You often hear that everything is sexualized nowadays, and not just women but men too. Specifically, we wanted to know if men and women are equally sexualized, and if they become either more frequently or more intensely sexualized over time. To do this, we analyzed every cover from the first issue Sexualizing men Rolling Stone in November throughminus a few such as those that featured cartoons rather than people, etc.
You can read more about our methods in the article here. Images could score anywhere from 0 points and did to 23 points though 20 was our highest score. Once all of the images on all 43 years of Rolling Stone were scored, we divided the images into three groups: So, if you were to pick up a copy of Rolling Stone in the s, you would most likely see men portrayed in a non-sexualized manner, such as in these images:.
In contrast, women, especially recently, are almost always sexualized to some degree. Sexualizing men
Here are a few examples of hypersexualized images:. In our article, we argue that the dramatic increase in hypersexualized images of women — along with the corresponding decline in nonsexualized images of them — indicates a decisive narrowing or homogenization of media representations of women.
In Female "Sexualizing men" Pigs: In this article, we offer empirical evidence for this claim. Trautner is the author of many articles on the relationship between law, culture, organizational practices, and social inequality and has written a fantastic Soc Images Course Guide for Sociology Sexualizing men Gender courses.
How else could patriarchy represent women?
There is no other mode of being under its rule. Oh, wait, there's "Sexualizing men." But 'mother' is not strictly 'cool'. Is there any comparison to data on covers in the 90's or 80's and earlierespecially when compared to what would be considered 'allowable' then?
Just running a quick Google image search it seems that this hyper sexualization isn't a new thing to Rolling Stone, but obviously a couple of minutes on Google a valid sample. I guess I'm wondering if media representation is actually 'narrowing', or Sexualizing men Rolling Stone just need to show more skin to elicit the same response these days.
Just because they're clothed doesn't mean they aren't sexualized, I mean look at Jon Stewart's pose! And the way Billy J A's guitar is hanging? Sure it isn't as blatant as the female covers, but if they're trying to attract the majority of heterosexual women, then this is they way to do it.
I just read the article, and have to say I'm impressed by how much work they put into the point system to limit subjectivity.
Of Sexualizing men there is some subjectivity, but they give all their p values for the different categories. I think most Sexualizing men us can guess where the general breakdown would be. Probably has as much to do with porn culture becoming ubiquitous as anything else. Quite frankly, these kind of images are as much a turn off as a turn on. After a while they just get boring.
Sexualized images of men?
Women will never care about that
Sexualizing men of imagery the way men do. Rolling Stone may not have been the best magazine to use either. I think using a broader range of media for your study would have better although I suspect the results would have been roughly the same. I think there are a few things going on.
One is "Sexualizing men" that women are underrepresented in the professions covered by Rolling Stone magazine. There just aren't female equivalents of Jon Stewart and Green Day to pose in those manners. The women here are pop stars and TV starlets, who are already required by their professions to be hypersexualized where men, like Kanye, are not.
There are imaginable exceptions -- I wouldn't be surprised to see a cover with Elizabeth Warren on it, fully clothed and striking a do-not-pull-that-with-me pose.
Hopefully those will become more common as the years go on an more "Sexualizing men" more women break through the glass ceiling. The other is the self-perpetuating situation of magazine owners catering to their known audience rather than trying to expand their audience. They know that men buy their magazine more than women, and that men find women relatively boring unless they're naked. And because these kinds of covers just scream "We don't even want your business, ladies", women don't buy the magazine.
This of study is actually really useful, establishing hard data like this. It makes me wonder whether there is "Sexualizing men" way to create pressure on the entertainment industry to tone this crap down. A work world where you are required to take off your clothes and pose like a porn star on a regular basis as part of your contract to to a totally unrelated thing like sing or act, is pretty fucking discriminatory.
I think women being more sexualized could also have to do with our times being more lenient with what can go to a magazine cover. Maybe the women were all sexualized in the same manner, but it is that recent the magazine is taking this same type of sexualization farther. Maybe in the past there was no variety either, it is just that people couldn't get away with a fully naked Christina Aguilera so often.
I actually stopped my subscription to the magazine, not because of the sexualized covers, but do to the description and treatment of female's being interviewed. I would be Sexualizing men interested to see a comparison study of men v female interviewees and how they are described.
Almost every single female interviewed was first judged physically, then 'judged' based on their opinion or talents. The 'hotter' the female interviewee the more likely for an overall positive interview. Where as some of the men interviewed were bashed pretty severely or held in a negative light if they didn't follow the typical male rolling stone mindset. The most blatant example that comes to mind is the Ricki Gervais spelling?
The interviewer bashed Gervais constantly for thinking too highly of himself seemingly, but loved Rihanna's high opinion of self and 'sense of humor' espeically when she talked about Nicki Sexualizing men behind I've also known those girls to respond to the scantly clad magazine covers too. I guess I'd suggest this isn't just a "mans world" thing, but perhaps, natural or not, the way we all end up, on average and in their demographic target audience responding.
I remember the big fuss over the naked Jennifer Aniston cover in or something like that. The magazine was pulled from grocery stores because people were all pissed off cause she was naked Sexualizing men on her stomach, focused on her face. Times have changed, and I think it's better, personally. Maybe the increased availability of pornographic images on the internet led to the sharp increase? The s are when the world wide web kicked up, and by the s the majority of households in America had some sort of internet connection.
Since, I'd imagine, "naked on Rolling Stone" looks better on your average pop star resume than "naked somewhere on the internet. This likely affected depictions of women more than depictions of men since hypersexualized images of men are typically perceived as being Sexualizing men male-admiring men which some celebrities would want to avoid for whatever eyeroll-worthy reasons or, when made for male-admiring women, are considered so non-mainstream that Rolling Stone may have written them off as too niche, if they even considered the potential appeal at all.
Makes me wonder why the women on the covers - rich successful women, mind you - even agree to do this. Also, considering how white women have always been considered the most beautiful, i wonder what the corresponding numbers for women pf color are. If I analyzed the Sexualizing men of the Playgirl for the last Sexualizing men years, I would come to the conclusion that there are far more sexualized images of men in the media than women. Thanks to Ticketmaster colluding with Rolling Stone, I received several issues of the magazine in the mail and then an invoice; negative-option billing--very classy!
But the entire magazine--text, ads, everything--is targeted to men. Rolling Stone is not Sexualizing men music-lovers anymore. It's a men's magazine, one that just happens to have a lot of music in it, and really boring music, at that.