With an uneasy mixture of consternation and lust
January 9, 2024 8:53 AM Subscribe
An Open Letter to Jeremy Allen White Regarding His Recent Calvin Klein Ad Campaign
(the ad for those living under a rock) (also congrats to the folks from The Bear for their 5 Golden Globe wins)
(the ad for those living under a rock) (also congrats to the folks from The Bear for their 5 Golden Globe wins)
"While your character in The Bear served up testaments to the art of gastronomy, it is no longer possible to imagine you eating anything but air, protein powder, seven-minute planks, and your own tears."
This is a legit assessment.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:06 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
This is a legit assessment.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:06 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
It’s like Gene Wilder had a glow up, so lust and consternation are the right word choices here.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:11 AM on January 9 [36 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:11 AM on January 9 [36 favorites]
(And uneasy.)
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:18 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 9:18 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Shoes on the couch?! Consternation is right.
posted by eviemath at 9:26 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 9:26 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
This is what hanging out with Zac Efron rasslin’ ‘ll do to a boy.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:31 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:31 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I was already too old for him to directly appeal to me, but here's the thing: with clothes on, JAW is exactly the kind of dirtbag I wasted my 20s on. So there was a kind of wistfulness-attraction blend (also, 70s Gene Wilder? WOULD). But none of those idiots had an unapproachable bod under those band shirts. That was almost the point of their appeal.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:47 AM on January 9 [15 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:47 AM on January 9 [15 favorites]
O
posted by hypnogogue at 10:26 AM on January 9
posted by hypnogogue at 10:26 AM on January 9
let's just not comment on stranger's bodies and how much or how little they make us sexually desire them in 2024, ok?
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 10:27 AM on January 9 [10 favorites]
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 10:27 AM on January 9 [10 favorites]
I was really bummed to read about how Ayo Edebiri's win on Sunday was not met with intelligent questions but nonstop questioning about JAW's underwear ads.
Coming from a lover of the show: stop trying to make Carmy and Sydney happen. Enjoy the professional relationship which is WAY more rewarding than another sitcom romance.
posted by JoeZydeco at 10:27 AM on January 9 [16 favorites]
Coming from a lover of the show: stop trying to make Carmy and Sydney happen. Enjoy the professional relationship which is WAY more rewarding than another sitcom romance.
posted by JoeZydeco at 10:27 AM on January 9 [16 favorites]
This used to be the body you would temporarily train up to if you were playing a superhero. Now it’s the body you have to have if you’re playing a moody chef on prestige evening TV, and the superheroes look like alien circuit gay Olympians
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:30 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
posted by star gentle uterus at 10:30 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
let's just not comment on stranger's bodies and how much or how little they make us sexually desire them in 2024, ok?
This isn't some random off the street who didn't ask for attention, this is a consenting actor paid to take his clothes off for an underwear ad.
posted by Silentgoldfish at 10:31 AM on January 9 [68 favorites]
This isn't some random off the street who didn't ask for attention, this is a consenting actor paid to take his clothes off for an underwear ad.
posted by Silentgoldfish at 10:31 AM on January 9 [68 favorites]
Loooool "it's actually bad to discuss the sexual feelings you got from the underwear ad which was designed to give you sexual feelings" is peak Metafilter.
posted by saladin at 10:32 AM on January 9 [113 favorites]
posted by saladin at 10:32 AM on January 9 [113 favorites]
Sex and underwear…..ugh, it’s all so complicated, I can’t even.
posted by ashbury at 10:34 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by ashbury at 10:34 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
eating anything but air, protein powder, seven-minute planks, and your own tears
Actually, to look like that you have to literally eat yourself sick: "[I was] eating all the time. Like, never stopping. In the morning, I would have waffles, almond butter. In the middle of the day, I was eating turkey patties and avocado all the time. It's really just gross. You're trying to consume as much as you possibly can, and, to be honest, you don't feel great."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:34 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Actually, to look like that you have to literally eat yourself sick: "[I was] eating all the time. Like, never stopping. In the morning, I would have waffles, almond butter. In the middle of the day, I was eating turkey patties and avocado all the time. It's really just gross. You're trying to consume as much as you possibly can, and, to be honest, you don't feel great."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:34 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
I'm a cis man, but hoo-boy whatta bod that dude has! White's face reminds me of a young Robert Mitchum, and that's a compliment.
I just cannot get with that show. Tried watching the first season. A beef joint baking their own bread? And where's the deep fryer? Not a single french fry to be seen, at least in the first season. Also, if I walked into a fast food joint and heard that level of unholy commotion going on behind the counter, I'd back out slowly and wouldn't return (ok I know the drama needs to be amplified, but where the hell are the french fries?).
posted by SoberHighland at 10:38 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
I just cannot get with that show. Tried watching the first season. A beef joint baking their own bread? And where's the deep fryer? Not a single french fry to be seen, at least in the first season. Also, if I walked into a fast food joint and heard that level of unholy commotion going on behind the counter, I'd back out slowly and wouldn't return (ok I know the drama needs to be amplified, but where the hell are the french fries?).
posted by SoberHighland at 10:38 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
OMG shut your mouth before a pigeon shits in it.
...
OH GOD NO, please, please leave your clothes on, noooooo... Damn.
See, it's wrecking my Bear vibe. I can't stand to see him IRL because he's not the guy on The Bear that wears that wool jacket I covet with my entire being; this is like five billion times worse.
...
So... I'll just...
I'll just go watch the ad again one more time.
You know, to make sure my initial impression is correct.
...kaff...
posted by Don Pepino at 10:39 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
...
OH GOD NO, please, please leave your clothes on, noooooo... Damn.
See, it's wrecking my Bear vibe. I can't stand to see him IRL because he's not the guy on The Bear that wears that wool jacket I covet with my entire being; this is like five billion times worse.
...
So... I'll just...
I'll just go watch the ad again one more time.
You know, to make sure my initial impression is correct.
...kaff...
posted by Don Pepino at 10:39 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I do live under a rock, so thank you, O Time, I guess.
Let's see, my comments on this:
It's a stupid commercial.
He has a daft expression on his face most of the time.
Why would you run around on the dirty roof in your white underwear?
Why is there an ugly orange couch on the roof?
How did he get his shorts off without taking his shoes off and while walking?
He's really... scrawny.
It's a stupid commercial. Really stupid.
Back under the rock for me!
posted by BlueHorse at 10:40 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Let's see, my comments on this:
It's a stupid commercial.
He has a daft expression on his face most of the time.
Why would you run around on the dirty roof in your white underwear?
Why is there an ugly orange couch on the roof?
How did he get his shorts off without taking his shoes off and while walking?
He's really... scrawny.
It's a stupid commercial. Really stupid.
Back under the rock for me!
posted by BlueHorse at 10:40 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
I just cannot get with that show.
for what it's worth, friends who are really into food and/or are professional chefs have described what they really enjoy about the show
one person in particular described how the show captures a type of kitchen intensity, and the way this life can destroy a person, and indeed they did get out of high stakes chef-ing to teach instead
posted by elkevelvet at 10:41 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
for what it's worth, friends who are really into food and/or are professional chefs have described what they really enjoy about the show
one person in particular described how the show captures a type of kitchen intensity, and the way this life can destroy a person, and indeed they did get out of high stakes chef-ing to teach instead
posted by elkevelvet at 10:41 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Now it’s the body you have to have if you’re playing a moody chef on prestige evening TV
Eh, more likely it's the body he got to play a professional wrestler, which physique-wise is closer to the superhero role.
posted by dnash at 10:42 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Eh, more likely it's the body he got to play a professional wrestler, which physique-wise is closer to the superhero role.
posted by dnash at 10:42 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Yeeeeah...I was kind of already in love with him from his years on Shameless, so this year's press tour of Posing Shirtless Near Paparazzi has been too much for me. But also, I'm a liar; I was reading on the NYTimes app (what was I reading! I don't know at all!) and that Calvin Klein ad hit me with the force of a moving freight train.
posted by grandiloquiet at 10:42 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by grandiloquiet at 10:42 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Actually, to look like that you have to literally eat yourself sick: "[I was] eating all the time. Like, never stopping. In the morning, I would have waffles, almond butter. In the middle of the day, I was eating turkey patties and avocado all the time. It's really just gross. You're trying to consume as much as you possibly can, and, to be honest, you don't feel great."
No mention of the HGH? The hollywood transformations are so obviously PED fueled I can't believe people even ask about their diets. I mean maybe you can get there by diet....in a couple of years of work. A bunch of months? That takes a pharmacy.
posted by srboisvert at 10:43 AM on January 9 [24 favorites]
No mention of the HGH? The hollywood transformations are so obviously PED fueled I can't believe people even ask about their diets. I mean maybe you can get there by diet....in a couple of years of work. A bunch of months? That takes a pharmacy.
posted by srboisvert at 10:43 AM on January 9 [24 favorites]
The thing about The Bear is that it was a good limited series that for some reason thought it needed a second season, which literally starts out with them going "oh yeah that thing that happened at the end of last season that fixed our problems, well, turns out there are Reasons why it didn't actually fix our problems, so now we have an artificially-created ticking clock for this season!"
