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

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

[@josephedmond3723]

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

[@iferlyf8172]

One more reason why feminists of that time must be turning in their grave...

[@owlblocksdavid4955]

Nowadays I doubt that's what's going through people's minds...

[@superduper9357]

Women tend to drive their own fashion, it is not thrust apon them. If they wish they can wear pretty much the same as men do.

[@domusardet4961]

It's long been understood in history, psychology & common sense that nakedness is about vulnerability & a degree of powerlessness. That's why when we're stressed or anxious we're more likely to have dreams where we're walking around naked. That's why there are so many societies in history where the higher you were in society, the more coverage your body had. And I've lost track of how many times females I've been with or overheard talked about how awkward it feels to strip down to your bathing suit like you're putting yourself on display in your underwear in a meat or livestock market. Displaying your body for people to ogle, judge, criticize - or lust after - isn't even remotely empowering - - unless you count those who like to use men's desire in order to manipulate them.

[@fistoffries]

Is there any reason that they seem to avoid attacking 50 shades of grey or the dozens of other fantasy material focused on female markets?

[@onetailedfox3]

Didn't you know? Anything catered to women: Great and Encouraged. Anything catered to men: sexist and needs to be stopped.

[@scottsmith9813]

Actually they have attack 50 shades

[@PrinceRevolver]

Saving a princess is oppressive, not saving a princess is oppressive. It never ends.

[@Klepto84734]

Yeah, they have actually attacked 50 Shades of Grey, claiming it glorifies abuse towards women. Completely igrnoring the fact that it was written by a woman, expressing female sexual & romantic fantasies/fetishes. I guess it's just the wrong kind of female expression to them.

[@christophhofland8890]

actually they did attack fifty shades of gray the movie for being domestic abuse or some retardation like that. Its on this week in stupid on sargon of akkads channel.

[@QuantumOverlord]

You know, at this point I feel like buying these magazines for the sole reason of pissing these people off.

[@PoRTCobra]

same

[@thomashandley1490]

I got mine

[@The5thStateOfMatter]

What if that's what they want us to do? *puts on tin foil hat*

[@dongblak7048]

The5thStateOfMatter Dun Dun Duuunnn!!!

[@onetailedfox3]

The "Male Gaze"? Lol what? How can these people claim to be for equality with all this shaming they do? Thanks for the great video as usual #BasedMom

[@afriedli]

Sexual objectification is perfectly natural, but men and women tend to do it somewhat differently. The notion that men cannot sexually objectify a woman and at the same time recognise her as fully human is nonsense. The theory that objectifying dehumanises is a denial of what is a normal and natural human social capability. We can regard each other in two different but perfectly compatible ways are the same time! Obviously, when the woman in question is merely a photographic representation of a woman then the thing being objectified is an object and so to talk about objectification of the 'person' has no meaning in that context. You can't dehumanise a picture! Normal people can distinguish between things and representations of things. That's why after reading Sports Illustrated the owner might put the magazine away in a drawer and not feel he has imprisoned the ladies. He understands they are merely photographs. Sexual objectification certainly has an element of regarding a person instrumentally, i.e. in terms of the potential sensual pleasure they offer. When a man looks at a woman as a 'sex object' he is certainly thinking about her potential to bring him sexual gratification, and so this is a form of instrumentalism - he is looking at her partly in terms of his own wishes and needs. He can fully recognise her as a person, but is not particularly interested in her as a person at this stage. She is an 'object of desire.' However, women do exactly the same thing to men, but they tend to have other criteria. They are looking for signs of wealth, power and status because such men also bring things to their partners. In the same way that a man might make an assessment of a woman in terms of what she offers to him sexually, she is making an assessment of him in terms of what he offers her materially. He might be rating her looks in a pretty ruthless way, but she is doing a very similar calculation on him. In both cases they are regarding each other instrumentally, i.e. "what is this person going to do for ME?" Providing that the person is not entirely lost sight of in the process, where in effect the entire basis for the attraction is a selfish calculation, this is quite okay. Some men have no real interest in the person other than sexually, and some women have no real interest in the person other than in terms of what he can do for her, but these people are at the extremes in each case. Most of us are more complex than this. Do women objectify men less than men objectify women? Nope - they just use a different scoring system. Of course a great deal of this is happening at a largely unconscious level, but it's happening anyway.

