Speaking of the myth of male indifference to appearance, while trying (I think) to be sympathetic to the plight of DebrahLee Lorenzana, who was fired for looking too “provocative,” brooklynbadboy of Daily Kos hits a bird and eventually crashes into the Brooklyn Bridge.

For men, it’s difficult to dress provocatively. Men have to go pretty far over the edge to provoke any sort of response, excepting for men in uniform. You’d have to wear extremely tight pants around the crotch, no shirt, and basically parade around like a peacock. Otherwise, for men, a standard issue suit or jeans and workboots constitute a rather simple workplace habit. In fact, for most fellas who don’t wear a suit everyday, casual dress rather closely resembles work attire. Personally, I grab whatever shirt, tie, and dark suit that appears clean and put it on, sometimes not even noticing various stains until I have my coffee. No matter the body type, it’s pretty difficult for a man to get it wrong when going to work.

He said it here.

Really? As long as I’m speaking of things, how about speaking of homophobia and homophobia-phobia?. How’s about showing up at the bank in a skirt? Or even just an impeccably bespoke-tailored lavender suit?

Even if you’re straight.

If your own homophobia won’t do it your fear of… provoking homophobia probably will.

You wanna know why most guys really wear “a standard issue suit or jeans and workboots constitut[ing] a rather simple workplace habit?” It ain’t just simplicity, champs, it’s fear.

(Note: Simplicity is one convenient, comfortable, and affordable side effect of homophobia and homophobia-phobia. But it’s still just a side effect.)

Here’s a little food for though on a Kristina-Lloyd “Man Candy Monday” on her obviously NSFW Erotica Coverwatch blog. Mark Potter of Reuters “Oddly Enough” column comes up with an odd headline for an even odder product.

Men risk anticlimax with anatomy-boosting pants
LONDON
Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:56pm EST

LONDON (Reuters) – Hundreds of British men are risking a Valentine’s Day anticlimax for their partners by stocking up on anatomy-boosting underpants ahead of the most romantic weekend of the year.

Oddly Enough

British department store group Debenhams said Thursday it had seen a 76 percent surge in online sales of the 18 pounds-a-pair ($28) underwear in the past week.

The pants work by using a lift and hold feature at the front, like a male version of the cleavage-boosting Wonderbra.

“The briefs mean that no man ever needs to feel inadequate again on the most passionate day of the social calendar,” said Rob Faucherand, head of men’s accessories buying at Debenhams.

“However we can’t be held responsible for what happens once the pants come off,” he added.

(Reporting by Mark Potter)

Read all about it here.

Potter’s post doesn’t mention it but a bit of Googling suggests it’s a line of push-up underwear from an unknown-to-me designer, Gregg Homme. Here’s a link to a safe-for-work Google search page for Homme’s “Maximizer Briefs” full of links to mostly-mainstream but visually not-as-safe pages.

A few thoughts:

• Whereas there’s a tendency to deplore makers of Wonderbras or thongs who’s products emphasize or “enhance” stereotypical women’s physical attributes it’s more common to deride makers of of products that similarly enhance stereotypical male attributes. Manties, pectoral implants, hair implants, heel lifts, and now these “maximizer briefs” all collide, violently, with the bogus Rule #2. By convention (but not in fact, as Lloyd, Amanda Marcotte, and several billion other women would tell men if they bothered to ask) men’s worthiness or ability to act or “provide” is the only valid measure of their attractiveness. And by convention the Smallville character Lana Lang was supposed to be unmoved by the Clark Kent character’s physical beauty, while on the other hand According to Jim’s Cheryl character was supposed to be impressed by Jim’s… um… well, not his looks. Consequently padding one’s crotch isn’t just a mark of vanity, it must be a mark of misplaced priorities as well.
• What, exactly, the heck is the idea behind the sentiment that men’s padded pants will lead inevitably to disappointment or even “anticlimax” when the pants are removed? Once again there’s a presumption that men’s appearance must reflect utility (e.g. signaling wealth, taste, age, or health) rather than decor.
• And not to turn around a common gender trope or anything, but aren’t Potter and Faucherand still presuming that men are more likely than women to dress for potential partners than than, say, for themselves or to signal competitive status or intent to each other?
• That said, there’s often an implicit assumption that prominently displaying one’s “package” is interesting only to men. See, for instance, women’s frequent snarks about online dating sites looking like “mushroom farms” because so many men post penis photo. On the other hand, while it’s rarely acknowledged see also research suggesting women are more likely to check out men’s crotches and, just as unexpectedly, men first check faces. So… I dunno.

• Final point: Potter and Faucherand are men, and at least statistically speaking anyway they’re probably straight. And so, also statistically speaking, they may not be the best people to ask why or whether anyone would be disappointed when a man in what amounts to a subtle codpiece undresses. For instance to the best of my knowledge, it’s mostly men who grouse about the “hot chicks with douchebags“ phenomena, and I’m dead confident that sooner or later they’ll feature someone who, though not visually appealing to men, will end up being mocked for… still having a “hot” girlfriend.

The funny thing, by the way, is that I initially clicked on the bare headline I thought the article would be a warning about health consequences of squeezing one’s genital up and out that way. Sort of like the ones about bicycle seats causing numbness or impotence. If the things catch on (or I should say catch on again) we can probably look forward to those kinds of warnings.

Via Maxwell Hammer of News for Perverts here’s a YouTube version of an ad that’s evidently not being shown in Australia.

Hammer’s take is that Australia is more prudish than America. My take is that prudish or not the male centrism is kind of out of control in the sense that people with really big boobs… even boobs they can’t see their shoes over… tend to have spacial awareness and kinesthetic agility such that they can see… pretty much everything. Especially given that to reach one’s mid-twenties implies that one was once in one’s two’s, three’s, five’s, eleven’s and consequently even if they’d been pubescently precocious they’d have long-since figured out how to see around and over them. Oh, and speaking of seeing, someone cognitively capable of addressing a service person would most likely have seen the platter as it was being set before her and so she would have registered that fries were present even if they were momentarily obscured.

Aww, that’s just me being no fun at all. I know, maybe she’s got short-term memory loss from, say, a stroke, medication, a blow to the head, or maybe a date rape drug like flunitrazepam. Ha ha, wouldn’t that be a riot!

Dang, I’m still not getting into it. I know, maybe she’s a 21st-Century version of Fred McMurray in the Absent-Minded Professor and she’s got her head so wrapped around a problem in the synthesis of amphiphilic block-copolymers it’s a marvel she remembered to order fries at all. Hey, now that would actually be pretty funny.

Weekend editor Hortense of Jezebel says

Oh, internet. Without you, how would we ever learn about Boytaurs and those who love them? According to Urlesque, there’s an entire (NSFW) Boytaur site devoted to those who prefer “pony boys with octopus arms.”

Boytaurs fall into several categories, apparently: either half-man, half-horse, or just men with multiple arms and legs. “Of course, many boytaurs don’t stop with four legs,” notes the site, “Some add more legs, going six-legged or more. Some add extra arms. And many, enjoying all their boytaur feet, decide to go wristfooted as well.”

She said it here.

She found the link via URLesque.com

To be honest I’m not terribly impressed. I’m not sure the site’s intention is even erotic so much as more of the same old iconic/stereotypic/lookee-thar. And pretty much by definition photoshopping men’s torsos on to horse bodies (let alone photoshopping more muscles onto already musclebound men) doesn’t representing the erotic possibilities inherent in the figure of the ordinary heterosexual male. Still, if manamal mashups are your thing boytaur.com seems to be your go-to destination.

If you’re an adult you can click here to see a possibly not-work-safe image.