Blerg. Prestige TV can't die soon enough. Maybe they'll cancel The Bear so Jeremy Allen White can spend more time in his underwear, which is, on the whole, better for society.
posted by rhymedirective at 10:48 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Blerg. Prestige TV can't die soon enough. Maybe they'll cancel The Bear so Jeremy Allen White can spend more time in his underwear, which is, on the whole, better for society.
posted by rhymedirective at 10:48 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
One of the authors of the McSeeeney's article, Emily Flake, also drew this cartoon for the New Yorker.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 10:48 AM on January 9 [23 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 10:48 AM on January 9 [23 favorites]
Young guy I work with works out (body building) a lot and has done the visible 6-pack thing twice in his life. He told me it specifically requires super hard training while gorging on certain foods, then going on an absolute crazy crash diet to lose every ounce of body fat and water weight right before the ultimate "unveiling." He's currently doing this for the second time, and he thinks it's the last time he will do it. He's a soft spoken, very sharp and very thoughtful young man (probably 24 or so) and small in stature!
I've only seen him with work clothes on, and you'd never guess there's a sculpted bod under there. He's gonna get photos taken with his "perfect" 20's body then stop doing the crazy diet stuff for good. It's a project he's working on.
posted by SoberHighland at 10:50 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
I've only seen him with work clothes on, and you'd never guess there's a sculpted bod under there. He's gonna get photos taken with his "perfect" 20's body then stop doing the crazy diet stuff for good. It's a project he's working on.
posted by SoberHighland at 10:50 AM on January 9 [4 favorites]
>This isn't some random off the street who didn't ask for attention, this is a consenting actor paid to take his clothes off for an underwear ad.
So, anybody who was paid for the photos or video, we can post 'em here and talk about which parts of their bodies we wanna do things to? I'm confident nobody here would object to that, no matter who it was about.
This is a real funny place sometimes.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:06 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
So, anybody who was paid for the photos or video, we can post 'em here and talk about which parts of their bodies we wanna do things to? I'm confident nobody here would object to that, no matter who it was about.
This is a real funny place sometimes.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:06 AM on January 9 [7 favorites]
imagine wishing a young woman's TV show would get cancelled so "she can spend more time in her underwear" lol
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 11:14 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by Cpt. The Mango at 11:14 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
oh man I am wearing so much underwear right now
posted by aubilenon at 11:19 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by aubilenon at 11:19 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
the "cut" look is associated with treating your body like shit. instead love the gently padded musculature of people who work for a living. butch lumberjacks in flannel, for example. yes.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:20 AM on January 9 [12 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:20 AM on January 9 [12 favorites]
They said that comparison was the thief of joy, but they had not yet met peak MetaFilter.
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:20 AM on January 9 [36 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:20 AM on January 9 [36 favorites]
(This was a great open letter. I hadn’t read one in a long time.)
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:21 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:21 AM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Are you saying MetaFilter is a better thief of joy than comparison is? Can we explore this further?
posted by aubilenon at 11:21 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
posted by aubilenon at 11:21 AM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Not MetaFilter generally, but that distinctive “peak MetaFilter” comment we all hold in our hearts. I think my “favorite” was a little offshoot of some conversation where a few people literally popped up with “I don’t like happiness”-type comments. The upthread “no sexy talk” sentiment strikes me the same way, though perhaps someone will come along to explain at length why it is the correct opinion.
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:31 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:31 AM on January 9 [11 favorites]
I liked Brooke's ads better.
posted by luckynerd at 11:33 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by luckynerd at 11:33 AM on January 9 [1 favorite]
The original backlash against body talk or hotness talk on MeFi came from years on metafilter where any time a woman did anything at all in public, like, run for office, or write an essay on grief, or whatever, the thread would begin with a lengthy discussion first and foremost of how fuckable she was.
I feel like people can probably see the difference between that and specifically commenting on an essay that is specifically ABOUT how fuckable a person is.
(One could argue that this article should never be on Metafilter I guess but I think if Metafilter bans a McSweeney's article something happens to the space-time continuum)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:39 AM on January 9 [32 favorites]
I feel like people can probably see the difference between that and specifically commenting on an essay that is specifically ABOUT how fuckable a person is.
(One could argue that this article should never be on Metafilter I guess but I think if Metafilter bans a McSweeney's article something happens to the space-time continuum)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:39 AM on January 9 [32 favorites]
. . . or those living under a rock
Years ago when we lived in England, SO and I went to the cinema with a neighbour. We both laughed on cue when a [Carling Black Label] ad was shown before the main feature. Neighbour leans in with "The audience can tell who doesn't have a TV at home".
posted by BobTheScientist at 11:43 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
Years ago when we lived in England, SO and I went to the cinema with a neighbour. We both laughed on cue when a [Carling Black Label] ad was shown before the main feature. Neighbour leans in with "The audience can tell who doesn't have a TV at home".
posted by BobTheScientist at 11:43 AM on January 9 [3 favorites]
look we have an entire thread devoted to Jimmy Carr comedy specials
I think we can handle this thread
posted by elkevelvet at 11:44 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I think we can handle this thread
posted by elkevelvet at 11:44 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I don't live under a rock. I also don't seek out and consume corporate soft-core porn involving the male body, nor do I judge anyone who does or doesn't.
posted by achrise at 12:06 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by achrise at 12:06 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: butch lumberjacks in flannel, for example. yes.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:06 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:06 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
This letter grossed me out.
It was objectifying and weird and maybe I'm super old-fashioned but "open letters" published to relatively large-scale readerships used to be written as though the author fully intended the subject to read and engage with the material - including letters written in jest or with comedic intent.
This reads like two morning radio shock-jocks slavering over any hollywood starlet. Would they feel comfortable saying this to his face in front of an audience? I dunno. There's a smarter way to do this dance, I guess.
I feel like if I (40m) had written this about a younger actress after she posed for a celebrated underwear ad folks on the blue would be rightly grossed out.
This is a funny place, some times.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:13 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
It was objectifying and weird and maybe I'm super old-fashioned but "open letters" published to relatively large-scale readerships used to be written as though the author fully intended the subject to read and engage with the material - including letters written in jest or with comedic intent.
This reads like two morning radio shock-jocks slavering over any hollywood starlet. Would they feel comfortable saying this to his face in front of an audience? I dunno. There's a smarter way to do this dance, I guess.
I feel like if I (40m) had written this about a younger actress after she posed for a celebrated underwear ad folks on the blue would be rightly grossed out.
This is a funny place, some times.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:13 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
You might be thinking, “It’s not fair to count me out of your imaginary sex life just because my platonically ideal body intimidates you. Why don’t you try improving your self-esteem?” And while that’s a perfectly reasonable request, we can tell you right now that it won’t happen. Instead, how about we stay in our lane, and you stay in yours?
SMDH. Some people will literally write an open letter to body shame a celebrity instead of going to therapy...
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:21 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
SMDH. Some people will literally write an open letter to body shame a celebrity instead of going to therapy...
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:21 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
achrise: I don't live under a rock.
I do. It's nice and cosy here and there is very little advertising. I can recommend it.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:27 PM on January 9 [15 favorites]
I do. It's nice and cosy here and there is very little advertising. I can recommend it.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:27 PM on January 9 [15 favorites]
Metafilter: Not MetaFilter generally, but that distinctive “peak MetaFilter” comment we all hold in our hearts.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:41 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:41 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
This reads like two morning radio shock-jocks slavering over any hollywood starlet. Would they feel comfortable saying this to his face in front of an audience? I dunno. There's a smarter way to do this dance, I guess.
Baby_Balrog, that's exactly what I was thinking.
posted by luckynerd at 12:51 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Baby_Balrog, that's exactly what I was thinking.
posted by luckynerd at 12:51 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
La mort, c'est la mort
Mais l'amour, c'est l'amour
La mort, c'est seulement la mort
Mais l'amour, c'est l'amour
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 1:00 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
Mais l'amour, c'est l'amour
La mort, c'est seulement la mort
Mais l'amour, c'est l'amour
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 1:00 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
imagine wishing a young woman's TV show would get cancelled so "she can spend more time in her underwear" lol
That's the funny thing about men, they're not women!
posted by rhymedirective at 1:03 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]
That's the funny thing about men, they're not women!
posted by rhymedirective at 1:03 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]
But in all seriousness, I think some of what people are side-eyeing in this thread is the same stuff I was side-eyeing about the Poor Things Sex Scene Discourse, where people are like "ew gross sex why is there sex in this movie" as opposed to critiquing the film on the basis of being a cis male perspective on female empowerment being found through sexuality and how the sex scenes were used to reinforce a very outmoded and male view of feminism, female sexuality, etc etc etc.
posted by rhymedirective at 1:09 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 1:09 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
~I don't live under a rock.
