I completely agree with everything you said. I looked at the photos and thought, "Wow, hot." Read the premise of the article and thought, "Good message. Celebs need to know women think they're hot, gay or not." I agree with you about the "gay ghetto" comment, and how it is uncool to relegate him to only being photographed with men because he's out. He's out. He can be photographed with whoever he wants!!!
As for objectification of the woman, I agree with you, too, in that she is in one way an object, yes, but a) she is in control (eyes open vs his eyes closed), and b) women are programmed from infancy to want to be the object, to find being touched in these ways sexy, and to fantasize about having a man do these things to her. Though, frankly, I don't see much manhandling in the pics, even when she's on her back, and he's touching her. It still seems very much like a consensual thing, not a power thing at all. I really see almost no powerplay in those particular shots, and in the others, the woman seems in the power position -- though actually somehow more objectified, which is kind of my point. I was talking the other day with someone about the near impossibility of removing objectification from the sexual equation when you have men and women involved -- even if the woman is shown as in control and holding the power reins in the sexual situation, she is still shown as the object of lust, the one the viewer's eyes are drawn to. Our culture of objectifying women is so deeply ingrained that we make women objects in our minds, even if the actual situation pictured doesn't have to be about that. I think this is a case in point.
I think that the message of these photos is a strong woman fulfilling herself sexually with this sexy man. I think they are hot.
Celebs need to know women think they're hot, gay or not." I agree with you about the "gay ghetto" comment, and how it is uncool to relegate him to only being photographed with men because he's out. He's out. He can be photographed with whoever he wants!!!
I was thinking about this some more today. We all have a fantasy life but young tweens and teens as they become sexually aware always have that fantasy thing going on with whatever celeb of the day is in vogue at the time. Are the ten percent of those kids who are gay or queer supposed to confine themselves to only out gay fantasy figures? The straight kids can only fantasize about out straight people? Seriously. Adam once spoke in an interview about how when he was in high school he (and he expanded his comment to include 'most gay kids') didn't get to experience all those things that all the other kids do. First date, first kiss, first romance, holding hands at school etc. Was he also supposed to censor his fantasy life? Are we supposed to censor ours?
On objectifying women, yes, it's rampant. But then again, it's always been rampant and we also objectify men. Is it right? Maybe not. But it's very healthy to have a fantasy life and that's pretty much what these photos are all about.
Now that I've commented, I'm reading all the others and this, coupled with a comment above about him (and I'd include any gay or lesbian actor) being relegated to only being photographed or cast opposite their same gender because that's what they *are* defeats the whole purpose of art and theatre and movies.
Every time a straight actor plays gay there's such a furor about their "bravery" and I doubt you'd find many people who'd say the guys from Brokeback weren't convincing in their work; that the audience didn't believe they were gay for those two hours of the movie regardless of what we know about their personal orientation. But it seems like there's a mindset that if we know the actor's gay (and out about it), then, irrespective of their acting talent, there's no way we can believe them as a straight character in a movie or tv show.
Several years ago, I remember hearing some friends not wanting to go see whatever that movie with Harrison Ford and Anne Heche was where they were love interests. This was during her Ellen days and they maintained there was no way they could believe she & Harrison would be attracted to each other since she was a lesbian. I thought that was just ridiculous.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
As for objectification of the woman, I agree with you, too, in that she is in one way an object, yes, but a) she is in control (eyes open vs his eyes closed), and b) women are programmed from infancy to want to be the object, to find being touched in these ways sexy, and to fantasize about having a man do these things to her. Though, frankly, I don't see much manhandling in the pics, even when she's on her back, and he's touching her. It still seems very much like a consensual thing, not a power thing at all. I really see almost no powerplay in those particular shots, and in the others, the woman seems in the power position -- though actually somehow more objectified, which is kind of my point. I was talking the other day with someone about the near impossibility of removing objectification from the sexual equation when you have men and women involved -- even if the woman is shown as in control and holding the power reins in the sexual situation, she is still shown as the object of lust, the one the viewer's eyes are drawn to. Our culture of objectifying women is so deeply ingrained that we make women objects in our minds, even if the actual situation pictured doesn't have to be about that. I think this is a case in point.
I think that the message of these photos is a strong woman fulfilling herself sexually with this sexy man. I think they are hot.
(no subject)
I was thinking about this some more today. We all have a fantasy life but young tweens and teens as they become sexually aware always have that fantasy thing going on with whatever celeb of the day is in vogue at the time. Are the ten percent of those kids who are gay or queer supposed to confine themselves to only out gay fantasy figures? The straight kids can only fantasize about out straight people? Seriously. Adam once spoke in an interview about how when he was in high school he (and he expanded his comment to include 'most gay kids') didn't get to experience all those things that all the other kids do. First date, first kiss, first romance, holding hands at school etc. Was he also supposed to censor his fantasy life? Are we supposed to censor ours?
On objectifying women, yes, it's rampant. But then again, it's always been rampant and we also objectify men. Is it right? Maybe not. But it's very healthy to have a fantasy life and that's pretty much what these photos are all about.
(no subject)
Every time a straight actor plays gay there's such a furor about their "bravery" and I doubt you'd find many people who'd say the guys from Brokeback weren't convincing in their work; that the audience didn't believe they were gay for those two hours of the movie regardless of what we know about their personal orientation. But it seems like there's a mindset that if we know the actor's gay (and out about it), then, irrespective of their acting talent, there's no way we can believe them as a straight character in a movie or tv show.
Several years ago, I remember hearing some friends not wanting to go see whatever that movie with Harrison Ford and Anne Heche was where they were love interests. This was during her Ellen days and they maintained there was no way they could believe she & Harrison would be attracted to each other since she was a lesbian. I thought that was just ridiculous.