why are there so few soft, pretty, playful themed photographs of men, let alone magazines filled with them? I would love to see men in pastel colours. men in flower fields. men with puppies.
why do we only ever get to see oily arms of buff, tan gym dudes and water drops running down their photoshopped sixpacks? what’s so bad about men posing without flexing their muscles, where’s all the black men, extremely pale men, exceptionally skinny men, chubby men, men with a body type that wouldn’t generally be considered “masculine”?
well, sadly, we all know why men aren’t photographed in such rather “vulnerable” states: crying, posing in a “pretty” manner or naked with a - GOD FORBID! - soft dick. it’s not manly enough. it’s too feminine. and no, what’s the worst about it isn’t even the impact these images have on boys. no. they rarely consider these photographs guidelines, they don’t see role models, they see the indimidating image of the alpha male they can hide behind. it’s the impact on (hetero/bi/pansexual) girls, who are being conditioned to subconsciously connect intimidation with sexual attraction and raised to believe that tenderness and vulnerability aren’t masculine traits, and that it’s just “right” to feel small and intimidated around men they’re attracted to ( whether they look like younger Mark Wahlbergs or not ) - which only fuels a fire we should finally put out: the fire of damaging, dangerous and misleading gender roles that creates a gap where teaching girls AND boys that it’s alright to be soft, and that being playful and wanting to look pretty has nothing to do with gender, could even the ground for a world in which an actor can pose in pink lace without being called “gay” and muscly women aren’t betitled as “men” because they “look like one”.
this is another reason why we need feminism, on MEN’S behalf as well as women’s,- why is it so hard to grip that men profit from feminism as well?