Sociology 312B:
Gender Relations – The Sociology of Sexuality
Dr. Michael Botnick
Critical Book Report:
Edisol Wayne Dotson:
“Behold the Man The Hype and the Selling of Male Beauty in Media and Culture”
By Jan Kercher (International)
SN: 11672037
I. Introduction:
While reading Dotson’s book, the question of the author’s purpose emerges repeatedly. Is it supposed to be a
descriptive collection of examples of a current social grievance aimed to arouse both society and intellectuals?
Or is it supposed to be a reliable, scientific and comprehensive historical and sociological study? By reading
the summary of the book, one would expect the latter. However, I would argue that Dotson sets up an arousing starting point for the discussion about the exploitation of men in media and culture but fails in developing
a reasonable and scientific study to explore the subject in a deep and explicatory way. As I will illustrate later,
this is due to his often unscientific, sometimes even polemic way of discussing the topic.
Edisol Wayne Dotson is a gay writer who has published fiction for magazines like Christopher Street, New York
Native, and Art & Understanding. Dotson’s nonfiction has been published in San Francisco Sentinel and Bay Area
Reporter. In addition, he is the editor of Putting Out: The Essential Publishing Resource for Lesbian ad Gay Writers.
Though his background thus is not a scientific one and his other writings focus mainly on gay and lesbian
topics, in “Behold the Man” he tries to elaborate a “comprehensive study” of how images of male beauty are
projected onto society, be it gay or straight images. Dotson obviously considers the book to be a necessary
answer, or more appropriate, a necessary enhancement to books like Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth (Wolf,
1991) or Susan Faludi’s Backlash (Faludi, 1991), describing the female oppression by men.
II. Summary
Dotson begins with a short outline of the history of male images in art. He states that “[t]here is little difference in idealized male beauty in art of the past and art of today. Male bodies then, as they are now, were superior only if they were muscular and well-proportioned” (Dotson, 1999, p. 9). Examples would be sculptures
from ancient Greece, paintings from artists such as Leonardo da Vinci (Vitruvian Man) and Michelangelo
(David), or even the propagandist art of Nazi Germany. Yet in literary fiction, the male ideal has a long history. Dotson refers to classical mythological characters like Cupid, Pyramis, Theseus and Hercules which are
always described as beautiful and strong.
Today the same “reverse sexism” can be found in films and television. Dotson mentions the successful movies of the 1980s with actors like Arnold Schwarzenegger. On television, shows like Baywatch or MTV music
videos are no longer exposing only female bodies but also spreading a stereotypical ideal of the male body.
According to Dotson, the advertising branch was especially quick in realizing that the ominous women’s
movement and the changing roles of women and men in society could easily be turned into profit: “Having
firmly established themselves as leaders of a beauty cult, mainly at the expense of women, industries and professionals have turned their attention to men” (p.5).
But what are the consequences of this “reverse sexism”? According to Dotson, all these influences, especially
the advertising, change the way we feel about ourselves and other people. If men do not look like the
“hunks” in the media, they will lose self-esteem and self-confidence. As their (potential) partners compare
them to the media idols, it becomes increasingly difficult to start or even maintain a fulfilling relationship.
Evidence for that can be found in rising cases of eating disorders, cosmetic surgeries, as well as the increasing
popularity of institutions like health clubs and bodybuilding centers.
And what can we do about it? Dotson argues that the first step for both women and men is believing “that
something is wrong” (p.148). Both genders have to accept that the current treatment of both female and male
bodies is wrong and harmful. Therefore, men and women have to change. That could finally lead to the “elusive equal footing for which we have been searching” (p.147), a new individuality of male and female beauty.
III. Criticism
a) Ambiguous subject
As already mentioned in the summary, the book lacks a clear opening thesis that would help guide the reader.
Since Dotson does not explain where his arguments will lead, the reader is frequently left puzzled about the
implication of Dotson’s frequent offensive remarks. As a consequence of this shortfall´, Dotson changes the
subject of his analysis several times. Most of the time his thesis seems to include just the social overemphasis
of the muscular male body. This aspect of the problem is thus displayed in a quite convincing and comprehensive manner. But in some cases, penis size, body hair, whiteness, pain acceptance, aggressiveness, facial
attractiveness or overall sex appeal seem also to be a part of the ideal: “What Willis, Gibson, Costner, and
Cruise lack in muscularity is made up for in facial attractiveness and overall sex appeal” (p.62). Unfortunately,
Dotson fails in developing or linking these aspects to his main subject, the muscular body. The reader is left
questioning why Dotson focuses so desperately on the muscular body for most of the time as all of the mentioned aspects seem to play a role for the social male ideal.
b) Cultural vs. medial problem
In most of the cases, Dotson sees the media effects as the cause of the problem: “Examination of advertisements using male bodies to sell products reveals that there is more than products being sold” (p.35). But
sometimes, and without further explanation, the problem suddenly seems to lie deeper: “Few, if any, want to
read love stories that have ugly, weak, or less-endowed men as principal characters” (p.23). Is that already a
consequence of the media effects or a lasting cultural phenomenon? Dotson does not consider this question.
Thus, the cultural and the media explanation become increasingly confused: On the one hand, Dotson states
that there has always been a kind of muscular male ideal, but on the other hand he says that it has not become
a social problem until the beginning of the 1980s: “There was a time when a man’s appearance was not a
criterion in assessing his worth. This is no longer true” (p.111).
