Miranda Kerr’s GQ shoot is undeniably hot. But what happens when an Aussie hipster decides to duplicate the shots… starring himself?
–
NSFW!
When I saw these photos in my timeline this morning, shared by our awesome partner site Mamamia in Australia, I stopped in my tracks. What was happening? What was I seeing? A dude posed like the stunning Miranda Kerr in her GQ shoot?
I immediately reached out to the Bondi Hipsters, some funny guys who offer hilarious “hipster” commentary on pop culture, news, and basically anything they want, and asked about the motivation behind these funny, gorgeous shots.
Adrian Archer, Creative Director, explained:
“We thought it would be interesting to re-shoot Miranda Kerr’s recent UK GQ shoot, using a man as the subject. We also wanted to re-quote some of the things that she said in her GQ interview – but coming from the perspective of a male… As you can see, the shoot comes off very differently… It’s an interesting case for either the over-sexualisation of the female body in the high fashion world, or perhaps the under-sexualisation of the male body in the high fashion world?! Depending on how you look at it… But either way, as soon as you put a man in there, and have a man talking about same sex curiosity and masturbation on public transport it’s an entirely different thing that we aren’t used to seeing in the media.”
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad free
These ads are more than just a joke… Though they are sort of funny. They are also sexy in their own way and force us to look at why we’re disturbed by men showing their bodies, the outlines of their most private parts through underwear, their actual nude butt cracks. Dom has managed to capture the sexy, wistful expressions, and he is (I’m willing to admit) a really good looking guy. But you can’t help but go, “Holy male buttcrack, Batman!” when you see it.
“It’s an interesting case for either the over-sexualisation of the female body in the high fashion world, or perhaps the under-sexualisation of the male body in the high fashion world?!”
|
This isn’t a mockery of the male body. Rather, it is an exploration of what we consider “hot” from women and why seeing so much of the female body in mainstream media has become so normal, but that much of a male body is pretty shocking.
The quotes from Dom are awesome, too.
Make sure you’re following the Bondi Hipsters on Facebook. They’re amazing.
Special thanks to Mamamia.com.au for sharing!
Want the best of The Good Men Project posts sent to you by email? Join our mailing list here.
I would say he did a damn fine job.
Yes, what happens?
Is a bunch of somewhat suggestive photos of a man in his underwear supposed to make heterosexual men (and homo/bi women) think that the woman is less hot?
I can see the supposed interest by people who prefer men. But other than that?
I think as a hetero man I’m supposed to feel shocked or offended or get some kind of “aha!” moment when I see the photos of the man next to the photos of the woman, like this will totally rock my world and make me see women completely differently or blow my mind about objectification in the media.
My real reaction? Meh, not so much. It doesn’t change my viewing of her photos. If anything it makes me feel more comfortable staring at her pictures – women get their eye candy, I get mine, objectification all around, it’s all good.
40 dudes just below…
DudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDes
DudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDes
DudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDes
DudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDes
DudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDesDudesDuDes
Interesting that I, along with a lot of other people, immediately reacted to the photos and to the word “dude” without reading much else in the article. Then, when I read more carefully, I saw something that is much more revealing about gender stereotypes than pictures of semi-nude people are. The part about masturbating on a bus was very significant. When a woman says it, that sounds entirely different than when a man says it. There’s an upside and a downside to being sexualized in the media, like women often are. The upside and downside are not equal in weight,… Read more »
Good points wot.
You might be interested in this piece for similar reasons:
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/men-sexy-skirts-funny-video-prove/
@ wellokaythen
I remember an incident in the school’s library. A woman called the police because a man was masturbating. When they got there, they didn’t make any arrests because he claimed that he was itchy and was just scratching himself. It’s one thing if she was right, but if he was telling the truth, that kind of tells you how society views male sexuality.
@Erin … The majority of the staff I work with are women, all I can do is base my opinion off of what those women think and feel. Accordingly I will have no problem asking the women I work with as to weather or not they see my using the term “ladies” as offensive. I’ll get back to you on this later.
After seeing some of the poses, I had to look up the original Miranda Kerr ones.