[@honeykisses1987]

BINGO!

[@Gezere9]

HOW DARE YOU POINT OUT THE FACT THE SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION IS DONE BY BOTH MEN AND WOMEN IN DIFFERENT WAYS!!!! IT'S LIKE YOU ACTUALLY LIVE IN REALITY AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!! /illogical feminist outrage

[@resistnzisfutl]

Along with that complexity is the realization that men and women share certain objectivity traits. Most women still like men who are tall, handsome, great abs, big arms, and a big thingy. Most men still like women who have half a brain, can pay for some dates, can bait a hook, and like going to ballgames.

[@afriedli]

Mateus Prado Sousa "women also love sexy guys" That's true, but not necessarily to risk a relationship with or settle down with. Women are attracted to bad boys, or good-looking guys with attitude, but only for a fling 'cos they tend not to be very reliable. Women can certainly lose their heads, especially when young, but they are pretty practical creatures in the main :-) Contrary to the common perception, men are generally more sentimental than women, probably arising from their sentimentality about their mothers.

[@honeykisses1987]

Women look at men all the time.

[@RaaroVision]

Thanks, mom.

[@andabreadwasmine]

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

[@MisterCitizen]

+Ex Tyger oh, but they object to men SEEING them naked for their viewing pleasure... oh wait. That will happen even more if they walk around half naked. Never mind.

[@monday2471]

1. free the nipple: women should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. similar to the argument for abortion. female breasts are NOT sexual organs like genitalia are. also, your argument is dated and backwards. exposed breasts are already public in 33 states. at this point, it's mostly just the media censoring them. 2. again, this has to do with independence. i should be able to feel free to do whatever the fuck i want with my body without it having to be interpreted/appropriated as something for the male gaze. i should be able to dress however i want without it being interpreted as something intended for straight men. women's lives don't revolve around men. not everything that women do is for men.

[@monday2471]

dude, what century are you living in? does roe vs wade ring a bell? destroying fetus' bodies is already legal. we've decided that for you already.

[@andabreadwasmine]

monday2471 just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's ok. I'll make my own decisions thanks.

[@andabreadwasmine]

***** why can't we take a shit in public- that is completely natural too?

[@MemeGene6969]

this times are hard, as a straight man, i cant look at a nice girl on a magazine in peace anymore without being called a patriac sexists pig >.> but they can read and watch fifthy shades of gray without problems.

[@Zellio2011]

It's time for men to be men and tell bitches like that to fuck off in their face. I try to be nice to everyone, but people who hate you simply for existing can fuck off

[@beastwing3272]

If only... Ahh.... If only there were more manly men, men nowadays wanna be fucking women! I do not know why... Men control everything... And the best part is... Is.... We get to see tiddies!

[@LuciferXFallen290]

TheHaganenotenshi but fifty shades of grey isn't all that sexual

[@bademoxy]

stephanie- 50 shades presents nasty subjugation of women based on women's own sick rape fantasy which most straight men of this era rightfully condemn AS sexual exploitation.

[@StephenChapman]

Thank you for doing these videos. It really helps to ground my increasingly restless mind amid the sea of increasingly vocal, ruthless, and unapproachable feminism extremists. They are incredibly reckless in their approach, and as a completely respectful, rational guy, I find it difficult at times to not take their abrasive generalizations somewhat personally. Again, thanks. =)

[@Thirsty_Fox]

They have no idea what they want. They are simultaneously against 'page 3' while trying to freethenipple. Oh, right.. It's all about the male gaze, not liberating women.

[@mikelalunsford]

On my facebook feed I see MANY more women posting explicit pictures of men, sharing them, and commenting on them than I do men.

[@michaelt4466]

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

[@jackcarter3944]

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

[@MarkJones-gd9lg]

As a straight male I have resigned myself to the fact that I can do no right and that all my wants and desires are perverse. All I ask from women now is simply to be left alone and I will leave them alone.

