« Another Reason We Love Our Neighborhood
Fashionista Main
Previous entry »
Magazines Jul 8, 2009 @ 4:38pm

Standards and Practices

by Abby Gardner

esquiregqcoverjuxtaposition.jpgIt seems our item about how far you’ll go to undress for fashion has caused a bit of stir in the comments section.

One debate currently going on is regarding male and female perceptions about the human body, and what reactions to clothing (or lack therof) say about both sexes.

So when we came across this very telling picture on Gawker from a local newstand, we immediately thought of our opinionated readers.

It’s quite the ridiculous double standard, no?

So magazine covers with naked men (playing a character even) are bad. Naked women are good. At least that’s what this is saying to anyone who walks by. And we wonder why young women are sometimes perplexed about image and sexuality.

Mixed messages abound, in both fashion and magazines and apparently, newsstands.

Permalink |
(0) recommend this (13) Comments

Posted in Magazines and Bar Refaeli, Bruno, Esquire, Gawker, GQ, newsstands

« Another Reason We Love Our Neighborhood
Fashionista Main
Previous entry »

Comments

1

posted by nycshoegal

Jul 08, 2009 5:02PM

wow, seriously?

maybe the newsstand doesn't appreciate the fact that the GQ cover is merely a parody? haha.

avatar
2

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 5:14PM

This is really interesting -- especially because the GQ cover of Bruno shows exactly what the Esquire is showing -- just a butt cheek.

Maybe side-by-side the two were just too much? And given the choice of which to cover up, the newsstand person preferred looking at the woman? Not sure, but it's weird.

avatar
3

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 5:46PM

This is just as ironic as filmmakers and directors being more willing to blow up heads, bodies, buildings, and universes before they show full male nudity.

avatar
4

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 6:06PM

this is hypocrasy

female sexuality is all up for exploitation but male sexuality needs to be covered...clearly this is a male led standard that should be gotten rid of. If our bodies are expliotable so should theirs.

avatar
5

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 6:21PM

Perhaps it may be that men are more homophobic and freak out at the sight of naked men while women are more flexible with seeing other naked women without freaking out. More men would complain about seeing Bruno's cover than women would complain seeing Bar's cover.

6

posted by DealHuntingDiva

Jul 08, 2009 7:46PM

This reflects more on the owner of the newsstand than society as a whole. Let's not forget there are plenty of nearly nude images of men plastered all over billboards, etc. There's David Beckham, Jesus Luz (Madonna's boytoy) and now Sascha Cohen. The scales aren't even, but they're not that far off.

avatar
7

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 8:04PM

I've heard that GQ was also covered up at O'Hare...so either two newsstand owners think alike(very possible), or it was mandated in anticipation of people being offended. I say we keep our eyes peeled-I'm curious to know which one it is. I also wonder if it's more a reflection of homophobia than double standards; since Bruno is gay, it throws me off.

I do agree that there are double standards in the movies-just another reason I loved the SATC movie! God bless Dante and his full frontal!

xoxo,
KateDarling.Blogspot.com

avatar
8

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 9:05PM

I think number 5 is right. And i(a girl) found the bruno cover just a little slightly unpleasant myself also(his pose is so awkward, its funny but still wierd)...but not enough to cover it up or anything but i can see that men would feel the same way except only more so. because bruno is gay.

avatar
9

posted by guest

Jul 08, 2009 9:27PM

HA! This does not surprise me at all .. when that GQ arrived in our mailbox (and no it was not covered by the publisher it arrived clear as day) my boyfriend was completely put off after a mere glance at the cover and said, "That is why I don't read that magazine." I laughed and explained the cover was in jest and he was like, "I don't care." (And he had no idea who the guy was on the cover or whether or not the guy was gay or straight.)

Though if it was a super hot naked guy on the cover with a sexy pose like the Esquire next to it maybe people would react differently - like the Bruce Willis pics for W or Arnold Schwartzanager in Terminator 2.

avatar
10

posted by guest

Jul 09, 2009 3:58AM

That is so shockingly sexist and double-standard. I'm actually rather pissed off. In England, you can see topless photos of girls in thongs on the front of newspapers all the time, from an early age. It's disgusting. What's that like in the US??

avatar
11

posted by bighugforfashion

Jul 09, 2009 6:56AM

I don't believe this is a reflection of a double standard...it is a reflection of homophobia.

I as a woman, who is totally straight, prefer to see a naked woman over a naked man any day. Women are beautiful, men bodies can be gorgeous but on average I don't really want to see a naked man. D. Beckham is about all I can handle (W anyone?)

Back to the Rihanna thing, I still feel that while within her rights to dress however she wants to, it wasn't her best fashion moment and could have done without it.

12

posted by deathofadame

Jul 09, 2009 11:00AM

Kudos to #6. I think you hit the nail on the head.

http://vinesteet.blogspot.com/

avatar
13

posted by calvinshowblogspotdotcom

Jul 09, 2009 3:33PM

I'm more with Guest 11 on this one. I think if the cover had the depiction of a straight male suggestively nude, there would be no problem but I seriously think because it's a gay character, too many waves don't want to be created if that makes sense.

http://calvinshow.blogspot.com

Post Your Comment