Dsquared2 Underwear F/W 2021: Michael Yerger by Christian Oita

[Armani]

Again…you’ve proven my point entirely in my original post.

You are operating under the false assumption that simply because I do not support “body diversity” and I don’t subscribe to the “healthy at any size” movement that I am explicitly questioning the validity of someone’s humanity and existence??? And that I wish ill upon them???

When did I express “prejudice?” When did I say they were a lesser human being? Someone unworthy of love or kindness or dignity? Show me where? Is someone worthless if they don’t get a fashion campaign? Is that also what we’re saying now, too?

So what you ARE saying is that I have to just shut up, keep my mouth shut and enjoy obese people in fashion because by not enjoying it, I am de facto wishing they were dead??

And I love this whole “hate speech” blanket excuse for everything now. It’s always the one side who gets to decide what’s hateful, isn’t it? Do you care what I find “hateful” and “offensive?” I’d bet some serious money you don’t. Gives you all a nice excuse to censor whoever you don’t like and look like an angel doing it.

I was not insinuating you wished ill upon anybody, but, rather, that comments about plus-sized individuals as merely, in your words, "glamorizing/normalizing obesity/fatness", comparing plus-sized models as inferior to Yerger's physique due to his muscular build, is not allowed nor justifiable here. To my knowledge, this is far from the first time you've placed this exact stance in a thread, in which it was subsequently deleted by other mods. There are many people with naturally large body types who go to the gym every day, and many people who don't work out yet have naturally slimmer builds. There are people who take enhancement drugs to appear more muscular. Physical appearance doesn't dictate the level of one's health, and yes, by placing plus-sized models into a singular, unhealthy, and low bracket compared to Yerger, it did seem to come from a place of prejudice.

 

[MulletProof]

^ Generally it does even if marketing has indoctrinated us to think it's politically incorrect to even think of it, let alone say it out loud. It is a factor even in how we cope with disease (i.e. covid) and it's certainly one of the biggest economic expenses in countries with the highest records of obesity. Should we be rude about it, nasty or harass others for it? no, it's a byproduct of capitalism, but just like it was absolutely not healthy to enforce size 0 and pro-ana propaganda (reason why the weight rule came to be), the idea that commentary on bodies aggressively marketed by fashion is okay when it is celebratory and should be deleted when it is critical is quite hypocritical, not to mention biased to regulate comments under that mindset.

I think context and knowing the history of this forum is important so newer members feel less.. hurt (dontbeabrag and in a way, you Armani). Strategies like the Diversity Report are closer to the owners' desperation at draining the forums and stealing its traffic than the actual forums, so it doesn't quite work as an example even if it all seems like a part of the same website for people who know little about it.

Secondly, this 'state of alert' at any discussion that questions the context/message of whatever is being sold within a highly unregulated industry like fashion (clothes, magazines, corporations, aesthetics, lifestyle ideals, etc) and flagging it immediately as a 'problematic' thread that has been derailed is a bit over-the-top considering the low activity and it also shows limited knowledge of this forum. Repressing forum debates is not what tFS was founded on and what many of us spent years building here. Learn why and how Fashion In Depth was created: basically a respite from the bombardment of one-word, mindless fanaticism from model fans that was suddenly flooding every thread (new Versace campaign? then you would suddenly only read what is standard now: "omg Natasha!!!!"), making discussion impossible, in addition to infantilizing the dynamics here and pushing non-stan members away. It was not so ALL in-depth discussions would get dumped and caged there, it was a way to prevent them from being fully eradicated as the internet shifted towards the lack of critical thinking that social media promotes. In other words, the fact that they still take place, once in a blue moon, outside of that area, should be something to celebrate if you know the history of this forum and its struggles with ownership and their attempts to erase everything this forum once was and one of its biggest attractions: long exchanges cause.. forum. People still come here to discuss fashion in more than 80 characters because some see it as more than 80 characters, some may be the same suspects, others are new, but that is still very much what this forum was created for.

