THE SEXUALIZATION OF BARACK OBAMA

by lisa, Jun 27, 2008, at 07:55 pm

Poor McCain. I mean, not only does he have to run against the candidate of hope, but the candidate of desire. To be fair, the sexualization of Obama in this image doesn’t compare to the sexualization we see elsewhere in the mass media. I mean, it’s not like he’s sucking on a lollipop or on all fours or anything. I guess when they want to sexualize the likely next “leader of the free world,” they tamp it down a bit.

Still, is this in any way necessary? No. And does the presidential election have anything to do with the beach? No. Just because sex exists and summer happens, doesn’t mean it makes sense to photoshop (a decidedly not half-naked) McCain and (a half-naked) Obama under a beach umbrella. I’m just sayin’.

The fist bump thing is funny though.

Found at New York Magazine via Cellar Door.

NEW! Franklin S. sent in this product: an Obama dildo.

Buy it here.

12 Comments

Share and Enjoy:

Tags: election 2008, objectification, politics, sex

NON-SUBTLE SEX IN ADVERTISING (NSFW)

BACKSTAGE AT A PETA PROTEST

Comments

Le 10:06 pm on June 27, 2008 | # | Reply

This is hilarious cuz I wonder what the impact such an image would have on potential voters. Like would it make them more likely to vote for McCain or Obama? Does it in any way inspire anyone to vote who wouldn’t otherwise had they not seen this image? I guess I’m just trying to figure out if this image has any practical benefit other than making me laugh.
Anonymous 11:03 pm on June 27, 2008 | # | Reply

The problem is that many young people are only voting for Obama ’cause he is good looking and different than the normal candidate.
Pitseleh 12:16 am on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

Reminds me of the “terrorist fist jab” incident with Obama and his wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM
RRsafety 7:28 am on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

Great cover, congrats to New York magazine.

If you understand that the election will be decided primarily by independent white voters in the suburbs and exurbs of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and the like, then one has to wonder who this photo benefits (I’d say McCain).

But since no one in those states subscribe to New York magazine, I guess it doesn’t really make a difference. lol
teeniebop 8:59 am on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

i know obama’s attractiveness does increase his fan base, but please don’t generalize about all young people. some of us support mccain, and some of us (myself included) support obama because we like his stances on issues and plans for the presidency.
Sonia Balonia 12:06 pm on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

Well Hi SI! (this is CD)

I agree I also have a problem with sexualizing Obama in this way. It’s one thing to say he is good-looking, it’s another thing to have him bare-torsed stark-contrasted with mccain. Unnecessary.

Also ditto on the “fist bump”. I love how everyone’s doing this now:) From politicians to talk show hosts. A totally spontaneous gesture has become a cultural tidbit and aided along by the ridiculous-ness that is FOX. It’s just very cool.
metafactory 2:20 pm on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

I’m confused by the idea that we need to police the ‘unnecessary.’ Certainly we can read this image carefully but that doesn’t mean we need to throw out our sense of pleasure in looking at pictures. To me this photograph-montage is working on the simple association of a summer issue and the comedic element of these two rivals hanging out together on the beach. If Obama is our uncle then McCain is our grandad (or great uncle).

Secondly, why can’t don’t we assume that the photographer/magazine might be making a comment on public perception of these figures (rather than creating public perception of these figures — that line is never clearly drawn out, and never will be. I think Douglas Rushkof called it a feed back loop). In other words this photograph could work as a commentary on the public persona/celebrity of these figures. Through humour it is drawing our attention to the image of these men.

Personally I’m not interested in a media and in art that only portrays what is ‘necessary.’ Basing a critique on that is dangerous (not least of all for the question of what gets to count as necessary).

The rest of what is said here makes sense to me though, esp. concerning the sexualization of Obama (or the Grandfatherliness of McCain). Looking at this we may ask if we want a sexy, youthful president or a sage elderly statesman…
gwen 4:10 pm on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

I don’t think it’s policing the unnecessary, just that by pointing out that something is not inherently related to a topic (for instance, being shirtless on the beach isn’t really related to the election), then you’re acknowledging that the images we see are the result of choices people make about how to portray things.
Village Idiot 7:48 pm on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

Anonymous sez: The problem is that many young people are only voting for Obama ’cause he is good looking and different than the normal candidate.

Those are adequate qualifications these days, and certain to be an improvement. We need as many ‘differently-normalled’ people as we can get since the ‘normal’ (I’d prefer to say ‘typical’) crop of presidential candidates for the past 230 years or so make me seriously reconsider the theory that we’re secretly ruled by reptilian shape-shifting Space-Bankers who live deep within our hollow Earth.

Besides, we need a president with six-pack abs to stand up against that totally hunky and still-calling-the-shots Putin (everybody knows Medvedev is a sock-puppet). Check out the pics of him posing as the rugged outdoorsman, not much different than when Bush puts on his cowboy costume (except Bush leaves his shirt on; the only good decision he’s made in 8 years). http://ohhmylord.blogspot.com/2007/08/president-vladmir-putin-photo-gallery.html

At least this picture was ‘shopped, unlike many incidents of world leader cosplay.
metafactory 7:59 pm on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

While I think I agree with you in part I think that my caveat regarding the policing of what images do (or what we want them to do) still holds.

Firstly, the election has as much to do with the beach as it does with anything else. Politics is happening around us all the time. The mundane and everyday encounters with politics and the spectacle of governance are important.

I agree with you that the images are certainly a result of the choices people make but I think that we have a tendency in Sociology and related disciplines to make a lot of assumptions about what those choices do to people (through media effects) or what they necessarily mean.

The reason that I love this blog is that it is a forum for pulling these images out of their ‘natural’ environment, defamiliarizing them and in turn subjecting them to a critical gaze. There is a tendency, though, toward abbreviated and sometimes trite commentary that can miss the point of the critique and moves too quickly to contain and explain (away) the meaning of the image.

Pulling it out and critiquing it is only the first step. We need to encourage a greater degree of inquiry that doesn’t do violence to the multiple, hybrid, and shifting gazes that animate these images in society.

Of course we also need to be able to put these images up, sometimes quickly and without a lot of analysis. The quick and dirtiness of the medium is one of the things that makes it so exciting.
Chris Anderson 11:59 pm on June 28, 2008 | # | Reply

Thanks for posting this. I think it’s pretty witty on the part of NY mag. I can see the basis for your critique, but I think the tongue-in-cheek humor of this cover it too good to vilify.
Sociological Images » OBAMA’S GOT THE HOTTIES 10:59 am on July 31, 2008 | # | Reply

[...] see this post about the New York Magazine cover that has a shirtless Obama next to a fully-clothed McCain. [...]