In the Cohen pic, the only thing that looks stupid is his expression. His body actually looks quite nice, and it's easy to forget that this is supposed to be a "feminine" pose. In the car pictures, if the guys had been dressed as revealingly as the girls, or at least in clothes that fit correctly, and WITHOUT those idiotic black socks, the effect wouldn't have been as jarring (but that wouldn't have made the photographer's point as well, would it now?).

I gues if the guys in such photos would be as sexy as the girls, the effect would be similar. As for the Bruno photograph, well, his expression ruins the effect, becauce the body's real nice.

Man, I wish you had not stuck Bruno's omnipresent mug up there. I am so damned tired of him and his schtick.

The other pictures are actually really interesting. I think the sexiness in the women's pictures is largely based on their poses as invitations to sexual contact. They are either lying back or bending over and indicating an interest in doin' it right there and now. The least sexy image is the woman resting on one heel in the last picture, who is not offering sexual access.

The men, aside from the black socks and goofy grins, are not posed in ways men are positioned during sex (most commonly), so there is no implicit invitation to sex and, therefore, no sexiness. Maybe if they could have gotten the shorts to flip up in the wind the way the skirts do ...

It reminds me of how spectacularly weird Playgirl and the like always seemed. What could possibly be sexy about a guy with a limp dick (if you don't know him outside of a magazine picture, I mean)? There's nothing about the picture invoking sex other than the fact that the guy is naked and good looking. I suspect men's porn magazines would not do very well if they showed naked women in situations where it was obvious they were not in the slightest bit interested in sex.

I think the car pictures do serve to point out that it's pretty ridiculous to post that way to sell a car. It's a little bit of a shock just to take us a step away from the notions we already have. We're so used to seeing women posed that way that it's easy to forget it's ridiculous-- seeing men do the same thing highlights how unnatural and silly the posing is. I think it works.

when will men stop wearing dress socks with shorts?

I think we're just so USED to seeing women this way (through the male gaze), that it seems "normal" to us, whilst the men doing the same thing look absurd. Truth be told, the women look absurd posing like that as well, but we've been conditioned to think of *that* as sexxxayyy so it doesn't even register.

I know I should be thinking and writing something deep and meaningful here. But all I can think is how hideous black socks with brown sandals are.

You're using stereotypically attractive, remarkable women here (thin, obvious breasts, etc.) and stereotypically UNattractive, average guys. Average is never portrayed as sexy, even if it should be. A more average sized woman in unflattering shorts pulled up too high wearing dumb shoes would look just as dumb. If you take men who are portrayed as the male body ideal--muscular, big package, etc, and put them in clothes meant to shpwcase that (say, a speedo or a jockstrap with flip-flops and no shirt), the difference in the effecat would be a lot less significant.

And anyone showcasing the car emblem on the hood looks dumb.

Let's be honest - the women who are posing in those car photos are thin and conventionally attractive, dressed in clothes which highlight their bodies. The men are average looking, not dressed in "sexy" clothing (and sporting the nastiest footwear!), so the point they're trying to make is rather lost. I've seen plenty of photo shoots with attractive male models and actors, although they might not have been posed in these "feminine" ways, and I think men can definitely be sexy.

Trabb's Boy, you seem to work under the assumption that women don't like to look at pictures of naked men unless they are erect?

Beefcake. Look it up on Google, and I don't mean the foodstuff. You can begin with naked Daniel Radcliffe, then read the 376 comments on that post.

I'm really fascinated by this cover, not just for this but for something the website Gawker noted here: http://gawker.com/5310095/magazine-newsstands-hos-before-brunos

Stupid article title nonwithstanding, the interest is that some newsstands have provided those covering slips for GQ, ostensibly to cover up nudity, but celebrates it with the image of a naked woman right next to it.

I actually think the men on the cars look cute. They are smiling, and make me smile, and look like they are having a good time. They look far more approachable than men who look serious (or 'manly' ) all the time.