[@Th34lChemist]

Maddox said something along the lines of; The focus on sexually posing women is only for the male gaze is heterosexist, that assume there are only straight men and straight women, this excludes homosexual or bisexual women who may also enjoy the picture

[@laurasalo6160]

I think we are overlooking the fact that straight women also prefer look at beautiful sexualized women much more than we do men. The vast majority of female magazines feature beautiful, sexy women in the covers also. It is obvious to me that many many women prefer to look at images of women. I think this is in large part because we tend to imagine ourselves as that sexy woman but women are also much more interesting and appealing to look at. Women are uniquely suited "objects" of public attention because we enjoy to dress up (and make-up) women creatively, as a culture, more so than men. I must say, generally speaking, I much prefer to look at beautiful women on the tv or the page even tho I prefer men sexually and would rather see/hang with men in everyday life. Wmen are like visual art, pleasing the eye of both sexes. Cheers!

[@Nudhul]

"Male Gaze" sounds like some kind of super power.

[@hehelinarinvakanolur5621]

If you can't appreciate parts of a person's qualites without objectifying them, how would you then be able to look at any type of performance, or any piece of art that doesn't display a person's full set of qualities? Someone who does a dance performance would just be an object that dances around on the scene for people's pleasure; we can't have that, or else men might believe that all external humans are merely objects that should do dance performances to have any value at all! I find the reasoning of people that think like that highly insulting; they're essentially implying that men are unable to discern that a model is a human just like themselves. Oh no we can't have models making money out of showcasing their appearance to men, if we do men will start thinking the only worth a woman has is her appearance, and will treat all women who aren't models like they have no worth at all. Need I explain how this isn't founded in reality, and that it's in itself very predjudiced not to mention demeaning towards men?

[@goosedcoop]

I appreciate your closing statement: "The rights and wrongs of mass media sexuality should be debated in terms of public manners, not of gender power or selective shaming. The frenzied policing of straight male sexuality is a dead end." Certainly, it's better public policy to keep the SI Swimsuit Edition in a discrete location, near the Maxim and FHM magazines, which are covered, but that type of discussion does not draw the media attention that radicals want. They won't consider workable solutions to their "cause" because that reduces visibility and minimizes their perceived importance, though it would have a more positive impact on society.

[@jamesriccardo2225]

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

[@olimpicus]

I love her. She makes me believe in women. Not in feminists cause they consider Hoff Sommers anti-feminist (i guess cause she seems really interested in equity).

[@QuantumOverlord]

Indeed, tbh I'm of the opinion that feminism is so toxic now that it is pointless to try and save it. CHSommers would disagree on that which is why she calls herself as one. I think its admirable what she is doing to try and 'reclaim' feminism, but ultimately its a loosing battle, I'd rather let feminism be associated with the toxicity and for all reasonable people to not touch it with a flagpole.

[@tramsay]

I call it "male sexuality shaming". Keep up the great work

[@Krissj100]

I recall that among normal people, the consensus was that the SuperBowl ads were unusually bad this year - quite revealing then that Radfems see that as progress.

[@ScottStevenErickson]

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

[@Artemis-gs4by]

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

[@MrJobocan]

I have lots of women on my facebook friend list, and every day I see a handful of naked men, while from my male friends on facebook I almost never see even half-naked women. My experience might not resemble everyone else's, but I assume women like seeing sexy men just as much as men enjoy seeing sexy women. I never thought that even resembled a problem. If someone wants to look at sexy people being sexy, good for them because there's sexy people who want to make videos or take pictures of themselves being sexy for other peoples' pleasure, and likely their own pleasure too (and money, of course). And why not? Why is it a problem for people to do things that are completely 100% natural?

[@KadrickNinness]

No, I'm well familiar with these antics. Guys on my feed hardly ever post any sexualized content. But the females regularly make their feelings known with illustration. One I recall recently doing the rounds of a few friends, was "Put your clothes back on Channing Tatum. Said no one ever."

