm |

    I’m a fat guy, and I really have no problem with people posting pictures like these. Objectively, for me, I can look at someone like Jake Gyllenhall and agree as to his attractiveness. That said, there is a problem these days with things like steroids and unhealthy attitudes in men to working out in order to live up to society’s view of attractive men. However, the idea that, not only is this on the same level as the rampant objectification of women, but that this post is feeding said bad attitudes is over-the-top. There are much worse things that are talked about with respect to men in the media. Take that recent tabloid cover that was aghast that Pitt and Jolie’s recent twins were conceived via in vitro fertilization. The subtle hint being that Brad Pitt wasn’t man enough to to the deed himself. Asinine and more dangerous all around, if you ask me.

  101. sra
    sra July 26, 2008 at 2:18 pm |

    It is hard to find topless pictures of Clive Owen. The closest I could find are ones of Gosford Park where he is oft running about in an undershirt (I love that movie), and this one which shows off some chest hurs.

    Also, more ‘average guy’ hotties? Jeremy Sisto for win!

  102. Manju
    Manju July 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm |

    “Actually, Quadaffi looks considerably less attractive to me than Obama or even JFK. Malcolm X, on the other hand, was quite good looking.”

    OK, Lynn…lets compromise and declare Che the girl with the most cake. Obvious choice i know, like aishwarya rai, but t-shirts don’t lie.

  103. Alexa
    Alexa July 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm |

    Not sure how I feel about the fact that he’s wearing a bandana, but I’m willing to ignore that in favor of his ass

    Dear god, I have to agree. What an outstanding male specimen! Yummy.

  104. Manju
    Manju July 26, 2008 at 3:56 pm |

    i think that’s a tie, not a bandana. He’s saying, “kiss my ass, JPMorgan.”

  105. Manju
    Manju July 26, 2008 at 3:57 pm |

    I’m heading to the gym to do squats now. I blame society.

  106. Jack
    Jack July 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm |

    My question is – isn’t this a POLITICAL site? That is the point. Why are almost-naked dudes being posted on a political site? When was the last time you saw half-naked women on a male-written political site? Probably never. As someone who is pretty new here, it doesn’t really strike me as hypocritical, but it certainly is vulgar and low-class to have a picture of a man only covering his dick and another one with his ass out. An obviously intelligent top law school grad – I would expect one to not stoop to these levels.

    I still don’t understand WHY you posted this – is it a subtle jab at men for “objectifying” women, like “we can do it too”? I can see many, many guys my age are very insecure about their looks nowadays. It’s sickening. And it’s a problem. As you said, women are supposed to be judged on appearance, men on success. You don’t like that system, but it has its reasons and has worked for thousands of years. Women, as the child-bearers, are most in demand for their youth and fertility. Men are prized for providing for a family. This has a basis in reality. What you, Jill, are contributing to is not a decrease in female objectification, but the modern feminist “we can behave just as badly as the men” method of doing it to men as well. I don’t know if you regularly complain about female “objectification”, but if you do, you will have no credibility to do so in the future.

    You also send the message that you are a looks-obsessed and shallow person in general. Think about if a man has a blog post with scantily clad females all over the place. Isn’t what what you’d think?

  107. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax July 26, 2008 at 8:36 pm |

    @Manju: OK, I’ll grant you Che.

  108. Manju
    Manju July 27, 2008 at 12:34 pm |

    I have lost a pound and a half since this was post was posted. I’m happy and oppressed. Beauty is the opiate of the masses.

  109. octogalore
    octogalore July 27, 2008 at 3:36 pm |

    It’s typical that in a post by a woman showcasing men, one sees comments one would never see going the other direction. Clearly by the title, this is slightly tongue in cheek, having fun with the idea that only men are interested in display by only women. An idea that’s been out there in feminist bloglandia over the past couple of weeks and is ripe for exposure as ridiculous. These snapshots weren’t some broader statement about the direction of Feministe, but an attempt — an effective one — to demolish that idea.

    And of course in demonstrating that a woman does indeed get to have “the gaze,” Jill is treated to suggestions that she might want to post pictures of guys she doesn’t find attractive. Why? She isn’t claiming these selections are uninfluenced at all by popular standards. But she does have the right to find attractive who she finds attractive. Why the need to compromise on that? The whole point is that women, too, aren’t free of visual “vice” and aren’t perfect in our choices as to what to objectify.

    Margalis says: “There is a difference between thinking to oneself that only certain types of people (thin) are attractive and sharing that with the world while soliciting agreement.”

    I would argue that the bodyfat percentages of the men displayed vary by 20%, so already we’re looking at a much wider variety than the group of women whom many men would canvas. (I must admit that were I to ever put together a male calendar, there would not even be this level of variance.) Additionally, I don’t see anywhere in the post any kind of solicitation of agreement about acceptable bodyfat percentage for men. This is just one woman’s opinion. We all know that men have other ways, culturally, of substituting other characteristics besides physical ones that will aid their marketability. We as women do not.

