Women Looking at David Beckham Showing Skin
David Beckham
Since women were so uncomfortable with the male stripper image I discussed last time I thought I’d try a more masculine image with a bit more clothing.
David Beckham is a conventionally attractive man who looks masculine and is known for his prowess in football (soccer to us Americans). And this type of photo (men’s underwear ads) occurs more often than others I’d shown my classes. Does that make a difference?
Beckham’s attractive
Most women (60%) called him “attractive” — and a third of is group put a little more umph into it:
- Oui!!! 🙂
- Yesssss. Amazing. Perfection. My future husband. My Lord. Wow. Just wow!
- Amazing! Very attractive. He seems open, sexy, welcoming. I want to hop in bed next to him, feel him up!
But another group of women said he was attractive but… They toned things down, like this:
- I don’t necessarily want anything more out of it, but it’s a fine image.
- He’s attractive but I’m not super turned on.
And this woman finds him attractive, but she also seems distracted:
- I wonder if/how much Photoshop has been done.
Neutral; Doesn’t really affect me
About one in five (20%) said they felt neutral about the image. One just stating, “eh.”
It makes me uncomfortable
Some of the women seemed to be struggling with their discomfort, saying things like, “It doesn’t affect me” but “it also feels awkward” or “it’s too much shown.”
The women were nearly as likely to say this image made them uncomfortable (57%) as to say it was attractive.
One woman found his eye contact intimidating.
Mostly they were uncomfortable because they were “not used to” this sort of thing. One said, “If he had boxer briefs it would be different.” Maybe his briefs didn’t seem masculine enough.
The feeling that it was “too much” was common. Some felt there was too much emphasis on the penis. “I feel uncomfortable, his package is right in your face, it’s awkward.”
Another woman was aware that she was more drawn to his face and chest than his penis adding, “Looking at his penis makes me feel oddly uncomfortable.”
Another woman said, “It feels like I shouldn’t be looking at him. I don’t like it.”
Others talked of feeling “amused” or said, “It’s kind of funny to see a man being sexualized/trying so hard to be sexy.”
Conclusion?
In conclusion, the women I surveyed were more comfortable with this image than with the nude or nearly-nude pictures of Sly Stallone or stripper Magic Mike. But women are typically less comfortable with male nudity than men are with female nudity.
Related Posts
- Men React to “Nude” Sly Stallone
- Women React to Sexy Cindy Crawford
- Cindy Crawford Brings Men Pleasure; Women Pain
Share this:
Posted on November 20, 2017, in men, objectification and tagged David Beckham, how women see nearly-nude men, men, men objectified, objectification. Bookmark the permalink. 80 Comments.
BroadBlogs 
Well, Are you saying when I marry a women, I should do sex with my wife with me clothes on? Because seeing me naked will make her turn off.
No. I’ve written at least one other post where I mention that the problem is with images not with real-life partners. These images are objectified and women aren’t used to seeing men that way.
This was an interesting article. I can also agree and I believe women are a lot more uncomfortable with male nudity than males are with female nudity. From my perspective I feel like men should protect their bodies and respect themselves a bit more just like women should. However, I am not against this picture, if this is something he wanted to do I feel like it’s a free country. Maybe this is Art to him and that is OK. The photo presented does not bother me all that much, but I can see how it would be unsettling for others. I to believe they put a huge emphasis on his package- it does tend to stand out a bit more than the rest of the picture. I as a woman I’m not really entertained by male strippers, or males showing their body. Being attractive is great, but women are a bit more internal than men. Men are attracted to what’s on the outside, which leads to wanting to get to know a woman and who she is on the inside. I don’t think women have that same approach.
1.I have grown up playing soccer and I always loved David Beckham because of how perfect he crossed the ball. This was a very interesting post to read because it is interesting to see women react to the sexualization of men. I think we live in a society where double standards are obviously not a thing. Women are not ‘supposed’ to be thinking or talking about sex. Some of the women said it made them feel uncomfortable, and this is because society makes us feel like we are supposed to be uncomfortable with sex. If men can talk about it, why can’t we? We need to stop thinking and feeling uncomfortable when we talk about something that is natural and human. Another comment that was made that seems interesting was, “The feeling that it was “too much” was common. Some felt there was too much emphasis on the penis. “I feel uncomfortable, his package is right in your face, it’s awkward.” He was selling a product, I don’t understand why it made them feel uncomfortable when Victoria secret does the same to sale their stuff. it is how they make there money.
This was a very interesting post to read because it is interesting to see women react to the sexualization of men. Sine women are not supposed to be thinking or talking about sex I feel a majority said it made them feel uncomfortable because society makes us feel like we are supposed to be uncomfortable with sex. Even some of the comments were, “it feels like I shouldn’t be looking at him.” Another comment was that maybe if he was wearing boxer briefs, which would be considered more “masculine” the photograph would feel less uncomfortable. I feel that is interesting too. I don’t think it matters what type of briefs he is wearing I think it’s the fact that he is half naked and sitting with his legs wide open in a very seductive position. However, that was his job. Beckham was selling underwear, just how Victoria Secret models sell lingerie. I think the last sentence sums it up perfectly, men are more comfortable looking at naked women than women are looking at naked men. There are many social factors that play into the paradigm.
