Naked Men Means Empowerment for Women? Not when Muscles are Involved!

Naked Men Means Empowerment for Women? Not when Muscles are Involved!

It would seem that as men began appearing in ads as less and less clothed, that this would mean empowerment for women. Finally, after decades of women being the center of objectification to the heterosexual male fantasy, women were finally ready for their turn as the ones doing the objectifying. With metaphorical trumpets blaring and palms sweaty with anticipation, we were finally able to unashamedly sit back and stare at a picture of David Beckhams’ abs with lust in our minds and the pride of equality in our hearts. We women, flipping through the pages of our Cosmo magazines, were finally able to hold some of the power…

…but not so fast. As it turns out, the idea of empowerment we get from these naked men in ads is not as true as we would like to believe. These ads, which picture naked or nearly-naked men all have one thing in common: the men in the ads are strong; they are built with muscles that are so defined and enormous that even the Titan gods would be intimidated. The emphasis on the perfectly built male body in ads comes down to sending a clear message: the man who buys this product is fearless and dominating. As David Barton gym would say: “No pecs, no sex.” (Bordo, 185) These ads portray the importance of muscles as meaning the importance of physical strength and the ensuing ability to control other people, or as the advertisements often show, the importance of controlling women. The ads of Calvin Klein and Armani (as I’ve shown above) show the menacing meaning behind their stars’ rock-hard abs. These two ads are just two amongst the countless number of magazine ads, commercials, billboards, etc. that emphasize the physical strength of men, and by extension, the male’s ability to control every aspect of his life, including his girlfriend, wife, etc.

Because of his ability to control, the strong man in an ad is able to easily exert his force on the woman (or women) who often appear alongside him. This, as portrayed in the Calvin Klein ad, often alludes (sometimes more obviously than others) to the idea of violence against women. Because ads with men (who are strong and controlling, remember) often include women who appear to be timid, small, weak, etc. it seems that an ad’s abusive messages are less undertones and more of glaring highlights. Violence against women in these ads becomes sexually glorified, and the lines between rape and sex, beatings and jokingly rough-housing, lover/friend and enemy, become so blurred that it seems impossible to decide if being aroused or being disgusted is the right interpretation.

In the Calvin Klein advertisement, for example, the picture raises the question of what action is really taking place. The men in the photo all have toned muscles, their strength is evident. However, what exactly is it that they are doing with that strength? Are they (like in the Dolce & Gabbana ad we discussed in class) gang raping this defenseless girl? or is the girl willingly taking part in a mostly-male orgy? If you look at the woman’s body language and facial expression, she does not seem thrilled to be a part of the situation. In fact, her face is emotionless and cold, almost as if she is only half conscious of what is happening (another allusion to physical abuse.) The second ad, which pictures the aforementioned David Beckham, is just as confusing. On the one hand, with his seemingly “perfect” male body mostly exposed, he seems inviting, he seems to be calling your name. His being nearly naked in an invitation to fantasize about what you could do to him or with him. In a way, his being nearly naked seems vulnerable. However, it is by no means innocent. Everything from the color of his underwear and the background lighting to his intense “face-off ad” stare (Bordo, 188) to the threatening rope he has wrapped around his body screams that he controls you, that he is a threat to you. These ads highlight the males’ strength as a way of proving their ability to subordinate the woman, whether that means to control them sexually or to physically abuse them, and so on.

In short, the appearance of nearly naked men in advertisements in the 1990s did not mean empowerment to women. Perhaps the men in these ads are being objectified, but their power and dominance (as visually portrayed as muscles) still gives them the upper hand. Perhaps they are objectified by the women and homosexual men who stare at the ads and fantasize of the perfect male, but they are, as shown in the ads, still “men.” In the advertisements, though they appear half naked and somewhat vulnerable at times, they are still able to hold power over the defenseless, robot-like females that are portrayed alongside them by their sheer physical strength. I surmise therefore, that the emergence of naked and nearly naked men in advertisements has not proved to empower the female in advertizing; I believe that she is still portrayed in the same position as she was in pre-1990s advertisements, as that of small, weak, and unable to protect herself from the physical strength and domination of man.