Media: men's body images are now as bad as women's

I’m not saying that this has happened in last few weeks, but now the mass media (print, TV, and movies) wants to belief that a true man has the following appearance:

*Overall slender form
*Ideally, washboard abs without a gram of fat on them
*Even more ideally, a cut, buff bod with a big chest

Which is to say, you must be slender, but if you really want to be the kind of guy who attracts the babes and succeeds in life, you’d better be buff and cut.

The ultimate imaging of this ideals comes to us in the form of the underwear package. The abs pictured thereon ain’t just washboard, they’re each separate washing machines. Total body fat on the man (his face is never shown) is 0.0065 g.

Realistically speaking, to have a body like that you’d have to make it your day job. This type of model is not quite going for a true competition Lisle Alzedo bod, but the level of work required must be comparable. I have worked out in a lot of (regular, non-competitive) gyms with a lot of guys, and although you see some strong fellows, you rarely see the combination of buffness and low-fat that these models display.

Still, these are just “regular” guys wearing “regular” undies, right?

The male body image was not always like this. Take a look at the James Bond films. Sean C was “fit” (in the lingo of the time). He was barrel-chested but not cut. The male gut of the time was rarely cut, either. Sean’s wasn’t. And sometimes in the Bond movies, when “good physical specimens” are presented, they similarly display the fit, barrel-chested, not-cut look.

Look at Rock Hudson in his early '60s pics. He was big and hunky but he would practically be considered obsese by today’s standards.

Women have been complaining for a few decades about unrealistic media body images, and they’ve been right. Lethally skinny Twiggy in 70s ads, skeletal Callista on TV, and buff babes like Melissa Joan Hart on the big screen. Needless to say, these women have all been paid big dough to eat nothing all day long. But the images pound against the brain so much that gals eventually feel that they must be so or face the consequences. These images also affect the way men view women, too.

But I think things are nearly as bad for men now. I never used to think about my weight until the 1990s, when the buff bad look seemingly became de rigueur. Now, every day, I peer in the mirror and suffer feelings of shame and inadequacy. I’ve done rep after crunch rep with a 25-pound weight beneath my head, but I’ve neaver achieved washboard and doubt I ever will.

The US government even, bent on insanity in every possible dimension, it would seem, is pelting us with BMI nonsense. The BMI is a stupid concept to begin with: it says you should be a certain weight for a certain height and does not take muscle mass into consideration at all. I’ve read critical articles in which it was determined that Brad Pitt and George Clooney would both be “obese” under this standard. According to a statistic in a recent Salon.com article, about 80% IIRC of the USA have BMIs that go over the standard. Obviously, the standard is f*ct.

I say this: all these standards and images are bullshit. They are cultural self-torture. They have nothing to do with health and even very little to do with what is aesthetically pleasing. Although there is a level of obesity that can do one various types of harm, most people aren’t in that range.

Anyone disagree with the above? I doubt it.

I agree that the marketing industry projects an unrealistic standard of beauty for men, but I’d argue that things are nowhere close to being “as bad” for men as it is for women. The pursuit of the idealised form of beauty for women–skinny, skinny and more skinny–can be dangerous to a woman’s health. Afflictions such as anorexia and bulimia stem from unrealistic expectations of beauty forced onto women, leading to self-harm and long-term physical damage. OTOH, men in pursuit of the perfect male body are less likely to harm themselves–certainly not wind up in hospital. I’d argue that the pursuit of an idealised form of male beauty is more likely to be good for one’s health rather than harmful, as it so often is for women.

Yes there are extreme cases of eating disorders in men (and I’d agree that male body dismorphia is on the rise), but for the most part, heading the gym in pursuit of buffness has an overall positive effect on male health. Pursuit of idealised female beauty, OTOH, makes many young women crash diet, purge and starve themselves. Unrealistic presentations of physical ideals make women harm themselves, but probably do more to motivate men to improve their health.

Bottom line: it’s not nice to be made to feel inadequate in terms of body image, but unlike many women, men are unlikely to destroy their bodies to get to that ideal. Comparatively, we’ve got it good.

At the risk of hijacking the main point of the OP (and getting flamed), are these super-buff male images pandering primarily to gay men?

I always thought the male delusion of body image was being grossly overweight & thinking “maybe I could lose a few, but I’m in pretty good shape” while looking at a much more in-shape woman & thinking “I’d be interested if she lost some weight”

I say that as one so deluded L

Probably not so much. To take the marketing of fashion as an example, men’s clothing is very commonly bought by women, for their male partners/family. I imagine hunky bods on the packaging targets female buyers, rather than male–many men are probably embarrassed at buying gear with a picture of a muscular half-naked man attached.

Some labels obviously pimp themselves to the gay market, but as this is only a tiny segment of the overall market, I would not conclude that marketing the buff image specifically targets gay men.

Sean Connery was more than “fit.” He was Mr. Scotland at one time and was a competitive body builder. He may have added weight after he got into acting, but he was certainly “cut” as a body builder.