It makes sense that women aren’t very comfortable with the almost nude David Beckham. At a very young age, women are told to be feminine. Feminine implies it’s not okay to be turned on by nude photos. Looking at pornographic material is considered slutty and not feminine. After becoming more comfortable with my sexuallity, nude photos or half nude photos don’t bother me much. Men with “masculine” bodies is considered hot to me. I believe that women feeling comfortable about David Beckham’s penis makes me believe that women constantly have memories of slut shaming of some sort. When I was in middle school, people would laugh at the idea of watching porn. These people would laugh in a way that makes me think that they didn’t believe it was okay to do. Overall, this post reminded me how women are still considered to be too feminine to watch porn. Men may be surprised that women watch porn too.
It is interesting to hear that women are more comfortable viewing this ad of David Beckham than nearly nude picture of other men. I would argue that perhaps it can be the fact that David Beckham is familiar face, a popular figure but women favored his photo than Sly Stallone. Maybe it is because Beckham is known for being attractive, so people feel obligated to see him in that light. Sly Stallone is known for his “manly” roles in action-packed films. Seeing him in a sexually ad will bring discomfort for women whom never viewed Stallone in that way before.
When I first saw Beckham’s ad, I felt pretty neutral about it. I mean, he’s obviously an attractive man, but I didn’t get turned on. The photo centralizing around Beckham’s crotch is an uncomfortable to look, but he is known to be the face of the product, so I guess I got use to looking at it.
Maybe. But I don’t know, If he were nearly nude, wearing a G string or something, I think a lot of women would probably be more comfortable. I know I would.
It is interesting to me that 57% of the women said that the image made them uncomfortable because I was in the “neutral” category. Perhaps I am conditioned to seeing sexual advertisements because whenever I open social media or walk through a mall I see women advertising Victoria’s Secret, new bikinis, etc, but I didn’t feel off-put by the ad. One comment in particular stood out to me, that “it feels like I shouldn’t be looking at him.” It is an advertisement to sell underwear and they chose a popular celebrity to model it; advertisements are meant to be seen, not to make someone feel uncomfortable just looking at it.
I think this comment, and the general reaction from the women, highlights just how conditioned we are to seeing women in highly sexual ads and not men. But regardless of if the ad is a man or a woman, respect should be given to the model. I think some of the comments, such as “I want to hop in bed next to him, feel him up” would not go over well if it was men commenting on an advertisement of a woman. However, sexual ads are bound to evoke sexual comments and clearly the way people interpret sexual ads or images is entirely personal.
This photograph taken of David Beckham is highly suggestive. I practice a lot of photography and over the years a learned a few techniques to direct the viewers eyes to the subject you desire. In this photograph, it is safe to say that your eyes are to be directed to Beckham’s crouch. This a apparent by his posture, expression, angle, and the brighter shade of white with his underwear. Naturally our eyes are drawn to brighter colors or objects.
With that explanation out of the way, Id like to share the fact that I have 3 older sisters, making me the only boy. I showed each of my sisters this photograph and each of them were uncomfortable with it. Though they do find Beckham attractive, they just did not find this photograph attractive. Across the board with them, they did not like how it made them felt and just how suggestive it was.
Being a guy, Ive seen my share of mens underwear ads, and for the most part the photographs on the packaging is more informative than it is sexual. This being an Armani Underwear ad, is much more sexual than informative. Maybe the blunt nature of this photograph and its suggestive nature combined is what makes women uncomfortable.
Looking at the picture of David Beckham just makes me think that it’s a great picture for the sake of advertising men’s underwear, however it is not a picture that turns me on in any way. Beckham is attractive but can you imagine your man physically working out at the gym to be that buff? Most of the guys I know are fit or in a form of great shape, but not to this extreme degree, so this makes me wonder if he is truly toned to the max or is this picture photoshopped for the underwear ad?
When I asked a couple girlfriends what they thought of the picture just to confirm comments that I have read from previous postings; I also learned that a few did feel uncomfortable, however there were also a few that thought he looked “hot” = in conclusion depending on the woman and whatever their likes/dislikes are when looking at the photo we are seeing both sides of the spectrum
It’s so interesting to me how even when women sexualize men like how men do with women, they still can feel intimidated or uncomfortable. I have found that women are sexualized, stared at, and exposed so much, that when it is a man’s turn, some women either take advantage or do not and feel that it’s too much. These findings emphasize that, but I also feel like that it reveals that, socially, women are expected to not be open with their sexuality or preferences unlike men who have the power to freely talk about anything about that subject, whether it’s in public, online, with friends, etc. This to me is ironic because women are so sexualized physically, but in terms of their actual sexuality and enjoyment of sex and visual preferences of a person, it is expected to be hidden or completely ignored. As a women, its a lot easier to say that I simply find Beckham attractive, comparatively to me commenting something about his abs or other body parts, which is the opposite compared to how men can easily comment about a woman’s breasts or butt.
