ETA: Courtesy of
metafandom, this post has gotten a fair amount of reasonable criticism, much of it about the very limited selection of images I used. I'm currently considering doing a follow-up post exploring the concept in more detail than this simplified version. I respect the viewpoints of everyone who's commented, even those few that I outright disagree with, and I'd like to thank everyone for contributing to such a lively and valuable discussion.
ETA again: Initially, I thoughtlessly posted other people's art here. I was more concerned with haste and post stability than with respecting the artists I was referencing, which was a mistake. I am truly sorry for any offense I caused, and have done my best to make it right. I have replaced images with links to the original artists, with three exceptions, the images still below. In those cases, I found the images on sites far removed from their original artists, and have not been able to find a link to their sources. Iceman no longer hosts the first Batman image on his own site; it's become one of those orphan fan works that drift around the internet like Dickensian waifs. The other two were displayed on other sites that did not provide sources. If anyone knows who created either of them, please let me know so I can seek their permission.
Also, in response to the discussion here, I will definitely be doing a more thorough and detailed followup post exploring this concept in more detail. I hope some of those reading this will participate in that post, either with recommendations of images they think are interesting or illustrative, or in comments once it's posted.
------
When I tell people about Syzygy, one of the questions I sometimes get from the uninitiated is "If women like seeing guys get it on, can't they just look at regular gay porn?"
The answer is, of course, no. One can determine that from looking at the sales figures for gay porn magazines—very few of their readers are women. I'm not one to put blind faith in the wisdom of the market, but honestly, if something is for sale and people aren't buying it, it's probably because they don't want it.
The question of why women don't read "mainstream" gay porn is an interesting one, however, and the answer is that there is such a thing as the female gaze.
We're all familiar with the male gaze: the particular way women appear when being regarded as sexual objects by men. If you're unfamiliar with it, a quick look at MAXIM, or five seconds on Google image search, will show you what it looks like. The thing is, porn featuring men is also made entirely of male gaze. PLAYGIRL magazine was, I'm told, originally intended for women, but its readership quickly turned out to consist mainly of gay men. That's because there's as much male gaze in PLAYGIRL as in PLAYBOY.
I realize that it sounds like I'm making bald assertions here, so let me clarify what I mean with clear examples. The following is going to contain a lot of broad generalizations based on a binary concept of gender, for which I apologize. While I acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate exceptions to the principles under discussion, they remain pretty useful as rules of thumb.
Unfortunately, I can't show off photos, for two reasons. First, there are legitimate copyright and intellectual property issues, and I don't want to step on anyone's IP rights if I can avoid it. Second, while another five seconds on Google image search will show you lots of examples of male-gaze photos of men, there just aren't many female-gaze photos to show off.
Fortunately, there's the wonderful world of fan art to draw on, where both men and women can bring their own visions to life without filters or lawsuits. I've chosen superhero fan art because it's got lots of examples on both sides.
Let's start with Batman—everyone loves Batman. Thing is, when men love Batman, he looks like this:

ETA: Second image here removed, with sincere apologies to Rai. I wish she'd told me directly that my use of it was offensive, so I could have removed it sooner. I won't be making the same mistake again if I can avoid it, and I hope that Rai can forgive me for my error. Any other artists featured here who'd like their work removed have only to ask. Also, if anyone would like to submit or suggest a different "sexy Batman" picture, feel free.
Likewise, both men and women enjoy the idea of Batman getting involved with Robin, but when a man pictures it, it looks like this:

And when a woman pictures it, it looks like this. ETA: Link removed by request of the artist.
To jump comics universes for a moment, let's take Wolverine and Sabretooth, the Marvel Universe's classic example of Foe Yay. When a man imagines them getting it on, you get this.
And when a woman imagines the same two characters, you get this:

By now, you can see the differences I'm talking about. These three examples are a fair representation of a general principle. There is a female gaze, a way of looking at men as sexual objects, and it is visibly distinct from the male gaze.
I don't want to belabor the differences or try to draw large sociological conclusions from them; that's not my job. You will notice, though, that the male gaze tends to focus very much on the dick. Even the shots that don't actually show the dick are, implicitly, entirely about the dick. The female gaze... just not as interested in looking at dicks. This is a useful lesson to the straight men of the world: not everything is about your dick.