[@FHBStudio]

I think they have yet to demonstrate that there's a causal link between these images appealing to the male gaze and a harm to society or parts thereof. To me it's like the violence in video games thing. As a side note I had been wondering what appeals to a gay man sexually, since if they're feminized, would they not look for the same appeals as women? But I guess I got my question at least somewhat answered here.

[@dandereninja4750]

as a gay man I can honestly say I am attracted to beefy guys in thongs with a noticeable bulge... but enough about that. what many people forget is that gay men are attracted to MEN and are themselves MEN. Even the most effeminate gay male is still a guy and looks for what he thinks is sexy. Which on other men tends to be muscles. Some gay guys are attracted to the more effeminate gay guy, but at the end of the day it's either about dat ass or dat dick for gay men. Don't get me wrong we do look for personality as well, as much as any guy. As a gay man I'm pretty sure I still look at a guy in a different light than say a straight woman.

[@woooweee]

Gay men's sexuality isn't feminized, the much higher rate of promiscuity and the concentration on aesthetics show that gay men's sexuality is male, they aren't just women with dicks. You see much more restrained sexuality in lesbians, they even have a term for the problem, "lesbian bed death".

[@dandereninja4750]

... show me where I said ALL gay men are attracted to same type of guy. I said there are tendencies. Only thing I said that all gay men are attracted besides other men is dick or ass.

[@FHBStudio]

wooo weee ***** Joseph Murphy Thanks for the responses. It wasn't a well thought out question I had, it was just a random thought that occurred to me where two related dots got connected.

[@FHBStudio]

Venraef Going by stereotypes there seem to be quite a few differences, like, gay men being more fashionable and such.

[@BrentJohn]

Objectification of any kind (sexual or otherwise) is only bad if it's disrespectful, unwelcome, or illegal. That's all I have to say about that.

[@MrGenedancingmachine]

Thanks Forrest.

[@BrentJohn]

MrGenedancingmachine Lol. I assume that was in response to my last sentence?

[@MrGenedancingmachine]

BrentJohn You got it!

[@honeykisses1987]

Objectification is part of human sexuality. You see a good looking person, you want to interact with them. But like you said, as long as it's not illegal, unwelcome, etc. When did everybody become prudes?

[@BrentJohn]

honeykisses1987 If I had to take a wild guess, I would say it was when feminists misunderstood (and still do misunderstand) what feminism is all about and take it too far.

[@PolarBear21]

Factual Feminist: Male glaze? Untestable, so _Whatever._ *#ShotsFired*

[@LIBERTYorD34TH]

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

[@iferlyf8172]

Besides, you don't necessarily stop considering someone as a human being just because you find them sexy and are aroused by them...

[@existenceisrelative]

It's a nonsense gibberish term. It implies that you have to know a person in extreme detail before you can find them attractive. If you enjoy a certain chef's cooking and go to their restaurant often, are you making that chef a "food object"? If you like a band, but don't know the names of their childhood pets are you making them a "music object"? No, of course not. And it's the same with finding someone attractive.

[@ShunyamNiketana]

Because they've internalized the patriarchal gaze?

[@JRCSalter]

The underlying assumption here is that objectification is a bad thing. But is it really? Sure, objectification by itself dehumanises the 'object', but as a certain chick flick released recently suggests, it is okay, and maybe even titillating, to be treated as an object occasionally. As long as the objectifying is temporary, or is used in conjunction with other forms of expression, I don't see what is wrong with it. And this statement applies to both male and female. I don't have a problem with the idea of of Playgirl or Diet-Coke ads. I do, however, have a prblem with the hypocrisy that comes from ignoring their objectification in favour of the more feminine variety.

[@Athlynne]

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

[@MG-je5xq]

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

[@gund2281]

Ummm yeah, those images of scantily clad men are ALL OVER THE PLACE too. I see many women, just on my Facebook friends list posting pictures of them daily. Usually with captions like "yummy" or "ohh yeah, gimmie some of this" This behavior is NOT exclusive to men, nor is it even more COMMON in men. It's simply frowned upon by others when men do it.