When I see the image of David Beckham I have no feelings of sexual attraction. If I were to be asked the question of whether or not he is physically attractive I would say that yes he is, because it has been ingrained in my mind that a man with a muscular body, handsome face, and apparent large penis is the definition of attractiveness. However, it does nothing for me sexually. That makes me wonder if seeing someone as attractive is even an opinion anymore and more of just a definitive fact.
This has actually been a topic that has always raised a curious question about myself, because if it were vice-versa and I saw a picture of a lean, pretty, and fit women in lingerie I would feel more attracted to the photo than of a photo of a muscular man. There has never been a photo of a shirtless man that I find myself “drooling” over, but if I see for example a Victoria Secret model in lingerie I can’t help but stop and stare. I am a straight female that has no desire of being in a relationship with a woman, yet I am more sexually attracted to a women’s body. It is something I don’t really bother to care about, but I have always been curious as to why I feel this way.
sexual attraction means you have attraction women’s bodies, thus might be a little bi. Wanting a relationship is irrelevant. The difference between men and women is the physical and their bodies. The visual is a big part or should be a main indicator or sexual orientation.
Yeah I definitely agree with Bob on this one. It doesn’t matter if you would want to be in a relationship with the person, there is still a sexual attraction. The fact that you claim to be straight but only have a sexual attraction to pictures of women makes me think that you are definitely in a bit of denial. The definition of straight is that you are ONLY attracted to a person of the opposite sex.
But I see things from Emily‘s perspective. I can think a woman looks hot but have no desire to have sex with her. The idea just is completely uninteresting. I think that is probably her perspective too. So if there is no desire for sex how can one be bisexual or whatever label you want to use?
Here is what is consistent: our culture bombards us with pictures of eroticized women and not so much men. In that way our culture teaches both men and women that women are the sexy ones. But the culture also romanticizes straight sex and pretty much ignores any other sexuality. Women sexuality does tend to be more fluid and those “lessons” could probably create women who could see women as hot but not have any interest for sex with them. And that does seem to be both mine and Emily‘s experience.
For some reason it won’t let me specifically respond to your comment (still new to messaging), but thank you for responding! I think where Bob and I are coming from is that we probably have the same definition of bisexual, that maybe you don’t have. My definition of bisexual means sexually and/or romantically attracted to two or more genders. But for this argument I mean males and females. Now, thinking somebody is hot is not the same as being sexually attracted to someone. Even being sexually attracted to someone doesn’t mean you necessarily want to have sex with them. Emily specifically states “yet I am more sexually attracted to a women’s body.” This is definitely not the same as recognizing that someone is an attractive person. All people can recognize attractiveness in every gender. But to outright say that they experience sexual attraction to the same gender and for anyone not to at least consider some degree of bisexuality does not make any logical sense to me.
Even thinking that one’s gender is the “sexy one” is different than that person literally being sexually attracted to the person. If a woman can look at another woman and feel sexually attracted to that person, then there is no way that they can still claim straight. And that’s ok…..There seems to be so many women that think all of these conditions have to be in place to be called bisexual. Some examples I’ve heard are: I would have sex with women but I’d never be in a relationship with one, I find women sexually attractive but I’d never had sex with women, I can make out with a girl but I’d never do any more than that. All of these are just ways to justify having bisexual feelings but not claiming the word, as if by claiming bisexual would change them as people fundamentally. It’s weird but that seems to be where we are as a society right now.
I hadn’t read Emily‘s comment and I would be interested to have her have this discussion with you but she probably isn’t subscribed to comments. All I can say is that while I am find women’s bodies to be more eroticized than men’s and hotter in that way, having sex with women just doesn’t seem interesting to me.
As a photographer in the past I do know how progressive the lighting is, when it comes to ads.Any kind of ads.This image of D.Beckham is a good job of the whole crew. I do not feel uncomfortable by looking at the picture but I also do know that 30% of that image above could not be true.As one of the comments above concludes, it may negatively affect other women’s expectations when it will come to intimacy with other gender. Therefore, in my opinion any sort of ad with bare body images or skin are not the best idea. Our society evolved and evolving day to day to see the same type of images with a better retouching techniques?! I do not understand that. Yes. D. Beckham is a good looking man but that ad is not saying that he has a big happy family and that he was a successful football player. Since humans are visual creatures I do believe in a well presented information and not just a provocative image. In addition, we have experienced all sorts of images and nudes, maybe it is time for us as a society to start bringing changes and start seeing names of people instead of large half naked portraits of them so we could at least start reading more by googling potential famous names.
Women are more comfortable with expressing sexual attraction to more masculine images because they’re not as sexualized as, say, the images for Magic Mike — the more “erotic” an image is, the less likely someone will express its attractiveness, because women have been taught to keep the more heated thoughts and feelings to themselves. Women are raised under the image of being a “pure, virginal maiden” where they are restricted from being as sexually open as their male counterparts, and it often leads to them being uncomfortable when seeing figures they’re attracted to (in this case, Magic Mike) because they feel “sinful” or “ashamed” by the overly sexualized content. But in the case of David Beckham and his more masculine image in these photos, they’re image that are subtle and able to be shown out in the public — the type of sexualization that many consider normal. This is the level of sexuality women feel “allowed” to express interest in.
