This article seems to be equating objectification with exposed skin. While that makes it easier to measure and quantify, I don't think it's always true. The Old Spice Guy, for example, is a distinct character with about as much personality as you can squeeze into a 30-second ad, and one of the most imitable voices on television. He's not simply an object there to be gazed at; he is literally commanding you to gaze at him.

And perhaps that's where the distinction lies. Stereotypes of masculinity dictate that sexual images of men must be presented in an active rather than passive role and posture. Of course, much of objectification is in the eye of the beholder, and the way we read these images visually betrays a lot of our subconscious training in gender roles. We might regard a woman as "passive" or "degraded" in exactly the same pose in which we regard a man as "powerful" or "comical."

Equality in all the wrong ways perhaps.

You'll notice none of these men look like they are unconscious, miserable or terrified. Yeah, they are supposed to be hot, but they have powerful, self confident, and happy body language.

All of these men are in control of the situation - by positioning and by action. Compare and contrast to ads for men, where men are in control by positioning and action. Same old, same old.

Interesting article. Coincidentally, I gave a presentation about this subject in my class about social inequality last year. Two point I'd like to address:

Firstly, male objectification in advertising is not taken seriously. It's not taken seriously in this article, and not by mainstream social critics. Isn't that a double standard in itself? Can't boys develop a negative body image just as well as girls can because of this? When it's women who are objectified in advertising, feminist claim it's degrading, that it is part of a suppressive, patriarchal framework and a sign of gender inequality. Some, if not most, of those claims probably hold true, but I find this quiet paradoxical for a group that advocates against gender inequality. Not being agitated by male objectification is gender inequality in itself.

Secondly, most of these advertisements are incredibly heteronormative and conservative in gender norms. Each and every time a man is used in "hunkvertising", the ad is directly aimed at women and/or tries to sell products that are stereotypically aimed at female consumers (e.g. air fresheners, flowers or sweet apple cider drinks). This unveils how advertising still heavily relies on traditional gender norms. Furthermore, it ignores viewers, both male and female, with a non-heterosexual preference and strongly enforces heteronormativity. This problem does not apply exclusively to these kind of ads, of course, but it is very apparent in these cases.

Andrew, Ryebelly, and morf all make strong points, IMO. Lisa's main point, however, is weak. Though there is a tongue-in-cheek aspect to the ads that may give hetersexual men permission to look when they would otherwise be squicked, the ads also function strongly being just what they present themselves as. I don't see how that could be recognized by an analyst, unless that analyst was very strongly predisposed to see everything as evidence of oppression, always, and did not take the time to make the stronger passive vs. aggressive distinction that supports the same worldview more substantively.

Perhaps they're mocking straight women's sexuality... but I think that's incidental to the heteronormativity that's being performed here. The over-the-top production of "don't worry, male viewers, it's okay! I'm macho! I'm straight! I'm here for the ladies!" is calculated to put straight men at ease with a wink and a nod.

I don't think the major problem here is that these ads "mock" the female gaze and undercut female sexuality. Being funny doesn't make these guys any less hunky. The larger problem is that men ARE increasingly being objectified in American society (Justin Bieber is just as objectified as Britney Spears ever was; Adam Levine is "sexiest man of the year"), and messages to men seem to be more and more focused on looks & grooming than in the past ("metrosexual" is a mainstream phrase). Equal objectification is not a marker of gender equality-- the author is absolutely right about that. It simply continues a trend in our society where looks matter more than anything else--and that will make everyone more superficial, more ageist, more anti-intellectual, more insecure in their own bodies, and more prone to objectify each other with male OR female gazes. What happened to the feminist ideal of respecting people, as equals, for their brains, their integrity, their personality instead of their looks?

I've never really agreed with the statement "objectifying men alongside women certainly isn't progress." Maybe it's the Hegelian in me, but I don't think it's possible to live in a world of only subjectivity. To exercise subjectivity is to turn the world around us (including other people) into objects for our own use. There's nothing wrong with objectification in and of itself. Problems arise when one group of people get systematically objectified by another such that they rarely have an opportunity to express their own subjectivity, but are constantly serving to reaffirm the subjectivity of the other. The only way out of this - the only way for the subordinate group to assert their subjectivity - is to objectify the dominant group.

To put it more concretely, I think it's a good thing for white, heterosexual men to be objectified by other groups - to be defined, to be positioned, to be used for some purpose other than their own interests. We often hear that the power of whiteness is that it is invisible. It resists stereotypes. It resists getting pinned down. It grants the privilege of being able to stand in no place in particular and categorize the rest of the world without being categorized in return.

That said, I'll leave it up to others to decide whether these ads in particular actually objectify men or just parody and delegitimize the idea of a subjective, female gaze.

The overall quality of American men has been deteriorating for a couple generations now. Maybe the guys is these ads are just trying to make some money so they don't have to live with their moms?

Kidding aside, I think Joe Nameth should apologize for starting us down this path. And he was really kidding!

Objectifying/commoditizing ever more people is not in any sense progress. The planet depends on us un-learning in a couple decades at the most the systems of commoditization through which all life has been rendered exploitable or reduced to "resources". It's a hallmark of modern savage capitalism that anyone would ever with a straight face try to defend the rendering of a subject into an object.

Three of these dudes are in a hands-on hip pose, and NONE are in the hands-over head, eyes closed, mouth-open, head thrown back, pornified faux bliss which is female objectification personified.

None of these images suggest violability- to the contrary: they connote POWER.

Nope. Lustful women are more likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence still because men hate being degraded and objectified, knowing they are not objects for women to lust and gaze at. Men who have body image issues and/or are objectified become abusive to women who objectify them and care for nothing but their bodies, even when women are ogling other men in front of them. Sexual objectification, or sexualization, of men hasn't lead to equality. It has lead to violence against women instead which women don't realize according to this Catholic nun who wrote an entry on this blog, http://hellburns.blogspot.com/2012/07/movies-magic-mike.html. Look at the comments below. This nun warns women about objectifying and degrading men. In other words if a woman were to look at a man scantily-clad in public, for example, as well as approach him, sexually harass him, assault him, grope him, etc. she would be assaulted back, knowing men are physically stronger and can fight back easily. In addition to that, he would feel emasculated as well.

"In this way, the joke affirms the gender order because the humor depends on us knowing that we don’t really objectify men this way "

Does anyone really believe that statement?

If you do then go to a club and watch the men the women take home for casual sex.

I disagree with the ideas these ads negatively effect men. The joke of the ads usually is like...ripply action hero bodied man posing or doing silly things. Very few men will feel objectified watching these and I don't think women are factored into them as much as the article implies, beyond the men being clearly attractive.

Considering the rants coming out of many feminist groups after the FIAT ads (where the woman was CLEARLY active, though sexualized) and comparing them with the comments here - yea this is becoming an activity in polemicism and not reality.

Lisa,

I am researching the topic of women and lust, porn, and healthy sexuality. I was hoping you could point me in a good direction or have helpful data on hand?

Thanks- Sarah

*sigh* While there is some sexy men with muscles they usually are a wish fulfillment for men. For example my first crush was a ten year old skinny kid from tv! More specifically he's Tim Drake from Batman the Animated Series. I like Tim from the comics to and he's strong buts that's because he's a superhero! He needs to be strong! What I actually like about him though is that he's a genius and helps people.