Its absolutely not that men are not sexy. It is the characteristics that have been assigned to each gender through years of an essentially patriarchal society. So that when we switch them it is ridiculous and laughable. But at least we are calling attention to WHY we are laughing which is exactly what I was trying to address in this piece, which is another humorous example inspired by classical paintings:

www.behepp.com/boys

"I suspect men’s porn magazines would not do very well if they showed naked women in situations where it was obvious they were not in the slightest bit interested in sex."

Theres plenty of material out there where they dont. Also theres some posts on this site about modelling and advertising where the main focus is on a womans body, in a sexual vein but she has no face or shes dead.

In reference to my previous post, I think I was too vague. When I said the women dont look interested in sex, I didnt mean boredom, but situations where its hard to tell wether she "wants it" or not or even where she doesnt at all.

Beth, along those lines (the switching of gender roles) I was wondering how equally laughable it would be if we took photos of women in popularly male poses. Standing tall in work boots with arms folded. Fixing a car. Looking thoughtfully with a furrowed brow into the distance. Something tells me these images would still be sexualized and not considered goofy or unattractive. I suspect because of the fact that women's bodies are viewed sexually in print. What do you think?

(Also because a woman doing a "man's job" is often considered sexy... like, oh how cute she is, dabbling in boys' work. Which is another issue entirely.)

Good point Angela.

Funny I didn't even notice the black socks! I think trabb's boy hit the nail on the head! The positon of the women are sexually inviting. As a man I first see the body and its position before I notice anything else.

A man who wants to be in a sexually provocative way would have to do it in a position he would normally take in a sexual act. (I am assuming since I'm not a woman)

A woman pumping her hips and pretending to smack a rear end is not as appealing (atleast to me) as her bending over and appearing to want to receive the smacking and the pumping of hips.

It does help sell cars because it encourages men to pay attention rather than to ignore the ad all together. Advertisement are more about putting a name in your head rather than selling you on the merits of the product. Like the caveman Geico commercials....everyone knows them and remembers that its Geico....but they never say anything about why they are better than other insurance companies.

If you got some guys with muscles, put em in some ripped up jeans and had em wet like they were washing the car or something, it would be hot. If you had a guy in jeans with an open silk shirt with a cute face and nice smile sprawled out sideways on the hood of a car, it would be sexy. In that second picture of the guys with the silver car, the guy on the right looks kinda sexy to be honest. The black dress socks with the shoes ruin the effect. Dress up a hunky cowboy leaning all sexy on the front of an F150 truck, you could get the same results you get with girls.

Tasha, you've thought about this a lot, I see : )

Elena, I concede. Just 'cause I don't get it doesn't mean it's not true. Didn't click through though. Not only is Daniel Radcliffe waaaaay too young for me, but is character in that play is so F'd up that I am determined to assume I would not find him a turn-on.

I think that women shown doing what is considered "man's work" is often sexualized by her clothes, her pose, and her body type. If she is seriously working of a car then she probably will be wearing real work clothes and not sticking her butt out with a "do me" look on her face.
I think there are poses that are rather uncharged, like looking off into the distance, but there are also "male" poses and clothing that would be seen as comical for a woman to take on. A traditionally male pose would be something like arms folded, chin tilted up, scowling down at people he is strong than. Sports type poses. Personally I think people thinking a lot of themselves is rather funny in itself. But if a busty thin woman was in the same pose it probably would just be seen as attractive and not funny. But if any other type of woman stood glaring at you like a footballer it would probably be seen as funny, but you're right, probably not as comical as a man in a woman's pose.
It is a good point to bring up, why it is more acceptable for a woman to take on male roles and act like a "tom boy". I think it just implies the idea that one gender is truly better than the other, like our society thinks it is understandable for a woman to want to be like a man, but why would a man want to be like a woman? Its a messy gendered world that takes itself too seriously.

Actually, it was Hudson News that decided to treat the Bruno cover as “pornographic” which they also did with the Jennifer Aniston cover.

That doesn’t make the dichotomy of the third picture any less glaring, but I thought I should point that out.

BRILLIANT.

Lol @ Trabb's Boy's comment about the limp dicks. I am so with you there. I don't get the appeal at all. The worst I've seen is porn that was meant to be for women- but, definitely not women like me: the model looked bored and was at half mast with his cock in one hand and a beer in the other. Woo.