I fall more into the neutral category in regards to this image. It does not make me uncomfortable, but it does catch my eye because it is so different from normal advertising. I can see how Beckham comes across as attractive in this photo, but I personally am not too attracted to the image. From the way that he is presented it does seem like less of a “manly” photo. His pose is more of something that I would normally see a female model do. For this reason, I think the image sparked curiosity in me more than anything. It is an odd mixture of a masculine man presented in a way that comes across as slightly less masculine. For that reason, I think I am wired to believe that the overall picture still comes across as a bit feminine. I am used to male models being fully clothed. For this reason, I find most Men’s Warehouse advertisements of men in business suits more attractive than this photo. I am also curious as to how effective this image is at advertising. I think men are not used to seeing advertisements like this for underwear so I am wondering how they would react.
Good questions.
I am in the “this made me uncomfortable” category. Although, I think it was the way this photo was shot and rendered that makes me uncomfortable more than the fact that it contains an image of a sexualized man. Compare this photo to an image search of “Woman on bed in underwear:” (I have safe search on moderate, which also permits the above photo of Dave Beckham but not fully nude or pornographic images.) Generally, in these photos, the faces of the models are well lit. They have happy, sometimes silly expressions, or they are looking away from the camera. The camera is angled high overhead or nearly level with the model but off to the side. In this photo of Beckham, the camera angle suggests the viewer is nearly leaning over Beckham’s crotch. He has a bit of scowl along with furrowed eyebrows, which to me makes him look a bit arrogant, as if he expects something from the viewer. His face and body being half-shrouded in shadow ads a menacing feel. It looks like there has been some serious photoshopping around his abdomen, maybe to airbrush out his side tattoo, or potentially airbrush in a better shot of his abdominal muscles.
As for the sexual feeling of the photo… the tighty-whitey underwear kills it for me. Maybe it’s a generational thing, maybe it’s because of the way a lot of media satirizes men in briefs, or maybe it’s just a personal preference, but I can’t jibe that underwear with the rest of the photo. Almost every part of this black and white high-contrast style, along with his serious expression and collared shirt, seems to be expressing a sense of high luxury and formality. Then, there’s that underwear, which is covering his very prominent package, that looks like he picked it up in a five-pack at the drugstore on the way home from work. It diminishes his glitterati appeal.
Apparently links are filtered out. I conducted my search with duckduckgo, other search engines may provide different results.
I doubt that discomfort is generational. Young women today seem to be more open to this sort of thing then older generations, based on how my students responded compared to an earlier study.
Although the diehard SJ earthquakes fan in me likes to thing “**** Beckham” The sexual being in me can appreciate his almost Grecian god physique. Although instead of being aroused by this image I am more intrigued by the details. Why does he look like he was pushed onto the bed? Why is he scowling? Did he just wake up? Why would he be in a dress shirt if he just woke up? Why do I feel like he’s upset at me for something? I can see how this kind of sexualization should be perceived but when I take my eyes off the rather notable bulge other things come more into view. Expression is everything for me personally and I just wouldn’t be able to be aroused when he looks so unhappy. What’s the fun in sex if it’s not enjoyable? Also why are his legs spread open like that? It’s so much more of a feminine and submissive pose which isn’t quite reflected in his expression. Overall this picture raises more questions than arouses for me.
I think that I would put myself in the neutral category of this survey. Yes, there is no denying that David Beckham is an attractive male but I am not attracted to him nor am I attracted to this revealing image of him. I think as a women we look at nudity different. I’m not saying that all women feel this way I just think that women don’t look at pictures like this the way that men look at nude pictures of females. This picture just makes me feel indifferent. I could care less about David Beckham and his underwear commercial. This feeling could come from my conservative upbringing.
I was raised in a Catholic family and there was never really an emphasis placed on looks and how sexually appealing someone is. This could possibly be the reason I am not extremely interested in this image because all I see is a naked male. However, If you were to put my boyfriend in that setup you would most definitely get a positive response from me.
I think that I would put myself in the neutral category of this survey. Yes, there is no denying that David Beckham is an attractive male but I am not attracted to him nor am I attracted to this revealing image of him. I think as a women we look at nudity different. I’m not saying that all women feel this way I just think that women don’t look at pictures like this the way that men look at nude pictures of females. This picture just makes me feel indifferent. I could care less about David Beckham and his underwear commercial. This feeling could come from my conservative upbringing.
I remember stumbling upon an article and photos from a photographer who pointed out that a lot of women prefer sexual photos of men with a sort of story attached to it. Which automatically made me think of the cover of countless romance novels, half naked men and women in a somewhat embrace. The article included men’s bodies, penis still covered, but holding objects, like a bottle of wine or a bouquet of flowers, implying a more intimate gesture. I think that some women are more attracted to romanticized images more than just the naked male form. Maybe it feels more intimate, therefore more comfortable? Obviously it is more acceptable for men to sexualize women so maybe some of these women are just not comfortable feeling that they’re doing that.