    But the point of the post is not (correct me if I am wrong) to set forth a depiction of what the “perfect feminist (hetero version)” would find attractive in a man, but what this particular feminist finds attractive. Which effectively trounces arguments that women are alone in being the “sex class.” Injecting all kinds of other things the post “should do” is uncomfortably similar to what women are expected to do in general: make compromises men don’t have to make, while backwards and in heels.

    Personally, I’m glad the post didn’t compromise.

  110. Manju
    Manju July 27, 2008 at 7:00 pm |

    “I would argue that the bodyfat percentages of the men displayed vary by 20%, so already we’re looking at a much wider variety than the group of women whom many men would canvas.”

    Not if you go by porn, which is aimed at men…and for all its problems offers a huge degree of variety, especially in comparison to Madison Avenue.

    Now fashion magazines are not aimed at men and have taken a peculiar twist beginning in the 60’s. Personally I blame gay men and their artistic/aesthetic influence. After all, you see models essentially devoid of breasts and hips, two things straight men are genetically wired to lust, thopugh social construction and individual varience may trump that. Its a desexualized version of the female form, representing what many gay men would find attractive in a woman if they found women attractive.

  111. K
    K July 27, 2008 at 7:49 pm |

    if you step outside of actors, there’s going to be a wider variety of guys who are considered attractive. i am not thrilled by most of these guys aside from jake G. some musicians i find totally hot, who are also considered attractive by many other fans:

    zacky vengeance: http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/diamonddust1414/Nothing%20More%20Than%20Fiction/ZackyVengeance.jpg

    frank iero (he’s all of like 5’4″): http://mcraddiction05.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/frank.jpg

    travis mccoy: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/474957903_1760e1f3bc.jpg

    william beckett: http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs15/300W/i/2007/010/2/c/William_Beckett_by_b0pp.jpg

    anyone else with me?

  112. K
    K July 27, 2008 at 7:54 pm |

    As you said, women are supposed to be judged on appearance, men on success. You don’t like that system, but it has its reasons and has worked for thousands of years.

    also, congrats to jack for being a sexist jackASS. begone, troll. you’re not even trying to concern troll, just being a whiny sexist. how boring.

  113. SarahMC
    SarahMC July 27, 2008 at 8:23 pm |

    This thread is amazing. I wonder if all the people wringing their hands about this post spend a comparable amount of time on blogs that display and dissect women’s bodies, writing hideously cruel, misogynist things about them.
    Jill displayed a bunch of pics of attractive men, and many of the commenters are admiring them. Nobody has made vile “jokes” about abusing their bodies. Nobody has expressed the desire to rape them. Nobody has suggested that the men in the photos are merely a collection of their parts and good for nothing more than fucking. Nobody has called them names or denigrated them.
    There is a world of difference between this post of photographed men, and most displays of (half) naked women in the media and on the Internet.

  114. Lynn Gazis-Sax
    Lynn Gazis-Sax July 28, 2008 at 10:32 am |

    Jill, Jill, whatever did you mean by flying in the face of “reality”? You should have posted the men’s incomes, not their half-naked bodies. After all, we all know that what really turns women on is the size of men’s wallets, not their other characteristics.

    Allow me to correct your approach. This guy was listed in Forbes magazine for having made $80 million in the past year. See how much hotter he is, once you have that vital information?

  115. Manju
    Manju July 28, 2008 at 12:34 pm |

    well, i think the gist of evolutionary psychology is that money and muscle can be boiled down to one thing: status, or leadership ability within the group. Women are genetically wired to be attracted to high-status males, whereas men are wired to be attracted to beauty, or more specifically, cues to fertility.

    now back in cavewoman days status meant tall men with large muscles, chartacteristics that today are only peripheral to high status. so there’s a disconnect. humor or wit (a sign of intelligence) however, seems to be a constant…which is probably Quadaffi’s problem.

  116. banisteriopsis
    banisteriopsis July 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm |

    Women are genetically wired to be attracted to high-status males, whereas men are wired to be attracted to beauty, or more specifically, cues to fertility.

    …which is complete and total bullshit. This kind of reasoning denies women’s ability to be turned on by hotness for hotness’ sake.

    Will Smith and Johnny Depp… yum. Thanks, the comments here have been really useful and timely for me, thinking about what level of objectification I’m OK with in my own relationships.

  117. Ladyblog » Blog Archive » Demanding Women

    […] neutral phrase, pro-woman) for heterosexual women to demand beauty from men? See the discussion here, here, here, here, and wherever the links from those posts take you. By ‘demand beauty’ […]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.