Cancer isn't sexy.

Why do you think those prticular bodies are aesthetically pleasing, then? Why aren't bodies over 30 aesthetically pleasing? Why aren't women with pubic hair aesthetically pleasing? Why are women with nail polish aesthetically pleasing?

And then think about why this company has chosen bodies that are aesthetically pleasing. Why would it like you to associate aesthetically pleasing bodies with its company? Might it be because aesthetically pleasing bodies make us think of sex? And we all like sex, right? Have you never heard the expression that sex sells? And have you never noticed that it is overwhelmingly women's bodies being suggestive of sex which sells? So therefore this is a typical sexualised image? It isn't just people who happen to look nice standing about without their clothes on.

Bof, in a few of those pictures men were being rude and taking up more than reasonable amounts of space. In most of them though, to me, they seem just to be using space that's available to be comfortable. I sit sideways, spread out etc when space allows. I don't see anything wrong with that?

I do think that sex is implied by the rottenly cynical advert though: pubic waxing isn't generally seen as a universal hygiene requirement, but the preserve of younger people who are sexually active and doing it to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex. It kind of references a porn aesthetic.

Bras over the tshirt (ie moonwalk) are massive sponsored events (hence the donations) and at least have their genesis in fancy dress at the marathon etc. Race For Life and Shine are now done in regular t shirts, I think?

Does a bra over the t shirt see the same level of sexuality to you as disembodied crotches? This is fascinating!

I was thinking about that. I don't know why women tend to sit/stand differently but women do tend to cross their legs/ankles more and so on. I was thinking it must be anatomical not conditioning because I couldn't think of any conditioning but then remembered the age when girls start to be told not to flash their knickers. Now they aren't told to cross their legs as such but I suppose that would be a natural progression from being told not to sit with your legs apart etc. So yes, to some extent I do see that women are conditioned into that. Add to that the culture in film etc to have women be or become more gentile than the men and yes I can sort of get on board with that view.

I do agree that the people in the pic are chosen to be aesthetically pleasing. Again that doesn't push me to see sex though.

This tumblr is interesting about men and occupying public space.

You say that "women do tend to stand with their legs closer together" - well, that was the point of my post, really. Why do you think women do this? I don't think it's to do with being comfortable, I have analysed it and linked it to women not taking up as much space as men/women having to stand in a coy or suggestive way to be attractive to men/women having to stand in a way that suggests they need to protect themselves rather than be ready for action. Of course, not everyone will agree with my analysis, but what I am saying here does link to a lot of threads and discussions we have on FWR analysing exactly how and why women are expected to behave in society.

It's sexual because the image is typical of what is deemed sexually pleasing for men in our society (and women, too - the male body is muscular/young/ slim etc). If it was just people standing with no clothes on then one of the bodies may be older or chubbier, the hands wouldn't have nail polish on etc. I think the others have explained that point beter than I can, maybe read them over again?

Yes I do think page 3 is sexualised, it has the classic suggestive poses and expressions etc that indicate sexual desire.

Hmm, food for thought. I do agree that it is unnecessary in this instance but afaik cancer research donations have gone up massively since the whole bra over the tshirt runs and the like started so clearly the approach works. Whether it should or not is another matter.

I think maybe you do! Thanks for explaining further.

Typically, when women are scantily clad in ads, is it primarily because the product requires it (eg bikini shop) or just because that's how things are (perfume ads, Flake ad etc)?

Do you think page 3 is sexualised?

Everything, I'm reasonably sure you know why men tend not to stand/sit with closed legs.

I kind of see your 3) though.

Messy I definitely agree that sex to grab attention centres around women.

The naked = sex thing is my stumbling block though. To me it would be sexual if there was suggestive posing but this is just people stood without clothes. I just can't wrap my head around why that has to be sexual? It certainly isn't in a nudist camp or on a topless beach, it's just people without clothes. I don't know, I get what you're saying, maybe I just see nudity differently?

Surely since women have wider hips, it'd be more comfortable for them to have a wider stance rather than men?

and 3) that if you don't shave then you couldn't possibly 'dare to bare'

Plus, raise awareness? Who isn't aware of cancer?

Ok, first up it appears to me that the man has waxed too so I don't get the reference to women's grooming.

Secondly I don't see the thing about stances, women do tend to stand with their legs closer together than men. To me that is because of anatomy not society. Surely it's more comfortable for a men to have a wider stance?
It is exaggerated here but, like I say, I'd think that was about ensuring everything is covered.

Having said that there is definitely more room for the man....

Of course it's sexual. Naked people usually equal sexual in our normally-covered-up society.

But the fact that something is sexual isn't necessarily bad. What is bad/annoying is that 1) sex to grab attention is used FAR more in the context of women than men and 2) the idea that to get people to care about a women's issue one has to dress it up in a sexy veneer.

Ok, first up I apologise, I was being pissy and it was uncalled for.

Hang on Rosa, I'll try to put it in words.

Pull Your Pubes Out At The Root for Cancer.

Catchy.

I'd rather do the Moonwalk which I have done twice and hated passionately, I hate walking

Well, I think Yonic and Scallops have already explained that above. Why did you think my post was "an awfully big leap" then?

But why is the pic above sexual? I get that you all see it and I don't but I would like to understand what I'm missing. Like I said it's come up many times, I would genuinely like to understand.

Oh crossed posts! Yes, I do agree with Yonic and Scallops that it is linked to sex, of course it is, but that wasn't what I was particularly analysing in my post.

Scallops men don't have anything between their legs do they? Their bits can be contained in the hand in a pose like this where a womans can't?

Rosa, I didn't think your post was about sex?

Sounds like a one sided discussion to me, it also comes over as not really being able to say what it is about it that's sexual. To me it just doesn't seem it. There's no suggestive poses or anything else that makes me think sex - apart from the nudity obviously but I don't get why being naked has to equal sex? I'd actually like to understand because this stuff comes up a lot. I can't see it myself and no one has yet even attempted to explain the other view.

I don't understand how you thought my post was about sex? My post was about the beauty standards society expects women to adhere to and the message that society likes to give women: that they are vulnerable and should be permenantly unconfident or afraid.

What parts would need to be covered that can't be covered by hands, as with the man? In fact surely the man is more in danger of showing his bits with a stance like that, than a woman? And you still wouldn't see a man posing with his legs crossed over like the third woman along (or like the other two in all probability.

But as a Yoni suggests I suspect you aren't going to see it.