There hasn't been any real examination of the female gaze because there hasn't been any acknowledgment of it. Unless I'm missing something, and please let me know if I am, there has been little or no public discussion of the fact that women have a different erotic vision than men. Most of the time, when you see a "sexy man" presented on TV or in movies or whatnot, even when he's supposed to be purely a female fantasy, he looks like the guys in gay porn. Bulky, muscled, oiled and shaved. And yes, there are women who go for that, and god bless 'em. But when women create their own erotic images of men, without having to go through publishing houses and production companies, more often than not they look like this.
And this.
And, well, all of these.
And outside of yaoi manga, nobody is selling men who look like that.
Let me repeat why the examples I gave are fan art: there is almost no erotic photography from a female-gaze perspective. Again, I don't want to get into analyzing the reasons why. There are better-trained feminist theorists out there to do that. But speaking as a capitalist, it strikes me as criminal that there should be such a large need going unmet by the market.
ETA again: Initially, I thoughtlessly posted other people's art here. I was more concerned with haste and post stability than with respecting the artists I was referencing, which was a mistake. I am truly sorry for any offense I caused, and have done my best to make it right. I have replaced images with links to the original artists, with three exceptions, the images still below. In those cases, I found the images on sites far removed from their original artists, and have not been able to find a link to their sources. Iceman no longer hosts the first Batman image on his own site; it's become one of those orphan fan works that drift around the internet like Dickensian waifs. The other two were displayed on other sites that did not provide sources. If anyone knows who created either of them, please let me know so I can seek their permission.
Also, in response to the discussion here, I will definitely be doing a more thorough and detailed followup post exploring this concept in more detail. I hope some of those reading this will participate in that post, either with recommendations of images they think are interesting or illustrative, or in comments once it's posted.
------
When I tell people about Syzygy, one of the questions I sometimes get from the uninitiated is "If women like seeing guys get it on, can't they just look at regular gay porn?"
The answer is, of course, no. One can determine that from looking at the sales figures for gay porn magazines—very few of their readers are women. I'm not one to put blind faith in the wisdom of the market, but honestly, if something is for sale and people aren't buying it, it's probably because they don't want it.
The question of why women don't read "mainstream" gay porn is an interesting one, however, and the answer is that there is such a thing as the female gaze.
We're all familiar with the male gaze: the particular way women appear when being regarded as sexual objects by men. If you're unfamiliar with it, a quick look at MAXIM, or five seconds on Google image search, will show you what it looks like. The thing is, porn featuring men is also made entirely of male gaze. PLAYGIRL magazine was, I'm told, originally intended for women, but its readership quickly turned out to consist mainly of gay men. That's because there's as much male gaze in PLAYGIRL as in PLAYBOY.
I realize that it sounds like I'm making bald assertions here, so let me clarify what I mean with clear examples. The following is going to contain a lot of broad generalizations based on a binary concept of gender, for which I apologize. While I acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate exceptions to the principles under discussion, they remain pretty useful as rules of thumb.
Unfortunately, I can't show off photos, for two reasons. First, there are legitimate copyright and intellectual property issues, and I don't want to step on anyone's IP rights if I can avoid it. Second, while another five seconds on Google image search will show you lots of examples of male-gaze photos of men, there just aren't many female-gaze photos to show off.
Fortunately, there's the wonderful world of fan art to draw on, where both men and women can bring their own visions to life without filters or lawsuits. I've chosen superhero fan art because it's got lots of examples on both sides.
Let's start with Batman—everyone loves Batman. Thing is, when men love Batman, he looks like this:

ETA: Second image here removed, with sincere apologies to Rai. I wish she'd told me directly that my use of it was offensive, so I could have removed it sooner. I won't be making the same mistake again if I can avoid it, and I hope that Rai can forgive me for my error. Any other artists featured here who'd like their work removed have only to ask. Also, if anyone would like to submit or suggest a different "sexy Batman" picture, feel free.
Likewise, both men and women enjoy the idea of Batman getting involved with Robin, but when a man pictures it, it looks like this:

And when a woman pictures it, it looks like this. ETA: Link removed by request of the artist.