He also seems to be confused about the consequences of the exploitation of men in the media. At the end of
the second chapter, he elaborates the following two, and obviously contradictory, statements: “The culmination and the commercialized use of these ideas has made it nearly impossible for modern men to understand
and know what it means to be male in our society” (p.19), and then, in the same paragraph: “This is the
power, of the male nude in visual art, illustrating without question how men should appear, leaving nothing to
the imagination because the image is directly in front of us and must therefore be real” (p.19). An obvious
and dominant male ideal in the society is likely to put pressure on men but it can hardly lead to confusion and
pressure at the same time.
c) Not-asked questions
There are some questions that come to one’s mind during the reading of this book, but Dotson – surprisingly
- only mentions them once and dissatisfactory or he does not deal with them at all. The first would be the
cultural meaning of a muscular body. Maybe there is a reason for the fact that the muscular male body seems
to be a timeless beauty ideal. While the female body ideal seems to be a subject of historical changes (p.121),
the male ideal seems to be more or less stable (that is, at least, the impression you get by reading the book).
What are the reasons for that? Could muscles serve as a symbol of health or might? If yes, would it not be
easier to understand why fat or skinny men are seen as less attractive in our society? Such a conclusion would
even help to explain the recent developments as a kind of ‘backlash’ to the women’s liberation movement.
This explanation, however, is never considered by Dotson, even though he cites Susan Faludi’s “Backlash”
(Faludi, 1991) which explicitly deals with this subject. A related thought would have led to the question for
another male ideal that was created during the women’s liberation: the sensitive, understanding, and ‘emancipated’ man. Is that image also spread by the media? If yes, does that mean more pressure for men, or is it a
possibility to opt out of the muscular man ideal? If not, is that not a proof for the presumption that the current male ideal has more to do with male power over women and less with an ‘evil’ media? No questions for
Dotson, as it seems.
d) Media effects
As a student of communication science (in Germany), most of Dotson’s assumptions about the effects of the
media astonish me. Dotson draws a picture of an ‘almightiness’ of the media that does not reflect the state of
the art in communication science. People in Dotson’s world seem to be guided and educated only by the
media that surround them, totally ignoring the influence of interpersonal communication and observation.
“Such arenas of culture in our society as advertising , film, and television have been our teachers” (p.120).
People in such a society seem to be victims, not autonomous citizens: “How can gay men escape the suggestion that fantasy equals attractive, well-built men?” (p.135) Without any studies or other evidence, Dotson
believes that “[a]dvertising has enormous power. The images and messages delivered from ads can and do
alter the way we think and how we feel about other people” (p.59). And, even more important, people do not
seem to be able to reflect on what is presented in the media: “We are lead to believe that advertisements and
commercials are pictures of real people” (p.58) whereas the people we see on the street “are not real because
we do not see them in advertisements and television commercials” (p.58).
Dotson also articulates the astonishing assumption that “[b]ecause we are bombarded with sexual imagery in
so many aspects of our modern lives, it is often difficult for us to look at a naked body in art without attaching a sexual meaning to it” (p.12) Many other scholars assume just the opposite: the consequence of a continued bombardment with sexual imagery is a blunting, not a focussing of the sexual senses.
e) Polemic exaggerations and false evidence
What bothered me most during the reading of this book was the often unscientific and impertinent language
used by the author. A good example is his comparison of the beauty ideals in the gay society today and the
German Nazis respectively the Ku Klux Klan: “[S]ome members of the gay community promote attractiveness as an enviable asset, in much the same way as Hitler promoted the Aryan race as being pure, the Ku
Klux Klan promotes white supremacy or some heterosexuals promote their superiority over homosexuals”
(p.140). A comparison of a murderous regime like that of Hitler’s Germany with a social group in a modern
democracy is an inappropriate and polemic method to arouse the reader.
As elucidated above, some of Dotson’s most important assumptions (like the enormous power of advertising)
lack any concrete evidence. Other evidences can be devaluated easily. Dotson describes actors like Sylvester
Stallone and Jean-Claude van Damme as the new archetypes of the society and guarantors for Hollywood
blockbusters. Indeed, both of these actors already experienced clear declines in success. Among the ten currently best-paid Hollywood actors there is just one man who falls into the category described by Dotson (Arnold Schwarzenegger), one actress (Julia Roberts) and even four actors that form an opposite category to the
male ideal described by Dotson: Tom Hanks, Jim Carrey, Mike Myers and Adam Sandler, neither of them
eminently muscular nor eminently striking.
IV. Conclusion
The main achievement in Dotson’s book surely lies in his arousing potential. Although there is a lot to criticize in his writing, the main message and his goal are surely remarkable. Men are being exploited by the media,
maybe not to the same degree as women, but surely to a degree that can be seen as problematic. As Dotson’s
book is one of the first items to address this problem and to challenge the traditional and one-sided feminist
view, he should be credited for this concern. He even provides a vast amount of examples of male exploitation that are helpful for a deeper understanding of the topic and can be used in a necessary future discussion.
Nevertheless one has to mention that – as I have shown above - there could have been a more helpful and
continuative approach if Dotson had been more scientific in his work. Dotson simply lists symptoms of the
problem and avoids to analyze the causes in a comprehensive way. This criticism, however, does not make his
book worthless, as it remains one of the few appropriate works for a beginning appreciation of the subject.
Dotson’s surprisingly reasonable conclusion can serve as a useful starting point for that.
V. Bibliography
Dotson, Edisol Wayne. (1999). Behold the Man: The Hype and Selling of Male Beauty in Media and Culture. New York: Haworth Press.
Wolf, Naomi. (1991). The Beauty Myth. New York: Doubleday.
Faludi, Susan (1991). Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Crown.