~I do. It's nice and cosy here and there is very little advertising. I can recommend it.
Oh. You haven't heard about Rock's plan to monetize its position, I guess.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:11 PM on January 9
~I do. It's nice and cosy here and there is very little advertising. I can recommend it.
Oh. You haven't heard about Rock's plan to monetize its position, I guess.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:11 PM on January 9
While JAW is not my sexy jam, I applaud those of you who would like to see him in his underwear. Sometimes we just want to see sexy men be sexy. (Lookin' AT YOU, Pedro Pascal. Don't think I didn't see how delightfully slutty you were in that GQ spread.)
posted by Kitteh at 1:20 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 1:20 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
sorry i just looked at that GQ spread again and nearly fainted with pleasure when i saw his bare arm like a victorian man seeing a bare ankle
posted by Kitteh at 1:21 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 1:21 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
Loooool "it's actually bad to discuss the sexual feelings you got from the underwear ad which was designed to give you sexual feelings" is peak Metafilter.
i just consider everyone a perfectively reflective sphere on an infinite checkerboard plane like a 90s Amiga graphics demo and invite other posters to do likewise.
what beautiful hamronious bonging noises we shall make, when we touch
posted by Sebmojo at 1:45 PM on January 9 [23 favorites]
i just consider everyone a perfectively reflective sphere on an infinite checkerboard plane like a 90s Amiga graphics demo and invite other posters to do likewise.
what beautiful hamronious bonging noises we shall make, when we touch
posted by Sebmojo at 1:45 PM on January 9 [23 favorites]
The upthread “no sexy talk” sentiment strikes me the same way, though perhaps someone will come along to explain at length why it is the correct opinion.
Ok, since you asked. I don’t object to some discussion of whether an ad that was aiming for “sexy” has hit its target or not, and how; I think we can have a respectful discussion of this intentional thirst trap - respectful both toward the actor involved and toward other humans who would be reading along, with their normal range of human body issues that might be negatively impacted by a less careful or respectful discussion, and with their normal range and variation of human desires. Objectification is not that, however; and to conflate objectification talk with “sexy talk” is regressive.
posted by eviemath at 1:59 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
Ok, since you asked. I don’t object to some discussion of whether an ad that was aiming for “sexy” has hit its target or not, and how; I think we can have a respectful discussion of this intentional thirst trap - respectful both toward the actor involved and toward other humans who would be reading along, with their normal range of human body issues that might be negatively impacted by a less careful or respectful discussion, and with their normal range and variation of human desires. Objectification is not that, however; and to conflate objectification talk with “sexy talk” is regressive.
posted by eviemath at 1:59 PM on January 9 [8 favorites]
imagine Rodney Dangerfield, but jacked
posted by senor biggles at 2:17 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by senor biggles at 2:17 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
Noted! Not trying to add regressiveness to the site, for serious, but I also don't think expecting conversations about lust and fucking to stay prim, progressive, and proper is realistic.
posted by cupcakeninja at 2:17 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 2:17 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
what beautiful hamronious bonging noises we shall make, when we touch
steamy hamronious
posted by chavenet at 2:20 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
steamy hamronious
posted by chavenet at 2:20 PM on January 9 [9 favorites]
it's an utica expression
posted by Sebmojo at 2:25 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 2:25 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]
sorry i just looked at that GQ spread again and nearly fainted with pleasure when i saw his bare arm like a victorian man seeing a bare ankle
I had not seen that GQ article and I am also going to need a woman-body version of the shopping list for ALL of those clothes, what the shit, especially those jeans, wtf. Goddamn.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:28 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
I had not seen that GQ article and I am also going to need a woman-body version of the shopping list for ALL of those clothes, what the shit, especially those jeans, wtf. Goddamn.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:28 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
But in all seriousness, I think some of what people are side-eyeing in this thread is the same stuff I was side-eyeing about the Poor Things Sex Scene Discourse, where people are like "ew gross sex why is there sex in this movie" as opposed to critiquing the film on the basis of being a cis male perspective on female empowerment being found through sexuality and how the sex scenes were used to reinforce a very outmoded and male view of feminism, female sexuality, etc etc etc.
there really is a very distinctive New Prudery developing, it's fascinating to watch.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:37 PM on January 9 [28 favorites]
there really is a very distinctive New Prudery developing, it's fascinating to watch.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:37 PM on January 9 [28 favorites]
imagine Rodney Dangerfield, but jacked
i hate you so much
posted by tristeza at 2:44 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
i hate you so much
posted by tristeza at 2:44 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
In the first season I thought he did a quite creditable young Dustin Hoffman impersonation.
The second season foreshadowed some emotional peaks and troughs for some of the other characters that I may never be ready for so I put it on pause months ago.
I’m in a train full of high school commuters so I’m going to wait to look at hot bod underwear dude to avoid embarrassment.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 2:46 PM on January 9
The second season foreshadowed some emotional peaks and troughs for some of the other characters that I may never be ready for so I put it on pause months ago.
I’m in a train full of high school commuters so I’m going to wait to look at hot bod underwear dude to avoid embarrassment.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 2:46 PM on January 9
i just consider everyone a perfectively reflective sphere on an infinite checkerboard plane like a 90s Amiga graphics demo and invite other posters to do likewise.
what beautiful hamronious bonging noises we shall make, when we touch
I downloaded a B&D group scene but it was just a Newton's Cradle on a loop.
posted by Sparx at 3:04 PM on January 9 [10 favorites]
what beautiful hamronious bonging noises we shall make, when we touch
I downloaded a B&D group scene but it was just a Newton's Cradle on a loop.
posted by Sparx at 3:04 PM on January 9 [10 favorites]
I feel like if I (40m) had written this about a younger actress after she posed for a celebrated underwear ad folks on the blue would be rightly grossed out.
...
imagine wishing a young woman's TV show would get cancelled so "she can spend more time in her underwear" lol
Yeah, well there's this phenomenon called sexism that makes people react differently to the same speech/action when it's directed towards a woman than when it's directed towards a man. It's not the hypocrisy some of you seem to think it is.
Anyhoo, I don't judge any celebrity who cashes in when they can – the entertainment business can be fickle and it's not unusual for someone to have their big role and then not much afterwards – take the money when it's available for the taking! But I'm with those who find it too hard not to get distracted by all the work that bodies like this require to find them sexy. And likewise agree it's annoying that Ayo Edebiri had to field dumb questions about this ad campaign.
posted by coffeecat at 3:16 PM on January 9 [19 favorites]
...
imagine wishing a young woman's TV show would get cancelled so "she can spend more time in her underwear" lol
Yeah, well there's this phenomenon called sexism that makes people react differently to the same speech/action when it's directed towards a woman than when it's directed towards a man. It's not the hypocrisy some of you seem to think it is.
Anyhoo, I don't judge any celebrity who cashes in when they can – the entertainment business can be fickle and it's not unusual for someone to have their big role and then not much afterwards – take the money when it's available for the taking! But I'm with those who find it too hard not to get distracted by all the work that bodies like this require to find them sexy. And likewise agree it's annoying that Ayo Edebiri had to field dumb questions about this ad campaign.
posted by coffeecat at 3:16 PM on January 9 [19 favorites]
Yeah, well there's this phenomenon called sexism that makes people react differently to the same speech/action when it's directed towards a woman than when it's directed towards a man. It's not the hypocrisy some of you seem to think it is.
Sorry but can we move past this attitude? If it's sexist for one gender, it is also sexist the other way. The power differential is different, but the sexism is still there. If we actually want equality, we have to treat the sexes equally, otherwise we are just being sexist but in a different way.
Equality doesn't mean we just treat women better - we treat everyone better. (Personally, I don't think we can really achieve a truley feminist society unless we strive for equality for all. That doesnt mean catering specifically to men, but it does mean that we should treat others how we all want to be treated.)
Plenty of women also do underwear campaigns, should we be making posts on MF about that so we can critique/slather over them? MF decided a while ago that wasn't appropriate anymore. The comments in this thread would be fine with a group of friends - but in a public forum like this - it just feels gross to me.
(For anyone thinking I'm just being prude - hahahahaha. The joke with my friends that if lizbobiz is in the conversation, the bar has been lowered so far it's dropped to the floor. But that's with friends, not a public forum with (mostly) strangers that anyone on the internet can read)
posted by LizBoBiz at 3:30 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
Sorry but can we move past this attitude? If it's sexist for one gender, it is also sexist the other way. The power differential is different, but the sexism is still there. If we actually want equality, we have to treat the sexes equally, otherwise we are just being sexist but in a different way.
