A Wren Says

I was in the folk art museum is Asheville, observing the wooden sculpture of an artist whose name now escapes me. Among the delicately carved, busy carnival scene, were families enjoying themselves, people riding the roller coaster, a naked man running through the scene. I imagine it brought a smile to the carver’s face, something so silly to be added to the scene.

Recently Jeremy Allen White broke the internet with his Calvin Klein ad. He leans back sensuously on a rooftop couch. Underwear on show, along with his slim muscular build, it is hard to tell if those jeans were ever fully on his body. Women have since penned open letters thanking him for his service, presumably the good deed is how he delighted their eyes.

Across the pond, FKA Twigs also featured in an ad with Calvin Klein. In it she, she stands upright slightly angled toward the camera. The button-down denim shirt she wears barely covers her. The curvature of her butt and the side of her breast remain exposed. But rather than letters in praise of her beauty, letters of offense were offered instead. The ad was swiftly banned in Britain by The Advertising Standards Authority.

The commentary all over the internet is that the difference in response is due to double standards, though that would be to assume men’s and women’s bodies are the same thing. Truthfully, that is not how they have been viewed over the years. Over the past few days, I have struggled to understand why it is that the image of FKA Twigs was more offensive. That carnival scene cemented it. A naked man is a joke; a naked woman is immoral. A naked man can be an independent actor, streaking across a field, but a naked woman is vulnerable and without agency. A naked man is a show of strength, but a naked woman is a political statement, grasping at strength. While a naked man can be admired, a naked woman is only ever meant to be sexualized.

Writing for the New York Times, Frank Rojas explains the role of the authority as such: The Advertising Standards Authority is responsible for regulating ads in Britain that may be deemed offensive or explicit. Ads are taken down if they use people’s bodies to draw viewers’ attention in a way unrelated to a product or if they sexualize people through gender stereotypes.

Both Calvin Klein images are arguably objectifying the subjects, placing the focus moreso on their bodies than the clothes. But based on the response of the ASA, it is clear that a man’s body is not meant to be taken seriously as a sexual object. And the female gaze is not to be feared, nor is it to be considered real attention. Or maybe the Jeremy Allen White ads escaped scrutiny because gender stereotypes say that men can’t be objectified and women aren’t visual creatures. I’m just guessing like the rest of the internet. I don’t have an answer.

When it comes to governing sexual offense in advertising whose attention should be taken into account? Whose gaze is to be taken account when deciding what is indecent? whose attention really matters? Over in the U.S. or in your own country of origin, how do you determine offense in advertising?