[@TheSocialGadfly]

I sure hope that these extremists boycott the next Magic Mike movie. Get on it, ladies.

[@ryanmorton3841]

Play Girl is still a thing actually, not as a physical magazine but as a website. From what I've seen it caters to several audiences like many websites of its type. From what I remember it caters to straight women, gay men and trans people. I presume it's relatively successful too given its close proximity to the Play Boy brand, though not as successful as Play Boy itself. Informative as always Christina.

[@MrEng1ne]

Clear, understandable, logical, to the point. I love this series so much., it is probably the only reason I'm even subscribed to this channel at all.

[@theevermind]

I would comment on the Super Bowl commercials ... but I died.

[@thomashandley1490]

The Super Bowl(NFL ads in general) ads drive me crazy. I just want to watch Football and beer commercials. I don't need to be shamed. The commercials are awkward and annoying.

[@ImminDragon]

OHHHH, male "gaze." TOTALLY confused for a second there! All I could think was "Why would they be blaming THEM for scantily clad women? Not like they'd be interested..."

[@thatnerdygaywerewolf9559]

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

[@rg0057]

Also, as for scantily clad men, somehow you've missed all the workout magazines. (I haven't been to a magazine rack in years... are they gone now?)

[@damienscullytoo]

i just wish feminist would return to their core and the person who popularised the modern movement, betty friedan.Funnily enough she hated radical feminism.

[@rodneymills6477]

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

[@rodneymills6477]

And yeah, only gay dudes look at them.

[@LostLocal7]

Male gaze = Men looking at things they like. The horror... Based Mom

[@victorwilliams4403]

Great video! I bet the radical feminist scatter when you speak. Because not is more painful to a liar than the truth.

[@theJellyjoker]

ports Illustrated is a sports magazine, maybe athletes in swimsuits? Bonus points awarded for swimmers. This isn't about female objectification or even the “oppressive male gaze” It is simply that those women are more attractive than the criticizing feminists so they feel threatened. Not I'm not calling them ugly, if you where to stand me next to one of those Calvin Kline male models I'd look like a hairy misshapen potato but this doesn't make me feel inferior but I guess that male privilege for you, lol.

[@typhado]

I would just like to mention that scantily clad males is having something of a success with the anime "Free! - Iwatobi Swim Club". While it's generally true that males are more interested in the physical/visual aspect than females there are plenty of exceptions to the rule.

[@akkicranige2177]

Finally someone that knows what she's saying!

[@MovieSnob667]

2:11 I am sure a better picture of Laura Mulvey exists than the one used. If I was Mulvey, I would not want that picture seen by anyone. Using such a horrible picture of her is practically harassment. I did not want to gaze at that.

[@Arxces]

Based Mom might do well to take a look at the covers of romance novels aimed at women. It's not Playgirl, but it shows that the objectification of men happens in the minds and imagination of women.

[@marcusreed3841]

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

[@thebaitandswitch4623]

I'd love the beefy guy photos in speedos. But then again, I'm one of those left alone gay guys, so my desire to see sexualized men more often can be written off as...sexist? Wait, I confused myself

[@bridgefin]

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

[@bungsana]

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

[@BumLuck]

I don't listen to anyone who tells me not to express or indulge in my own sexuality.

[@ConsueloHigdon]

I've heard an idea floating around (that might just be my own fabrication) that men are more visual when seeking sexual arousal while women are more auditory. Erotic novels are more popular with women than sexual videos are. Has anyone done any research on this? I'd like to take a look at it.

[@Brianphoenixx]

ESPN The Body Issue already does the whole "beefy guys in thongs" thing. But Feminists don't seem to complain about that.

[@AHMbros4life]

I would like to see beefy guys in thong for covers magazines but im sure there is a different market where they actually do that and get some. I don't see why is it wrong to show this kind of covers but I do respect the option of covering it in more family friendly areas.