To jump comics universes for a moment, let's take Wolverine and Sabretooth, the Marvel Universe's classic example of Foe Yay. When a man imagines them getting it on, you get this.
And when a woman imagines the same two characters, you get this:

By now, you can see the differences I'm talking about. These three examples are a fair representation of a general principle. There is a female gaze, a way of looking at men as sexual objects, and it is visibly distinct from the male gaze.
I don't want to belabor the differences or try to draw large sociological conclusions from them; that's not my job. You will notice, though, that the male gaze tends to focus very much on the dick. Even the shots that don't actually show the dick are, implicitly, entirely about the dick. The female gaze... just not as interested in looking at dicks. This is a useful lesson to the straight men of the world: not everything is about your dick.
There hasn't been any real examination of the female gaze because there hasn't been any acknowledgment of it. Unless I'm missing something, and please let me know if I am, there has been little or no public discussion of the fact that women have a different erotic vision than men. Most of the time, when you see a "sexy man" presented on TV or in movies or whatnot, even when he's supposed to be purely a female fantasy, he looks like the guys in gay porn. Bulky, muscled, oiled and shaved. And yes, there are women who go for that, and god bless 'em. But when women create their own erotic images of men, without having to go through publishing houses and production companies, more often than not they look like this.
And this.
And, well, all of these.
And outside of yaoi manga, nobody is selling men who look like that.
Let me repeat why the examples I gave are fan art: there is almost no erotic photography from a female-gaze perspective. Again, I don't want to get into analyzing the reasons why. There are better-trained feminist theorists out there to do that. But speaking as a capitalist, it strikes me as criminal that there should be such a large need going unmet by the market.


Comments
Not that all the male gaze pics you have posted up here were bad either. I'm not much for Batman/Robin but the male gaze pic you posted I found to be quite hot, but that was more from the raw energy of the picture feeling so masculine and aggressive.
The fem gaze tends to define clear male/female roles even in the fact it is a male/male pic. It seems there is a need for that relationship style nurture. A need to show more than carnal lust and objectivity.
A good example I've found of photography/art through a female gaze is Male Submission Art. The guys are shot nicely, posed beautifully, and each picture has some emotion to it. Compare that to male-targeted manporn, and there's an obvious difference. Watch him fit his tight, tiny undies on his fit body, until he gets so horny he shoots a thick load from his juicy thick cock.? Bleurgh, no thanks. I'll take girl-drawn fanart over that anyday.
It seems to me that the key component in both the female gaze stuff here and the art on that page you linked to isn't just emotion, it's more specific than that. It's vulnerability. Emotional or physical vulnerability, works out to the same thing. The men in these pictures have lost that alpha-male swagger, the veneer of invulnerability that men are taught never to give up, and in losing it have gone from being men to being human. Instant sexiness.
This ties in, I think, with what I've heard called "wounded man fetish", one of the few fetishes found almost exclusively in women. (Don't bother Googling for it; as usual, female sexuality is not on the internet's radar.) It's when a woman is aroused by a man who is injured, ill, or otherwise in need of help. Again, the key component is vulnerability.
This, in turn, leads us back to fandom and the classic fanfic genre of hurt-comfort. Take a tough character, beat the hell out of them physically or emotionally, and force them to rely on a less-tough character for help and support, which they would not normally do. Women have been writing variations on that one for 40 years now. 160 if we count Rochester going blind in JANE EYRE. Again, vulnerability.
It's odd; one of the reasons men learn the alpha-male swagger is that we're told women love it. Oddly, that seems to be true, but mostly in that y'all love seeing us lose it. :)
But the fifth picture. Yeah no, I agree, I don't think it's intended audience is female - Ewww.
I'm curious: could you link me to some examples of yaoi stuff using that style? Looking at data that doesn't fit one's current model is how one develops a better-refined model, after all. :)
Anyway, great post, and pretty comprehensive for such a tricky, convoluted subject. Myself, I prefer a more hardcore approach than, say, Theban Band offers-- more emphasis on cocks and asses-- even so, there's *still* a difference!
Did you see Ponderosa's now-notorious Snarry fanart, that got her bolded back when? VERY graphic-- Snape's finger up Harry's butt, Harry's own come all over his face-- and it was, still, defineably a woman's gaze. So, just-- yeah.
