It probably would be.

If the genders were reversed, would it still be offensive?

Check out TubeCrush.net to find out. It’s a UK site in which pictures are taken of men – without their knowledge - on the London Underground. The photos are submitted to the site and then the folks at TubeCrush write captions like this:

Let’s play a game shall we? It’s similar to Simon Says, but this one is called Jack Will. Basically you stay stuff that you think he should do, and he’ll do it. I’ll go first…

Jack will…make my jaw hit the floor because he’s so hot.

Next up…

Jack will…take his top off….(well, we can dream can’t we?)

Kind of cute? Kind of cheesy? Yes. Offensive? Not to me. None of the pictures I’ve seen go down shirts or up shorts. They don’t show anything explicit.

The viewing and consuming a male body by a woman is different than a man looking at a woman’s body. The nature of what makes a man physically attractive is easier to talk about in polite conversation. “Take off his top” from the caption above, is a lot different than “Take off her top.” Men are generally more sexually aggressive and perceived as more sexually threatening than women. And a man gawking at a woman – especially without her knowledge or consent – can be threatening.

We’ve reached the point where if you’re in public, anything you do is up for grabs by a camera. (So, be aware what you’re doing.) When non-consensual photographs are taken for sexual titillation, though, and regardless of the shooter, viewer or subject, the whole endeavor still gives off a whiff of creepiness.

But it matters who the shooters, viewers and subjects are, I wouldn’t say there’s a double-standard when it comes to TubeCrush. A website with pictures of women for a male audience wouldn’t be the same situation.

What do you think?

H/t: Salon. See also: Good Men Project

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

Mel Gibson keeps doing it to himself. The list of his anti-semetic, racist and misogynistic tirades gets longer and a police investigation has been opened into the assault on his ex-girlfriend. And to further hurt his career, the NFSW audio of this conversation, which is purported to be him, has surfaced. [RadarOnline]

You may already know there’s no sex in the Champagne Room. There’s also no sex if you’re Middle Class. [New York Times]

Hot GOP. What’s behind the ogling and sexualization of Palin and other Republican women? [Newsweek]

Can you ask your church for a refund? This woman did. She sued her church for $250,000 – a portion of the money and gifts she claims she gave the church over 37 years – because a gay wedding was held there. [Clutch/theGrio]

In case you haven’t heard, Debrahlee Lorenzana is suing her former employer, Citibank. She claims she was fired after her bosses said her beauty was too distracting. On Wednesday, a 2003 video surfaced showing Lorenzana getting her second breast implant procedure. In the video, she said she wants to “look like a Playboy Playmate” and be “tits on a stick.”

That’s a slightly different impression from the interviews and articles we’ve seen of her over the last week. Her story has been that she’s a single working mom whose bosses at Citibank said her beauty was so distracting to her bosses that they fired her. Whatever she wore, the beauty that blessed her  (or cursed her?) was too sexy for Citi.

Photo by Carrie Schechter

Here’s what she said on Monday’s “Today” show:

What I’m trying to make is the point that enough is enough. I’ve been through my whole entire life going through this type of harassments [sic]. And I have done the other.. gone the other way where you stayed quiet. You just leave, get a better job and it just.. it continues to happen. And it’s the point that you say, ‘I don’t want to go through this anymore.’

After hearing that, it’s hard not to feel a little sorry for her. Which makes it sound like such a great story. She’s a beautiful working mom who was pushed around by the big bank. Then there are the issues of workplace dress codes, what’s too sexy and what isn’t, and tons of reasons to show more photos of Lorenzana and have commentators say how beautiful she is.

The new video, however, shows that some of her beauty wasn’t a blessing. It was a purchase.

I was skeptical about Lorenzana’s motives from the beginning. There was the cover story in the Village Voice along with the extensive and professional-looking photo gallery. There were the “Today” show and “Early Show” appearances. And then all the appearances New York’s local TV media. It was like she was going on a press tour.

But this video and her appearances don’t mean she’s not telling the truth. Her breast implants and desire to be desirable don’t mean Citibank did fire her for her looks. Maybe she and her lawyer see this lawsuit as a way to seek justice and are using her looks and the media to make some money in the future. Perhaps she could be a Playboy Playmate. Maybe she could host a reality show about working moms, personal finance, or people standing up to big corporations.

What do you think?

Does the new video change your opinion about Lorenzana’s claim that she was fired for being too sexy? Does it matter that she claims she was fired for being too sexy when she had plastic surgery to look like a Playboy Playmate and be “tits on a stick”?

What do you think about her making herself available for so much media over the past week? Would you watch a show with her in it?

Leave your comments below.

Watch Debrahlee’s Breast Enhancement Surgery – Long Island Plastic Surgical Group in People & Blogs |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com