Photographer Ron Sabean created this “Men Ups” series of photos, 12 shots of men, dressed in (conventionally) masculine attire and often with macho props, posing like a model in an Alberto Vargas or Gil Elvgren pin-up painting.1
On the one hand, I like the series. The photos look nice, and do a great job of illustrating how performative “sexy” femininity is; even in pin-up photography, male models rarely strike Vargus-style poses (although sometimes). That’s certainly how the artist intended them:
My work tends to be either an overt social commentary, or rooted in deeply personal subjects relating directly to myself. With the Men-ups! series, it was definitely the former that was more so embraced and the issue of gender roles was my target. It has always interested me how the sexes have been pitted against one another and taught to believe that gender roles/identities and biologically assigned sexes were one in the same, especially since that couldn’t be further from the truth. How can color have a sex? How can a pose be acceptable (and even provocative) for one, and not the other? From these ideas, and many, many more, was born the series, one in which I hope breeds thought and insight on just how ridiculous and restrictive the socially created gender roles are from their very inception.
(There’s a brief interview with him here. He was also the model for Mr. May.)
On the other hand, even though I’m pretty sure the photographer didn’t intend the photos this way, I’ve seen some people find them funny because they believe it’s inherently silly for men to be sexy and cute. Which is sexist.
I also wonder, would it be possible to do a gender-reversed version of this series — a series of pin-ups of women posed with “feminine” objects and outfits, but in “masculine” ways? I think it would be hard to communicate “these are women performing exaggerated masculinity” using only the poses and attitudes. If you pose a woman like this, or this, or this, I think most viewers would just take it as an ordinary pin-up shot of a woman.
P.S. I also found this series of photos, similarly posing male models like female pin-ups, but — in my eyes, at least — containing more heat.
- Unexpectedly sweet/sad tidbit from the Wikipedia article: Vargas retired from painting pin-ups after his wife, who was also his model, died. [↩]
From the cited author:
From your own comment:
Is it controversial or politically or socially unacceptable that men and women find different kinds of physical attributes sexually attractive? Perhaps people find these poses silly for men because they don’t find them sexy.
From the cited author:
Now, certainly, societies can, have and do constrain men and women into specific roles in an arbitrary and unnecessary fashion. But does that mean that there are not biological bases for how men and women view what is attractive in the opposite sex, even if there are also cultural overlays on top of them?
I didn’t see any comments implying that it is inherently silly for men to be sexy or cute, but I did see a lot of comments saying that these poses are silly for men or for women. And they are silly. We’ve got a person draped across some tires sticking his legs up in the air with unnaturally widened eyes and pursed lips. In what world is that not silly?
I think the question these photos pose is not “is it silly to consider men to be cute and sexy” but rather, “for whom and in what degree is silliness considered to be alluring, and why?”
But does that mean that there are not biological bases for how men and women view what is attractive in the opposite sex, even if there are also cultural overlays on top of them?
Almost certainly. But I am skeptical that looking coyly over your shoulder with one finger raised suggestively (but of what?) falls on the biology side of the spectrum. If I had to come up biological bases of heterosexual attraction, I’d go more soft vs. hard, curves vs. angles – that sort of thing.
I think the question these photos pose is not “is it silly to consider men to be cute and sexy” but rather, “for whom and in what degree is silliness considered to be alluring, and why?”
Except when women strike these poses in magazines, no one is consciously thinking “so silly, yet so alluring.” It’s just sexy. Or, at least, “sexy.”
I agree that it’s trying say something or show something about how much performance goes into femininity. I think it also gets out how femininity is both something that women are supposed to aspire to and yet something that is held in contempt. A lot of people find it ridiculous and humiliating for men to dress or act “like women.” It might be well be considered unattractive for a woman to dress or act “like a man” but it doesn’t make her seem dumb.
If you look at the male poses Amp links to, they’re basically scantily clad, good-looking people with a come-hither look in their eye. That’s a pretty natural, uncomplicated erotic image: A good-looking body presented as available for fun, sexy times with the viewer. That’s why it works for men or women and it’s not silly.
the upside down ones strike me as a bit silly, in general, but the august/bicycle one there is pretty sexy.
I was hurt when the overall response was “see, if it’s silly for men, it’s silly for women”. As though these poses are objectively silly, and not right in line with what some people (such as myself) think are sexy.
RonF, did you actually have a point?
I have a problem with the idea that there is an inherent silliness in these poses, and I think that a great number of average American viewers, presented with one or two of these images, out of context, would say that the model looks gay, or looks as though he’s being presented as a stereotypical gay man. Many of these images bring to mind guys I went to college with, and poses they would have struck if a camera were trained on them.
