Men/Male Models in Underwear: Oscillations
between Eroticism and Art
Anirban
Ray,
Assistant Professor,
Department of English,
Presidency University,
Kolkata,
West Bengal, India.
Abstract: A man’s/male model’s underwear, particularly briefs, has a tense relationship with his masculine image. In the usual practice, the man’s/male model’s postures and background (the arrangements required for photography) are carefully selected so that doubts regarding the maleness of the man/male model do not rise. The article explores the nuances of the male underwear/briefs around which the wearer’s/model’s maleness revolves. These aspects are perceived in the Indian context, by looking at (i) wrestlers in traditional Indian “langot” in “Akharas,” (ii) masseurs/clients in “langot”/briefs in massage sessions, (iii) self-presentation in underwear/briefs, and (iv) “male fitness models” in briefs and self-exhibition in underwear on “social media” accounts, and the connections between underwear and male workout sessions. Thoughts have been given on the connections between underwear and the expected/desired/conveniently identifiable expressions of masculinity/maleness. The article explores if a middle ground can be reached in which underwear balances eroticism and art in projecting/celebrating the contours of the male bodies.
Keywords: Maleness, masculinity, male underwear photography/images
Introduction
The sensual appeal surrounding fitness-conscious men/male “influencers” and gym-sculpted male models finds titillating expressions through male underwear modeling/photography. Besides modeling career, as gym-going for general men has increased along with rising awareness regarding fitness and desirability, male visual self-projections in underwear/briefs have also made daring progress through “underwear selfies” (often in front of mirrors) in both gym-spaces and domestic spaces, posted on social media. Many Indian men, who perform workouts but are not professional models, have also picked up the trend of “underwear selfies,” offering themselves visually for validation.
Male “Underwear selfie”
The “underwear selfie” using mirror reflection is an
interesting practice/performance combining confidence and self-advertisement.
It is an instinctual expression from a man undergoing/experiencing bodily changes
through workout-routines, feeling the urge to put himself up as an exhibit.
Though it is not a customary ritual, the underwear/brief seems to compliment
the male physique which is gradually tightening its abs and developing biceps,
chest and thighs. This resonance between the briefs and the physique is both
subconscious and conscious, and seems to visually state personal physical
achievement. When a man takes a selfie in briefs in front of the mirror, his
gaze focuses on himself viewed on his phone-screen while trying to take a
click. His briefs-clad body is presented to the viewer, and a loop/circuit of
self-validation and self-offering is simultaneously generated. When he decides
to take the selfie with his eye-contact at the viewer (or at his reflection on
the mirror), the invitation to enter in the intimate space of both the male
figure and his briefs is rendered more conspicuous. The underwear selfie
constitutes two aspects: (i) an intimate moment of self-mapping which involves
partnership between the male body, the briefs, the mirror and the phone-camera,
and (ii) the exposure generated immediately upon the posting of the “underwear
selfie” on the social media.
Self-imaging
Though self-imaging in underwear has multiplied, a fusion between the male self and the male underwear lacks smooth transition. As Barry Rodgers notes, the selection of underwear, in terms of health concerns and “looks,” still does not occupy thoughtfulness in the majority of the Indian men’s minds (“The Men’s Underwear Segment in India”). Rodgers observes that the lack of fitness which results in “societal stigma,” often discourages men, who are not “celebrities,” from showcasing their bodies in underwear, for modelling and photography (“The Men’s Underwear Segment in India”). Edisol Wayne Dotson makes a significant observation that in terms of “consumeris[m],” “femininity” and “masculinity” are also “symbol[ized]” through “lingerie” and “underwear” respectively (39–40). Drawing the differences between (i) maleness in underwear modelling and photography, and (ii) just being a man (who is not a male model) in underwear for everyday usage, Dotson shows that men’s bodies are conditioned according to the underwear brands, specifically featured in photography to accentuate appeal for the male body (39–40). Thus, genitalia and buttocks receive focus as aspects of the male bodies in underwear, which eroticize the “male beauty,” thereby commercializing the male bodies, through merchandize (Dotson 39–40). In Indian minds, the separation of art from consumerism is difficult, as the majority love entertainment but are not trained to be impartial critics. The craze for validation thereby also leads many Indian muscled men to show their bodies for “likes” on social media and money-making. Lack of thoughtful comments under the photos of many Indian men in underwear also seems not to deter them, since in general we are not much trained to generate appraisal of the male bodies leaving aside sexual functioning and aspect.