Equality doesn't mean we just treat women better - we treat everyone better. (Personally, I don't think we can really achieve a truley feminist society unless we strive for equality for all. That doesnt mean catering specifically to men, but it does mean that we should treat others how we all want to be treated.)
Plenty of women also do underwear campaigns, should we be making posts on MF about that so we can critique/slather over them? MF decided a while ago that wasn't appropriate anymore. The comments in this thread would be fine with a group of friends - but in a public forum like this - it just feels gross to me.
(For anyone thinking I'm just being prude - hahahahaha. The joke with my friends that if lizbobiz is in the conversation, the bar has been lowered so far it's dropped to the floor. But that's with friends, not a public forum with (mostly) strangers that anyone on the internet can read)
posted by LizBoBiz at 3:30 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
Maybe this guy is super proud of his bod and enjoys showing it off! He's never going to look like this again. It's a great way to document this particular part of his life.
It's an ad for underwear! No need to immediately jump on the negative side of things from any direction!
posted by SoberHighland at 3:32 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
It's an ad for underwear! No need to immediately jump on the negative side of things from any direction!
posted by SoberHighland at 3:32 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
If it's sexist for one gender, it is also sexist the other way. The power differential is different, but the sexism is still there.
Congratulations! By hand-waving away the power dynamics at play, you have arrived at: "Reverse Racism Is Real." A "Thin Blue Line" bumper-sticker and a bottle of Cialis will be arriving at your home shortly.
posted by saladin at 3:39 PM on January 9 [29 favorites]
Congratulations! By hand-waving away the power dynamics at play, you have arrived at: "Reverse Racism Is Real." A "Thin Blue Line" bumper-sticker and a bottle of Cialis will be arriving at your home shortly.
posted by saladin at 3:39 PM on January 9 [29 favorites]
Honestly, I can't help but think of JAW's amazing time on the American version of Shameless and that the photo spread was just Lip hustling for money to help out the family.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:42 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:42 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I also don't think expecting conversations about lust and fucking to stay prim, progressive, and proper is realistic.
Again, who said anything about prim? And perhaps “proper” and “progressive” are unrealistic to attempt to pair, given that what is societally considered “proper” is often fairly regressive (sexist, objectifying, etc.), but who said anything about proper? Expand your imagination a bit. Conversations about desire and sexuality can absolutely be respectful and progressive - and yes, this is in my actual lived experience here in the real world.
posted by eviemath at 3:49 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
Again, who said anything about prim? And perhaps “proper” and “progressive” are unrealistic to attempt to pair, given that what is societally considered “proper” is often fairly regressive (sexist, objectifying, etc.), but who said anything about proper? Expand your imagination a bit. Conversations about desire and sexuality can absolutely be respectful and progressive - and yes, this is in my actual lived experience here in the real world.
posted by eviemath at 3:49 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
The point about context mentioned in a comment above is somewhat relevant. While reverse sexism isn’t a thing, men do have body image issues too (increasingly so - yay capitalism needing to create new markets, with growing fascist fixations on particular forms of masculinity added in top), and that’s worth keeping in mind when commenting on a public forum. Is your comment likely to make a fellow Mefite feel bad about themself for some feature or aspect they have little control over? Whether we’re talking sex and sexuality or something else, that seems to me something we should avoid.
posted by eviemath at 4:00 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 4:00 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
I enjoyed looking at the JAW photos. At the same time, I worry every time I see an actor who looks like he's abused himself for those abs (abused by both the eating/drinking/lack thereof to get the look, plus steroids to build the muscles).
I get that the open letter was, among other things, a satire/parody. At the same time, I don't feel like gender-flipping objectification is a real feminist advance. If I wrote it and thought JAW might read it, personally, I would be cringing, though I am aware others would feel differently.
I feel like women feeling more able to talk publicly about sex might be a feminist advance but also I'm not really that interested in reading the details of other people's pants feelings about underwear advert models in a public forum most of the time. Y'all are collectively my friends but I guess I reserve that for closer friends or a more private setting.
Anyway I contain multitudes and sometimes they're contradictory, much like Metafilter.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 4:02 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
I get that the open letter was, among other things, a satire/parody. At the same time, I don't feel like gender-flipping objectification is a real feminist advance. If I wrote it and thought JAW might read it, personally, I would be cringing, though I am aware others would feel differently.
I feel like women feeling more able to talk publicly about sex might be a feminist advance but also I'm not really that interested in reading the details of other people's pants feelings about underwear advert models in a public forum most of the time. Y'all are collectively my friends but I guess I reserve that for closer friends or a more private setting.
Anyway I contain multitudes and sometimes they're contradictory, much like Metafilter.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 4:02 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
"How come nobody posts on Metafilter anymore?"
posted by bondcliff at 4:04 PM on January 9 [27 favorites]
posted by bondcliff at 4:04 PM on January 9 [27 favorites]
As a very straight cis man, I'd just like to say: Yes, Chef.
posted by signal at 4:04 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
posted by signal at 4:04 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]
(On the Pedro Pascal derail: I’m with you, We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese , on that red jacket in the top photo! That’s basically the platonic ideal of the perfect leather jacket in my mind.)
posted by eviemath at 4:26 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 4:26 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
As a very straight cis man, I'd just like to say: Yes, Chef.
behind
posted by Sebmojo at 4:41 PM on January 9 [28 favorites]
behind
posted by Sebmojo at 4:41 PM on January 9 [28 favorites]
Congratulations! By hand-waving away the power dynamics at play, you have arrived at: "Reverse Racism Is Real." A "Thin Blue Line" bumper-sticker and a bottle of Cialis will be arriving at your home shortly.
Yes there are power differentials that mean that sexism has different effects depending on who's doing the sexism. But just a little sexism is still sexism. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation that is sexist towards women but if the genders were flipped wouldn't be sexist towards men. It shouldn't be ok to treat strangers like sexual objects, no matter their gender/sex.
Re: Reverse Racism isn't real: agreed, when the definition of racism requires structural oppression (which I think really started solidifying as the definition of racism culturally in the 2000s.) If racism requires authority and power, then only the oppressors can be racist. However, prejudice and stereotypes are things that are real for pretty much all human groups - the effect of which can be either structural racism or just personal behavior to another group. Unfortunately we don't have different words for structural vs personal for sexism like we do for racism.
You can save the postage and keep the bumper-sticker and Cialis for yourself, I dont want or need them.
posted by LizBoBiz at 4:43 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
Yes there are power differentials that mean that sexism has different effects depending on who's doing the sexism. But just a little sexism is still sexism. I'm having trouble thinking of a situation that is sexist towards women but if the genders were flipped wouldn't be sexist towards men. It shouldn't be ok to treat strangers like sexual objects, no matter their gender/sex.
Re: Reverse Racism isn't real: agreed, when the definition of racism requires structural oppression (which I think really started solidifying as the definition of racism culturally in the 2000s.) If racism requires authority and power, then only the oppressors can be racist. However, prejudice and stereotypes are things that are real for pretty much all human groups - the effect of which can be either structural racism or just personal behavior to another group. Unfortunately we don't have different words for structural vs personal for sexism like we do for racism.
You can save the postage and keep the bumper-sticker and Cialis for yourself, I dont want or need them.
posted by LizBoBiz at 4:43 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]
However, through our active gaze and through poaching and reworking the masculinity and sexuality of Bodie and Doyle, we renegotiated the gendered active/passive dichotomy. Further, in our conscious and pleasured viewing of those crotch shots; in our discussion of that pleasure, and in our engagement in fandom and slash fiction, we negotiated a resistant space within patriarchal hegemony
from a previous thread, theorising that it's actually an extremely feminist and possibly revolutionary act to get horny at fit blokes
posted by Sebmojo at 4:55 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
from a previous thread, theorising that it's actually an extremely feminist and possibly revolutionary act to get horny at fit blokes
posted by Sebmojo at 4:55 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Men gave gotten to be inappropriately horny publicly for ages and frankly, women should be allowed to do the same. You can call it sexism if you want but I am allowed to appreciate that men post thirst traps or have official thirst traps posted and my pants are allowed to have feels about that. Filthy, filthy feels.
In fact, here's one of my favourite Pedro Pascal thirst traps from a former MeFite's Tumblr. I want that man to turn me inside out like a sock.
posted by Kitteh at 4:59 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]
In fact, here's one of my favourite Pedro Pascal thirst traps from a former MeFite's Tumblr. I want that man to turn me inside out like a sock.
posted by Kitteh at 4:59 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]
I'm not saying its not ok to get horny. Jeez we're (most of us) sexual beings that should not be repressing our desires in shame or whatever. But do we need to discuss this random famous dude's body on a public forum in a way we would not tolerate if it were a woman's body.
Yes enjoy the pics. Have a little self pleasure sesh or whatever. But do we all need to discuss it here, on MF?