I suspect the reason that these photos are silly, and the reason that the other photo set you found contains “more heat,” is because the Men Up series reads as campy. If you buy the definition of a Slate writer (who I’m too lazy too look up), camp is doing something as if you are doing it. They guys in Men Up look like they’re pretending to pose. The guys in the series on Popupit are actually posing. It’s not a bright line distinction, but I’d suggest that it is still a distinction that is quite clear to many viewers.
Offtopic: Hey, Phil, I just wanted to let you know that I’m not the person who edited your comment on FSB; that must have been the administrator. I tried emailing you, but it bounced back.
Sorry I’m not participating in this discussion, but I’m packing for a trip to Ohio and so no time.
I was hurt when the overall response was “see, if it’s silly for men, it’s silly for women”. As though these poses are objectively silly, and not right in line with what some people (such as myself) think are sexy.
I am not sure it is possibly for something to be objectively silly, but if these poses were objectively silly, that wouldn’t mean they aren’t also “right in line” with what some people find sexy.
I think the project asks us to think about why this is sexy. It doesn’t say “STOP FINDING THIS SEXY!” Like what you like. People like all kinds of things.
The men-ups strike me as odd– as though they’re by and for aliens. They make no emotional or sexual or visceral or any other sort of sense to me. They’re not even silly, because I know what silly is.
I agree about the black and white pictures. The men aren’t in natural poses, but they’re displaying themselves is a way that registers for me.
I think most viewers would just take it as an ordinary pin-up shot of a woman.
Which is exactly the point. Men don’t have to be prepared to compromise their essential dignity of personhood so freely to be sexy whereas with women that quality tends to be given scant regard, as if that might possibly get in the way, or break the mood.
These photos are hilarious and show up just how bad women are often made to look as a matter of course. I think it helps encourage us to be disrespected and treated as if we are not quite human in the way, you know, real humans are. And that’s something that I and I’m sure many people noted from their first exposure to this kind of thing. Basically why the hell are women contorting themselves so ludicrously? Women are sexy in spite of this nonsense, not because of it.
The whole discussion about these seems to render anyone who isn’t attracted to heteronormative cis-dudes invisible, as if nobody at all – not gay guys, not queer folks generally, not women-attracted-to-gendernonconforming-dudes – could possibly find men attractive unless they’re performing sort of a chest-beating Playgirl stereotype of masculinity. And it’s part of the background assumption that women aren’t really attracted to male bodies, that we just want courteous dates and loving co-parents, or possibly large wallets – of course men posed for the camera look silly, because looking at men is silly.
See, I found both the original men-ups (what a godawful, insulting, stupid term…like “murse”) and the other iterations really reminiscent of…um…various kinds of queer erotica. It’s surprising to me that this doesn’t get pointed out more. There’s lots of queer pin-up stuff that’s funny, for one thing, or self-consciously kitschy. (Can’t link, at work.) But it doesn’t assume that playfulness or kitsch or femininity render male bodies unattractive, which is why – at least to me – it’s that much more awesome.
“A lot of people find it ridiculous and humiliating for men to dress or act “like women.” It might be well be considered unattractive for a woman to dress or act “like a man” but it doesn’t make her seem dumb.”
Part of that, in my theory, is that femaleness is inborn and acquired forever. So a woman is female, and feminine by default, because of her divine (or whatever, biologically ordained) nature of her genital shape.
And maleness, well, it requires effort to prove “being really a man”, which isn’t something that’s out of the reach of women. It’s simply thought as being something harder for them to do (and if we’re talking muscle mass, it is indeed much harder to increase and maintain muscle mass on estrogen – studies say twice as hard as on testosterone). Proving you’re a real woman is literally impossible for a man. Because there is absolutely no criteria for proving femaleness (only feminity, and ONLY if you’re already judged as female).
So on one side you’ll get obnoxious men (who don’t represent all men – but certainly are insecure about their maleness and humanity) goading women into doing stuff they do, trying to assert their own “see, I’m better than them” specialness (which they base their identity on) and on the other, people who say that if you weren’t FAAB, you’re trying to fake entry into femaleness, and are therefore worthy of contempt and a fraud (notice no such contempt exists for entry into maleness, but that, for example, such contempt exists in terms of class “teaching those new rich what there is” when trying to “move upward”).
So it’s always hit me as more than just “masculine is better, therefore women doing it is no big deal”, because we don’t punish the rich for “acting middle-class” when they’re at home.
And lastly, it strikes me as highly ironic that people (mainly conservatives) who claim gender roles are inborn, are also claiming that you MUST raise your child in that gender role that goes with their genitals…because otherwise they won’t learn about it.
So okay, either it’s natural and it happens without any help (like birthing, with non-human mammals like dogs and cats), or it’s cultural and you HAVE to indoctrinate your kid into it. You can’t say it’s both. Argue that it’s damaging for Storm’s parents not to tell everyone and their mother what their kid’s sex is – but not on the premise that it’s natural for Storm to go left or right.