Male tension and identity in underwear
For men, objectification in underwear can also be fueled with prejudice and instant homophobia. We might look at a photograph/artwork of two female figures clad in bras and bikinis/panties sharing a space, and assess the setting as a safe space of mutual trust, and comprehend the artwork as potentially artistic. Two/three men clad in briefs/underwear in any visual representation might be difficult to take in without some cognitive resistance, particularly when such photographic example is spatially and temporally separated from the origin (that is, the place/time/context of photography). The latter (that is, the visuals of two men in underwear together) may get classified as “(gay) erotic art” even when it might be a common sight for two men to be in underwear in front of each other in given settings like hostels, changing rooms (in case of sportsmen) or in wrestling grounds (in case of “Akharas”) or swimming practices by male participants. So, even if we are comfortable with the casual context of two male acquaintances present only in underwear, the photographed representation and published/featured exhibition of the same (that is, as two male figures or as two male underwear models) however elicit a different perspective especially when viewed by a largely “heteronormative” audience.
The hint of the male genitalia perceivable under the underwear/briefs indicates a tense moment, before the man exposes and makes himself available in terms of desire and sexual response/performance. These expressions of power/performance still majorly remain as “heteronormative.” The straightness of the male photographer or the male artist of figures also faces inquiry/speculation if he decides to render the hint of the genitals of the male model more conspicuous. In simplification, the sexual orientation of those men will be questioned, since viewers often sexualize the physique of the male model in underwear. To desexualize the image, instead of the exclusive attention to the “package” (the term used for the male genitalia beneath the underwear in urban slang), the contours of the male crotch may be aesthetically focused upon, treating it as a stand-alone art, separating it from any preferred show of action or virility. This perception can be corroborated if we welcome all types of male body shapes in underwear.
Inculcation of such alternative perspectives regarding male representations require time and sensibility. Denise Kervin notes that from photography and marketing it can be perceived that the “masculini[zation]” of the underwear itself is also an aim; thus, the underwear acts as an “extension” of the male wearer (67, 51–70). Anthea Callen perceives that a subtle difference exists between the workout-based growth of muscles (usually popular for underwear modeling) and the uneven distribution of muscles visible in men who are hard “working” laborers (Callen 17–41; Callen cited in Judith Still 8; Still 8, 1–14). This is crucial if we perceive that the choices of backgrounds for a posing male underwear model bear this ambience of strength: for example, (i) workouts in briefs and/or posing in briefs surrounded by gym instruments and (ii) massages offered to men in briefs exude the rigor of the male body experiencing benefits of exercise and development. Such images stir even the male heterosexual aspiring gym-goers; they create a sensationalism towards the male body which is made to receive either adoration or attention.
Man-to-man massage videos have gained much viewership in India; however, in many contexts, the intention of such videos crosses the benefits of traditional treatment and spills over eroticism. As perceived in Andro T. Tabiolo’s article, “The Unknown World of Male Masseurs,” the line between sexual touching/activity for pleasure, and touching for treatment, sometimes get blurred (45–46, 44–70). To garner more views, (male) masseurs may bring in well-built men or male models. To draw viewers, in many videos, briefs are chosen, not only to enable contact, but also to retain visual stimulation in the massage videos. The moments of tension between the client and the masseur may involve the client’s physiological response to the touches/contacts induced by the masseur, primarily the male client’s supposedly unintended penile erection (Kaldenbach 20, 1–36). Wearing briefs may contain the erection but can also make the physiological response more conspicuous through the bulge. Thus, massage, briefs, and sexuality exist in an unpredictable trajectory of reactions. The briefs provide comfort to the male client who receives the massage and the client’s briefs provide required exposure to the male masseur who provides the massage. Simultaneously, the overall display of the male body in briefs may cater to some viewers’ interests and erotic desires.