It’s funny – I had the same thought as the woman who wondered about how much Photoshop was used in this ad. I personally am rather neutral to images of this type. Although this may be attributed to my generation or my upbringing, nudity and sexualized images don’t shock me or even catch my eye. The gender doesn’t matter, either.
I will admit that in analyzing the ad, I noticed that the lighting seems to be cast specifically to highlight… the boxers? (Let’s go with that). I can imagine that this is why you find those who are uncomfortable with it –perhaps it’s not the nudity, but rather the extra focus placed on Beckham’s private area.
I’d be interested in seeing any study which puts this image alongside a similar one of a woman, and see if the reactions and opinions change at all.
It is interesting to see an image of a male being sexualized. Based on the survey, women are less comfortable with nudity as oppose to men. I guess those that were uncomfortable is because he is a celebrity otherwise, they would not have paid much attention. To be honest, I don’t think that it was necessary to show the bulge, but I guess sexualized images do sell. At least we can see in the image that the garment fits very well!
We all know that when underwear is advertised, it is all about the image and the image is all about sex. Such ads are all aim to women because ultimately women are the one’s who buy the underwear for their men and fantasied. Still, women are more sexualized and seen as objects than men.
I think this blog post is interesting because it shows the difference between men and women when it comes to nudity. There is most definitely this double standard when it comes to men and sexuality vs. women and their sexuality. I think that it is much more socially acceptable for guys to be open about being turned on than it is for a woman. One would expect a man to be more open about finding a woman “hot” than a woman to say that she finds a man hot. In this case, even though they found David Beckhman hot, they also were uncomfortable with him being that naked. They were not really use to sexualizing him in that way and so openly about it. It was a bit of a difference experience rather than when men openly sexualize half naked women. Women are a bit more shy and are more introverted when it comes to this type.
Once again we wonder what is the point of this picture? What are they selling here? Sex? Cologne? Work out machine? Oh no it’s actually underwear. So by emphasizing the bulge in his jockeys, it would also make for a great Viagra commercial. Personally I do not find the photograph offensive nor does it make me unconformable but at the same time I do not find it necessary either. This whole idea that ‘sex sells’ has gone a bit too far in my opinion. If I want to buy underwear for my husband, seeing this picture is not going to make me buy that particular brand. In actuality it will most likely steer me in the opposite direction. Having any celebrity endorse a product means we the consumer will be paying more for the product. I work too hard for my money and I’m not about to make the rich any richer. I also do not agree with the underhanded tactics of such advertising. Stop exploiting men and women to sell your wares. Give us a good product at a fair price and we will gladly be on board.
This was insightful. I found it interesting that the photo made plenty of women uncomfortable almost as much as women who found it attractive. I feel like in this day and age, especially with the internet, it’s not rare to find pictures of half naked men anywhere. Personally, it doesn’t bother me much. To me, It looks like any advertising photo trying to sell their products to its consumers, but with David Beckham as bonus. I do understand some of the points that women had made who found the photo uncomfortable to look at because of his package being “‘right in your face.’” I feel like that is the point of the ad. They are trying to sell their underwear. I wouldn’t be surprised if they emphasized the appearance of David Beckham’s package so consumers would buy their product. It’s also trying to show consumers that they could look as good as David Beckham if they bought and wore their Calvin Klein underwear.
I can relate to the 57% of women who stated feeling uncomfortable while looking at the photo. Perhaps it is because of my age (he is younger than me) but it could also be because I am a bit more prudish when it comes to nudity, both in women and in men. He is a very attractive man, however I can appreciate his beauty without being subjected to the bulge in his pants. It definitely draws your eye in that general directly right away (or at least it did for me!). It’s not really the bare skin but more the way he is sitting with legs spread, obviously trying to bring attention to his male parts. It’s a bit much, at least in my opinion. Having said that, I also think that the majority of nudity in advertising is overdone as well. It’s possible to make it sexy and appealing without overdoing the nudity and exposure to sexual body parts.
Interesting!
Have you ever looked into the k-pop phenomenon? The guys in this industry are usually extremely good looking and well dressed, act sexily and demure or cute, etc. The aren’t just the regular “boy bands” you see in the West.
Also, they are Asian males – usually seen as un-sexy in many (or most?) western countries.
What I mean is, it seems like pretty (guys who take care of their looks), lean hot guys are extremely attractive to many girls and women. I see women and girls loosing it over these guys. And it’s not simply a small trend or too “niche” anymore, even outside of Asia.
In America, many male k-pop groups are getting more and more popular, specially BTS.
I think it would be interesting to look into this phenomenon. In my opinion, it says a lot about female sexuality, female gaze and so on.