Sorry but I dont think it's feminist to treat men like men treat women. That's just revenge, not working towards something better.
posted by LizBoBiz at 5:02 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
Yes enjoy the pics. Have a little self pleasure sesh or whatever. But do we all need to discuss it here, on MF?
Sorry but I dont think it's feminist to treat men like men treat women. That's just revenge, not working towards something better.
posted by LizBoBiz at 5:02 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
It's so bizarre, this new Puritanism. Not sure how it's revenge to thirst after a dude in a public space but hey, you do you, boo.
posted by Kitteh at 5:05 PM on January 9 [16 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 5:05 PM on January 9 [16 favorites]
But do we all need to discuss it here, on MF?
Yes, apparently! It's the busiest thread posted today. It's even busier than today's thread about TFG. People want to talk thirst traps and McSweeney's and the ethics of objectification. Anaïs Nin knowns, it's a better conversation than it would have been here twenty years ago.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:07 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Yes, apparently! It's the busiest thread posted today. It's even busier than today's thread about TFG. People want to talk thirst traps and McSweeney's and the ethics of objectification. Anaïs Nin knowns, it's a better conversation than it would have been here twenty years ago.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:07 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Overthinking a dish of beefcake.
posted by Kabanos at 6:19 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 6:19 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, please pause the derail and let others engage with the thread as it was intended.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:37 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:37 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]
I'm sydcarmy for life so I hope he continues to try to live up to the impossible standard set by Ayo.
posted by zymil at 6:49 PM on January 9
posted by zymil at 6:49 PM on January 9
But do we need to discuss this random famous dude's body on a public forum in a way we would not tolerate if it were a woman's body.
and
But do we all need to discuss it here, on MF?
are slightly different in important ways?
I see two main pitfalls we should take care to avoid when discussing famous people’s bodies: (1) objectification, and (2) reinforcing harmful body image norms.
(2) is something most folks have probably thought a little more about. We all know to avoid explicitly shaming others for their bodies. There’s also the problem, however, of combining positive reinforcement of a socially approved body with lack of positive comment on other bodies, which can fairly effectively send the same message. Many people first think to counteract this by trying to “balance” positive comments with negative comments about the socially approved body. But that’s not cool to the individuals whose bodies are being commented on. The easiest thing is just to not comment on people’s bodies. But sometimes someone’s body is relevant to something they’ve accomplished, or is part of the focus of some art they have made. Arguably that’s the case with the ad linked here.
Objectification, pitfall (1), is a little more nebulous perhaps; or perhaps many of us just have less practice noticing and analyzing it. Commenting on someone’s body when it is not relevant is clearly objectification, of course. I think it also involves ignoring additional context to only focus on a person’s body in eg. a piece of art that focuses on the body but also of course involves artistic skill of some sort by the person. I think that power dynamics are integral to what makes something objectification or not, as well.
I think the McSweeney’s piece strays into objectification slightly in parts, but includes some more interesting details as well. On the power end, for example, it deals a bit with how the ad makes the authors feel disempowered in certain ways - largely relating to age and societal beauty standards, though gendered expectations are implicit in the background. And in the background, we can bring in outside information to make educated guesses about the degree to which White actively sought to participate in the ad versus felt like he had to (as has been the case for many female actors, models, and other performers). The authors describe different sources and types of sexual desire and pleasure, as well. On the other hand, they do pretty solidly uphold current societal appearance standards - perhaps they wanted to critique these satirically, but if so I think they did not succeed. And they do focus entirely on White’s physical appearance, when there are other aspects of the video composition, filming, and his performance that clearly relate to the “sexy” context - it’s designed and intended to be a thirst trap, and work and artistic choices went into that.
posted by eviemath at 7:05 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
and
But do we all need to discuss it here, on MF?
are slightly different in important ways?
I see two main pitfalls we should take care to avoid when discussing famous people’s bodies: (1) objectification, and (2) reinforcing harmful body image norms.
(2) is something most folks have probably thought a little more about. We all know to avoid explicitly shaming others for their bodies. There’s also the problem, however, of combining positive reinforcement of a socially approved body with lack of positive comment on other bodies, which can fairly effectively send the same message. Many people first think to counteract this by trying to “balance” positive comments with negative comments about the socially approved body. But that’s not cool to the individuals whose bodies are being commented on. The easiest thing is just to not comment on people’s bodies. But sometimes someone’s body is relevant to something they’ve accomplished, or is part of the focus of some art they have made. Arguably that’s the case with the ad linked here.
Objectification, pitfall (1), is a little more nebulous perhaps; or perhaps many of us just have less practice noticing and analyzing it. Commenting on someone’s body when it is not relevant is clearly objectification, of course. I think it also involves ignoring additional context to only focus on a person’s body in eg. a piece of art that focuses on the body but also of course involves artistic skill of some sort by the person. I think that power dynamics are integral to what makes something objectification or not, as well.
I think the McSweeney’s piece strays into objectification slightly in parts, but includes some more interesting details as well. On the power end, for example, it deals a bit with how the ad makes the authors feel disempowered in certain ways - largely relating to age and societal beauty standards, though gendered expectations are implicit in the background. And in the background, we can bring in outside information to make educated guesses about the degree to which White actively sought to participate in the ad versus felt like he had to (as has been the case for many female actors, models, and other performers). The authors describe different sources and types of sexual desire and pleasure, as well. On the other hand, they do pretty solidly uphold current societal appearance standards - perhaps they wanted to critique these satirically, but if so I think they did not succeed. And they do focus entirely on White’s physical appearance, when there are other aspects of the video composition, filming, and his performance that clearly relate to the “sexy” context - it’s designed and intended to be a thirst trap, and work and artistic choices went into that.
posted by eviemath at 7:05 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]
there really is a very distinctive New Prudery developing, it's fascinating to watch.
I think I made my last "Puritans are gonna Puritan" comment on Metafilter something like a decade ago, so I'm fine making it again.
So, like, I work in advertising. I have for over two decades. Please judge if you like. I do. I am also old. At least two generations past relevance. I do not handle anything like the Calvin Klein account. But getting people to talk about how hot hot people look in the underwear so you might also want to buy said underwear for aspirational reasons is the creative brief. He is also a rich, successful hot person. He seems like he's enjoying this. This ad campaign is not an anonymous person just walking down the sidewalk, headed to work hoping not to get heckled. It is, in fact, kind of the opposite of that. The real scandal here is that people won't stop asking Ayo Edebiri about it. . Stop asking Ayo Edebiri about it. She has nothing to do with this.
PS: Full disclosure: JAW is fine, though, like the authors of he McSweeney's piece, I'm really more of a Richie/Marcus girl if we're talking "The Bear
posted by thivaia at 7:25 PM on January 9 [16 favorites]
I'd just like to open a small sidebar that as a 50-ish Chilean father, I identify more with Pedro Pascal in The Last of Us than is actually reasonable.
posted by signal at 7:26 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
posted by signal at 7:26 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
It's a Utica expression
You know, this Beefcake is quite similar to the ones they have at Magic Mike's.
posted by lalochezia at 7:36 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
You know, this Beefcake is quite similar to the ones they have at Magic Mike's.
posted by lalochezia at 7:36 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
there really is a very distinctive New Prudery developing, it's fascinating to watch.
It's so bizarre, this new Puritanism.
I think I made my last "Puritans are gonna Puritan" comment on Metafilter something like a decade ago, so I'm fine making it again.
Holy shit almost no one is objecting on puritan grounds (is anyone actually objecting because of the post is sexual content or just the objectification in the comments?). I won't speak for others, but I am objecting because MF has standards for a basic level of discourse, which would get this thread shut down quickly if we were talking about a woman, even a woman in an underwear ad campaign. I would like MF to be logically consistent and not act like it's ok to objectify one group because of their gender.
Maybe actually read what we've been objecting to, instead of just calling out "prude!!1!"
posted by LizBoBiz at 8:02 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
It's so bizarre, this new Puritanism.
I think I made my last "Puritans are gonna Puritan" comment on Metafilter something like a decade ago, so I'm fine making it again.
Holy shit almost no one is objecting on puritan grounds (is anyone actually objecting because of the post is sexual content or just the objectification in the comments?). I won't speak for others, but I am objecting because MF has standards for a basic level of discourse, which would get this thread shut down quickly if we were talking about a woman, even a woman in an underwear ad campaign. I would like MF to be logically consistent and not act like it's ok to objectify one group because of their gender.
Maybe actually read what we've been objecting to, instead of just calling out "prude!!1!"
posted by LizBoBiz at 8:02 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]
Sorry but can we move past this attitude? If it's sexist for one gender, it is also sexist the other way.
