I’m not an avid reader of women’s magazines whose main focus is how women can please men. I mean, I think to myself, why is it that a magazine supposedly targeted to me be all about him? What is this, sort of a guy manual?
For the longest time, it has been women who have been objectified through billboards, magazines and other forms of media that show unrealistic standards of beauty. The MTRCB would ban shows that show half-naked women dancing around, and feminist groups would react to billboards that showcase women being ‘too sexy’. It was only recently that men were subject to censorship (remember the huge billboards of the Philippine Volcanoes along Guadalupe?). These billboards were a wakeup call that even billboards showing male models/celebrity endorsers needed regulation.
I am writing this article based on personal experience. Just a few days ago, I currently had an argument with this guy I’m currently dating. I am dating a male model for about half a year already. And no, by doing so, I am not being superficial. He is a good conversationalist, with excellent PR skills and possibly the most consistent guy I’ve ever dated. Never a day goes by that he doesn’t call and text, and is very patient considering that I can be too frank and almost tactless. As a model, he is a high-fashion model who usually participates in couture shows. Check his folio and you won’t see topless vanity pictures. In other words he is very conscious that he projects the right image. And oh, he is also an engineer. In short, not an airhead. I could go on and on and on about the good qualities.
So anyway, last week, he kept on insisting that he wasn’t part of this event for a women’s magazine which showcases the 69 sexiest men every year. Until, come the day itself, he tells me that he came across some of my friends and had their picture taken with him. He goes:
Him: “Nakita ko si *****, Ang hirap ng job ko today 6 hours ako nakatopless and ang lamig lamig pa.”
Me: “Kala ko ba wala ka diyan, bakit ilang beses mo sinabi na wala ka diyan pero andiyan ka pala. Ba’t di ka honest?”
Him: E kasi nahihiya ako sa job assignment ko. Sorry if you think I’m stupid” He replied. “Magpapagupit nalang ako so the next time we might see your friends, di nila ako mamumukhaan.”
Anyway, point is, it’s not only women who feel exploited with these types of shows/magazines (hiding under the guise of being confident with their physical appearance, when in truth they feel some sort of ‘hiya’ afterwards). Women look at these types of things as "levelling the playing field". If guys objectify women, why can’t people do the same to them? And honestly, some shows featuring men show them to be more exploited than women.
Modesty is important to both men and women. It should be stressed that not because men are visually stimulated, women should be more conscious on how they present themselves. Men too, have to be conscious. I mean, as a guy, would you like to be known immediately as the "sexiest bachelor" by the people you would meet for the first time especially if you need to set a good impression with them? I don’t think so. As a model, if you’re trying to capitalize on being high fashion, respectable, smart and decent, please be consistent. Choose jobs that won’t go against your image, or the person you are for that matter.
I should have seen this incident as a big red flag. If he lied to me about something as small as a job assignment, he surely would lie to me about bigger things, and lie he did, about major things I considered as 'non-negotiables'. As of the time this article has been posted, it has been more than a month since I cut this guy off.
ReplyDelete--Gutsy correspondent who has to remain anonymous. Hahaha
...He is a very good liar, apparently almost living a double life, similar to marketing himself as a high fashion model while joining Cosmo allowing himself to be photographed topless with hundreds of girls at photobooth (not even a proper photo shoot or studio setup)
ReplyDeleteSo yeah, I guess, the jobs you choose are really consistent with the person you are.