Hope you’re having a great week. 🙂
I have checked out K Pop. I totally get the attraction to the guys. And it’s interesting because they definitely are not super macho. In the 80s Duran Duran were really hot and also kind of feminine looking. Of course all of these guys are fully dressed And maybe that’s partly why women can still find them really attractive. They aren’t objectified and sexualized in the same way that women are. If these guys were all half dressed maybe it would be different. But the attraction to guys who are kind of slim and baby faced is interesting. I’ll have to think about that more. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the topic.
I’m fine with the picture. He does look attractive and there’s nothing wrong if we women stare at the picture for a few seconds… 😀
Thanks for the input.
I believe women has always been brought up in a more conservative way and that affects our outtake on nudity. Majority of females were brought up in times where they were told what was acceptable and unacceptable. They were also taught to be more conservatives in their daily wear, which I believe causes the female to be less comfortable in their own skin. Therefore, seeing someone, even an attractive person, can cause females to be less comfortable on nudity.
I am a woman, in the early twenties.This David Beckham’s picture did not make me feel uncomfortable. The first reaction when I saw this picture was that the picture was taken very well. Black and white light and shadow highlight the strong male body. Body is black, white clothes, both directly with a strong contrast. So I think this is a very good picture taken. Very textured, not low-grade sexy.If the man simply naked skin to serve the sexy, then this photo will make me feel uncomfortable. But this picture, Beckham’s expression is very confident, body posture is also very stretchy, so I did not feel uncomfortable, it only makes me think it is in the beautiful range of appreciation of the screen.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Hello.!
I will try to comment first.
I am not an English speaking country.
Please understand my cryptic English grammar.
I have carefully observed the postings related to your gender psychology.
Despite the cultural differences between my country and the country in which you live, Women in our country are also more familiar with the naked body of women than naked bodies of men.
It seems to be common among women around the world.
Women are more excited about the body of women.
I totally agree with your claim.
But there is a question.
*(University of Queens) Meredith L. Chivers In one experiment
Male masturbation scene and female masturbation scene,
The woman showed excitement in both scenes.
At some university, did the same experiment for the students
showed male and female students a male and female masturbation movie.
result, Like the *Chivers experiment, female students were all excited about male and female masturbation.
I could hear a number of my girlfriends who I know are excited about the masturbation scene of men. (Not all, but some of them seem to be excited.)
Even in the Internet community, women were excited to see the male masturbation scene.
I wonder if the question is whether the naked body of the male is an exciting visual focus.
It seems to be contradictory to what your claimed before.
Is it true that women are excited about the masturbation scene of men?
Do you also want to see it?
If I get excited, I want to know if it is the reason to visualize the male body or male penis.
Women are not excited about male nudity, but I would like to know why they are excited about male masturbation scenes.
I would like to make a comparison with your answer and the material I think.
I am curious and I am waiting for your answer.
I would like you to treat these similar things in detail in the future.
Thank you for reading my crappy English grammar.
I like your blog.
First, just because their body registered an increase of blood flow doesn’t mean that they felt excited in their minds. They certainly may have but I’m not aware of any women who have watched a nature show with animals having sex and felt mentally aroused by that, even though their body seems to register an increase of blood flow to the vagina. So it could be that whenever sex comes into a woman’s mind her body prepares for it, Whether she feels aroused in her mind or not.
And so it makes sense that the sex would have this effect but just looking at the naked male body would not. A flaccid penis on a nude male body isn’t necessarily sexual. And we see so much of the male body on a regular basis — except for the penis — that the male body isn’t sexualized.
We sexualize the female, but not the male, body in this way:
A cultural fetish like this one is a social construction that is not found in every culture. It’s created in this way:
• Selectively hide and reveal — creating sexual tension
• Declare the body part sexy, and then say, “Don’t look at it!” — creating sexual tension
• Obsess over the body part: The camera zeros in on it. People talk about it incessantly… Because it is declared soooo sexy.
When I first saw this post it made me go back to the other post of the magic mike stripper. Personally I think Beckham is very attractive and seeing how some of the women who thought he was attractive react, I would react the same way. The article does point out that some of the girls did feel awkward and comfortable because when you look at the image, his package seems be right in your face. I think that the commercials that have men showing off their body in a tight underwear are trying to target men but also women. If you have a girlfriend, I think she would be “wow, he looks attractive maybe it will look sexy on my boyfriend”. Another thing is that this type of photo can lower a man’s self esteem because they would think they aren’t buff enough nor have the looks the look like David Beckham.