No, actually. The reason it's sexist to comment on a female presidential candidate's appearance is not because commenting on a person's appearance is inherently sexist, but because women have, for hundreds of years, had their worth been primarily contingent on their physical appearance.* This has never been true of men, at least not on the same scale (not even close). If a hot woman is successful it's assumed (at least by some) that it's because she's hot (or "worse," that she's slept her way to the top). If a hot man is successful, he still gets to be talented. Straight men also don't have to worry about whether being an object of societal lust will result in sexual violence - women do. Sexual objectification means something different for men vs. women in a society where rape and sexual assault are still disproportionately experiences by one gender.
MF in this instance is pretty "logically consistent" in recognizing that structural inequalities play a role in how we engage with the world.
*(Yes, also fertility, but what appearance is deemed sexy often correlates with perceptions of fertility.)
posted by coffeecat at 8:19 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]
No, actually. The reason it's sexist to comment on a female presidential candidate's appearance is not because commenting on a person's appearance is inherently sexist, but because women have, for hundreds of years, had their worth been primarily contingent on their physical appearance.* This has never been true of men, at least not on the same scale (not even close). If a hot woman is successful it's assumed (at least by some) that it's because she's hot (or "worse," that she's slept her way to the top). If a hot man is successful, he still gets to be talented. Straight men also don't have to worry about whether being an object of societal lust will result in sexual violence - women do. Sexual objectification means something different for men vs. women in a society where rape and sexual assault are still disproportionately experiences by one gender.
MF in this instance is pretty "logically consistent" in recognizing that structural inequalities play a role in how we engage with the world.
*(Yes, also fertility, but what appearance is deemed sexy often correlates with perceptions of fertility.)
posted by coffeecat at 8:19 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]
It's quite funny that we're having a discussion about whether it is OK to objectify a guy who has very clearly objectified himself in just about the most public way possible. Like, he is famous for being hot in his role on The Bear, in which the way he was hot was definitely not because he was jacked or had a prominent six pack.
Now he has become very much jacked with a prominent six pack and is appearing in an underwear ad for the company who are the most famous in the world for featuring hot people as objects in their underwear ads — a company that no doubt paid him a lot of money to do so because it knew people would talk about said ad and generate a lot of publicity for them — because he was hot before and now he is also hot, in a different way, because he has made his body so.
The whole ad is about his body! What else is there to talk about?
posted by ssg at 8:52 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
Now he has become very much jacked with a prominent six pack and is appearing in an underwear ad for the company who are the most famous in the world for featuring hot people as objects in their underwear ads — a company that no doubt paid him a lot of money to do so because it knew people would talk about said ad and generate a lot of publicity for them — because he was hot before and now he is also hot, in a different way, because he has made his body so.
The whole ad is about his body! What else is there to talk about?
posted by ssg at 8:52 PM on January 9 [11 favorites]
This just in: Calvin Klein ad starring FKA twigs banned over complaints it 'objectified' women.
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:42 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:42 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
The fka twigs poster in question, for comparison with the JAW video.
posted by Klipspringer at 4:05 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
posted by Klipspringer at 4:05 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
mentioned fka twigs then i thought about sophie then i got sad then i thought what if ... sophie didn't die ... and did a calvin ad. has ck ever put any trans folks in their ads?
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:58 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:58 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
The whole ad is about his body! What else is there to talk about?
An incomplete list:
posted by eviemath at 5:02 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]
An incomplete list:
- what the music choice is conveying
- video composition and editing choices that were made, including:
- whether they focused on his body, or the underwear, or something else
- what parts of his body they focused on, and why or to what effect
- what the setting or props were or were trying to convey
- whose gaze is this made from the perspective of; who holds what power within the ad
- inasmuch as an ad tells a short story, what is the narrative
- what is the external context around the ad, including:
- societal context - the discussion we’re having around the differential impacts of sexualizing women vs men in advertising, and how that relates to individual body image and class power differentials
- what White’s contribution to the ad concept and design was (on the spectrum from it being totally his idea/concept to a fairly powerless ‘this is the job, taken on leave it’ position) - that is, the degree to which White was creatively/artistically able to refuse participation with anything he was uncomfortable with
- the degree to which White was economically able to refuse participation with anything he was uncomfortable with
- how White might differ in both respects from non-famous models, or from more famous women or genderqueer actors
- how the ad makes viewers feel about themselves and their own bodies, and what factors in the ad itself and in the external context of the ad influence that
posted by eviemath at 5:02 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]
For example: what is that music choice saying? Using the song “you don’t own me” seems to be a tongue-in-cheek nod or intentional contrast to the video focus being fairly objectifying. But how does it change the power dynamics to have the song seemingly refer to a man in the video instead of a woman in the song, given our societal power differentials between men and women especially as regards specialization and objectification?
posted by eviemath at 5:07 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 5:07 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
Or does the song, by mentioning it, actually heighten the objectification quotient? I’m of two minds about it - it feels quite ambiguous to me, watching the ad, whether White (or his character in the ad? Part of the ambiguity to me is I only know White in passing from the first two seasons of Shameless, and know nothing about the actor himself, I guess) is in control of the scenario or mini-story being told in the video or not. I think the choice of music is what makes that feel ambiguous to me, since in the song the singer is kind of protesting “you don’t own me” out of necessity, not, like, bragging; and so I’m adding that layer to the ad when the video itself feels like White (or, again, the character he plays in the ad?) moves and is filmed from viewpoints that emphasize his power?
posted by eviemath at 5:23 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
posted by eviemath at 5:23 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
Everyone here is missing the real point, which is that by confidently prancing around in little white pants, JAW is subtly telling us, "yes, ladies, I wipe my own ass." To many women who have dated straight men, this is a revelation. His body is incidental.
posted by phunniemee at 5:29 AM on January 10 [15 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 5:29 AM on January 10 [15 favorites]
LOL, phunniemee. I've been sick and feeling sad/bad, but that gave me the first belly laugh I've had in days. Thank Deity I don't have the experience (husband is toileting adept, which I never realized might be relatively unusual?), but from a variety of social media snippets it appears that there is a significant (?) number of men who just... what? ... eschew the whole wiping up / cleaning up aspect of going #2? I always thought the "yellow part in the front, brown part in the back" joke about underwear was funny-because-humorously-exaggerated not funny-because-true. 🤯
As to the CK ad, is there a history or cultural understanding of male CK models commonly being objects of lust for heterosexual women? My impression was always they were maybe intended to be appealing to gay men, who also might be likely to spend more on designer undies?
posted by taz at 6:14 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
As to the CK ad, is there a history or cultural understanding of male CK models commonly being objects of lust for heterosexual women? My impression was always they were maybe intended to be appealing to gay men, who also might be likely to spend more on designer undies?
posted by taz at 6:14 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
The point of most advertising is to make you feel bad about yourself (see: all women-targetted fashion advertising), so yes, this definitely works on straight men.
posted by signal at 6:16 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
posted by signal at 6:16 AM on January 10 [4 favorites]
Straight men, if you feel bad watching this ad, go wipe yr bootie.
posted by phunniemee at 6:22 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 6:22 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
There's a whole series of gags in Netflix's Brazilian production of Super Drags (animated gay superhero series) that makes fun of dudes who clean their butts as "expecting company." This is repeatedly delivered by the homophobic antagonist, but it was kind of a shock, in that if it's being joked about, it's definitely in the cultural gestalt.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:24 AM on January 10
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:24 AM on January 10
anyway definitely endorse cleaning your butt (with soap and water, not just paper). we've had that discussion a few times here tho.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:26 AM on January 10
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:26 AM on January 10
An incomplete list:
My dude sometimes we are goddamned tired and we don't want every conversation to be a fucking masters' thesis.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:48 AM on January 10 [15 favorites]
My dude sometimes we are goddamned tired and we don't want every conversation to be a fucking masters' thesis.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 6:48 AM on January 10 [15 favorites]
Something I have never fully gotten the trick of is figuring out how much detail to include here, or to expect others to know. Posts and comments aren't theses, nor is this MetaFilter: The Peer-Reviewed Journal, but there are current and past users with deep expertise, sometimes on obscure topics and sometimes popular ones. I think this post is a great example of that, ranging from really nuanced discussions of gender and objectification, to breakdowns of cultural content analysis, to in-depth JAW knowledge.
Serendipitously, last night my wife decided to try The Bear for the first time. It's good! It was, of course, impossible for me to watch without thinking about Rodney Dangerfield.
posted by cupcakeninja at 7:09 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
Serendipitously, last night my wife decided to try The Bear for the first time. It's good! It was, of course, impossible for me to watch without thinking about Rodney Dangerfield.
posted by cupcakeninja at 7:09 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]
As to the CK ad, is there a history or cultural understanding of male CK models commonly being objects of lust for heterosexual women?
Oh yeah. I mean I don't know how it is now, but I went to boarding school in the early 90s and I can confirm there were a lot of Mark Wahlberg Calvin Klein ads tacked to the walls in the girl's dorms and sometimes marked with lipstick kisses. It was sort of what you graduated to after pictures of the Coreys or Keanu or River (R.I.P.)from Tiger Beat or whatever.