Now, as for those dudes in the socks, there's very little I find more sexually appealing than a smart sense of humor. That they're recognizing the ridiculousness of advertizing cars by exploiting women's sexual availability and turning the concept on it's head to play up that ridiculousness is really the cherry on the top. Delicious. :)

I think it's worth mentioning that Sasha Baron-Cohen is a straight man playing a gay man with the apparent intention of demonstrating that homophobia still exists (I say apparently because there are some very good arguments out there that he is, in fact, stoking homophobia).

By showing this gay, male character in a pose that so clearly emulates that of women on the magazine's cover, GQ is effectively suggesting that gay men are in some way like women.

And again, they may well claim irony and say they are attempting to critique that notion, but I'd argue that there are other, better ways of doing so.

Also worth noticing is that Jennifer Aniston's posed with her pelvis toward the camera and her legs open, while Cohen has his legs more demurely together and his pelvis facing the side.

I think that for me, the most striking part of the picture was the fact that Sacha Baron Cohen is completely waxed/shaved on that cover, while he is usually a relatively hairy man (I think we've all seen Borat in his "mankini"... http://webwombat.com/entertainment/movies/images/borat-preview-1.jpg )
I wonder how that picture would have been different if he had stayed "au naturel". Could it have been a cover? (I don't remember seeing a speck of hair on a, let's say, Men's Health cover....ever...) Does it help to convey an image of him as "feminine", since it is socially unacceptable for a woman to have visible body hair? Could he successfully play a thin, camp, austrian, gay man in this type of film without waxing his entire body?

Is it just me, or does the caption on the top right say "(And Our First Nude Cover, Sorry.)," even though the cover it is juxtaposed with is clearly a nude photo, minus the tie?

Would it be possible for Cohen to successfully play a thin, camp, Austrian gay man in this type of film without waxing his entire body? Sure. Look at Freddie Mercury. I mean, really, look at him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-WasNzVpI&feature=fvst

The comment about GQ covering up SBC at the newsstand isn't quite accurate.

GQ hasn't covered up or sent out, from what I've seen anything like a plastic wrapped, paper covered edition.

In fact, look at the photo more closely and you'll see someone has taped a piece of paper to the front cover of the topmost issue. Look at the stack below it and you'll notice they don't have the same cover.

I don't want to take away from the overall commentary by pointing this out, in fact, it becomes all the more poignant.

If in fact it was the newsstand that covered the photo it goes to show just how gender biased and pervasive personal censorship can be in our society.

Thank you, Ennis! I made the correction.

Hank: Right, haven't thought of him.
However, Mercury was a rock star, not a fashion reporter, a real person, not a character, and did not have as an aim to make people uncomfortable about homosexuality, unlike Brüno (Freddie was meant to be admired, Brüno is meant to be repulsive).
What I wanted to say is, given the purpose/style of the film, and the targeted audience, I don't think it would work as well with a hairy man doing exactly the same character.

As for guys and cars, just google image search "speedo washing car" and you get many guys and cars photos that are likely to be much more pleasing to some folks than the guys pictured above.

I just notice the Bruno GQ reads: It's our #&%ing comedy issue! (AND OUR FIRST NUDE COVER, SORRY).

Not knowing anything about the guy, I think the Bruno cover is pretty sexy. The guys posing with the car need more frills and hairstyling to match the girls though.

Hey Hank, Freddie sure is working those white hotpants. Yowza!

It is amazing to me the lengths people will go to in order to defend the status quo. And so far nobody has even questioned the fact that sexy poses for women are pouty and little girl like. Bruno's stance, suggests he is an innocent little girl trying to keep you from seeing her naked (But secretly she really wants it). So you must go take it from her. And that is how most women are portrayed as sexy in the media. And yes, I am sure some of you can think of exceptions. But that doesn't negate the general rule. An adult woman who has sexual desires and is going to get what she wants is often sexy to men in the bedroom, but you will rarely see it in print.

"Bruno’s stance, suggests he is an innocent little girl trying to keep you from seeing her naked (But secretly she really wants it). So you must go take it from her. And that is how most women are portrayed as sexy in the media."

Kinda like the infamous Miley Cyrus picture, eh?