Spiritual aspect
However, minimal clothing seems to have a non-erotic significance in traditional Indian consciousness. If we use the words “inner garment” for “underwear,” the aspects concerning masculinity and maleness change, and for the spiritual register in Indian Hindu perception, this carries an esoteric significance. In the online English translation of Sri Adi Shankaracharya’s composition “Kaupina Panchakam” available on Shlokam, wearing the “Kaupina,” the (male) genital “cotton cloth,” is one of the attributes of “Sanyas” (Adi Shankaracharya, “Kaupina Panchakam”; translator unknown). The five stanzas of the “Kaupina Panchakam” maintain that the individual who wears “the loin-cloth” in the midst of nature is able to control his sensual instincts; he perceives “the bliss of Brahman,” and gains awareness of the physical and mental alterations (Adi Shankaracharya, “Kaupina Panchakam”; translator unknown). It can be perceived here that the wearer of the “Kaupina” is an individual who has broken free from the restrictions and confinements of the household and is also able to move around without attachment. The “construct” of Indian (spiritual) masculinity in connection with the inner garment therefore contrasts heavily with the prospects and aims of underwear-modelling having originated in the West. While the male model titillates in/with his briefs, drawing others towards himself, the “Kaupina”-wearing individual seeks detachment, being aware of himself and the “Samsara” (Adi Shankaracharya, “Kaupina Panchakam”; translator unknown). It can thus be inferred that the “Kaupina”-wearing (or “Langot”-wearing) Indian wrestlers, with their bodies smeared with sand, differ from the briefs-wearing sweaty bodies of gym-fit Indian men posing during and after the workouts, surrounded by instruments for workout. Both the scenarios generate raw masculinity and maleness, but with differences in terms of effect. The “Akhara” features the space for practice and strength, the burly male bodies in the “Akhara” may or may not inspire pursuit of desire. The spaces of the gyms filled with fit men, posing in briefs, project the availability of potency that may instill desire. Thus, the photographs of “Kaupina”-wearing men armed with the “Mudgar” may generate reverence and awe, but not a conventional titillation, which may be perceived in case of men in tight briefs holding and flexing dumbbells, and posing for photos for dissemination on the social media.
Maleness and underwear/briefs
The unkept “male beauty” can also be discerned in the midst of the Indian working-class male laborers toiling in the dirt and dust and sweating in the sun. Following the perception given by Callen (Callen 17–41; Callen cited in Judith Still 8; Still 8, 1–14), it can be perceived that the Indian male laborers’ bodies, though strong, generally lack the uniformed proportion attributed to workout, training, and diet; thereby the male laborers are not assigned as underwear male models even when they are masculine in terms of hard labor. In terms of underwear photography and consumerism, the requisite “labor” involves “workouts.” The photography of “fitness models” in underwear reconfigures the perception of strength in terms of desire and eroticism, removed from the dust and dirt of manual and industrial toil and redirecting it to the private space of the bedroom or domestic interiors. Our consciousness and preferential mindset attach more importance to the physique that titillates us. The figures acquire a formulaic structure, which are featured through photos of “fitness models” and trainers posing in briefs, either in gym-spaces, surrounded by instruments or in hotel spaces breathing poshness and/or domestic comforts. Unfortunately, the titillating desire arising in response to the sculpted male body in underwear/briefs does not project due reverence to the preceding discipline, filled with exhaustion, physical pain, and dedication that resulted in the body complimented by the underwear. Even though the Indian male gym-goer and the Indian male laborer gain strength through pains, the “male beauty” of the gym-goer in underwear photography, following careful editing, inspires rather sensual pleasure. Thus, the evaluation of Indian “male beauty” in the sector of body-photography gets aligned with a commercialized perspective and urban and metropolitan essence; desire and gratification do not leave much scope for aesthetic assessment of “male beauty” outside eroticism.