No, you never will achieve those abs that way because spot reduction is a myth, i.e. you don’t lose fat on the muscle you exercise the most: your genetic makeup, age, sex and metabolism determine where in your body and how much fat you lose from caloric deficits or store from surpluses.

If you want to lose fat, choose aerobic exercise for 20/40 mins 3 times a week. Do weights as well because even though you do not burn fat while lifting, you will burn calories between sessions because muscles consume energy while resting (fat provides the energy).

That said, I agree with the rest of the OP.

As for me, I watch The Sopranos a lot. As long as I am slimmer that Tony, then I am OK.

Set the goals low and then exceed them, that’s my motto! :slight_smile:

[Fight Club]

Is that what a man’s supposed to look like?

[/FC]

I agree that the image is proliferating, but in truth I sincerely doubt it is felt as bad as for women. To be fair, though, I truly believe women are their own worst enemy, and that the body image problem comes more from women and their perceptions of each other than from men forcing them to be slim.

I think the greater issue is not how men’s bodies are expected to look but how, in the media, men are so often portrayed as immature buffoons, idiots or jerk-offs who are useless or stupid or assholes. I mean the beer commercial guys, or the sitcom type of guy like Ray Romano, guys who lack a basic understanding of anything but sports and boobs. I’m really tired of that.

I believe this.

Depending on the era, I have done massive amounts of running and aerobic exercise WHILE doing crunches and weights. I lost weight, but I never, ever got the washboard look, even though my stomach was (and still pretty much is) like a rock.

I think you are forgetting a very important thing. Steriods. Many men will use steriods in hopes of getting the ideal body. Steriod use is also unhealthy, IANAD but I would imagine it is as unhealthy as eating disorders.

And furthermore, if you DO have washboard abs, I’d say that you might be only 10 pounds or so from being dangerously underweight. Since spot reduction doesn’t work, even if you have excellent abs the only way they will show through your fat will be to lose fat.

I know this from personal experience: when I did ab exercises in the gym, I was up to the point where I had maxed out the machine (I was basically lifting myself rather than the weight,) and I only weigh 190lb at 6’1", yet you couldnt tell I had any abs unless I sucked it in. I imagine if I lost 10 pounds you could have noticed it more, but I don’t think 180 lbs at 6’1" is all that healthy for a male. (At least my personal experience is that when I fall below 190 I start to get LESS energy rather than more the more weight I lose.)

And who exactly find these male models appealing? I find them disturbing… like a steak on underwear. Sure, fit is good, but *that * is not even attractive (introduce IMHO and all here).

I have known guys who used steroids, but they weren’t doing it because they wanted Brad Pitt’s body. They were doing it because they wanted bulk, actually; they wanted to get huge, to be able to block someone on the football field and break his spine by sheer force of collision. Most of these guys were thinner to begin with, using various steroids to gain weight. And they didn’t care whether or not they were ‘cut,’ they’d just as soon be burly and non-defined but have hulk strength.

The “perfect male body” can be achieved with a reasonable weightlifting regimen and a balanced diet. It isn’t the masochistic torture that people say it is. The washboard-abs-underwear-model look is 75% lighting and camera; those guys on the Hanes package really wouldn’t look THAT different from the typical better-than-average physique if they weren’t oiled, posed and pumped up. Someone can look doughy and average in soft white light, and look like a ripped muscle god with a tan, some oil and brighter lighting conditions.

Guys who are fat and want to lose a lot of weight to get muscle definition are more likely to use stuff like (now contraband) “ephedra” and do pushups in the local sauna in a plastic suit, like in wrestling. You can seriously screw yourself up trying to do it.

My best friend in high school was 6’2 and wrestled 180 (so naturally he was about 175,) and he was definitely in the best shape he’s ever been in. He looked great, and he was always energetic and in a good mood. So I’d say 180 probably isn’t underweight if you’re 6’1.

I think it depends on your build. I was probably at my ideal weight when I was young and weighed ~155 at 5’11" (I didn’t reach my full height until I was 26 years old).

–SSgtBaloo

Try 6’ 1.5" and 150 with my clothes on. Docs haven’t told me I’m “dangerously underweight” although I’m in the 2nd from bottom decile.

Speaking as a guy who’s been there, and done that (my friend scule can confirm), I am really not a perfect specimen. In grades 9 - 10 my nickname in gym class was “tits”. Recently, I gained 5 pounds in April while living in a hotel and doing the buffet dinner every night - according to family I could stand to gain another 10. Did anything really change? Not really, except maybe my metabolism (faster, yeah), and self image. Currently, I think I’m about average body type, but I really don’t care what others think I look like. I am me, and WYSIWYG. BTW, currently 5’7" and 135lbs. I know I’m not a model, and never will be, but hey, I have friends, family, and I can project my “fat” thoughts at the cat :slight_smile:

Wait, are you saying you’re too thin or too fat? Or that you’re not ‘too’ anything, but you could lose some weight? Or that you could gain some weight?

5’7" and 135 lbs sounds like thin to me. I’m 5’7 and 155 lbs, and I’m built like a slightly bulkier Tom Cruise. Of course, I lift. Do you?