1. Men look, and women are looked at? “Men and women are socially sanctioned to deal with the gaze of the Other in different ways. Women learn to anticipate and even play to the sexualizing gaze, trying to become what will captivate […] Men are not supposed to enjoy being surveyed period. It's feminine to be on display. Men are taught – as my Uncle Leon used to say – to be a moving target. Get out the range of those eyes, don't let them catch you...” (193). Bordo wrote this essay in the mid-nineties; how much do you think her paradigm has changed or not changed? How much does this description of male versus female response to scrutiny square up to your own experience? What cultural cues have you gotten per “the gaze” from friends, family, school, and the media? What is Bordo implying in her references to the differences between De Beauvoir and Sartre?

2. Female gaze or gay male gaze? “The cultural genealogy of the ads I've been discussing and others like them is to be traced largely through gay male aesthetics, rather than a sudden blossoming of appreciation for the fact that women might like looking at sexy, well-hung young men who don't appear to be about to rape them” (197). Bordo is forced to acknowledge the greater role of gay male desires than female desires in shaping her examples. How much does the gay male gaze have in common with the straight male gaze (with “male gaze” usually, unfortunately, implying “straight male gaze” by default) and how do you think they affect the men who “wield” them? Those who fall subject to these gazes? To what extent is this supposed emergence of female desire a projection of the gay male's desires onto women, as in examples like “Sex and the City” and fashion programs?

3. The pleasures of objectification? “Men have complained justly about the burden of always having to be the sexual initiator, the pursuer, the one from whom 'sexual performance' is expected. Perhaps the escape is from these burdens, and towards the freedom to indulge in some of the more receptive pleasures traditionally reserved for women. The pleasures, not of staring someone down but of feeling one's body caressed by another's eyes […] Some people describe these pleasures as 'passive' – which gives them a bad press with men, and is just plain inaccurate too. 'Passive' hardly describes what's going on when one person offers him or herself to another. Inviting, receiving, responding – these are active behaviors too, and rathering thrilling ones” (205). Do you buy Bordo's repositioning of the gazer/gazed-upon model away from Mulvey's active-passive model? Do you think men are 'naturally' capable of exhibitionism, or do they need to be taught? Compare this to “peacocking” behavior in animals throughout evolutionary history. In what situations does observation become objectification, and can objectification ever be non-demeaning? What about self-objectification?

5. Cross-cultural analysis or appropriation? “'Style' is a concept whose history and cultural meanings are very different for blacks and whites in this country. Among many young African American men, appearing in high style 'cleaned up' and festooned with sparkling jewelry is not a sign of effiminacy, but potency and social standing” (218). In addition to citing African American culture as distinct from “American” culture, Bordo also references other cultures. How accurate and well-researched do you find her depictions of these historical and current ideas, especially in terms of any gaps between the 90's and today? What are the implications of Bordo's evocation of slavery and its stakes for control of the body and self-autonomy? How do you view the larger politics involved in representation of the body and do you challenge Bordo's interpretation?

5. Social change or eating disorder machine? “I, however, tend to see consumer capitalism rather than women's expectations or proclivities as the true motor driving male concern with appearance […] After all, why should they restrict themselves to female markets if they can convince men that their looks need constant improvement too? The management and enhancement of the body is a gold mine for consumerism, and one whose treasures are inexhaustible, as women know. Dieting and staving off aging are never-ending processes” (229). Is there an inherent contradiction between Bordo's celebration of male-objectifying advertisements and her condemnation of consumer culture? How about her examination of the rise of male eating disorders, in contrast to her anecdotes about the emergence of conscious female desires? Is equality in sexualization more desirable, or a complete absence of sexual objectifaction? Would the second ever be realistic, and if no, is equal objectification and body unhappiness quid pro quo?