P1: GYQ/GDX/GXB/GCY/GCPSex Roles [sers] pp534-sers-375985 July 16, 2002 11:42 Style file version June 3rd, 2002Sex Roles, Vol. 46, Nos. 3/4, February 2002 (C°2002)Eroticizing Men: Cultural Influences on Advertisingand Male Objectification1Deana A. Rohlinger2The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the model offered by Thomas Rochon is used to ex-amine how ideas, activism, and changing American values have influenced advertiser practicesas they relate to sexualized images of men in mainstream media. Previous research has high-lighted the importance of economic shifts on advertiser practices, ignoring the importance ofcultural factors, such as the influence of the gay liberation movement on representations ofmasculinity in the post 1960s era. Second, a quantitative analysis of sexualized depictionsof masculinity is presented. These data suggest that men in contemporary advertisements in-creasingly display the visual cues of objectification. After positioning these sexualized imagesin a larger social, political, and economic context, the implications of male objectification isdiscussed.KEY WORDS: gender roles; objectification; advertisements.In recent years, the proliferation of sexualizedimages of men in advertising has been a topic of ex-amination (Bordo, 1999; Ehrenreich, 1983; LaFrance,1995; Mosse, 1996). However, it is unclear how suchimages fit into a larger discussion of gender repre-sentations. Some authors discuss sexualized imagesof men in terms of economics. In a postindustrialera, advertisers seek to find new markets. As such,erotic images of men are designed to appeal to liber-ated women as well as the new male consumer. In-tuitively, this observation makes sense. The feminiza-tion of the workforce that resulted from the shift inthe economic base (from manufacturing to service)placed more dollars in the hands of consumers. Inresponse to this economic shift, advertisers adaptedcommercial imagery to appeal to a generation of“liberated” women, who made and spent their ownearnings (Whipple & Courtney, 1985). In addition,1An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the Pacific Soci-ological Association Meeting, San Diego, California, March 22–25, 2000.2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department ofSociology, University of California—Irvine, 3151 Social SciencePlaza, Irvine, California 92697-5100; e-mail: [email protected] have increasingly tried to transformmen into consumers through the legitimization ofmale freedom (Barthel, 1994; Ehrenreich, 1983) andbeauty.The logic of economics is also used to explain themuddying of gender role divisions in contemporaryadvertising. Briefly, the feminine gender role modelencourages women to please themselves. Implicit tothis model is that in the process of pleasing them-selves, women will also please others (Barthel, 1994;Wolf, 1991). Conversely, the masculine gender rolemodel emphasizes power, whether in the boardroom,bedroom, or on the playing field. Within this context,the masculine role is not defined through beauty andfashion, but through the power of choice (Barthel,1994). Products are juxtapositioned with images ofpower, which suggests that the product is an exten-sion of the owner. In short, the associations of power,performance, and precision with products ultimatelyreflect the level of physical and financial power as wellas the technical expertise of the male owner. How-ever, men are increasingly able to operate in bothmodes: “the feminine mode of indulging oneself andbeing indulged and the masculine mode of exigencyand competition. With the right look and the right610360-0025/02/0200-0061/0C°2002 Plenum Publishing CorporationP1: GYQ/GDX/GXB/GCY/GCPSex Roles [sers] pp534-sers-375985 July 16, 2002 11:42 Style file version June 3rd, 200262 Rohlingerstuff, he can feel confident and manly in the board-room or suburban backyard” (Barthel, 1994, p. 137;also see Alreck, 1995). In other words, because genderrole prohibitions have relaxed, many advertisers fea-ture crossover behavior in their advertisements. Thelegitimacy of this practice is buttressed by the factthat the consumers with the most desirable demo-graphics to advertisers (young, single, professional,employed, high-income, well educated, and urban)are also the least likely to adhere to and purchaseproducts that depict traditional gender roles (Alreck,1995).Although economic phenomena are an impor-tant explanatory variable in the discussion of chang-ing gender roles and representations, they should notbe discussed separately from the cultural phenomenathat also shape the images of gender in mass media.The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I exam-ine one cultural change that has contributed to theproliferation of sexualized images of men, the suc-cess of the gay liberation movement. Using the modeloffered by Thomas Rochon (1998), I examine howideas, activism, and changing American values influ-enced advertiser practices as they relate to sexual-ized images of men in mainstream media. Second, Ioffer a quantitative analysis of sexualized depictionsof masculinity and address one implication of eroti-cizing men: objectification. Undoubtedly, there areimplications of social power associated with imagesof masculinity and femininity in mainstream media,and it is not my intent here to diminish the social im-plications of these power differentials. However, al-though images have different social meanings, theyhave a similar social effect: the body becomes an ob-ject that is manipulated, disciplined, and viewed byothers.EROTICIZING MEN: DEPICTIONS OF MALESEXUALITY AND THE GAY LIBERATIONMOVEMENTSexuality is socially constructed, that is, it is alearned set of behaviors accompanied by cognitiveinterpretations of these behaviors. Sexuality, then isless a product of biology than of the socialization pro-cesses specific to a given culture at a particular pointin time (Fracher & Kimmel, 1995). The most signifi-cant element of this construction is gender. Gender isan achieved status that is constructed via psychologi-cal, cultural, and social means (West & Zimmerman,1991).The relationship between gender and sexualityis dialectical. Fracher and Kimmel (1995) have notedthatFor men, the notion of masculinity, the cultural def-inition of manhood, serves as the primary buildingblock of sexuality. It is through our understandingof masculinity that we construct a sexuality, and it isthrough our sexualities that we confirm the