Men's Vogue rejects us! Let's reject Men's Vogue.

Men's Vogue (cause they're so butch) rejected the latest Marc Jacobs adverts lensed by Jeurgen Tiller due to their "explicit content" ??!! Yes, two guys smooching is considered too explict for the delicate yet manly (i.e. 100% resolutely heterosexual) readers of a men's fashion magazine. Yes. They deemed the above pic inappropriate Tiller had this to say:
"Funnily enough the most complaints were about the series withDick Page and James Gibbs because they are a gay couple. Men’s Vogueeven refused to publish it...I like the idea of having a gay couple in a men’s ad because it makes sense. And I wanted the ads to be like they are — very romantic, tender and sweet. I certainly didn’t want to have anything provocative, not at all."
But this vaguely kiddie-porn-esque photo of then twelve year old Dakota Fanning totally peachy-keen in 2007...

I'm really sick of sexualizing kids, food women, anything but grown MEN! Consenting adults! In a tender romantic pose! Quelle Horror! Knock it off! Who the hell do you thing the bulk of your readership is Men's Vogue (Mogue, really?).

1 comment:

Unknown said...

The sexualization of everything and everyone except for men comes from the false view that men are the objects in which the sexualization should appeal to...Men are, therefore, not sexualized in different commercial medias because men are seen as fundamentally heterosexual and would/should not find other men sexually attractive. Furthermore, even within heterosexuality, this is accepted as their only qualifier-- meaning that heterosexual men only have one purpose and identity, which is to consume the sexual. Even deeper, sexualization is an implicit kind of "othering." People, food, etc., no longer have any value outside of their superimposed sexualness. While I agree that it's bullshit and wrong to exclude images and ideas of men loving each other-- the sexualization of objects and beings in media is THE social tool for the justification of exploitation. Just a thought.