Vice recently posted a fashion spread today called “Groin Gazing.” It features a series of photos by Claire Milbrath with styling by Mila Franovic, and the photos are framed tight on the clothed junk for your viewing pleasure. The models are identified by the type of guy they depict, such as “The Boyfriend” or “The Artist” or “The Businessman,” and even “The Boy Next Door.” And taken together, they are also exactly the sorts of men, anonymous, real, and imagined that a woman (or man) might lust after..
But what makes it remarkable is that, for a moment, you can indulge what it would actually be like if most of the photographs you saw in advertising or fashion were meant to cater to your desire. Not your desire to be more beautiful, or thinner, or more glamorous, but simply your desire for the opposite sex. This is something men take for granted. This is something women must overlook when watching popular TV shows and movies (*cough*gameofthrones*cough*truedetective*cough) that purport to be for everyone, and then instantly betray that when it’s time to show naked bodies, which are largely female, and which are nearly always and only filmed for an assumed hetero male viewer.
This discussion at Jezebel also made me think about how a big part of feeling desire is about feeling desired. Years ago I read an interview with a feminist stripper and she was asked about the difference between doing lap dances for male and female customers and she said that male customers tipped more. She put that down to men being more able to believe the fantasy that the stripper really, truly desired him. Female customers, she said, enjoyed the lap dance but understood that the stripper was working, that it was her job to pretend. But male customers believed the stripper wanted him and it was exciting and he tipped accordingly. What about when women watch male strippers instead? It’s quite difficult to objectify men. As John Berger (Ways of Seeing) says:
Men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves…
.. The surveyor of women in herself is male: the surveyed female … thus she turns herself into an object-and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.
Might the patriarchal history of objectifying women mean that, for women, feeling desirable is an especially important part of feeling desire? Women often complain that mainstream images of men aren’t particularly erotic. Maybe it is partly because we don’t see evidence of desire for us in those images of men? Yes, male model, you look hot and you’re making serious bedroom eyes at me in this photo but I see from your crotch that you’re just posing. We know it’s all pretend. We don’t get the kick of excitement that is knowing this person is excited too, and that they’re excited about us.
See below the line for an example of these “groin gazing” photos. (Sorry about the lack of diversity – only slim white guys were used in the VICE fashion spread).
[…] Cross-posted at blue milk. […]
The thing is though, as a heterosexual woman I don’t look at those pictures and feel anything other than vague curiosity ie is that really his penis, or has he just stuck something down his trousers? Obviously I can’t speak for all women, but these sorts of sexualised pictures of men never do anything for me. I need real interaction and real chemistry with real people to feel desire.
Agree, and if the erection isn’t on someone that I desire and in the right circumstances, I would find it quite threatening. Any old erection from a man on the street is not going to turn me on and would probably do the opposite. And even if I found the person attractive, if I looked down as saw that they were standing talking to me with an erection, well, that would be quite disconcerting.
For years I thought that weird feeling of embarrassed discomfort I felt when looking at certain images of good-looking men could be attributed to them just being *so handsome.* Eventually I noticed that it had nothing to do with how these guys looked, or how attracted I was to them (often, not very). It was that they were being presented like the men in this article–objectified, displayed, present only to be desired. I was so conditioned to the double standard that only women should be presented this way that I was instantly, subconsciously uncomfortable. For me that’s where the lack of desire on my end comes from; it’s not about me wanting to feel desired, it’s a mental block from years of social conditioning telling me that there’s something *wrong* with these images.
When I was younger I felt the enormous lure of being desired. It was like it never even occurred to me whether I desired or not – my own desire was created by *his* desire, and I felt myself pulled powerfully into relationships I knew weren’t right for me, simply by the gravitational pull of a man’s desire. It was like I felt like I had a duty to fulfill their desire. It was disturbingly strong.
I love this line: “Yes, male model, you look hot and you’re making serious bedroom eyes at me in this photo but I see from your crotch that you’re just posing.” Because that has what has always intrigued me – how men (eg: male prostitutes) can fake desiring someone.
I am much more attracted to photos of the male inner thigh than I am to erections as such. I remember when I was about 15, and my sexual desire was awakening, spending so long just staring at a pin-up Jockey poster of Chris Cairns in his underwear and wanting to lick that inner thigh. If he had an erection I would have found that horrifying and definitely not put such a poster on my wall. Mmmm…inner thighs. I still love those. Anyone else?
Oh and the male forearm. And collar bone. All delicious. Any random penis? Not so much.
Sure.. but I am interested in why photos of men you *are* attracted to might not feel particularly erotic for straight women.. and I think it might be the lack of erection. And erections could be a bit confronting, especially given how taboo they are currently considered to be.. but I think the lack of obvious arousal in mainstream photos means we don’t find the sexy photos to be all that sexy.
Quite likely. Because when I am looking at these photos I am thinking “well it is not actually me they are attracted to.” I find the comments about how, for women, being attracted to someone is so caught up with being seen to be attractive interesting. I would find it very hard to get aroused if I thought the person wasn’t actually attracted to me. And there is something about being seen to be sexy that is arousing in itself.
Not sure if I am following you correctly if just spouting random thoughts.
I think it’s partially this cultural idea that erection = intent. I mean, I was reading something the other day that, with no hesitation, stated that an erection was a clear sign that the man desired to have sex and consented to it (it was written by a man as well). So an erection is something that signals an action, not a passive reception of an action the way our representations of women do.
Which is really weird considering how capricious boners can be. >.>
I know, right? I was reading some heavily Freudian text about female arousal the other day and it was all ‘ladies have hidden body parts’ and ‘our bodies are unpredictable’ (menstruation), and all I could think was ‘seriously? dudes get boners all the fucking time for no reason!’. Combined with that stupid excruciating ‘study’ where women’s vaginal lubrication was compared with their stated level of arousal and of course, their vaginal lubrication was the ‘truth’ and they were lying about being unaroused.
Loup: here’s some sciency-type discussion of that (specifically deconstructing the erection=intent).
There’s also the social issue that public erection = threat. Either of censorship, or rape, or some other, less concrete threat.
oops: link = http://www.thedirtynormal.com/2012/12/08/non-concordance-for-dudes-feedback-please/
That’s a fascinating discussion, thanks!