You may disagree with points of view, think 'ugh but it's the same people with the same ideas!' (point #1) but that does not make the point of view necessarily wrong, nor the discussion a 'derailed thread'. And if commentary on the sexualization of both men and women (something central in fashion), its frequent raunchiness, invitation to respond accordingly (as seen in this thread), its mixed messages and hypocrisy feels "repeated" (point #2), check yourself, too.

Finally, I don't oppose the removal of posts that seem to constantly test rules and I certainly do not appreciate someone coming to downgrade every debate by hijacking it and splitting it into the divisive and trashy politics of one country, while jeopardizing posts and even the membership of the participants, but I hope moderation is still about moderating, about managing an exchange and not going to town with the delete feature and in the process, against the premise of this forum.

 

[Armani]

^ Generally it does even if marketing has indoctrinated us to think it's politically incorrect to even think of it, let alone say it out loud. It is a factor even in how we cope with disease (i.e. covid) and it's certainly one of the biggest economic expenses in countries with the highest records of obesity. Should we be rude about it, nasty or harass others for it? no, it's a byproduct of capitalism, but just like it was absolutely not healthy to enforce size 0 and pro-ana propaganda (reason why the weight rule came to be), the idea that commentary on bodies aggressively marketed by fashion is okay when it is celebratory and should be deleted when it is critical is quite hypocritical, not to mention biased to regulate comments under that mindset.

I think context and knowing the history of this forum is important so newer members feel less.. hurt (dontbeabrag and in a way, you Armani). Strategies like the Diversity Report are closer to the owners' desperation at draining the forums and stealing its traffic than the actual forums, so it doesn't quite work as an example even if it all seems like a part of the same website for people who know little about it.

Secondly, this 'state of alert' at any discussion that questions the context/message of whatever is being sold within a highly unregulated industry like fashion (clothes, magazines, corporations, aesthetics, lifestyle ideals, etc) and flagging it immediately as a 'problematic' thread that has been derailed is a bit over-the-top considering the low activity and it also shows limited knowledge of this forum. Repressing forum debates is not what tFS was founded on and what many of us spent years building here. Learn why and how Fashion In Depth was created: basically a respite from the bombardment of one-word, mindless fanaticism from model fans that was suddenly flooding every thread (new Versace campaign? then you would suddenly only read what is standard now: "omg Natasha!!!!"), making discussion impossible, in addition to infantilizing the dynamics here and pushing non-stan members away. It was not so ALL in-depth discussions would get dumped and caged there, it was a way to prevent them from being fully eradicated as the internet shifted towards the lack of critical thinking that social media promotes. In other words, the fact that they still take place, once in a blue moon, outside of that area, should be something to celebrate if you know the history of this forum and its struggles with ownership and their attempts to erase everything this forum once was and one of its biggest attractions: long exchanges cause.. forum. People still come here to discuss fashion in more than 80 characters because some see it as more than 80 characters, some may be the same suspects, others are new, but that is still very much what this forum was created for.

You may disagree with points of view, think 'ugh but it's the same people with the same ideas!' (point #1) but that does not make the point of view necessarily wrong, nor the discussion a 'derailed thread'. And if commentary on the sexualization of both men and women (something central in fashion), its frequent raunchiness, invitation to respond accordingly (as seen in this thread), its mixed messages and hypocrisy feels "repeated" (point #2), check yourself, too.

Finally, I don't oppose the removal of posts that seem to constantly test rules and I certainly do not appreciate someone coming to downgrade every debate by hijacking it and splitting it into the divisive and trashy politics of one country, while jeopardizing posts and even the membership of the participants, but I hope moderation is still about moderating, about managing an exchange and not going to town with the delete feature and in the process, against the premise of this forum.