Ironically, as Reid Gilbert notes, the male model’s physique is subject to sanctioning and “punish[ment]” despite the sheer assertion of the maleness of the figure attempted to be shown “as [a] sexual object” (482–483, 477–488). Gilbert perceives that an oscillation exists between appeal and apprehension in watching “the male body,” which tries to assert its “sexually potent gaze” upon the onlooker (483, 477–488). This visual rhetoric aiming for physical appeal also limits the range of depictions of the male figure/model in underwear. For example, representations of men in underwear working out, or lifting weights, or riding or posing with a motorcycle, or engaged in outdoor work seem to blend the male shape and male action with the settings. Visuals of men in underwear and engaged in cooking and in decorating domestic space (coupled with a partner or being solo) also might appear convincing for the straight female and the straight male onlookers because some couples might live in their privacies just in underwear. The domestic space, under the right circumstances, is expected to be a hub of personal security and freedom. However, the composition might be difficult to process if the muscled men are posing in underwear having tucked flowers on their ears/hair and/or wearing garlands and jewelry. These additional objects do not conveniently bond with the briefs. Thus, comfort or discomfort regarding male underwear photography is factored by surrounding space, objects, intent and immediacy of the situation.
We have been conditioned to think that shaped maleness of muscles does not comfortably and conveniently mix with the supposed femininity in the objects of decoration. The discomfort in processing such visual possibilities, involving juxtaposed opposites (that is, jewelry and briefs), seems to dislodge male straightness. For a female model, flowers and innerwear may be combined to connote comfort and softness. For a male model, hardened muscles must juxtapose with the soft feel of the tight briefs; but, jewelry, flowers and briefs do not conveniently blend. The insecurity can be dissipated if instead of flowers/jewelry we have tattoo patterns spread over the well-built body of the male model wearing and posing in underwear. This occurs because the patterns seem to be marked upon or stamped upon the body that underwent disciplined roughness attributed to regular workout, and merge with the contours of the male body exposed in its raw rigor. Hence, the gym-shaped male physique and the snug-fitting briefs are fused to generate the sexualized image, and the fusion involves tension as well as a juxtaposition between dissimilar things. The soft fabric of the male briefs (or underwear) protects as well as resists erection, making the bulge conspicuous. This somewhat deliberate tension, coupled with the display of the muscled body, escalate sensual/erotic impact that attracts gaze.
We do not always get to know the temperaments and preferences (if the male models are straight or gay or bisexual) of the men who pose in such coded representations. The immediate evaluations of maleness are based on the postures and expressions emulated by the models which in many cases are erotically resonant. These representations harvest the viewers’ perception on/around the male crotch; even when we navigate our eyes throughout the male body, the male underwear/briefs locks and intensifies our visual attention to it. As Paul Jobling notes, men, irrespective of orientation, who are aware of their bodies, can notice the “phallic body” and underwear representations sustaining the masculine “ideal” physique (157, 147–162). However, even while straight men express a lot of fascination with the images of women in bra and panties, some of them may experience trepidation while observing the overall male figure and his private part covered as well as suggestively hinted by the underwear. It can be noted here that unnecessary sexual hints in the minds of the viewers may be formed upon watching the activities performed by men in close company. Thus, the Indian “Pehlwans” changing “Langots” or engaged in mutual wrestling on the ground getting covered with dirt, dust, and sand do not connote sexualization though such activities involve intimate contact with force, but not intimate touching with desire. However, two men in briefs in bed, irrespective of the context, may raise questions, since the bed and the wrestling ground feature two patterns of closeness and assertion. The rhythms in mutually consensual lovemaking are sharply contrasted with the mutual assertion of force in wrestling. Thus the “Langots” worn by the strong “Pehlwans” project a natural masculinity while the gym-toned bodies in tight briefs signal an appeal that is woven with consumerism.
