I think this discussion has been more about the representation of male objectification in advertising, and how it is confronting, especially in thinking through the genders switching aspects of it was a non-male person depicted.

At a personal level I don’t find Becks attractive either, nor would I like to be with someone who is physically similar to him.. but I am able to appreciate the aesthetics of him in the ad.

And I’d also like to add that I’m tired of people saying or expecting that a guy like that is what women want. (I’m not saying it’s necessarily happening here, on this blog, but just in general.) I’m a queer, pansexual, genderqueer person who was female-assigned-at-birth, so, to most people, I’m a “woman,” and I don’t want that. I’m definitely attracted to guys; most of my partners have been male, but Beckham is not at all what I find attractive. Not only is the objectification not something I want to support, but I’m tired of the erasure, too.

I still believe that a world where women aren’t objectified is possible. And starting to objectify men doesn’t bring us any closer to that world. It brings us farther away. It’s like how I hate that there are now starting to be difficult beauty standards men have to attain. Sure, part of me is reeeeeaaaally tempted to say “nyah nyah now you know what it feels like!” but the truth of the matter is that it just makes women’s impossible beauty standards even more deeply ingrained. Digging the hole deeper. Which sucks for all of us.

however what I did notice about the ad, is that it still plays Becks being in control. Whether he be in his football uniform, or in his briefs.

*I don’t know much about superbowl ads or US advertising so the above comment is only based on Beckham’s ad and my own experience of UK tv and bilboard ads.

And to your point about being gay, just because you personally don’t objectify women, as a man in our society it is still your privilege to NOT be leered at by the opposite gender in the way that women are. And hopefully what prevents you from treating women that way is not just your sexual orientation but that you realize it’s wrong—i.e. you wouldn’t do it even if you were sexually attracted to women.

The fact that men are allowed to have personalities and careers outside of their looks means that women ‘objectifying’ men like Beckham or Jonny Depp know they have lives that don’t solely rely on their being handsome. Becks’s looks do have a lot to do with how successful he is now but he was famous first because of his footballing career with Manchester Utd.

Men on the other hand, when faced with constant imagery of beautiful women who are famous or used in advertising solely for their looks, are taught to assume that those women have no ‘real’ substance by manly man standards. Actresses with great careers often have much to attribute to their looks and there are some decidedly poor actresses who still do very well for themselves _because_ they embody the current beauty standard.

There’s also the argument that men don’t find women objectifying them threatening or demeaning the same way women would, because the man in question is usually starting from a position of perceived power (being white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied etc). Being admired like that gives them kudos because, clearly, they are going to get laid. Which, as we all know, is all men really want in this life. *sarcasm*.

In that sense, then, this ad is still maintaining the status quo, even if it’s giving women the chance to watch something they find interesting/attractive for a change. And it will do for the company exactly what they want it to, which is to raise interest and sales. They may even get the feminist women going ‘oh, they can’t be that bad, they put out pretty men for us’. le sigh.