And yeah, it's odd how subtle the difference can be, but still be right there. One interesting example I saw recently is the movie version of MAMMA MIA!, which presents both men and women as objects of desire, including middle-aged men and women. I have never, ever seen middle-aged men shot the way they were shot in that film, and I didn't realize until afterward that it was straight-up female gaze. It felt weirdly empowering, actually. Not that us straight white guys really need a lot of empowering in our society, but there are odd issues around male beauty, ones that most people don't talk about.
And it probably says something that I recognized all of the comics-related art on this page. Ah, Iceman. Where would the world of comicbook character pr0n be without you? (Also Rai -- I love her ability to draw Bats and Supes in manga style without losing their classic broad-shouldered, muscular appearance. As opposed to the weirdly uke-fied Wolverine in that second Sabertooth/Logan picture).
Also, I just can't get over the first Batman picture, and his awe-inspiring manboobs. It makes me giggle in a deeply immature way every time I see it. "I'm the goddamn Batman, and this is my goddamn cock! And my goddamn manboobs!"
I'm curious... how much gay porn have you actually looked at? I make my living promoting gay porn and I can tell you that the bulky, muscled, oiled and shaved look you are describing is the minority. The most popular gay porn websites feature average to athletic builds with very regular looking guys. Some of the most popular sites are sites that have many women subscribers, such as Corbin Fisher and Sean Cody and Randy Blue, etc.
As for the rest, I think this is too simplistic, too reductionist, and too binary.
If you want to make a go of actually making money off the female gaze, I think you need to take a deeper look at both the gay male gaze -- which is far broader than your assumptions, and the female gaze which I don't think can be reduced to a couple of images from yaoi of guys hugging. They dovetail more often than you are giving them credit for and your binary assumptions about what men and women like are NOT a good rule of thumb at all. And those sites that get it right will be your main source of competition because they already understand this.
For example, check out Corbin Fisher's Amateur College Sex (google it) for one -- it's designed to appeal to both gay men and straight women. It features videos of attractive college men having sex with women, but the videos are shot with the "gaze" on the male. Hell, even just the still images on that website should lead to the conclusion that the male gaze itself is not all about the dick.
Photomanippers can find all kinds of images that suit their female-gaze purposes, and those have got to come from somewhere...
I'm a straight female (well, mostly straight), and I adore regular old gay porn. I buy the mags, I buy the movies, hell I've got a login at Brent Corrigan's freaking website. And for this straight girl? Skip the hugging and the romance.
It's all about the dick.
Edited because I just read your userinfo and realized I jumped to a conclusion myself by thinking you were a woman. My apologies.
Edited at 2008-12-21 05:23 pm (UTC)
Personally, I don't find any of the images you include very erotic. And while I know one person does not disprove a generalization, you've already heard from several people saying they don't like the images they're "supposed" to like according to your view of what men and women want.
Your argument recycles the old stereotype that women aren't really interested in (visual representations of) sex, but prefer (visual representations of) cuddling. That's nonsense in itself, and also ignores the fact that woman are people with a wide range of tastes and preferences.
I'm not trying to recycle the stereotype you mention; I've seen plenty of more hardcore stuff that's definitely female-gaze imagery, and the comments here have links to a bunch more. Part of what I want to do with this post is explain the difference to people who have NO idea what I might be talking about, who might never have seen this kind of erotic art before, so I chose a few images with the highest possible contrast between the male and female gazes. In retrospect, I realize that has the effect of caricaturing them both somewhat.
Although the images have various appealing qualities as illustration or art, only the first Batman & Robin in black and white comes close as an erotic experience for me. My orientation is sex or affection with emotional realism between smart adults.
So, thanks! ^^
You might be interested to consider the number of female slash writers currently getting their writing, with the numbers filed off and published under male pennames, published by those aiming primarily at the gay market. A deal of this work is notable for the absolute equality of the characters, which goes much further than a simple switch pairing. To many slash writers that equality is a far more attractive quality and one that can be 'played' with by the characters within their own settings.
Incidentally, reviews of this writing within the gay press tend to make mention not only of the care and complexity taken in the writing of the relationships between the characters, but also the impact of the erotic scenes.
