[ SECRET POST #3052 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3050 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Falcon Densetsu/F-Zero GP Legends]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
(Stephen Paul Manderson aka Professor Green, Never Mind the Buzzcocks)


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Elysium]


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Jeremy Renner]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

I thought of another one, the amount of male objectification vs female objectification in media. Less or more, I don't care, but it'd be nice if it were even

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

Oh this. In movies/series it's become outright distasteful to me if I don't see one naked guy for every naked woman, or thereabouts. Or if not nudity, then general sexualization. Yeah... doesn't work out for me often.

I can though think of a few shows where the playing ground was much more level in terms of nudity! Still, unfortunately, that is the minority.

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree that same media should have objectification in equal amounts, but I do think that there needs to be more stuff with male objectification. Not everything needs to pander to bisexuals.

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It's not bisexuals, it's 'something for those attracted to women who are watching' and 'something for those attracted to men who are watching'. You don't have to like both at once but you're not excluded is the point

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

But why not focus your to appeal your main audience more?

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

but main audiences are usually... men and women? as well as gay men and lesbians?

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

Uh what? Pander to bisexuals, are you serious?

it's because both men and women watch stuff...

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I just seriously can't get over that you said "pander to bisexuals" lmao

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

Except a lot of the time even "male objectification" isn't the equivalent of female objectification. A good portion of the time both are for the benefit of a male audience. I mean just look at the comparison of Hugh Jackman as marketed for men and women... http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/08/22/hugh-jackman-for-men-vs-hugh-jackman-for-women/ Which is the one with the "male objectification" cover? It's not the one marketed toward women.

I suppose that was basically to say that I agree with the idea that things should be more equal, but I'd prefer the gazes and audiences to be more equal too.

Re: Double standards

[(Anonymous)]

I think the comparison in that article is not so good and was kind of reaching to make the point. You have a fitness magazine vs. a homemaking magazine. Of course a fitness magazine is gonna have a picture of a ripped physique, and a homemaking magazine is gonna have a more tame picture.

There are magazines aimed toward women like People and Us Weekly that have pictures of shirtless guys in sexy poses on them all the time, and when the X-Men movies were out, that included Hugh Jackman.