This photo didn’t make me feel uncomfortable, we see this kind of pictures in adds all the time. I also didn’t feel attracted to him, yes he is very handsome but simply not my type. I Think attractiveness it’s up to the person’s taste. The picture is definitely appealing, however. The reason of why women are less comfortable with nudity may be because male nudes are not as common as women nudes. throughout history, we have seen how the women have been sexualized in paintings, sculptures, and adds. men, however, are less likely to be sexualized. One of the reasons might be because women are supposed to act a certain way to be a decent woman, a good woman, and that is not by watching naked man. In some cultures, women aren’t even allowed to be in the same room with men if they are not their husbands. Women had to follow this rules through time so watching a naked man may be uncomfortable. since women have less interest in naked pictures of men, the demand for male nudity is low. This works as a chain system
I think that this photograph of David Beckham very much makes women uncomfortable although somewhat turned on. He is a very attractive man no doubt about it. I personally think that this photograph is good for campaigning although it doesn’t personally turn me on. I think that women do you like to keep things more discrete until behind closed doors. I do think that gender roles when I comes to nude women and men differs. Men are a lot more comfortable with nude women as opposed to woman with nude males. Maybe because women have always been thought of as sexy and beautiful as opposed to men who are seen as very masculine and clothed. I think the reason why many women think of David Beckham super attractive as opposed to a male stripper is because David Beckham has proved his masculinity and sexiness over the time. As opposed to strippers who are very much nobody’s home have a te I think the reason many women think of David Beckham super attractive as a post to a male stripper is because David Beckham has proved his masculinity and sexiness over the time. As opposed to strippers who are very much unknown.
The image of David Beckham and many other images of models with very few clothing on is not as common as the same image but with women. In my experience, when I’m out shopping, I usually see more women models dressed with less clothing in order to advertise a product such as Victoria’s Secret. When I’m in Victoria’s Secret with my girlfriend to help her shop, I usually see other couples unphased by the large images of half-naked women plastered all over the walls. Occasionally I’ll see a guy admiring those images, or women staring at them saying, “I like what she’s wearing, where can I get it?” However, I couldn’t imagine bringing myself or my girlfriend with me to a “Victor’s Secret,” a male version of Victoria’s Secret that I made up. I don’t think I’d be comfortable with images of half-naked men on the walls, with their bulging packages on every corner of the store. I feel like it would also be uncomfortable for my girlfriend and other women too, as it would be different from what we usually see. Men, in my opinion, are also more territorial, so if they were to bring their partner to my made up store, I feel like they’d be somewhat jealous. Whereas in Victoria’s Secret, I rarely see any women expressing concern of jealousy since stores like it are normal and in almost every shopping center.
Of course, some women would feel uncomfortable with this kind of photo because he’s almost full on naked. The only reason why celebrities like David Beckham have to pose like this is to appeal to the women and men by showing men that if you wear Calvin Klein boxers you will look “sexy” just like David Beckham and impress your significant other. Sometimes they just try to hard to look sexy hence the uncomfortableness.
But it’s interesting that men aren’t uncomfortable with women almost full on naked, isn’t it?
I think this picture of David Beckham is great! It’s something we’d see at the store, or even in a quiet and soft TV commercial which we (as girls) would be very much intrigued in. Pair it with some breeze to blow his shirt off a little, soft jazz, and VOILA! Hot, hot, hot. I can see why the image can be a little bit awkward though. I feel that we as women like to be teased, and not shown too much. Sidetracking a bit, and somewhat inappropriate, if a woman were to text her boyfriend a nude, he would be very much impressed, and turned on, versus when a woman receives a picture of a package she did not ask her, it’s very much uncomfortable. Women like to keep what’s private, private, meaning that more than likely, an American Eagle commercial would receive higher ratings than this Calvin Klein commercial because the other one would feature a topless man with jeans on.
❤❤ haha he is a handsome man. But him and his wife are too beautiful together.
Yes they are.
Since nudity, generally, is directed toward men, I do wonder who this ad is targeted at. It does almost feel aggressive.
Maybe target to guys buying underwear. A lot of guys ell me they wish thy were more sexualized. And yet plenty of us, men and women alike, feel uncomfortable with this since we are so unused to it and associate it so much with women and not men.
Besides his pose looks aggressive. That might played a role in why most women were put off
Maybe. I have a couple more pics to consider.
I’m a man, 70. Female nudity alone has never impressed me much. It has always been when there’s a relation to be explored that I’ve been turned on. And “turning on” has several different aspects to it. The bodily adventure is one. The intellectual, the mental, the emotional are others. I think it is the interweaving of them all that turns me really on.
It may very well be that, to most men, seeing nude female skin is enough to turn them on. And as it seems from the discussion here, women often need the relational exploration in addition to turn themselves on.
Are these differences culturally conditioned? Or biologically? In my own case I think my way of being a man has a lot to do with my upbringing. Maybe men and women can be taught to experience sex as part of a communication in which relations are explored.
Ellington
Thanks for sharing your experience with this. I think it’s conditioned. Men aren’t visual in all cultures, or necessarily even in those where it’s culturally taught. And women seem to be getting more visual, or straight women are often conditioned to be turned on by the female form.
Of course social conditioning plays a role but it also proves that women are more cautious. They need to get know a man first before they are ready to go. Men don’t really need that. It’s “shoot first ask questions later”.
But for women it’s “I don’t know you well enough”.
That’s why women aren’t interested in seeing male *strangers* naked.
And this was a still photo. It didn’t say anything about his personality or didn’t show any attributes that women may find attractive.
On the other hand, when the male actors in Twilight showed some skin, women were more interested because they felt like they knew them more.
I think that women are programmed to not feel attraction to male strangers.