It's a bit like giving a brief rundown of the plot of HAMLET to someone who's never heard of Shakespeare. Yes, it'll be a very shallow and limited take on the play, but one must consider the audience. To extend this analogy, let's suppose that this brief synopsis is overheard by a group of very well-educated Shakespeare scholars. I'm now trying to explain to these wise academics why I left out the troubling duality of Hamlet's "antic disposition", if you will.
I like what you're trying to do here, and a difference in gaze is certainly something I've noticed between slash and mainstream gay art (most specifically with less of a focus on ass and sometimes dick in the former), but I find the pictures you chose a little problematic because it gives the impression of women supposedly preferring not a certain physique or view but softer, more romantic pictures instead of hardcore - which certainly isn't representative of most of the women I know in fandom, who are responsible for their share of raunch.
Just a random sampling out of my own files finds pictures like this:
http://www.viking-carrot.net/pr0n/macna
or
http://www.viking-carrot.net/pr0n/siriu
by
or
http://destiny.ponderosa121.com/devil-i
These are popular and very well-received works by women largely for women, but I think they paint a rather different picture than the examples you chose. And yet, there are likely quite a few women who wouldn't like the pictures I just posted - and that's because just as male tastes vary greatly across sexual orientation and culture and personal preference, so do women's. This is an interesting area for study, but I think a more objective view and wide-casting view is required to do it.
The thought of looking at porn by committee makes me want to bash my head repeatedly against jagged rocks. I know that's not what you're trying to do, but I think that the "female view" is evolving in a very organic and natural fashion as a result of fan works, internet communities, women who feel the urge to pick up a camera, palette and digital illustrator to express what they find beautiful and stimulating. This leads me to wonder if this is a discussion with an objective of concretizing the female view, in which case I say, good luck, but I like my porn to be elusive and wild and free as the damned birdies.
I don't expect anyone to produce a marketable product which meets my tastes, because they range and ramble and change.
Sexuality is much more fluid, and women much more inventive than you give credit.
If there is a difference in gazes - (and I'm not averse to starting with that as a hypothesis) - there's something else driving it, maybe something bigger, maybe something smaller... but definitely something different than the pictures chosen here. Women, as a whole, can't be boiled down to "aww cuddling".
This means, of course, that when the post is read by the metafandom crowd, who already know about this kind of imagery, it comes across as oversimplified, because it is.
Evidently, the magazine wants to define itself as "by women for women" and I hope that Brad Hanon, who tells us he's a straight guy, is using posts like these to help himself find out what that's going to mean.
In the first post in this journal, there is this paragraph;
We're Syzygy. We're a woman-owned company with a simple mission: give our readers what they actually want, not what Madison Avenue thinks they should want. High-quality fiction about men coming together to... well, come together, illustrated by tasteful but very hot photographs of extremely pretty guys. Moving, human, erotic, and original, Syzygy Magazine will take you places you've always wanted to go.
Firstly, I want to point out that this mission so far from being "simple" as it will be unimaginably complex.
Secondly, slash fiction is vary available online already-- this is not a reason to not put it into print, just a reason to make sure your quality really is of the highest.
Thirdly, that word "tasteful" rings all kinds of warning bells for moi. In this post, you've offered examples of what, I have to suppose, you consider "tasteful" and what "tasteful" seems to mean, as always, is "ever-so-very-softcore." Two men hugging.
I sincerely hope that the convos this post will engender will change your minds on that count!
As to our photography and the rest of the magazine, we are steering away from penis in the pictures because that would make it harder to distribute. Not all of our shots are even erotic, per se; many are more about character moments and story than about nakedness. As we get more done, we'll have more on our website, and you can judge for yourself.
I found your post very interesting, because it raises a question that is very important to me. I believe such a thing as a "female gaze" does exist, although it's really hard to define. I'm usually able to recognise porn written by men and by women, and I also notice differences between porn meant for women and porn meant for men.
Semplifications make me very suspicious when they're headed to the equation men = hairy porn, women = sweet kisses/blush. It seems to me that the main difference may be how much importance is accorded to backstory, mood and feelings in general (be they sweet or extra dark).
In other words, I'm not trying to simplify anything down into an equation--I'm more interested in exploring those subtle differences and trying to figure out how they work.