I don't disagree with either of your points, MP. And I don't necessarily think the repetition of points is entirely the root of the problem here, nor that the problem exists solely within one group... nor that I, or any of the moderators, for that matter, aren't continuously learning from our judgment(s) and/or newer to the forums than necessary to understand the basis of every conversation here. Although the vast majority of members would disagree - this I can say for sure - there's a lot less comments that get deleted than those that don't follow Forum Rules (which, IMO is outdated in more than a few bullet points, but I don't believe I can update), so there's many things to be said here that would be highly debatable.

When the d!ck comments became the prime focus of the D&G thread with Michael Yerger, along with this one, my argument against initially deleting them was that we have very little engagement as is, and if that's the only comments that get generated as a result of these very overt/explicit photographs/videos, what one can assume was created with this very intention in mind, then so be it; it serves as counter-productive to remove them all. It was the same case in a different font on the SI thread, and a huge part of the reason why I'm choosing not to take the shots with which posts get deleted (if any) here. Yet there is something to be said when the thread becomes, or looks as if it's steering toward, a breeding ground for political seeds to be planted and eventually bloom, regardless of where one stands... and while it's true, let's say, body-positive comments stay up and anti-body-diversity comments don't, it's equally as much true that body-positive comments don't typically create the aforementioned space comments on the opposing end do - and if they do, those get deleted, too.

Yet, at the same time, deleting those comments, yes, is deleting discussion. I wrote on multiple instances regarding this very thread in private that this was a tricky situation to navigate, and I continue to think of it as such. Point #1 + 2 point directly back to a Forum Rule which prohibits the same negative targeting comments from being posted repeatedly. And just that alone, with the usage of it to delete the removed comment above, serves as both removal of discussion (A disagreeing reply, speaking on the other end of the stick you also briefly mention in your message, was also removed) & completing moderating duties *to keep members "on-topic"/following rules*. Where's the happy in-between that would leave all parties satisfied? I'm afraid it may not exist or be entirely possible to fulfill.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Yes master, I’m an a$shole.

Yet there is something to be said when the thread becomes, or looks as if it's steering toward, a breeding ground for political seeds to be planted and eventually bloom, regardless of where one stands... and while it's true, let's say, body-positive comments stay up and anti-body-diversity comments don't, it's equally as much true that body-positive comments don't typically create the aforementioned space comments on the opposing end do - and if they do, those get deleted, too.

Here's my problem with this logic.

The problem is...you don't like MY politics. You don't care about THEIR politics. Because all day long, every SLASH-Activist out there, especially the model/activist variety, makes it abundantly clear that their very presence is POLITICAL. How many Instagram captions or interviews or articles or think-pieces written do there have to be out there along the lines of "my body is political, my identity is political, me walking this show or nabbing this campaign is political and stands for x, y or z." It's all these people can talk about.

So they show up in an ad campaign - which in their own words - IS a political statement...and then I have a reaction to their political statement, and somehow I'M the one planting political seeds.

Listen. Ultimately, I am not the one who turned fashion into a hellscape of dismally mediocre, narcissistic slacktivists. But it's what the industry is now. So I'm going to complain about it. I will not watch fashion turn into a piling heap of sh*t and just shrug my shoulders and say, "well....thank goodness there's DiversityTM!"

I feel sorry for all you bean-counters. You are incapable of enjoying anything now without taking out your notepad and doing some statistical analysis about the genetic makeup or BMI of all individuals involved and if it doesn't quite add up, it just can't be appreciated anymore.

 

[Deleted member 141523]

I'm sorry about what happened to this thread, and if a light this fire. Every single person here has differents thoughts and lives in different contexts. We should calm down for a while. None of us is a terrible person, as I can see, but we're not perfect either. Maybe we're wrong or right, and the great part of it is we learn something new with every single experience. Let's chill, shall we???

 

[KoV]

re: objectification.... Doesn't context matter? If I hopped on the Keanu Reeves Esquire magazine thread making "I know that dick game strong!" comments, yeah that would be out of line. But if it's a thread about an UNDERWEAR ad from DSQUARED2 in which the model has his legs spread and his heavily photoshopped package literally IN YOUR FACE, doesn't that make discussing that visible aspect of the ad, I dunno, on topic and appropriate? People aren't projecting sexuality onto it, they're reacting to what's already there. It's what's being sold to them, really.