[@legendre007]

Dr. Sommers, thank you for edifying people on this topic. :-)

[@Dargonhuman]

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

[@ArabianShark]

Two things I'd like to say: 1. As a man, I would absolutely not mind, for example, a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue counterpart featuring men posing in swimming apparel. As a straight man, I wouldn't buy it, but I would encourage it, so long as there was a market for it; 2. Men's Health magazine (and several others like it) has featured scantly dressed men on its cover a number of times, often to illustrate the efficacy of its articles on weight loss and building muscle tone, but that seems to go largely unnoticed whenever these issues are discussed.

[@EarthlingCarl]

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

[@matthewhood914]

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

[@Triumvirate888]

I don't see anything wrong with equal rights for men and women. I just don't want equivalence between men and women. You can recognize people's basic God-given rights without ignoring their God-given gender as well.

[@3dmaster205]

Meanwhile, women read 50 Shades of Grey, hardcore BDSM porn on public transport. But us men that are more inclined to be visually stimulated; not only are we not allowed to enjoy our visual stimulus in public, we're not even allowed to to enjoy it private.

[@laucorn123]

American Enterprise Institute Miss Sommers. I have a serious question. Why do you think so many feminist try so hard to silence male rape victims & erase female rapist?

[@P1ay3r7]

laucorn123 I believe it's because if you must make the men evil and the women pure and holy, then they can't be the victims, since it would show that men aren't (as) evil as they thought and that women aren't (as) good as they thought.

[@DirefulT453]

Here's the irony, 7 years ago as of this comment, having 'sexy models' on the cover of men's magazines (lets be honest) or Grid Girls and so on, was problematic. I remember a Grid Girl being interviewed at the time all this 'debate' was going on and which was the last year of the formula 1 Grid Girls (I'm pretty sure) and she was asked about her opinion on this matter, her response was "all you've done is succeed at doing me out of a well paying job". In real time just a few years later, we now have women who show their T&A on TikTok and Instagram . And now they have University courses on how to run a successful Only Fans site (Yay girl power). So is the message "we don't like the male gaze unless it is the approved male gaze?"

[@jimcurro5298]

Modeling as a career is no more detrimental to women's gender roles as males in careers that promote violence. For example boxing, ufc, football, hockey. Both if taken too seriously by youth can lead to girls with insecurities about their bodies and boys feeling they need to be tougher and more violent as portrayed by their role models. The problem is not the career, its the exposure of kids to these at a young age which this video does a great job of mentioning (even though I do love all those sports) Are these men that are playing professional sports that are prone to violence victims of society as well? And if they are that can easily be extrapolated to construction work, mining, armed forces which makes a sizable proportion of jobs where males are the majority and in very high risk jobs. I would love to hear a those who hate the SI issue viewpoint of males in high risk fields as opposed to women who choose careers that are on average a lower risk (teaching, child care, etc.) and the possible impacts of how men are brainwashed into these careers

[@ripapa6355]

Smartest person on KZbin. ..sorry Thunderf00t, second smartest on KZbin ain't bad though.

[@travisretriever7473]

Sports Illustrated is culturally relavent? News to me. I always thought it was just something people read while waiting at the doctor's office. Talk about a slow news day...

[@seanb3516]

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

[@Britt11777]

I think we should also mention that regardless of sexual orientation, straight or gay, women `gaze` at beautiful women weather on the street or on a magazine cover same as men. That is why magazine`s like Cosmo have sexy women all over them instead of sexualized men. The target group for that magazine and others like it are women! So why are we being so hypocritical of men when we do the same thing?

[@Theskybluelake]

How can she even call herself a feminist at all, when she debunks all the feminist BS...

[@moonchild07]

this woman is working relentlessly to deny sexism exists.

[@Canedude08]

What's comical is that ESPN The Magazine does a Body Issue every year, where a ton of men are darn near naked, women don't have anything to say about that, they don't buy the magazine. You don't hear men complaining when women go out and see "Magic Mike" or "50 Shades". These SI models aren't doing this with a gun pointed at their heads, they chose to pose. They chose to leverage their above average attractiveness into a big payday, and significant exposure.