"If women like seeing guys get it on, can't they just look at regular gay porn?"
The answer is, of course, no.
Of course? Where is that certainty coming from? I - as a woman - have watched gay porn and enjoyed it.
From what I can tell, its the story that leads up to the scene that makes a difference. In the case of art that does not illustrate a fan story, it is the collectively understood fanon background story that the community consuming the art has cooperatively created- and maybe its that whole social, reciprocal-gift-economy aspect of it that commercialism can't cope with
Edited at 2008-12-21 08:54 pm (UTC)
The images I chose were picked for maximum contrast, to make the difference too big and clear to overlook. In practice, the differences are subtler, though surprisingly consistent. For folks like you, who are already familiar with the subtleties, the blatantly unsubtle structure of my post might look like it's missing the point. I hope I didn't give too much of the wrong impression.
While I do select quite a few photos from gay male photographers and artists, the ones made by gay men which I tend to favor/ showcase are those which appeal to me *as a woman,* and which I find erotic (and which may not seem as erotic to gay men, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that is so.) Through spending a fair amount of time looking at gay male imagery, I *have* found more sensitive and emotional treatments (in between all the penis shots, LOL.)
But I do agree that there *still* is a difference (to me, anyway) between more "sensitive" gay men-created shots/works, and those created by women sexually interested in men. I just can't put my finger on it exactly, what the differences are ... but I do think they're there.
I applaud you for taking on the question, because in fan art and fiction, as well as photography, it's like the 800-lb gorilla question which just isn't being examined.
While we may have the same objects of desire, individually we (men, women, straight, gay, bi) are turned on by very different things. I don't find any of the pics you show me arousing (a couple are deeply unarousing to my mind :-)), that may partly be becasue I'm not actually interested in any of the characters shown, or possibly because I'm more turned on by the written word than the visual.
As a woman I gravitate towards the female drawn characters shown here as more visually appealing, but I am distinctly turned off a couple by what I see as the blatant feminisation of the guys. I get very uncomfortable and unhappy when two guys I ship - and who are pretty much similar in height, weight, mass etc. suddenly develop huge discrepancies in height, mass and weight according to the sexual position (top/bottom) the artist seems determined to give them.
Like others here, I don't warm to the reductionist binarism of the OP's observations. And when you start talking about gazes you start getting tangled up in psychonalysis, which doesn't conventionally allow for a female gaze, only a male gaze as experienced by a female... eugh.
Is it? The only reason I don't buy a lot of gay porn is that it's usually quite expensive, and I can get a lot of it online, for free (or close to it). If I could afford it, my dvd shelf would be full of hardcore gay porn.
My personal female gaze like to linger on regular gay porn featuring lots of cocks, arses, moaning and grunting, come-shots, and why not some fisting while we're at it? Simplifying women's taste to just include post-coitus cuddling is a mistake. A lot of us happen to like watching the foreplay and the fucking as well!
I definitely don't want to simplify women's taste; you'll notice that there's more than cuddling going on in just the few examples I DID include, and of course there's a vast range of stuff I didn't put in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
All I was trying to do with this post was make clear to those who doubt it that women HAVE tastes, and they're not necessarily what people assume. That picture of Apollo, for example, just floating and absorbing sunlight, wouldn't be considered "erotic" by most people, but it's also really not how men tend to draw the character.
Should we encourage this separation of gender? I don't think so but the first step in stopping it is recognizing it.
I do wish there was a different selection of example images. The images you chose are not just from different "gazes" but they are of different content, context and purpose. Comparing images which are essentially the same but one from a "female gaze" and one from a "male gaze" would have been more exciting because it would be harder to pinpoint how they are different despite knowing the the difference is there.
For example, in both couple image comparisons (Batman/Robin and Sabretooth/Wolverine), you've selected "male gaze" images which depict on-going sexual interaction between the characters. The "female gaze" images show us the couples long before/after they've reached their peak. There is no sexual contact. It would be more effective if you compared two images containing sexual contact from a male and female gaze instead of mix and matching.
Nonetheless, a very interesting post tackling an overwhelmingly broad idea. Kudos.
Of course, now the post is being seen by lots of smart, educated people who are well familiar with the subtleties, and being legitimately criticized for not being subtle.