They guys in Men Up look like they’re pretending to pose. The guys in the series on Popupit are actually posing. It’s not a bright line distinction, but I’d suggest that it is still a distinction that is quite clear to many viewers.
Yes, exactly. Silliness or twisting and all the other stuff involved in posing are not inherently sexy or unsexy. The mindset of the model comes through. MenItUp’s models aren’t really trying to be attractive to their viewers. Therefore, they generally aren’t. The popitup ones are. Therefore, they generally are.
Of course, there are always some folks who go for a certain look–I think my wife is way hotter when she’s off the water with windblown hair and salt on her neck than when she’s got lots of makeup on–but generally the desire to be seen as attractive, is itself attractive.
Which runs into this from the OP:
I also wonder, would it be possible to do a gender-reversed version of this series — a series of pin-ups of women posed with “feminine” objects and outfits, but in “masculine” ways?
The classic “masculine” poses are, generally, ones which show power, individuality, assertiveness and strength–model as ravisher. The classic “feminine” poses are, generally, those which show vulnerability, weakness, coyness, controllability etc.–model as ravishee. that’s why the popitup ones get it right insofar as they’re tryng to mirror “feminine” poses: the men are bent backwards, unstable, closed in–about as far as you can get from a full bicep flex. The humor in the menitup ones serves to kill that requirement: the menitup models are obviously in control, which is an (admittedly troubling) commonality in pinups.
I was going to comment, but ohhh my!!! That last guy looks like Rudy Valentino!!
As a consequence, forgot what I was going to say.
I guess that as long as we tell and judge men and boys (as a society) by defining maleness by what it’s not (not by what it is) and in opposition to feminity (which, while vague, is at least not necessarily defined by opposition alone), such things as “men can’t be pretty” and “men are ugly” will be commonplace.
I’m going to come down on the side of “those photos are awesome.”
Also, there is something sexy about them. Not the kind of sexy that’s in the black & whites, but the sexy of conveying humor and playfulness and general unconcern with proscribed gender norms.
“Except when women strike these poses in magazines, no one is consciously thinking “so silly, yet so alluring.” It’s just sexy. Or, at least, “sexy.””
That.
Photos like this (much like the sketched drawings elsewhere on the internet showing male superheroes in positions reserved for females in comics) create the cognitive dissonance for the audience to be able to see the poses as silly in the first place.
I’m not really sure what your objection is, Barry, honestly. “People capable of misconstruing art that has expressed itself as clearly as can be expected” seems not that shocking to me. Alternately, “People incapable of seeing art clearly due to the blinders of their preconceived notions.” Your government-saves-oil-execs cartoon can be misread, and due to much more ambiguity in your piece than I see here.
I’m not sure why you’ve chosen to criticize the art rather than criticize bad readings.
Perhaps I should use the word “contrived” instead of silly. The poses are contrived. Most this-is-sexy poses from women (drawn or photographed) are contrived.
Which is not necessarily a problem. Ballet poses meant to demonstrate grace are contrived. Contrivance and performance are fine–they can certainly be sexy or graceful or beautiful or whatever. Ballet is beautiful.
The silliness comes from the idea that these very contrived, artificially created poses are *natural*. That women just stand like that. That there isn’t contortion or artifice necessary.
It’s like the rule that women must not be shown to be making an *effort* to be beautiful. It’s not sexy when you can see the skinny woman dieting; she should be thin without effort. The hour on hair, the hour on makeup, all that is naturalized and created as default. But makeup *is* a contrivance; it *does* take time. Some fashionable silhouettes require uncomfortable undergarments. That pretty lift of the calves requires pain in the feet. And these poses are a constructed pretense.
Lots of constructed pretenses are sexy. But pretending that they are not pretense, but actually default and unmarked, can be a problem–and in this case, can contribute to the damaging ways in which female sexuality is constructed.
if you wanted to do the reverse genderf*ck it wouldn’t be with beefcake photos, because just the act of being the passive, photographed object of sexual desire is coded feminine in a sexist society. It often does seem silly and contrived in a similar way when women *do* or dress is over-the-top masculine ways, a la a woman, dressed in an undershirt, taking up the whole subway seat because she is spreading her legs, scratching in a rude way and loudly cursing, or getting randomly aggressive with peers would be an examples. I think there are about a million comedy sketches based on this premise.
“It’s like the rule that women must not be shown to be making an *effort* to be beautiful. It’s not sexy when you can see the skinny woman dieting; she should be thin without effort. The hour on hair, the hour on makeup, all that is naturalized and created as default.”
Or the notion that you shouldn’t need to touch the hair or make-up, period, for it to be this way (ie be naturally unblemished and with pretty and looks-brushed hair).
The fact that people show trans women ‘doing effort’ to be seen as women is what ultimately makes them be seen as fakes to others. “See, it’s all performance, they’re not naturally that way!” would they say. Except those who are…but they can safely ignore those examples in favor of Jerry Springer’s examples.