[@NancyFrye]

I wondered where that whole "male gaze" thing came from. As far as equivalent "sexy" man magazines? No thanks. I do NOT want to see guys in speedos and thongs! If I want to look at sexy guys in print I'll pick up an outdoor sports catalogue.

[@superduper9357]

The biggest reason Playgirl failed in the UK was that at the time, the law did not allow the showing of people in a state of sexual arousal. This meant no male models could have an erection. Women complained that restricted their own arousal when attempting to enjoy the images, if you know what I mean?

[@rantos9]

EDUCATE ME C.H. SOMMERS, YOU'RE THE GREATEST

[@thomasjulius6355]

Every time you said "gaze" I though you said "gays" and I thought "what do the gays have to do with this?"

[@dylanflynn1895]

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

[@edzebes]

There were Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issues featuring men, including an issue featuring athlete couples. Pretty much all male fitness mags are objectification of muscular male beauty. The interesting thing (to me) about the SI Swimsuit issue is that it's mass published and circulated, but equated to Adult Magazines in public discourse. It's somehow "dirty" while about every other display of physical beauty escapes that sort of PR. Cosmo and other mass published and publicly seen tabloid rags often feature sexualized women on the covers, but since these sell to women then it gets less media peril than the SI swimsuit issue gets this year. Honestly, the panic certain sects of feminism trump up probably helps sales of the Swimsuit cover, and there's really nobody losing anything from the complaints. I'd like to add that objectification and the male gaze is nothing but a huge assumption made by the person making the claim of objectification and male gaze. There is nothing wrong with finding someone physically attractive and valuing their physical beauty. Doing this is not objectification. It does not automatically exclude any other qualities the person may or may not have. If you find someone physically striking and you turn your head, almost without helping it, then you're having a natural physical reaction. People are aroused, turned on, or lured by different things. As long as these things do not actually harm anyone then I see no reason for panic. We generally put barriers down where we feel the other side is unable to have say in something that may physically harm them. Many men and women go through much of their life without constant reminds that others find them attractive. Being attractive is an advantage in life. If you're offended by being found attractive, then please live a life where others do not find you attractive and you have no self-esteem boosts on that level. Sometimes a gal just wants to feel desired, and sometimes we spent a lot of energy on first world problems.

[@johnthehumanist2333]

ENVY!

[@TBoneTony]

Spot on with the PlayGirl Magazine example. Magazines sell if they offer something that their readers want, and if they don't make a profit then they eventually go out of business. That is the simple truth of capitalism. If there are not enough women or gay men not buying the PlayGirl mag, then it does out of business, while the Sports magazine with women in bikinis sells because the readers are straight men and lesbian women. Even bisexual women love the Sports Illustrated. So please Gender Feminists, stop complaining and make your own mags to suit your audiences without shaming the other side.

[@rg0057]

"Just a theory" No. Gravity is a theory. The gaze is NOT a theory. FTFY.

[@jeffreysegal2065]

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

[@IrradiatedOne]

For a while I thought she was saying male Gays.. not Gaze. "The evils of the male gays" lol.. Good video I know ya were saying Gaze but it is kinda funny how it worked out if you switch that one word.

[@isodoublet]

Not only is the "mail gauze" a completely stupid idea, it's not even applicable to the situation at hand. "Mail gauze" is when the camera takes on a male perspective because men are controlling the camera, not simply whenever there's a photo of an attractive lady on a magazine made for men.

[@OMEGATHENIETZCHIAN]

There are tons of scantily clad men in fitness magazines, sports magazines, ESPECIALLY the WWE but women don't consume that media. I've always thought it had something to do with men being more visual and women caring more about emotional connection.

[@alexdhamp]

Wait...Playgirl didn't stop or anything, did it? And what about movies like Magic Mike that women go crazy over?

[@Ensign_Cthulhu]

+Kami Nana Yeah, and let's not forget "The Full Monty" - which was about a bunch of unemployed steelworkers who decided to objectify themselves in front of the women of their town to give the gals a kick and themselves a leg up out of the misery of the dole queue/financial ruin. In the film they were competing against the Chippendales (professional male strippers), who'd just been through and done the exact same thing, but the punchline of the film (which gives it its title) is that unlike the Chippendales they were willing to show EVERYTHING. And yeah, in the film, the ladies go wild.