I often don't agree with phuel, fat Karl, dontbeadrag, and whomever else is typically boxed in with them, but I do think they constantly spark debate and discussion. Valuable! Though diversity of thought is rarely included in the diversity push, I think we all benefit from it, within reason. Not to attack any one particular person, but sometimes I do think people (myself included, at times) take it too far and the comments aren't merely critical, they get a bit nasty. I feel like we all kind of understand the line. If you're using descriptors like "flabby" or even even "morbidly obese" to describe a plus-sized model, that's unkind just as it would be to describe a size 00 model as "sickly" or "anorexic", which is also not allowed. Trying to hide those comments behind the claim it's just an honest health-based assessment is ridiculous. The accusation seems to be that there's a double standard, but I'm not sure I can agree. The rules are applied across the board, weight comments are restricted for any size person. I've had comments of mine deleted many times. Sometimes I see that I stepped over the line or was too off topic, and sometimes I disagree, but I don't think anyone can claim they aren't allowed to express diverging opinions. 99.9% of the time it's easy to express yourself on any topic discussed here, no matter your standpoint, without breaking a forum rule. Just word it more carefully? Don't come from an antagonistic place and then get upset when people take it as such.

 

[Phuel]

LOL the leap into the supposition of “prejudice" is rather exaggerated just because an overweight/borderline-obese man’s physical appearance isn’t regarded on the same level as that of Michael Yerger, in the context (…yes, context, context, context!) of being equal in a fashion brand’s underwear campaign, where Michael's body (and [retouched] bulge) is the main feature. No one is dismissing the (phantom) fat man’s intelligence/talent/personality etc here. (Just like his “bulge” is being discussed here because this is what the campaign is all about. What “fashion” is there with these images…???)

Anyway, I do absolutely agree that Michael’s type of physique could be also unhealthy— depending if it’s achieved through abusing certain enhancement supplements. And that’s not to mention I know (intimately) men who look like him who’ve abused steroids etc and also complained about all sorts of health issues during/afterwards. I’ve had snide comments directed at me about steroid use when I look nothing like someone who spends my life at the gym— not to mention I’ve never even taken any forms of supplements. But just as someone may dismiss Michael’s body as achieved by way of steroids, it is unfair to dismiss someone who is “bigger” as being sloven and lazy. However— and in general, excess weight, visible rolls and globs of flab is not “healthy” no matter how anyone spins it. And for such to be wholeheartedly insisted as healthy is rather intellectually dishonest. (I wanted to treat Mullet by replacing the Gaultier male model with James Corden… But my God— I really had no idea how utterly out of shape this man is. it’s insane how anyone will believe how such a body is remotely healthy and won’t be susceptible to any health issues in his near future.)

I simply cannot fathom why this current era (in particular us North Americans) is so utterly either stupid or dishonest by promoting such unhealthily, excessively overweight bodies as a “progressive” (LOL) new standard. I absolutely understand these corporations doing so because of greed. Then I'm reminded that over 40% of Americans are obese— not just overweight, but clinically-defined obese (I know I’ve brought this up elsewhere in the forums but it still shocks me when I think about this). And frankly, it’s just a matter of time before that 40% rises to 50% since the media will continually sprout this “body positivity” propaganda nonsense just to beg for likes/follows/profits for their outlets. It’s a new Dark Age, where instead of superstition ruling over the populace— it’s the fear of offending and hurting “feelings” (cuz you’ll be cancelled); so everybody is convinced that they’re just fine and perfect the way they are . Yay— “diversity and inclusivity”.

(BTW, someone like Mat Fraser is so much much much more physically attractive because he’s an absolutely drug-free and he’s that fit— well, minus the heinous tats.)