Since the discussion about appropriate terms seems to have taken off on this, I just want to add a little different perspective. How about we just learn from the gay community and mostly just own most of the terms and not let them have power? Years ago, the term “queer” was a huge insult, until gays/lesbians just started using it themselves and advocating for the notion that the word shouldn’t have power to insult. I do not think this works on all terms that link to gender, like pussy and dick. Pussy = weakness and Dick = a jerk. Those… Read more »
Totally agree about this being regional, possibly, too. I am on the West Coast and nothing could be more natural or normal than calling these guys (oh wait, don’t say “guys” some man above thinks “guys” is derogatory) “dudes” especially considering the characters they are playing. Which are “hipsters”.
I live on the West Coast, too. I agree that “dude” is a pretty common, very general term for boys and men, frequently neutral, but it does have *some* negative connotations.
For example, I’ve never heard anyone use the word “dude” when talking about how intelligent or accomplished a man is, usually the opposite. More often it has the connotation of someone who’s simple-minded, not very cultured, or not well-educated. I’ve never heard “dude” followed by an exegesis about Hegelian dialectics. More like, “that dude’s totally wasted.”
What I appreciate about this switcheroo is that it is much more specific than some of the others I’ve seen out there. This one replaces the original female model specifically with a particular kind of man, instead of just saying “we replaced the woman with a man.” This one doesn’t even pretend that it’s making a one-for-one swap changing only one variable. It’s honest and up-front about the fact that it’s using a very particular substitute, not suggesting that it’s blowing the lid off sexual stereotypes. And, I’m not so sure this is really much of a revolutionary visual statement.… Read more »
Dude = buckaroo, in meaning young cowboy , in most cases its an informal way of addressing a young man in the old days it was used to refer to inexperienced cowboys by older wiser or higher status males towards the younger ones , hence the negative connotation .
I never likes “dude” because it was so much used in “Waynes World.” Hello “buddy,” “pal,” “Brother,” … Hello “men,” “gentleman,” “guys,” or in the case of Chicago-ens, “youZ guyZ”
Dude-ette
Dude-ette , 🙂 , the closest word ( dude ) in meaning is girl .
I was working on public addressing of workers ” safety + production ” in the company I work for ” syncrude- oilsands ” , two days ago , one of the things we been told by HR advisers was not to refer to men workers as dudes in our daily interactions or public addressing period , the term ” dude ” did always have a negative connotation to it I have been told by hired public relations consultant , it was some what ignored in the past as to not appear disconnected from the general public, nowadays though due to… Read more »
I think one problem guys are having with this conversation around the word dude is that men have come out and said that their is a problem with this word when referring to men. It hasn’t sparked introspection by the women who use it. Instead it’s met with defensiveness. I understand that sometimes things get silly, but is it really that difficult to choose another term to refer to men like men or man? Remember there already is one.
It says a lot about the women commenting then.
Is dude being used to belittle those it refers to? To oppress them, invalidate them, intimidate them, dismiss them, infantilise them, mock them,or otherwise exert power over them? You *can* maybe, in the right context and with the right tone, use it in a couple of those ways. You know, just like the word “woman” or “girl” or “female” CAN be used in those ways. In general usage, though, there is no problem with “dude” in and of itself, just like there is no problem with “woman”. So maybe you can now see the trouble everyone else is having with… Read more »
@ Dahakha
And b*tch can be used as a term of endearment.
@Dahakha
Oh, so it’s about intent, is it?
If that’s true, then all those people claiming that their usage of bitch/c**t etc wasn’t *intended* to be sexist are engaging in acceptable usage of those words.
I find it hilarious that when it’s men complaining about gendered word usage, suddenly the exact same rationalisations crawl out of the woodwork. Just another example of our two-tier drive for “equality”.
Why on Earth is this tagged as objectification of women? Miranda CHOSE to be in the magazine, she WILLINGLY opened up about her sex life. It’s one of her jobs/careers, and yes it actually does take effort and skill to do her job. She is not an object, she is a human sharing sexuality and getting paid damn well to do so. People posing sexuality is not objectifying unless you have some seriously warped views of other people. The first thing I notice is a human, then a female, then I notice it’s Miranda Kerr, then I notice it’s sexy… Read more »
“People posing sexuality” should read People posing sexually***
I think people too often assume female sexuality being displayed is automatically objectifying, a few facebook comments seem to be focusing on objectification. All they’re doing is denying her agency in making her own choice to be in the magazine, which kinda treats her like an object.