[@sbai4319]

I don’t see many Forth Wave Feminists objecting to the portrayal of men in the media such as sitcoms and news as bumbling and inept or raising the importance of fatherhood in parenting?

[@PetroBeherha]

I've been familiar with the male gaze and what it supposedly means. It's a natural thing for one person (in this case, a male) to look at a sexy person (a female) and find them sexy, but I realize that the male gaze only becomes a concern if the subject sees the object ONLY as a means to an end. ie. if the male is a genuine misogynist. With all this shaming around male sexuality and objectification, this video made me realize that this is just slut shaming under a different name and done to men.

[@ShadyKnight9]

Personally, I'm not fond of eye candy. In many cases, it can be embarrassingly gratuitous, usually when it comes to butt and boob poses, but unlike gender activists, I don't consider it a black and white issues. Most of the time, what is shameless fanservice is subjective, and though I may not personally enjoy it sometimes, I can't decry someone else for enjoying it. I think you'd have to go an extra mile or have it happen far too often on a consistent basis for something to be objectively demeaning to either women or men.

[@lylecosmopolite]

Women reveal their charms outside of the marital bedroom, and a common reason is that doing so gives them a thrill. Many everyday middle aged women have doffed their kit and uploaded the resulting images to the internet. There are sex positive feminists who want to unshackle women's erotic power, embrace masturbation, and most of all, embrace nude recreation. I have never read anything on the internet advocating nude all-women resorts. More women are turned on by naked women than care to admit the fact in polite company. The conversation surrounding the male gaze is laughable. That surrounding revenge porn needs to be taken very seriously. In my opinion, TV and print advertising exploits female sexiness much less than it did 40-60 years ago.

[@EnderCrypt]

as usually, the factual feminist is awesome!

[@Drudenfusz]

I always think of the 'evil eye' when someone brings up male gaze. That it is basically the idea that peolpe get magically tainted when looked upon. That means I think of it as a paranoid delusion, since vision doesn't send light but receives it. And I really don't care what people do in their heads. I don't mind men watching at those pictures, as long as the women on the pictures have the freedom to decide if they want to make those pictures. And luckily we have the freedom of choice in this regard, nobody is forcing those women to it, it is their career decision. So, I really see no issue here, except of course that some people want to make a drama out of nothing, to justify their victimhood narrative, which I find much more hurtful to women and to society in general than those pictures ever could be.

[@keirstenwahlberg6476]

Nobody is holding a gun to Rhianna or Bey once's head to dress that way. I personally don't care about what other women do. I wouldn't model in magazines because I'm comfortable.

[@DavidL-wd5pu]

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

[@andabreadwasmine]

fat is ugly and it shouldn't be forced on us. models like ashley graham and tess holiday are hideously and grossly obese and that's not something we should be teaching young girls to aspire to look like/ be like

[@DavidL-wd5pu]

To be fair new research from Oxford suggests that a big butt and flat tummy is actually very healthy. But hey they are just discovering what us men knew looked healthy from the beginning. It's in our DNA to pick the healthiest women with the best curves. Those curves are dictated by a good hormone profile, and diet. I was borderline underweight for a long time and recently became overweight, though not obese. And I just changed my diet switched to a better medication, and I've already lost 4 pounds in two weeks. And I don't starve myself. I eat as much as I want and even have beer. I stick to a high protein low carb diet. And I avoid sugar like the plague.

[@skaduskitai8721]

I'm wondering why sleazy "romantic novels" never came up. It is very clear that this market is way more focused on catering to women than to men. For the same basic reason, whatever biological/cultural reasons underlying it this kind of literature simply appeals more to women than to men but it's still basically the same thing. That men tend to be a bit more purely visually aroused and women tend to be more sexually attracted to other qualities that lends themselves better in a narrative than a photo is not exactly groundbreaking news.

[@jeremiahd2209]

I'm pretty sure every other issue of SI has scantily clad athletic men...

[@dalelimoges9024]

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