Taylor Lautner's Shirtless Pics: A Hollywood Double Standard?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2009 11:54 PM GMT
    http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-taylor-lautner-pics.html[/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2009 11:57 PM GMT
    Oh I hope so. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2009 11:57 PM GMT
    No double standard. He looks better with his shirt officon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:02 AM GMT
    A little bit but not as much as that article is trying to make out. That Taylor is virtually a legal adult while Miley Sirus was just old enough to be a freshman in high school. Also, guys don't have breasts so there's absolutely no reason why ANY guy shouldn't be able to parade around shirtless.

    Remember, we're men not women so it's not like we have breasts to hide or something. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to shame ya out of your manhood.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:12 AM GMT
    I might be a tiny minority on this site, but I think he's ugly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:26 AM GMT
    TheIStrat saidI might be a tiny minority on this site, but I think he's ugly.


    no. I'm right there with you. I don't see the big deal with the Twilight guys, they're fugly.
  • nadaquever_rm

    Posts: 139

    Oct 29, 2009 12:27 AM GMT
    RyanReBoRn said Also, guys don't have breasts so there's absolutely no reason why ANY guy shouldn't be able to parade around shirtless.

    Remember, we're men not women so it's not like we have breasts to hide or something. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to shame ya out of your manhood.


    Um, your chest has the exact same anatomy as a woman's- you can even lactate, so there's really no reason for women not to parade around shirtless, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:28 AM GMT
    I also think he is pretty ugly.
  • metalxracr

    Posts: 761

    Oct 29, 2009 12:29 AM GMT
    I don't find him attractive either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:32 AM GMT
    Good, then I'm not crazy
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
    Looks a bit like a neanderthal...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 12:38 AM GMT
    The article references "cultural critics" which I think hits the nail right on the head.

    We as a culture do not think a guy parading around without his shirt on is immodest or indecent. I can remember several times in high school playing sports during practice we would break up into teams doing "shirts v. skins" and nobody thought anything of it.

    Be it a double-standard or not, it's the culture.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Oct 29, 2009 12:57 AM GMT
    nadaquever_rm said
    RyanReBoRn said Also, guys don't have breasts so there's absolutely no reason why ANY guy shouldn't be able to parade around shirtless.

    Remember, we're men not women so it's not like we have breasts to hide or something. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to shame ya out of your manhood.


    Um, your chest has the exact same anatomy as a woman's- you can even lactate, so there's really no reason for women not to parade around shirtless, too.


    No. Men and women do not have "the exact same anatomy" in their chest. Male mammae are extremely underdeveloped compared to female mammae, and hormonal profiles are very different. Male lactation is extremely rare in adult humans, and generally requires external hormone sources. The mere existence of similar structures, even though they're arranged differently and show different degrees of development, does not make them exactly the same, or else we'd be talking about how hip anatomy is "the exact same" in men in women, when women's hips have clearly been shaped by the constraints of the birth canal and men's have not (which is why men and women walk so differently naturally).

    Addressing the original question, I agree that the article overstates things. Yes, there is something of a double standard in reality -- underage females are much more often viewed as hapless victims if they have sex with an older man, while underage males are viewed as lucky if they have sex with an older woman but the bigger differences are twofold. First, and most important, a 17-year-old is different from a 15-year-old. 17 is above the legal age of consent virtually everywhere; 15 is rarely above the legal age of consent unless the other party is also close to 15. Second, the muscularity of this actor is an important element to the role he's playing; I've never read the Twilight books, but I've been told by a few who have that significant muscle development is an essential trait of werewolves in their system. A young man appearing shirtless in a film is a good way to demonstrate his muscle development. Culturally a man being shirtless in public is not an inherently sexual thing, while a woman wrapped in a sheet and displaying that she is not wearing a shirt -- and quite possibly is not wearing underwear or a swimsuit top either -- almost certainly is. As such, the Miley Cyrus photographs were more sexualized than a guy merely not wearing a shirt. This is something we should be able to recognize, even those of us who trace our sexual attraction to men primarily to the chest.
  • Aquanerd

    Posts: 845

    Oct 29, 2009 1:00 AM GMT
    A 15 y.o girl vs a 17 y.o boy. Yes there is a double standard. Sex with a 15 y.o. is statutory rape in most of the country, not 17. Sexualizing a 15 y.o. girl gets you in trouble.

    If he were butt naked, someone would get arrested, but no shirt? Jeez, fine something more important to get worked up over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 1:09 AM GMT
    He's still butt f*cking ugly
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 2:13 AM GMT
    *commits photos to spank bank*

    sorry what were we talking about? icon_surprised.gif


    Oh, and the CGI in "New Moon" is 1999 quality at best.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 2:20 AM GMT
    Well I was not a big fan of him, but saw this pic in US magazine and he looks really hot

    91008NE1_LAUTNER_B_GR_01_taytay.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 2:40 AM GMT
    TheIStrat saidI might be a tiny minority on this site, but I think he's ugly.


    He looks like such a douche bag. Such a god damn douche bag. Sure he has a nice body but his face looks so nauseatingly self obsessed... if that makes sense. He looks so airbrush too.

    I'll take Justin Hawkins over him any day... BABY YEAH

    SNF08BIZJUS-280_549605a.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 2:44 AM GMT
    G_Force saidhttp://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-taylor-lautner-pics.html[/


    A simple answer to the question: Why freak out about Miley Cyrus but not Tayler Launter.

    Tayler is 17 (almost legal) and fully developed. Miley was 15, three years away from being legal at the time. There's actually quite a difference between 15 and 17.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Oct 29, 2009 2:56 AM GMT
    I agree, what's with all the hype. The scene from that movie looks lame and makes no sense to me. The guys are not good looking nor are they good actors at all. It's just something for 12 year old girls who don't understand quality in film and in men icon_razz.gif

    I used to be into vampires and such when I was like 15 or 16, why did it all come back all of a sudden? The old school stuff was way better than this crap
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 2:58 AM GMT
    He's cute....as long as you dont look too closely at that nose ...icon_eek.gif... can you say "snout"? ...It kinda weird.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 3:12 AM GMT
    I never was in to the whole Twilight thing.. hell if never even seen the first one but when I was asked by my friend to go with her to see New Moon (She's a th Grade English teacher) I saw this guys pic and I was like OH HELL YEAH! She then told me he was 17. I though to myself... handcuffs? Oh wait... in Texas he is Legal... =D but back to the topic.. 17 is a very very big difference over being 15. More over I think its just a natural guy thing to be without a shirt. I wouldn't call it a hollywood double standard but rather society's? What do you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 3:17 AM GMT
    newmoon_taylor.jpg

    ...........icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 4:44 AM GMT
    I'm rolling my eyes in bewilderment. What's the big deal about a guy, at any age, not wearing a shirt? If this has become a cultural taboo that's the first I've heard of it.

    Last time I went to the pool this summer there were plenty of guys wearing no shirt, so it seems to me someone is making a story where there is absolutely no story at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 29, 2009 5:24 AM GMT
    Hot body though his face looks like he was hit in the face with a shovel.