People posing sexuality is not objectifying unless you have some seriously warped views of other people. The first thing I notice is a human, then a female, then I notice it’s Miranda Kerr, then I notice it’s sexy within a split second. Does everyone else just see boobs and think OH AN OBJECT for sexual pleasure? Well, I don’t immediately wonder what her opinion on Proust is, but then again, I doubt most women ogling a guy do either. That doesn’t mean if I realise a woman has boobs too soon, then she could NEVAR possibly have an opinion on… Read more »
@ Archy
Just because someone does something willingly doesn’t mean they’re not being objectified. They have a right to do what they’re doing and people have the right to consume it, but that’s not the same thing as not being objectified. That just begs the question is objectification always wrong when you have two consenting adults. I don’t think that it is.
Because that’s what THESE ARTISTS are talking about, Archy.
Join us in THIS conversation. As in, the one in the article.
I am. It’s taking images that aren’t objectifying, and these artists are talking about objectification. Do you not grasp how wrong it is to use her images likes that? If they wanted to talk about objectification, there are plenty of images like the woman as a coffee table image, or the Princesses invasion of privacy breast photos. If they wanna talk just about oversexualization without objectification that’s fine, but oversexualization isn’t objectification. Women willingly displaying themselves as sexual adults does not objectify them unless the viewer is messed up in the head.
Nope. You don’t seem to understand objectification here, Archy. It’s a photoshoot, focusing on how she looks, every photo designed to provoke sexual lust, in a magazine that is aimed at young men. How is that NOT objectification? If the reappropriated quotes are any indication, then the interview was focused around her sex life too. The whole appearance in the mag was an exercise in sexual objectification. Just because she agreed to do it doesn’t mean she isn’t being objectified.
I’d love to get an example of oversexualisation without objectification, because I am having real trouble imagining it.
@ Dahakha
Why is that a problem? Men are told that it doesn’t matter how a woman dresses or acts, he should be able to control himself. If you find theses images objectifying, it’s because YOU are objectifying them.
Because every single photo on Earth would be objectifying in some form or manner. A photo cannot tell you everything about a personality, but she can be portrayed as sexual, which is a positive personality trait in how she poses, just as she can pose as strong, pose as an athlete, a model, etc. “I’d love to get an example of oversexualisation without objectification, because I am having real trouble imagining it.” That’s because you seem to view people as objects, and not humans. Oversexualization doesn’t have to be objectifying. An example of objectification would be the female athletes whom… Read more »
Dom Nader is enviably good at doing sparrow face! Also, those reverse quotes are kind of yikes — definitely need to go look up what the hell MK was saying in that original interview. But more interesting than that, to me, is the idea that “dudes” is offensive to some men. I feel awful — I had no idea. I use it equally as an address for men and women and always as something friendly, a term of endearment. I did come across this online after a quick search, though (from Wiktionary): 1883, New York slang for “fastidious man, fop”,… Read more »
I use dude in a relatively gender-neutral way. I call my daughter “dude” all the time, usually following “sorry,” as in “sorry dude, you still have to do it.” She calls all her friends dude. In first-person RL interactions, it seems very gender-neutral to me. I do use “dude” to describe some men, when writing. Though usually I use the more formal taxonomy of “dudebro” which often gets shortened to “bro,” when describing a very particular type of man, as a subset of men. (This, ironically, is what next week’s piece is about, mostly written already.) “Dude” is not necessarily… Read more »
I know what you mean. I slip up sometimes, too. But isn’t using dude as a gender neutral term basically the same thing as using bitch as a gender neutral term? I do that sometimes, too. Is that okay?
The difference is that “bitch” literally means “female dog” – and as I said above, calling women dogs or any other animals is not a good idea. Therefore, calling a man a “female dog” is doubly not a good idea.
The words differ in severity, but it’s the same rationalisation.
“No, it’s just referring to guys/girls who act like dudes/bitches, don’t you see?”
Personally, I view “dudebro” the same way I do “fedora” – a fairly reliable indicator that the person is more interested in stereotyping men than actually having a discussion.
Dudebro is TOTALLY different and comparing “dude” to “dudebro” is disingenuine at best.
How many times have you used dude to refer to only women in an article?
THESE ARE MEN.
Beyond that, they are PLAYING A CHARACTER. He is playing a character. Read the article. OR just click through and see what their characters are.
DUDE is fitting for them. FFS.
He’s asking because you implied that “dudes” isn’t offensive because it’s gender-neutral. So, I’m assuming we can expect you to start referring to women as “dudes” in future articles?