It's been a long time since I was in a teenage girl's bedroom , so I don't know if this is still a thing. I don't know if I think Jeremy Allen White has been a teen hearttrob since, maybe, early seasons of "Shameless." Most of the women I see crushing on him are closer to forty than twenty, and that's maybe one of the more interesting things about this ad. Because he's not Mark Wahlberg circa 1991 or Justin Bieber circa whenever.
posted by thivaia at 7:36 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
Oh yeah. I mean I don't know how it is now, but I went to boarding school in the early 90s and I can confirm there were a lot of Mark Wahlberg Calvin Klein ads tacked to the walls in the girl's dorms and sometimes marked with lipstick kisses. It was sort of what you graduated to after pictures of the Coreys or Keanu or River (R.I.P.)from Tiger Beat or whatever.
It's been a long time since I was in a teenage girl's bedroom , so I don't know if this is still a thing. I don't know if I think Jeremy Allen White has been a teen hearttrob since, maybe, early seasons of "Shameless." Most of the women I see crushing on him are closer to forty than twenty, and that's maybe one of the more interesting things about this ad. Because he's not Mark Wahlberg circa 1991 or Justin Bieber circa whenever.
posted by thivaia at 7:36 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]
My dude sometimes we are goddamned tired and we don't want every conversation to be a fucking masters' thesis.
Also this ad is completely by the numbers for a ritzy ad. The one with Jack Sparrow playing guitar in the desert uses the exact same production effects.
Straight men, if you feel bad watching this ad, go wipe yr bootie.
Are we sure we want to have this conversation, especially when a non-trivial percentage of women put paper in their underwear to keep them clean?
If we do, men wipe their butts, they also suffer from swampass (sweaty butt when it's hot), not all poops are equally wipable (doctors say more patients are coming in with injuries from too much wiping), some are sticky, and sometimes your butt leaks for a while afterwards. Also pee drips sometimes. These are the reasons we wear underwear.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:38 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
Also this ad is completely by the numbers for a ritzy ad. The one with Jack Sparrow playing guitar in the desert uses the exact same production effects.
Straight men, if you feel bad watching this ad, go wipe yr bootie.
Are we sure we want to have this conversation, especially when a non-trivial percentage of women put paper in their underwear to keep them clean?
If we do, men wipe their butts, they also suffer from swampass (sweaty butt when it's hot), not all poops are equally wipable (doctors say more patients are coming in with injuries from too much wiping), some are sticky, and sometimes your butt leaks for a while afterwards. Also pee drips sometimes. These are the reasons we wear underwear.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:38 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
Are we sure we want to have this conversation
??? I will have the "cleaning the poop off your butt is good actually" conversation every day and stand proudly by it
posted by phunniemee at 7:43 AM on January 10 [7 favorites]
??? I will have the "cleaning the poop off your butt is good actually" conversation every day and stand proudly by it
posted by phunniemee at 7:43 AM on January 10 [7 favorites]
> I liked Brooke's ads better
She was 15 years old. Not a similar situation at all.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:55 AM on January 10 [9 favorites]
She was 15 years old. Not a similar situation at all.
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:55 AM on January 10 [9 favorites]
I strongly associate the song "You Don't Own Me" with the movie "First Wives Club", starring "Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn, and Diane Keaton as three divorcées who seek retribution on their ex-husbands for having left them for younger women." (I haven't seen it in a long time, but I remember liking it!) In that context, the song is about not wanting to be objectified. "And please, when I go out with you / Don't put me on display." These women (in the movie) are arm candy for as long as their looks last, only to be discarded for younger, hotter women as they age. Their ex-husbands saw them as possessions, not people.
So the guy in the video - he doesn't want to be objectified? His girlfriend (boyfriend?) is using and controlling him (he's running up to the roof for some breathing room?), and he's worried he's eventually going to be discarded? (Surely we're not supposed to think he's ALREADY been ditched for someone younger and hotter!)
Seems like the concept of the ad is like "lets make an ad that objectifies a dude the same way we usually objectify women, and then draw extra attention to it by playing a song where a woman sings about not wanting to be objectified?" AND we'll make the women watching recognize that THEY'RE kind of objectifying the dude?
I mean, it's kind of making a joke out of something I actually think is bad, but... MOST ads are exploiting the performers to some extent, selling their sex appeal and subjecting them (and us) to unrealistic beauty standards. Women are more often the victim than men (and more harmed by it due to the asymmetries mentioned by coffeecat above), but Calvin Klein has had male lust-objects in their ads for years. Is it problematic? Yeah. Is it new? Nah. Am I really gonna get more offended about this than about every other ad on television, just because they're poking fun at me for being offended at all? Meh.
The McSweeney's essay makes a different interesting observation, though, about how the commercial slightly misses its mark. "You want me to lust after this guy and objectify him, but he's so hot he's fallen into some uncanny valley of not quite human anymore. Dial back the 'cut' quotient a little bit, and I might actually fantasize the way you're trying to manipulate me into doing..." Fair point!
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:02 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]
So the guy in the video - he doesn't want to be objectified? His girlfriend (boyfriend?) is using and controlling him (he's running up to the roof for some breathing room?), and he's worried he's eventually going to be discarded? (Surely we're not supposed to think he's ALREADY been ditched for someone younger and hotter!)
Seems like the concept of the ad is like "lets make an ad that objectifies a dude the same way we usually objectify women, and then draw extra attention to it by playing a song where a woman sings about not wanting to be objectified?" AND we'll make the women watching recognize that THEY'RE kind of objectifying the dude?
I mean, it's kind of making a joke out of something I actually think is bad, but... MOST ads are exploiting the performers to some extent, selling their sex appeal and subjecting them (and us) to unrealistic beauty standards. Women are more often the victim than men (and more harmed by it due to the asymmetries mentioned by coffeecat above), but Calvin Klein has had male lust-objects in their ads for years. Is it problematic? Yeah. Is it new? Nah. Am I really gonna get more offended about this than about every other ad on television, just because they're poking fun at me for being offended at all? Meh.
The McSweeney's essay makes a different interesting observation, though, about how the commercial slightly misses its mark. "You want me to lust after this guy and objectify him, but he's so hot he's fallen into some uncanny valley of not quite human anymore. Dial back the 'cut' quotient a little bit, and I might actually fantasize the way you're trying to manipulate me into doing..." Fair point!
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:02 AM on January 10 [8 favorites]
??? I will have the "cleaning the poop off your butt is good actually" conversation every day and stand proudly by it
i'll vote for the next candidate who promises a chicken in every pot and two bidets in every home. (would be best if ol' joe changed his surname to bidet to emphasize this campaign promise)
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:27 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
i'll vote for the next candidate who promises a chicken in every pot and two bidets in every home. (would be best if ol' joe changed his surname to bidet to emphasize this campaign promise)
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:27 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]
The McSweeney's essay makes a different interesting observation, though, about how the commercial slightly misses its mark. "You want me to lust after this guy and objectify him, but he's so hot he's fallen into some uncanny valley of not quite human anymore. Dial back the 'cut' quotient a little bit, and I might actually fantasize the way you're trying to manipulate me into doing..." Fair point!
So much of the essay is in fact about bodies that are not JAW's body, in fact. It's really a musing on how our own feelings about our own aging impact not only how others desire us but how we desire others (and who we desire). The references to a middle-aged sexual reawakening, obliquely pointing out that it's easy to drown one's desire entirely in poor self-esteem, stress, exhaustion.
Also I am pretty sure the "Everyone is Beautiful, Nobody is Horny" discourse has taken place several times on here, and that's echoed in the essay with the idea that it's possible for a body to be so platonically ideal that the idea of sex stops applying. The body is just a performance, a tribute to a certain kind of driven effort and endurance.
In general it all just feels extremely 90s heroin-chic which I suppose CK never really abandoned, but I have way too much 90s trauma to be compelled by it really.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:30 AM on January 10 [9 favorites]
So much of the essay is in fact about bodies that are not JAW's body, in fact. It's really a musing on how our own feelings about our own aging impact not only how others desire us but how we desire others (and who we desire). The references to a middle-aged sexual reawakening, obliquely pointing out that it's easy to drown one's desire entirely in poor self-esteem, stress, exhaustion.
Also I am pretty sure the "Everyone is Beautiful, Nobody is Horny" discourse has taken place several times on here, and that's echoed in the essay with the idea that it's possible for a body to be so platonically ideal that the idea of sex stops applying. The body is just a performance, a tribute to a certain kind of driven effort and endurance.
In general it all just feels extremely 90s heroin-chic which I suppose CK never really abandoned, but I have way too much 90s trauma to be compelled by it really.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:30 AM on January 10 [9 favorites]
My dude sometimes we are goddamned tired and we don't want every conversation to be a fucking masters' thesis.