But once a woman gets to know a man well enough then she may change her mind.
You could be right. The only way you can untangle some of these things just by looking at cross-cultural evidence and I’m not aware of cultures where women have sex with strange men. Men are on average bear and stronger than women which can make them more concerned about things like mental well-being of their partner.
Studies have found that looks aren’t the most important thing. When people spend time with each other they tend to find each other more attractive.
So after all it seems that men are indeed hardwired to look for sex even with female strangers whereas women need to feel some intimacy first.
Perhaps women are hardwired to not be attracted to male strangers
Not sure. May have been different in very early tribal societies, see Sex At Dawn.
People in early tribal societies knew each other. They all spent their days together. So even then women never have had sex with male strangers. That could be why women are hardwired to not be attracted to male strangers
Sex At Dawn describes small bands of around 20 people running into each other and people casually leaving one band to join another.
“”But for women it’s “I don’t know you well enough”.”
This totally false.
How do you explain women attending bachelorette parties AND engaging in sex with the male strippers? Or how do you explain womens behavior on Tinder? Or how do you explain womens behavior regarding one night stands?
All a woman needs is to be excited by a particular man AND feel safe/comfortable in engaging said man. Yes, women do indeed feel attraction for male strangers. However, this is usually the case for the most attractive men.
I think your views reflects the mis-education that I see with most men today.
Because women in Bachelorette parties are among friends and feel safety in numbers. Women in Tinder feel safe because they are just playing through the Internet.
Even women in one stands need to spend enough time talking with the guy to feel some connection. That’s why there are so many pick up artists making money by teaching guys how to talk to women.
There were many times social experiments conducted were an attractive male was approaching women on the street. He was almost always rejected by the women.
For women it’s always “I don’t know you well enough”
That “well enough” might be weeks or months or it could be a few hours. However there’s always a threshold.
Yeah. Some women seek out sex with strangers. Some are my students who have written about it. They generally site low self-esteem and trying to get attention.
Even for those few women who seek sex with strangers there is a threshold. Even in one night stands they need to spend a few hours talking to each other to pass that threshold. So in their mind that guy isn’t a stranger anymore. They feel some intimacy.
That’s not the case for most women however. Most women need weeks or even months to feel a connection.
“That’s not the case for most women however. Most women need weeks or even months to feel a connection.”
Again, this is just flatly untrue.
I have a friend you got oral sex from a woman within 2 hours of meeting her at an airport! I have met women and they have been very forward with me about wanting to have sex with me. There are far more women who behave like this than you think!
Women “feel a connection” right away for men whom they are attracted. Even if said man turns out to be “jerk.” If a woman is on Tinder and meets a guy later that day for sex, please explain to me just how much of a connection exist? Stop believing this nonsense.
The only men whom women “need a connection” are usually men whom they desire for long-term partnership (i.e., marriage). For these men, the bar for sex is raised significantly. The reason being is simple: women do NOT marry the men whom they love to have sex AND they do NOT have sex with the men whom they profess to love. So, these men must offer something else in exchange for sex/romance such as financial status, security, etc.
The very sad reality for most men is that women do NOT value us men for WHO we are as beings. Rather, they value us for WHAT we are and more importantly what we can do for them. The irony is women continue to complain about objectification while practicing the exact same thing with men: we are mere objects. We are not viewed as human beings. Yet, feminism continues to propagate the big lie that they are interested in “equality.” Nothing could be further from the truth. It is like the old communist who once argued about how free man was under communism.
As a a man who has both experienced and observed the ways of women, you really need cleanse your mind of this miseducation. If you do not, you are going suffer a similar fate as many other men.
I think that socialization makes it difficult for Women to want a lot of partners with strangers they don’t know. There are greater fears for straight women in terms of personal safety. Also women’s sexuality is punished so much that they fear doing it out of punishment or because they have become repressed from years of punishment.
That said, about half of both women and men prefer monogamy and about half of both women and men prefer multiple partners. I would not like a culture where everyone is pressured into multiple partners. Nor a culture where people are pressured into irresponsible sex. Whether monogamous or polygamist I believe that people must be responsible: see your partner as a person and care about them and safe sex, for example.
Maybe men see nude women (real or otherwise) too often that such images don’t please them after a while. Most women, on the other hand, consider it a shame to even be looking at such pics.
Women have been taught that erotic images are meant for the male gaze. And yet they are attractive. Hence the “attractive but…” response.
And we’re used to thinking skin = women. So the turnaround is a bit uncomfortable.
Makes sense!
The only question the folks who published the picture would ask is: Did it sell any underwear?
I’m sure it did. With both women and men buying it. 🙂
this is how the media influences our thoughts and attitudes. A little skin here and there.. will do the trick
Yep. Yet it comes across differently when it’s men. Maybe things will change with more of this sort of image. And that can be good and bad. Nothing wrong with appreciating someone who’s attractive, but it can move into objectification and unrealistic body image issues.
not to mention all the failed marriages due to the unrealistic expectations caused by porn
Yes. Also true in many cases.