Hey! After re-reading some of the other comments I don't know if objectification in itself is supposed to be the villain here or just the lack of parity in the objectifying business.
Does anybody actually mean it un-ironically you say you approve of and enjoy the men depicted like this? Are the images themselves sexually appealing or is it just that the tables are turned and men are now the passive creatures on display, putting you in the position of control? Or is that a turn-on in itself?
Also, I submit that there might also be a reason why female sexuality is displayed so blatantly and almost farcically exaggerated almost everywhere. There's the ingrained cultural assumption which most men, and ESPECIALLY fanboys, have internalized, which is that women probably don't want to have sex with you, unless it's unmistakably expressed otherwise. Hence the need to create these depictions of female receptiveness like the Miller cover. In a certain sense, a female must be displaying herself sexually to be considered a sex object, because otherwise the default assumption is that she's not interested. The binary opposition here is "she accepts me/ she rejects me," with the latter being the usual case. So we make images of willing women to compensate.
On the other hand, I think there's a general cultural assumption that for women, a man will always be willing to have sex with you, anytime, anywhere. So a display of male passivity/ receptiveness is redundant in itself. That's why the beefcake covers have a hint of irony and ridiculousness to them, and no one's responded to the "ooh, baby! I want that!" comments in a negative fashion. To attempt to create portrayals of men as sexual objects fails because, in the same sense as before, men are already sexual objects, already available if a woman desires. No need for outward displays of sexual receptiveness. The binary opposition here is "I accept him/ I reject him." So any image of a man is already an image of a willing man.
edit
Does anybody actually mean it un-ironically you say you approve of and enjoy the men depicted like this? Are the images themselves sexually appealing or is it just that the tables are turned and men are now the passive creatures on display, putting you in the position of control? Or is that a turn-on in itself?
Also, I submit that there might also be a reason why female sexuality is displayed so blatantly and almost farcically exaggerated almost everywhere. There's the ingrained cultural assumption which most men, and ESPECIALLY fanboys, have internalized, which is that women probably don't want to have sex with you, unless it's unmistakably expressed otherwise. Hence the need to create these depictions of female receptiveness like the Miller cover. In a certain sense, a female must be displaying herself sexually to be considered a sex object, because otherwise the default assumption is that she's not interested. The binary opposition here is "she accepts me/ she rejects me," with the latter being the usual case. So we make images of willing women to compensate.
On the other hand, I think there's a general cultural assumption that for women, a man will always be willing to have sex with you, anytime, anywhere. So a display of male passivity/ receptiveness is redundant in itself. That's why the beefcake covers have a hint of irony and ridiculousness to them, and no one's responded to the "ooh, baby! I want that!" comments in a negative fashion. To attempt to create portrayals of men as sexual objects fails because, in the same sense as before, men are already sexual objects, already available if a woman desires. No need for outward displays of sexual receptiveness. The binary opposition here is "I accept him/ I reject him." So any image of a man is already an image of a willing man.
So, in summation, there's that.