advertising · athletes · body image · Crossfit

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? On Monday morning fitspo…

Last Monday morning was cold and grey. It needed something. Yes, coffee. But more than that. Turns out it needed  topless men in kilts. Who knew?

A friend posted the photo collection on Facebook and tagged me. Yes, muscular chests and kilts, a winning combo that works for me. I smiled and reposted to spread the cheer.

Many friends liked it. But within a few minutes a straight male friend commented, “I was going to post some hot workout woman but thought “Nah; I’ll be called a sexist. Then I see this….”


Here’s his “oops!” offering:


What’s the difference? My sense is that images of incredibly fit beautiful people affect people differently and that gender plays a role. If fitspo babe makes me insecure and self conscious (which actually she doesn’t but she doesn’t inspire or attract me much either), maybe the hunky kilted dudes do that to my male friends? (Also, who boxes in denim cut off booty shorts?)

Do these images constitute sexual objectification? Is that always a bad thing?

I’ve wondered about this before. There is a great poster up at CrossFit of very beefy, burly guys sprinting shirtless. I like the poster. It makes me smile. But I’ve noticed there’s no comparable photo of CrossFit women. There too I think there is a real worry that a poster of fit, beautiful CrossFit women would have a negative effect on the women who workout there. See Tracy’s post The Inspirational Dis-Value of “Fitspo”.

What do you think? Is there a difference between pictures of buff half naked women versus buff half naked men? What is it?

I’m still mulling.