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
Well, the idea of the magazine is supposed to be photographs illustrating stories--the stories have erotic content, but they also have people adventuring, fighting bad guys, saving lives... so obviously, not all those photos are going to be "soft-focus cuddling". I'm sorry that this post made it seem like Brad or I think that all women want is fluffy Orlando Bloom clones snuggling in front of a fireplace. If nothing else, the wide variety of responses speaks volumes, though you may rest assured that we were well aware of this ahead of time and only in retrospect realized that this post was constructed with that message.
Obviously we're not going to be able to be all things to all people. There are a lot of women who aren't going to like what we're selling--we're 50% of the population, after all, and as has been vehemently stated, our tastes vary.
But right now the situation--the situation that Brad was clumsily trying to address--is that right now almost all of the decisions about the pornography that's out there for sale are made by men, assuming a male audience. That works for a large number of women, but women are on their own creating works of art that have a tangible difference in focus and execution for each other.
All we want to do is offer something for sale, something that we hope people will like. That Brad's initial attempt to explain this to the internet came over so poorly indicates that we either need to explain better or get some content up pronto, so people can critique what we're actually going to be selling.
To put it another way; You're approaching the situation - from a position of great ignorance, it seems - looking only to make money from a phenomenon that is essentially profit-free and which the participators prefer it that way (unless we're talking charity auctions and such) for a number of reasons. One of the discourses that has constantly worked to exclude women (and homosexuals) fromt the capitalist economy is a market-enforced hegemony that tells people what they want and how they want it, rather than letting the buyers actually decide how they want to consume any phenomenon. Which Brad here seems to be a part of quite comfortably and which has usually been under the control of men of some description.
If you were just pimping another make-up product or ugly piece of fashion that panders to the internalised misogyny of most women it wouldn't be an issue. There's plenty of those out there and it's virtually impossible to make your own or have much agency at all in terms of redefining the cultural object you're consuming, but most women still buy them at some point in their lives for whatever reasons. But one of the redeeming factors of female-created fan-based pornography of any kind is that there's a hell of a lot more agency to not only make your own stuff but put your own spin on what's being made, or at the very least find something extremely specific that caters to your needs without you having to conform to certain ideals in a great way. It's an exceedingly small non-market in terms of percentages of the female population which just makes your work even harder.
And there's almost not profits involved in fan communities, unless we're talking the occasional commission or fan-made product, which happens in the minority of cases. Which is also why Brad's use of fan products without the permission of the creators fucking stinks, frankly, and has just made your job of getting fangirls back onside a million times harder. We don't get paid for this, so permission is even more important, because the fan product is all we have.
So, I ask again; Why would I pay for what you're selling? What can you bring to this system that hasn't been there before and which you think is worth the money you'd charge for it? I'm honestly curious.
Canon.
I'm going to go back to reading Yuletide stories now.
Anything else you could base your profits on?
And of course I myself have boycotted companies for doing asinine things before, but I hope that we might be able to scrape together a little goodwill by indicating that we really are sorry about how this turned out; we made a couple of mistakes out of ignorance, not malice, and they got compounded. You're certainly within your rights to never consider anything we publish because of this post, but as a fan as well as a money-grubbing capitalist I hope you'll give a thought to looking at our demos when they come out, just to judge quality against how much offense we've apologized for.
But if you're going to put words into my mouth, then that just makes you an epic fucking douchebag like
just to judge quality against how much offense we've apologized for.
And if I think any of it is worth it I'll be more than happy to steal it off the various pirate comms I am a part of on LJ and many other forums on the internet. :) Seriously, why would I give any ignorant money grabbing lying capitalist any of my hard-earned cash? Especially when they've still got so much to apologise for?