 

[KoV]

Ok, nevermind. I take back what I said about everyone understanding what's over the line.

 

[Deleted member 141309]

I am not sure why I even bother anymore here, but “boxing” us together and also having “them” is weirdly divisive. I know what you mean, kingofversailles, but we only have some similarities in our opinions, just like a lot of people do, but we are not a political party on a fashion forum.

Also, I had no idea some SI thread existed at all and telling to “check yourselves” is really condescending and uncalled for. Speaking for myself, I had zero mentions of any other specific member in my post. For some reason, latter posts began to direct particular members.

I am not sure why it is always hard not to make things interpersonal on this forum, but maybe the majority would certainly benefit from checking themselves when they are writing stuff.

At that, while TFS should be a safe space for all people, instead of rehashing this same old of “body”, “diversity”, “health”, “weight” and else, we should probably move the conversation forward. Those words and topics are very a la mode today, but as per Twitter folks and Californians vocabulary, I also don’t want to be silenced (and if telling me to stop saying my opinion and deleting my messages is not silencing - I don’t know what is, even though I understand the supposed reasoning and motives).

So, the claim is - how are we, or us, or I, are supposed to express ourselves? Body and politics are integral to fashion and will always be a part of it. Everything that our eye sees is a part of fashion. I am myself a huge c0ck fan, pun intended, but Michael Yerger’s bratwurst is “in your face” and discussion, but Precious Lee’s “curves” are diversity and are what, invisible? And this is not prejudice and not total hypocrisy?

I love this community, I really do, even with its downs and including the members I totally disagree with - that’s the beauty of it. However, I simply am confused and want to know how am I to express my point of view without always walking on the knife’s edge. Maybe rules, or whatever, can tell me. But please don’t make it silencing my point of view and all this blah “not allowed”, because, seriously, this is indeed double standards, and calling when I state something I don’t enjoy seeing “hate speech” (when disliking anything could be called so, that’s the meaning of “hate”, literally).

I do comprehend the motivation, but things cannot always be happy-go-merry and positive. But I initially came here for mature discussion, and, unfortunately, fashion is extremely political and intertwined with body, gender, identity and so on. Rules are always needed, and that is why I am asking how, then, I express myself, while keeping what I think.

 

[Armani]

MOD NOTE (and this one might be long, so bear with me) :
Comments about plus-sized models as it relates to health fall under weight talk - this is a given, and doesn't require any further explanation, especially when it doesn't pertain to the thread in question.
We've discussed comments about male genitals in threads as an explicit form of objectification and came to the agreement that while these comments are uncomfy for many members and mods alike to read, threads of this nature typically don't completely derail as a result, nor are a common occurrence on tFS.
However, given the above comments, I feel every need to say this:

1) Everyone has a right to talk about diversity under whichever tone they may feel applicable, but repeated occurrences of these same comments coming from the same people are unjustified, especially when outright denouncing those of different shapes, sizes, races, etc. as valid figures, and, once again, especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread in question. Hate speech = "abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation", according to Google.

2) To those who repeatedly bring up the male sex appeal in threads along these lines, check yourselves. If these comments continually result in these conversations, they will be deleted as well.

3) If anyone has complaints about unfairness to make, please direct them here: https://forums.thefashionspot.com/threads/hypocrisy-of-acceptable-posts.388695/
This is also not the place to have those conversations. Please note the Forum Rules on politics, weight talk, continual negative comments about the same subjects (as a ground for warnings), and pornographic content before posting. Subjects who are politicians, plus-sized, and/or activists can and should be discussed when applicable - however, negative comments about their political stances and/or weight can, and has, move(d) conversations into a discussion of ideologies rather than of the content itself. Comments oversexualizing the subject, as noted above, can, and has, do/done the same.

I have opened up multiple discussions regarding these topics and would like to kindly ask another moderator to make the final call on which comments should be removed and which should stay, in this thread.