I don't know. In the men vs. women on cars photos the footwear might be the difference. Please lose the black socks, guys?

Very effective photos. Would be even more effective if professional models were used.

Miriam Heddy:

"I think it’s worth mentioning that Sasha Baron-Cohen is a straight man playing a gay man with the apparent intention of demonstrating that homophobia still exists...."

Yeah, like most of think that homophobia has been eradicated, just like racism. I definitely think he's stoking it, and I've never bought the "in on the joke" defense.

I especially love how Jennifer Aniston´s hands are reduced to rodent-like paws.

Cyn said it right, I think.

The photographers have to prove they are not homosexual by showing that they do not find men in "sexy poses" sexy. All they see are cherry red junior high gym shorts and long socks. I suppose one could find something tender in their desire to leave Teh Sexiness to the ladies. Or a proud demonstration that the burdens of trying to be sexy do not apply to them.

I like the ladies posing with cars better than the guys because they pose with a MK5 GTI in one picture.

I think the photo of Sasha would be nice if he didn't make that facial expression. Reminds me of traditional Greek sculpture. It's sad that men putting themselves on sexual display is often seen as ridiculous in this society. Even if it is done, the man makes an attempt to look aggressive, and men on display most often seem targeted toward other men rather than women. Women like a good view just as much as a man does, only it's less available. Take, for instance, my friend's experience at a male and female strip club; not only did the men display less, and catered more to a beefcake audience (something which only a small number of the women I've known seem to enjoy, though perhaps I am hanging out with a minority) , they also cost significantly more. I can guarantee you, I am just about as shallow and oversexed a consumer as my fellow man, and yet I feel a deep weakness in the market for sexual gratification aimed towards today's women. For my own gratification, I call for greater consumer demand!

the men are wearing dress shoes and socks (because dark socks are typically worn with dress shoes) because the ladies are wearing dress shoes. the gear is fairly comparable in my view, because, i think, the people complaining about the shoegear would be just as up in arms if the men were wearing sneakers, say.

I think that (12/09 update) Neutra Face video is fantastic. As a heterosexual woman I'll stand behind the fact that a substantial amount of it "works," and it seems to me that the awkward-humor of it is more from the bow ties and stereotypically nerdy attire than it is from the fact that the cast is male.

As for the Neutraface video, four out of four females attracted to male geeks agree, it makes us go 'hominahomina wow!' Maybe we're not very good representatives, being all so geeky ourselves, but when he gets out of that bath all covered in type...geez. Man. Wow. Yowza.

Perhaps TMI, but this video is something I do watch when I want to be turned on - it's in my 'sexy' playlist on youtube alongside various L word videos and a Lissy Trullie video.

I feel like the audience for whom the men in the Neutraface video are trying to "make it work" is fairly ambiguous. Some of their dance moves and poses are stereotypially feminine, but many are not, which might suggest that they are overall trying to appeal to women with a masculinized version of "flaunting it". However, there is no clear indication that they are trying to attract a female gaze: women only appear briefly near the end of the video and they seem to be pretty absorbed in enjoying the music rather than watching the guys. Furthermore, while there's minimal male-female contact, there are several instances of homoerotic touching between the dancing guys. Is this a gendered reversal of the "hot lesbians making out for some lucky guy" trope, or does it suggest that they are performing for a gay male gaze?

I believe (though I may be wrong) that two of the men in the video are a couple and I suspect that they are simply trying to mimic Lady Gaga's dance moves from "Pokerface" (which is what this is a parody of) as opposed to trying to be sexy for any particular group or gender.

I agree with thoughtcounts Z comments with regards to the humour coming more from the stereotypical nerdy outfits. Had they worn "cooler" attire or been shirtless, it might be a bit different and more stereotypically sexy.