HI I'M ON METAFILTER AND I COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF ABS.
posted by Reverend John at 10:44 AM on January 10 [11 favorites]
HI I'M ON METAFILTER AND I COULD OVERTHINK A PLATE OF ABS.
posted by Reverend John at 10:44 AM on January 10 [11 favorites]
My babe. Now who’s writing an actual dissertation, not just a list of topics that one could - if one wanted to - discuss, and a counterexample to the claim that such topics did not exist?
(It’s a good dissertation though, fwiw!)
posted by eviemath at 11:01 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
(It’s a good dissertation though, fwiw!)
posted by eviemath at 11:01 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
Also, likely a minority opinion here, but the public salivating over someone in a conventional way doesn’t do anything for me. In Taylor Tomlinson’s Ick/No Ick game on Colbert earlier this week, that would be an “Ick” for me. Engaging intellectually and breaking down the imagery on the other hand, and/or learning more about the beautiful-to-me person as a person (provided they don’t turn out to have Ick details) - something (in the absence of a scent layer, what with this being just over the internet) to create at least a mild emotional connection or fantasy of some small sort around the imagery, on the other hand…. Stop policing how I engage with my sexy content, you prudes!
(/only-semi-sarcasm)
posted by eviemath at 11:13 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
(/only-semi-sarcasm)
posted by eviemath at 11:13 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]
I will take a dude who doesn't put his sneakers on the sofa over a dude who looks like this any day.
posted by HotToddy at 12:08 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
posted by HotToddy at 12:08 PM on January 10 [5 favorites]
What is this, MetaFilter or The Lockhorns?
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:43 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:43 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
My babe. Now who’s writing an actual dissertation, not just a list of topics that one could - if one wanted to - discuss, and a counterexample to the claim that such topics did not exist?
I never said they didn't exist, just that 99% of the time I am too tired to care about them. (1% of the time I hate my job enough that I just stop doing it for awhile and can have an actual complex thought.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:07 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
I never said they didn't exist, just that 99% of the time I am too tired to care about them. (1% of the time I hate my job enough that I just stop doing it for awhile and can have an actual complex thought.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:07 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
Engaging intellectually and breaking down the imagery on the other hand, and/or learning more about the beautiful-to-me person as a person (provided they don’t turn out to have Ick details) - something (in the absence of a scent layer, what with this being just over the internet) to create at least a mild emotional connection or fantasy of some small sort around the imagery, on the other hand…
So you're overthinking a plate of butts?
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:25 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
So you're overthinking a plate of butts?
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:25 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
hey now
easy with the butts
that's bombastic's thing
posted by elkevelvet at 2:29 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
easy with the butts
that's bombastic's thing
posted by elkevelvet at 2:29 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
thought same
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:46 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:46 PM on January 10 [1 favorite]
I never said they didn't exist
No, you didn’t! But the comment I was replying to and quoted did.
posted by eviemath at 3:16 PM on January 10
No, you didn’t! But the comment I was replying to and quoted did.
posted by eviemath at 3:16 PM on January 10
I am for celebrating people with their original noses being in popular movies or tv, also their real coloured teeth and real freckles. I love JAW’s nose to bits and pieces, and I am thrilled there’s a world where us extremely well nosed individuals have a space for adoration. The pants were also nice. Thanks for posting!
posted by honey-barbara at 7:21 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
posted by honey-barbara at 7:21 PM on January 10 [2 favorites]
Twigs alleges double standards after her CK poster is banned:
i do not see the 'stereotypical sexual object' that they have labelled me. i see a beautiful strong woman of colour whose incredible body has overcome more pain than you can imagine.posted by Klipspringer at 3:20 AM on January 11 [2 favorites]
in light of reviewing other campaigns past and current of this nature, i can't help but feel there are some double standards here. so to be clear..
i am proud of my physicality and hold the art create with my vessel to the standards of women like josephine baker, eartha kitt and grace jones who broke down barriers of what it looks like to be empowered and harness a unique embodied sensuality. thank you to ck and mert and marcus who gave me a space to express myself exactly how i wanted to - i will not have my narrative changed.
that featherbed of a man I had to watch that commercial A Number Of Times to make sure this assessment is Incorrect. Maybe I'll just check again.
posted by theora55 at 8:01 AM on January 11
posted by theora55 at 8:01 AM on January 11
(The person being referred to as “that featherbed of a man” is a different actor on the show, not the person in the commercial.)
posted by eviemath at 9:15 AM on January 11
posted by eviemath at 9:15 AM on January 11
All right, I watched it again and that goddamn ad really does gross me out precisely because I'm used to appreciating its subject NOT like an object, and in the ad he is SO objectified it's like... Well, like if you were making caramel and didn't cook it long enough: it's all sugar, but you need a little char.
"Dial back the 'cut' quotient a little bit"
That and maybe, I dunno, let him use some of the muscles in his face occasionally.
In The Bear he has ideas and plans and interesting motivations and flaws and emotions and humor and for christ's sake, it's like the entire reason to ever look at him, he has facial expressions beyond "Look upon me and weep for I have been lobotomized by my own razorsharp muscles." It's the reason I have stared salaciously at Kate McKinnon in her Justin Bieber CalvinKlein impersonation ads countless times but never had any desire to look at the deliberately braindead ads that inspired her brilliant (and disturbingly, uh, emotionally galvanizing) riff on them. (I just grabbed one at random to try to demonstrate what grabs me. At 2:48 in this, there's this tiny little sequence where "Justin" can't seem to pronounce the L in "Calvin," and for a second or two you can watch her mock-dumb/seriousface dissolve and this devilish grin starts to bloom, and then WHAM, cut! [The editing in those is also genius.] It's the parts where you get a glimpse behind the objectively lovely face to the person that inhabits it that makes watching a pretty person's face enjoyable. Why take away this guy's natural expressiveness?
Furthermore, making the subject of the ad appear close to brainless has been the policy for those Calvin Klein ads since the dawn of time. "Stare into the middle distance, let your eyes drift out of focus, slightly drop your jaw, now count back from 100 by sevens. Perfect! Hold that while I turn on the fan!" I remember seeing a "making of" the Brooke Shields ad back in the 80s that had a bunch of footage that didn't make the ad, and at one point she pulls a face on purpose: she sneers and raises one side of her top lip and pulls down the opposite side of her bottom lip at the same time. I'd never seen that before, and at the first commercial break I went to a mirror and learned to make the face. Then just last month Brooke Shields said on Fresh Air that she used to make faces all the time while on film just to try to hang on to her personality through the onslaught of dopey objectification she endured in the movies people kept putting her in, and I remembered her pulling that face.
posted by Don Pepino at 2:19 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
"Dial back the 'cut' quotient a little bit"
That and maybe, I dunno, let him use some of the muscles in his face occasionally.
In The Bear he has ideas and plans and interesting motivations and flaws and emotions and humor and for christ's sake, it's like the entire reason to ever look at him, he has facial expressions beyond "Look upon me and weep for I have been lobotomized by my own razorsharp muscles." It's the reason I have stared salaciously at Kate McKinnon in her Justin Bieber CalvinKlein impersonation ads countless times but never had any desire to look at the deliberately braindead ads that inspired her brilliant (and disturbingly, uh, emotionally galvanizing) riff on them. (I just grabbed one at random to try to demonstrate what grabs me. At 2:48 in this, there's this tiny little sequence where "Justin" can't seem to pronounce the L in "Calvin," and for a second or two you can watch her mock-dumb/seriousface dissolve and this devilish grin starts to bloom, and then WHAM, cut! [The editing in those is also genius.] It's the parts where you get a glimpse behind the objectively lovely face to the person that inhabits it that makes watching a pretty person's face enjoyable. Why take away this guy's natural expressiveness?
Furthermore, making the subject of the ad appear close to brainless has been the policy for those Calvin Klein ads since the dawn of time. "Stare into the middle distance, let your eyes drift out of focus, slightly drop your jaw, now count back from 100 by sevens. Perfect! Hold that while I turn on the fan!" I remember seeing a "making of" the Brooke Shields ad back in the 80s that had a bunch of footage that didn't make the ad, and at one point she pulls a face on purpose: she sneers and raises one side of her top lip and pulls down the opposite side of her bottom lip at the same time. I'd never seen that before, and at the first commercial break I went to a mirror and learned to make the face. Then just last month Brooke Shields said on Fresh Air that she used to make faces all the time while on film just to try to hang on to her personality through the onslaught of dopey objectification she endured in the movies people kept putting her in, and I remembered her pulling that face.
posted by Don Pepino at 2:19 PM on January 11 [5 favorites]
« Older The duo who pioneered Australian erotica | Tax me now! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's also how I felt about Casino Royale era Daniel Craig.
posted by Gorgik at 8:59 AM on January 9 [6 favorites]