I told myself I wasn't going to reply any further, because, admittedly, I'm very well contributing to everything I seem to speak against here. However, I think the most appropriate response to all the replies that have come about since (and the most appropriate way to hopefully finalize my comments on this discussion, as enlightening as it's been for the current mods to listen/read through as it has been relieving for other members to articulate & let out their frustrations) is to reword this note, as I was a bit... overwhelmed by how often I felt this very issue of "repeated thread derailment/etc. etc." to occur, with several mod notes outlining these instances as subject to deletion in the past in mind. Was my decision to write and post under that thought process the best decision I've ever made? No, evidently. This resulted in the usage of some harsh words/phrases that weren't at all necessary.

I've said on multiple occasions in private, and will also say here, that I don't believe political bias to play any factor in which posts get deleted and which don't, on the moderating side of things. The job of a moderator is to, indeed, be moderate, be partial, and only remove discussion that doesn't fit the *communal* aspect of a forum and results in a stark division/severe derailment. Whatever views you may have, that's not up to me, or anyone else, to control or dictate for you. Re: the previous example of body positivity vs. comments against diversity, I have seen, on several occasions, comments glorifying people of all body types get deleted, and posts insulting those of other body types get deleted. It is true that your typical, "YES, I love [insert person who can be categorized as representing diversity here]" comment, for example, doesn't, on average, receive the same level of disagreement as the very opposite may; yet in each instance, to my knowledge, the posts don't get deleted unless insulting flamewars, or hostile discussions relating to much more touchy and divided subjects, begin as a result. Therefore, yes - body-positive comments, in my opinion, may not get deleted to the same magnitude as those against the inclusion of models with various body types, and so on and so forth, depending on what occurs as a result of it. And it goes without saying that doing so will come off as biased/flawed in logic because it affects certain comments, certain members, etc. more than others, hence my earlier reply to MP.

I do also want to make clear that this doesn't make tFS a space for racism, fatphobia/skinny-shaming, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc., etc. to exist. Comments along those lines will automatically be deleted, regardless of whether or not it's resulted in such conversations. *This is a bit of a blanket statement, but I feel the general gist of it will be understood*

I brought up the SI thread as an example of a similar situation as seen in this thread occurring with female figures. I was looking to respond to several instances, both publicly and privately, of complaints regarding these comments as uncomfy; and, once again, I did, in these Yerger conversations, argue it should remain public, as, after all, it was the prime and sole topic of discussion here before yesterday & today, and would only further reduce discussion. Of course, I also wanted to point out a double standard - but I don't think that was appropriate here, ESPECIALLY regarding the "check yourselves" quote, as my overall point was that if such comments directly lead to discussions where comments need to be deleted, then it will result in a rethinking of how these initial comments will be handled, too.

With that being said, I don't think myself the best candidate to define what crosses the line and what doesn't, nor any one person, for that matter - for one, because this is the most I've spoken on here in months, but also because everyone, members and mods alike, follows their own judgment given what they know & have read, when posting and when moderating. I hinted earlier that I'm not a fan of some of the Forum Rules myself, one of which is the (even more vast blanket statement of) "no discussions about politics". There's little I can think of off the top of my head that isn't political, to some extent. Fashion has definitely become it, and, in one way or another, always was.

 

[tigerrouge]

The contents of Michael Yerger's underpants certainly appear to have sparked some very interesting conversations.

I myself will choose to play it safe by going vintage, by looking at David Gandy's appearance in a Dolce & Gabbana underwear calendar from 2008, but owing to the problematic nature of these designers, I will take the moral stance of restricting myself to only looking at the images where he is not wearing their clothes.

 

[dior_couture1245]

I do also want to make clear that this doesn't make tFS a space for racism, fatphobia/skinny-shaming, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc., etc. to exist. Comments along those lines will automatically be deleted, regardless of whether or not it's resulted in such conversations. *This is a bit of a blanket statement, but I feel the general gist of it will be understood*

The problem is, any criticism towards anyone who fits into these "intersectional" boxes is always taken as an -ism or phobia. So when am I allowed to criticize or articulate something or someone I don't like? Because, even when I'm at my most "tame," there inevitably follows multiple comments saying my opinion "smacks of racism, fat phobia, etc. etc. etc."