The Neurtaface video made me lol. I really do love being a nerd 'cause otherwise I wouldn't understand most of the hilarious videos out there. And those dudes were hot. Beards, bowties and all. I think the moves work for them, feminine or no. I do think it makes a difference when it's serious looknig rather than it coming across like the guy is goofing around (like Bruno) or is doesn't seem like they're trying too hard (what's the the business socks in the car pictures? Is it business time?) When it's serious sexy (those guys were seriously working it in all the right ways) it doesn't seem to matter, at least to me, whether the moves are typically feminine or not. Just a thought. Or maybe I just prefer sexy nerdy to the previous "sexy" pictures. I do have a strong nerd bias. :P

I think I'm gonna watch the video again. :D

I guess the definition of “sexy” is different for each woman. I watched 300 with my then-gf, and she was very attracted to the Spartans. I found the battle sequences very good, but she was doubly enjoying the movie. She mentioned something about how it would be logical for gay men to be attracted to a movie like that (one of her best friends is gay). Not to derail the topic, but what I and most of my friends define as sexy doesn’t have much to do with the women that fashion designers prefer.

I think that the Bruno picture was mocking gay men, not women. I think the reaction draw out of this is supposed to be that he looks silly BECAUSE he's gay THUS he acts feminine. I'm pretty sure the movie was made to embarrass what many people view as gay people, just as Borat, under the same intentions, was to embarrass what many people view as foreigners. The over all message of these movies seem to be these people (gays and or foreign) don't belong in America.
As for the Neutra Face video, I thought it was good. I did see some very feminine behavior, but as much as any masculine man can force; if you've grown up feminine, it is hard to take on masculine body movements, and the same works in the opposite direction. I think men have a harder time doing it without mockery because they find their sexuality is at threat if their gender expression wavers. Thus, there is mental blocker there, unless one is not worried about their sexuality being perceived as non-heterosexual, thus they have no worried about acting femininely, if truly or in an acting situation.
That is my speculation.

Hmmm. I wonder why I'm not attracted to those "hunks" posing on the hood of that car. Maybe because THEY ARE NOT SEXY. They are nerdy, not in an "adorkable" kind of way, but in a highwater-pants-wearing, beaten-with-the-ugly-stick, tevas-and-socks-wearing sense. I will laugh at their asses (at least I hope that was meant to be humorous), while holding out for some real hot men.

 I think there's such thing as gender-neutral sexy and badass poses - you find them when not trying to deliberately call attention to the more ridiculous and gendered ones.

The Neutraface video was sent around my (mostly straight and cis-female) group of friends a while back, and the general response was "wow, that's super sexy (and funny!)". I think that some other cultures can do male displays of sexuality with much less discomfort and homophobia (e.g. Bollywood, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrQA-w8s-uc).  Isn't part of what makes those pictures of men "funny" our (I'm a USian) general sense that only female sexuality is performative so men doing it causes cognitive dissonance?

The Neutra Face video is a joke and it's STILL sexier than Playgirl, gay porn, and every other representation of male sexuality I've seen in the media.

I'm a believer in the natural beauty of the human body. For me, nudity is not inherently sexual. Sexuality is about attitude and the body in motion (kinetic or potential). This is why our culture's idea of male sexuality, which involves stiff hardbodies in confrontational poses, looking vacant and detached, has never done a thing for me. I look at that and I think, "You're naked. So what?"

These men - gripping, clawing, biting, rubbing and caressing each other - seem a lot more sexual. The only other place I've seen male sexuality portrayed in such an engaging fashion is japanese pop media, where women artists will often draw their male characters licking or biting an object suggestively, sometimes with arched backs and lidded eyes, and male pop stars are photographed in poses and environments that make them appear vulnerable or otherwise engaged in sexuality.

In other words, what I find sexy is people acting (and feeling) sexual.

Someone I watch on tumblr occasionally reblogs these "sexy men" blogs.

I'm always struck not by the poses, which are pretty typically manly "grr" poses usually, or the outfits, which are always typical men's clothing/undergarments, but by the replies from the people (usually, women) seeing it. Every picture I see is usually followed by a string of "ohhhh my god," and "yesss" and "get in my bed now."

I constantly hear about how men are more "visual" than women and that's why there are so many naked girls and never naked men. I always wonder if these people have EVER been on the internet. Straight women seem to respond to attractive, posed, scantily-clad men in EXACTLY the same way that straight men respond to attractive, posed, scantily-clad women.