Many men have pointed out how “dude” is a problematic term, so how about just referring to adult males as “men” seeing as there really can be no more fitting of a term.
Thanks, Alyssa, I’ll have to remember that.
By calling only some women bitches/c**ts, I’m actually protecting those women who don’t act like bitches/c**ts.
Awesome!
I am sorry that the discussion seems to be moving away from the subject at hand. As a foreigner I am not that studied in nuances of American slang terms, but it seems to me that dude lately indeed is a bit pejorative, as can be seen from the word “dudebro”, which is unambiguously meant as an insult, which implies that both dude and bro are terms with negative connotations.
Personally for me dude implies a person who is not quite grown up in his mind and behavior, somebody not very mature. That’s the reason I prefer “man”.
It’s a definite improvement compared to the many recent experiments of the same sort (of which there are quite a few), because the man photographed for once managed not to make a silly joke grimace face, like making fun of the whole thing (which men are liable to do, because it can feel to them it’s the only thing that will save them from ridicule for being photographed in an “incriminating” pose). On the other hand the stockings struck me as wrong. But that is of course pure convention; we all know that once upon a time all men wore… Read more »
They call themselves the Bondi Hipsters, these performance artists.
Men are every bit as sexualized in high fashion as women. The quote is irrelevant anyway since the GQ photo spread is not high fashion.
And could you please stop constantly referring to men as dudes? It’s disrespectful.
When did ‘dudes’ become disrespectful?
I think it comes from the way words like dude and bro (and of course dudebro) have been appropriated to mean a specific type of rude disrespectful immaturish man.
My last comment got flagged as “spam” (why?), but it was only a more prolix version of what you are saying here shortly and sweetly, so thank you. Also thank you to Alyssa Royse down below for her reply.
When did chick, sweetheart, and sweetie become disrespectful? There are friendly, casual situations where dude is appropriate, but feminists have developed this tick of referring to men as “dudes” whenever men are specifically the subject of an article. It’s both childish and condescending to men in general since “dude” is very informal and suggests a frivolous, insignificant type of person. The correlate to “dude” is not “ladies.” It’s “chicks.” Now take all the articles where a feminist author is referring to men as “dudes” and now imagine them written by a man about women where he refers to them as… Read more »
I refer to myself as a chick, not once have I deemed it disrespectful, it is context I suppose.
@ oanna Schroeder
“When did ‘dudes’ become disrespectful?”
About the same time Dude, Where’s My Car came out so that’s about 14 years ago. The term got associated with irresponsibility and vacuousness.
Since people view men and women’s sexuality differently, why wouldn’t this be the same as straight people pretending to be hay to make fun of gay people? I’m sure that wasn’t his intention, but that’s how it seems to come off.
Dude was originally used as a derogatory word for a person who stuck out. It was used interchangeably with words like dandy and city slicker.
Well first, Dandy never meant that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dandy
The first definition of Dandy given by Merriam-Webster is: “a man who cares too much about his clothing and personal appearance” I have never heard the someone being described as being TOO caring about his clothing and personal appearance in a non-derogatory way. Do you have an example? For it’s relation to “dude”: “Dude” is listed as a synonym for “dandy” on the link you provided. And here is the first two definitions on “dude” from Merriam-Webster: 1 : a man extremely fastidious in dress and manner : dandy 2 : a city dweller unfamiliar with life on the range;… Read more »
Good point. The funny thing is that there is no equivalent to “dude” on the female side. It’s like
boy ≅ girl
dude ≅ ???
man ≅ woman
which has led to the problem of adressing women as girls inappropriately, because a middle alternative is simply not available. Any suggestions?
But I agree with you, personally I want to be adressed as a man too. Though I would be graceful if you went all British on me and called me a bloke. 😀
The equivalent of “dude” is “ladies”. Both are sort of funny, neither is disrespectful.
Certainly “dude” is no different from “fella” or “bloke”.
The equivalent of ladies is gentlemen unless I’m missing something. The dude is Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski.
I use both fella and bloke almost exclusively when talking about a man I hold little respect for. It’s sort of like guy or bub.
You don’t call men “guys” sometimes just normal?
I would say, “hey guys” or “Hey dudes” or “I met this guy at the grocery store who said…” or “I just talked to this guy on facebook about…” And I have never, ever, ever had anyone say or even hint that the word “guy” is derogatory.
