When men pose as sexy motorcycle models, you see how silly the poses are
that the SI models and other models are put into. We're just so accustomed to seeing female models posed that way, our eyes glaze over.
http://www.pleated-jeans.com/2013/11/12/ordinary-men-posing-as-sexy-motorcycle-models-20-pics/
And then there are these poses, the last one being the closest to the SW pose (though all the men are way too clothed.)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clickandclash/sets/72157626584908000/with/5658642294/
But not one of these photos shows three men clumping together. You'd need that for the full effect.
= new reply since forum marked as read
and probably even instructive to a point...
they are in no way analogous to the SI images. For that, you'd need something like this:
my personal favorite.
She insists there's a motorcycle in the picture, and that I will like the bike as soon as I find it.
Photo has been my desktop background for over a year. 
I still haven't found the bike. 
Seriously, though, I ride an 1100 but with that accessory package, I could learn to love a 500. I can even plant a veg bed or two.
pnwmom 
It takes ridiculous female comic book character costumes and poses, and puts Hawkeye in their place :
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
...but spandex!?!?! On those hard corners?? Ewww.
- K&R
and yet, I still think the sports illustrated cover looks good.
You could put those bozos in speedos and pose them similarly -- without the shoes, of course -- and I'll bet plenty of people wouldn't call it silly, particularly if they used models who had a similar "attractiveness quotient" to the female models.
For whatever reason, when women wear men's clothing, it's "empowering," and when men wear women's clothing, it's "silly."
That is the bottom line here--the men in those pictures are DRESSED like WOMEN. That's what causes the "tee hees" and cries of "silliness." It isn't the poses in and of themselves, it's the high heeled shoes pitching them forward and the super-tight clothing that is not typically seen on males.
After all....
Tee hee...silly, and all that...
Of course, this whole "clothing" topic is one that is fraught with drama and angry debate. If anyone suggests that the clothing makes an individual look "silly" or "weak" depending on the sex of the wearer then on comes the "Don't tell me what to wear" brigade followed by the "Only prudes/sexists/misogynists think that less clothing equals less credibility" and "Next thing ya know they'll be demanding that women wear hijab/chador/burkha, etc" or other arguments along those lines.
That said, there is blatant "inequality" in the way clothing and physical appearance are covered in the news. When Tom Brady got hairplugs, there was only a slight tittering in the gossip magazines, when Hillary Clinton showed an eighth of an inch of "cleavage" on the Senate Floor, it was "Stop The Mainstream Presses!!!!!" And fuggedabout it any time a famous woman changes her hair--then it's days/weeks of coverage!
I simply can't help but notice that when one looks at these red carpet shows, the Emmys, the Oscars, etc., the men are all wearing these dark tuxedos that cover them from neck to ankle and wrist, and the women are naked from the bosoms up, almost exclusively, and plenty of them are wearing not much more than what a whiskey barrel would cover, or they have a long dress that is "slit up to there" as granny might say. Men at these events typically show almost no skin, while women compete to show as much as possible-- and they are, most of them teetering on shoes that make them six inches or more taller, but they couldn't run in on a bet.
When the day comes that men wear revealing clothing as a matter of routine, it will be interesting to hear the "My eyes are UP HERE!!!!" exhortations coming from them if they're gawked at. I don't know if that will happen in my lifetime, though, but I wouldn't be surprised if the day eventually comes...!
I suppose the best way to test this "silliness" theory is to put both the men and women models in some sort of unisex costume--say, a basketball uniform or something like that, and then pose them in the same way, and test for "silliness." I'll bet there'd be less silliness votes on the men's side than some expected.
the same outfits, and they're not particularly female -- for example, a leather jacket. But it's the bare legs -- and the poses -- that look "normal" on the woman and "silly" on the man.
Granted, the high heels are feminine.
Go out on to any city street on a spring or summer day, and you'll see dozens and dozens of women dressed in tight pants, sleeveless shirts, leggings and pedal pushers. Women can wear this costume--including the red high heels-- in a variety of settings--the workplace, restaurants, on the street, out shopping, and no one will look twice at them if they are "average" looking people.
You won't see men dressed that way, save the odd bike messenger or the fellow on his way to his gym at lunch hour. Anyone who is dressed this way outside a few very limited venues will get a second glance--and not necessarily because they are attractive. And if they had the red high heels on, they'd be in "point and laugh" territory.
The men look stupid not because of their poses, but because of their clothing. AND because they just aren't "pretty enough" -- like that naked fellow draped on the motorcycle (hardly a "standard" pose) elsewhere in this thread -- to carry off the pose.
A fast google turned up these guys posing in their drawers, etc.
This is a rather "lounge-y" pose, shot from above--a bit contorted, yes?
And he's sticking out his chest like he's rather proud of his assets, this fellow is!
Another fellow draped across the machinery...
Apparently, "hot men riding bikes" is a popular subject: http://theberry.com/2012/02/01/berry-hot-men-ridin-bikes-25-photos/
Average looking schlubs wearing women's clothes imitating hot supermodels look like idiots. I'll wager if you took a few middle aged women, dressed them like the fellows in the pictures above, and posed them in the same fashion, they'd look stupid as hell, too.
I'm sorry. I don't think this thesis floats. I understand the whole "objectification" issue, but you're comparing women who most would regard as "hot" to men who most would regard as "not hot." In fact, they are sadly ordinary, hairy, flabby, and not "beautiful" like the women they are imitating are. That's their first disadvantage. Their second disadvantage is that they're wearing women's clothing--the high heels alone look, well...STUPID. Our culture does not look at men in high heels (save perhaps G W Bush in his super-secret elevator shoes) as "normal." That went out with the French Revolution.....
http://www.headoverheelshistory.com/1600.html
A valiant effort, but a poor execution on the part of the people trying to make the point. They should have used "beautiful" male models, and put the men and women in a unisex costume to test the thesis. They were so eager to make a point that they ended up comparing an apple to not even an orange, but an orangutan...!