I always am reading here around TFS criticism from members about "white male" this or that...but I guess that's neither sexist or racist...because power + privilege / height x age to the power of 7, square root 3 = not racism?

 

[Benn98]

[QUOTE="MulletProof, post: 30860046, member: 8573"..... male Palomas....[/QUOTE]

LEAVE PALOMA ELSESSER OUT OF THIS

 

[MulletProof]

^ I feel like my comment lost strength with the botched quote (mwaha), but you’re right, female Kenan Thompson could be another description. Let watch him on every show, Dsquared’s hot new campaign and see what the menswear gatekeepers (esp gay guys) make of it. It’s super positive and sorry Phuel but Kenan does have a cute smile and James has a great stare/eyebrow combo and I’ll stick by that till the end of ‘ok but Paloma’s face…’.

 

[KoV]

I am not sure why I even bother anymore here, but “boxing” us together and also having “them” is weirdly divisive. I know what you mean, kingofversailles, but we only have some similarities in our opinions, just like a lot of people do, but we are not a political party on a fashion forum.

Badly worded on my part, I apologize. I don't mean "them" in an "us vs them" sense, I just meant it a harmless third person plural pronoun! I know you and the others I mentioned are not all completely aligned or a monolith, but I seem to remember this sort of debate also happening recently in a different thread (US Vogue September 2021, perhaps?), where a discussion centered around plus size models in the industry turned into a heated exchange about deleted posts, suppression of alternative opinions, etc. and, as in this thread, I believe the users I mentioned were all essentially on one side in that particular debate regarding censoring, etc. That's the only reason I described you as being "boxed" in together, in the context of this thread, because of my perception of your stances being aligned on this particular debate.

 

[LostInNJ]

BIG YES! body positivity for men shouldn't start and end with Tom Holland's "lips". I want all things menswear (shows, ads) full of Seth Rogen, Kenan Thompson, Jack Black, Kim Jong-Un and Jonah Hill types, you know, real everyday activist men with a heart of gold, male Palomas, the kind who install your internet, no unrealistic peachy butt/bulge/six pack tanned dudes that suffer so much achieving these bodies only to make ordinary men (especially gay men) feel terrible about themselves and like they'll never be accepted by the fashion industry. What men want is to see someone just like them in magazines, cause... all men look like Jonah Hill. And I think any man who is a consumer and dares to express minimal criticism, or like he longs for the aspirational side of an inherently exclusivist industry such as fashion or that simply admires extraordinary/too-good-to-be-true looks should receive major backlash for being a discriminatory bigot on track to destroy society.


Legolas, Lara's physique in the first years after her work by Willy Vanderperre and when Carine came along were a bit.. exploited? most of her stories when she rose to fame contained nudity.

Well, you've got your wish lol. Grant Douglas shot an underwear campaign for them with Steven Klein.

Personally, it looks like a parody of what a shot with a guy like Michael Yerger looks like. Perhaps that is because we aren't used to seeing it, but it isn't super enticing...for me that is.

 

[MulletProof]

^ fashion campaigns on request, amazing! (psst, dsquared: I was KIDDING).

It does look like a parody, just looked it up haha. But you know, let's roll the dice! see how it goes.. cause I've seen a whole pattern of pseudo activism from guys who respond very defensively (as seen in this forum) to any criticism towards ~body positivity~ in women's fashion, and then you see their likes and it's never a chubby guy, or even a regular guy, it's always these mega buff, huge bulge + extra tanned Michael Yerger types, so.. I don't know, it's a bit "body positivity is GOOD! everyone either accepts it or you're a sexist homophobic rat who opposes inclusivity!! just....... personally chubby is not my taste".