So bizarre. Are you in the United States? In the UK saying “bloke” is totally normal, too. You wouldn’t say it about your professor or your doctor necessarily, but you wouldn’t say “dude” either, unless you’re Jeff Spicoli.
“Guys” can be men or mixed.
Guy or bloke or bub or whatever is demeaning when it’s used as a form or direct address. For example: “Grab me that, will you, guy?” You dig, sister?
Actually, many women do find the term “lady” or “ladies” offensive, including myself. I think because it’s a class thing. Only certain types of women (white, high class) historically had the privilege of being called a “lady”. Not just every woman was deserving of that title. It implies that a woman is of a higher standing and has more value than other women. So, I wouldn’t want to be called a term that indicates I have more worth than others because I believe we are all equal… It’s a pretty outdated term when you think about it. I’m sure there… Read more »
If I walk into the beak room and it has multiple women in it, I will say “hello ladies.” I don’t see anything disrespectful about it. If there are all men, I will say “hello gentleman.” It’s not PC, it’s respectful. PC would be to leave gender out of it all together. “Hello people” so as to not offend. Sorry but I call it as I see it respectfully … ladies and gentlemen. Maybe if people would see others as ladies and gentleman, we wouldn’t be having this discussion?
But then again I come from an era where children would address adults with “yes Sir” and “Yes Mam.”
Just because YOU don’t find it disrespectful, does not mean that it isn’t. We often make the assumption that “our” normal is everyone’s normal, but that is actually a sign of privilege (usually white, straight, middle-upper class etc.)
This isn’t the first time men have protested against your use of “dude”. This isn’t the first time you’ve claimed it isn’t offensive. This probably won’t be the last time you use the word. If you love the word so much that you can’t let it go in your articles posted here despite numerous people here saying they find it insulting I suggest you go all the way and rename the site to “The good dudes project” or alternatively “The excellent dudes project”. Since dude means men without any negative connotation, right? The argument that dude is not insulting while… Read more »
Also, lots of my guy friends – and female friends! – call ladies “dudes” when they’re being casual. It may be generational, but it’s pretty general.
Let’s do a comparison. Let’s count how many articles on, say, this site and Jezebel that refer to men and “dudes” and women as “dudes” and see how gender neutral it is in the media. Otherwise, I see no point in you bringing up that your friends call women dudes.
Even better, let’s count how many times women are referred to by some other label in articles on this site compare to men being referred to by some other label.
What about “chick”?
I think women don’t like it because it infantilizes us. It is, literally, a baby bird.
We also don’t love being compared to animals just in general.
This is such a disingenuous argument. By far, the most common term of affection for a romantic partner is “baby” or its derivations, and almost no one finds it infantilizing. Also, there are a lot of animal based terms that are considered positive such as “stud.” Even “beast” in certain contexts refers to men who are excelling in competition in a way that is laudable. It’s all about how a term is used and the connotation it has acquired, which is why “dear” and “sweetheart” are now considered offensive terms for women in many contexts, even though the words themselves… Read more »
Nope, I think you’ll find a lot of women, and not a few men, dislike “baby” and it’s ilk as well, for the same reasons they dislike “chick”. It’s probably the massive usage it gets in the music industry that makes it seem ubiquitous and acceptable. Terms like “dear” and “sweetheart” are really only offensive to women when used by men they don’t know well and who thus should not be using terms of intimacy, so you are right about those terms are affected by context and usage, but “baby” and “chick” are considered offensive by the nature of the… Read more »
Of course women generally find “baby” derogatory and demeaning when it’s used by someone who isn’t a romantic partner or somehow otherwise intimate.
If my boss called me “baby” are you KIDDING ME?!
Equiv of dude is probably chick.
EXCEPT CHICK MEANS AN ANIMAL.
Why is nobody following this.
Please do not compare humans to animals. That’s like calling men “dogs”.
But but but… I’ve always thought of you as my dawg, Joanna.
I prefer being referred to as Your Excellency and am offended by all other terms. Please make a note of it.
Also, if David Beckham were doing the spread would we think it as ridiculous? Oops, sorry, got on topic for a moment there.
I meant the equiv usage, not origin. Dudes n chicks at the beach is what I hear here. Often it’s a mix of Dudes, guys, boys, chicks, gals, girls, women, men when the genders talk to each other here.
It only means a bird when the speaker is referring to birds. Words can have multiple definitions. No one is calling you a bird and you know it. You can take offense to being called it, but not for terrible reasons.