Probably not work safe:
NWS http://shithesgorgeous.tumblr.com/ NWS
NWS http://sexualfrustrationmachine.tumblr.com/ NWS
http://hotboysftw.tumblr.com/ <--seems ffffairly worksafe....

Anyway yeah there's like a zillion of these blogs.

As a full time photographer, I work almost exclusively with girls.  I also don't find guys particularly attractive (Aside from Jude Law -- he'd be my gay lover if I was gay).  I've worked with all of ONE guy, who was gay himself.  And in that process we actively worked to make him look "not gay".

[Note: I have absolutely no problem with gay anyone or anything, the point of the shoot was masculinity, with no feminine overtones]

It was difficult to do ANY shots with him having his arms up in ANY pose.  Although when I work with girls, that's a very favorite thing to have them do.  (It also keeps them from thinking "what do I do with my hands?")

So I don't know.  I do think the photos above are purposely funny, it'd be interesting to recreate the famous girl photos with real male models who are similar to the men you'd find in the ads opposite the girls they're recreating.   Kind of like the Leonard Nemoy work where he used heavy women to recreate other popular works.

http://www.google.com/search?q=leonard+nimoy+photography&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=q1WPTuGZC_CDsgKLw72RAQ&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1172&bih=1232

So I don't know.

Another example, different language and country :
those two male bloggers copy the set ups and poses of famous (mostly french) fashion bloggers http://lepetitechomalade.com/?cat=4 to generally hilarious effect. It doesn't assert so much the typical pin up pose as the new "fashionable" poses : the awkward girl, the uncomfortable positions, the evanescent looks...

I love this music video of an Italian punk band (Vanilla Sky) covering Rihanna's Umbrella. Its kind of meant to be a parody, but there are men adopting traditionally feminine poses in video and looking genuinely sexy. Well, in my opinion anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvC6VS4Np4U

I know I'm probably not the average person, But yeah, I totally think the neutraface video is sexy.

Music is kinda not good though.

Rather NSFW image here (it's a man in revealing underwear), but it makes an interesting counterpoint to this post: http://xdress.com/gallery/load/lingerie

He's still clearly presenting as male, but the pose is awkward and similar to poses one would see in female lingerie models. The clothing is, obviously, hyper feminine. However, there's nothing silly about this. It may be off-putting to those who don't want to see men in women's underwear, but the fact that this was not made for comedic purposes makes a huge difference. He's a very attractive man shown in a flattering way, even if there are cues (the passivity of the pose in leaning backwards, pulling his clothing up, the slightly spread legs, the feminine lingerie, the soft light) for it to be read in a traditionally feminine manner.

What I find very interesting about this whole discussion is that the men are refereed to as joking, being funny, mocking, etc. implying that being in a feminine pose (or what we have socially constructed to be a feminine pose) is a joke and something to be laughed at if done by a man. It implies the concept "it's OK to be a boy, but for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading." (quote from movie The Cement Garden and Madonna song). When men take on feminine roles it is a joke, something not to be taken seriously. There are photos of women in masculine poses still looking sexy. A woman in a masculine pose isn't automatically considered a joke or a parody. Only women can be sexy in feminine poses and both men and women can be sexy in masculine poses.

I loved the video because, even though it is a parody, it is still very sexy without all the humor of some of the photos. The men don't appear to be trying to be funny, they are trying to be sexy.

It's interesting that the newsstands only covered up the nude "Bruno" image when the nude female figure right next to it shows the same amount of skin.  Is it only because we are desensitized to nude women on magazine covers?

I actually found this video on youtube through a friend's facebook page, and here the men are oily and shake their booties like "sexy ladies" in rap videos. The video is clearly gay referenced, but the feminine poses and the oiled muscular bodies are an interesting (and to be honest, sort of uncomfortable) juxtaposition.http://youtu.be/2w02QxQZGQc

IMHO he looks better than Jen Anniston.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150105653403416&set=a.10150100074883416.295505.300760038415&type=3&theater

This is because what is considered sexy for women is not for men. Unfortunately being attractive for women is to act in an infantile and vulnerable way. Hence the innocent and coy look that looks silly on men. Men are considered sexy when they stand tall and push out their chest.