In contrast to a woman’s bikini/panty, a man’s (or a person in possession of a penis) underwear/briefs resonates with his stimulation and sexual response. This response, known in colloquial term as the “bulge,” is a physiological and responsive expression of the wearer’s maleness and health irrespective of the color of the underwear or any ornamentation or patterns in the underwear which the male model/figure has chosen or has been given. In the Indian scenario, despite the plurality of thoughts and in spite of rich traditions of aesthetic male projection in art and myths, sexualization of both female and male bodies continue. The film industry has generated a standardization of “body types” for the female protagonists and the male protagonists in different ways, emphasizing on muscled male protagonists. It has become difficult for people, who are not trained in literature and in the “fine arts,” to consider “male beauty” as an equal counterpart to the “female beauty.” In that aspect, the self-featuring of muscled men in underwear for self-promotion continues to add to desire and consumerism; it does not simultaneously leave space for the appraisal of male body in general and aesthetic appreciation of male bodies in underwear. This inhibition, however, may not be present in a men-inhabited gym, where occasional self-display in briefs may be possible during breaks between workouts. A man may even request his male exercise-companion to take photos of him in briefs for posting on social media. Interestingly, the creation of such photos for a man by another man in a gym-setting may not attract scrutiny, as both the subject and the photographer are surrounded by instruments and both are aiming for the desired physique. The underwear photo thereby resembles a visual entry, a documentation of physical growth to be used for inspiration by the male bodybuilders viewing the photos in private. The photos are also meant to gear public support through viewing on social media.
Conclusion
Men’s underwears in their different shapes thus remain and will continue to remain as carriers of sensual appeal. The underwear on a man is made to be an indicator of his maleness, and it hints at the procreative male genitalia; thereby it limits our senses to concentrate exclusively on the male virility of the wearer/model. It can be expected that the Indian male underwear agencies will try to bring male models of diverse body shapes and also go beyond conventional masculine postures and background compositions to feature different scales and shades of maleness and masculinities. The gradual move towards same-gendered connections through underwear, from the initial “heteronormative” context of attracting the female viewers may help to identify and release the tension and anxieties regarding the male body types and mannerisms. The male underwear photography, painting, and advertisements also invite further thoughts on genitalia, male comfort and style, and also help in re-evaluating the perceptions surrounding the human male crotch (beyond the topics of male eroticism), which can resist homophobia, create awareness of hygiene and boost bodily confidence. These representations of men can also support the opinion that men, like women, can be equally seen as prospective subjects of art. Even if the underwear involves a personal expression, men can also be non-judgmental with/before each other in terms of fashion statements and bodily freedom.
Thus, there is potential for men to
observe and preserve male beauty in art; the problem lies in the fact that
self-exhibitors may not be aware of the potential “art” of their own bodies,
and that it can be channelized in an aesthetic way along with the commercial
way. Some Indian reel-makers have taken up the trend of showing dressing styles
and stages in dressing, and have incorporated underwear as a component in
dressing while preparing for an outing. These reel-makers, particularly the
Indian men, respecting mutual consent, may invite male artists to their personal
spaces and these men can collaborate for figure drawings. In this manner, the
art of figure drawing can also be taken out from the spaces of art institutes
(category of “fine arts”) and enable non-artists (both as viewers and models)
to ponder that the male bodies, besides being potent sources of desire, can
also be independent natural works of art. The male underwear models and the
gym-fit men can be seen as “male muses,” and inspire both the willing straight
and the gay male artists to preserve the art of the male bodies. This can also
enhance the development of mutually respecting male friendships, in which the
male artists can also give equal importance to the male bodies besides female
subjects (thereby re-ushering the aesthetic exercises of the Classical arts
that celebrated the male bodies). Simultaneously, the hard labour of the Indian
male gym-goers can also receive genuine appreciation, since such art practices
will remind the male “fitness models” that male bodies are not exclusively
generated for erotic aims and pursuits.
Works cited
[Shankaracharya, Adi].
“Kaupina Panchakam.” Translator unknown, Shlokam, n. d.,
https://shlokam.org/kaupinapanchakam/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2024.
Callen,
Anthea. “Masculinity and Muscularity: Dr Paul Richer and Modern Manhood.” Paragraph,
vol. 26, no. 1/2, 2003, pp. 17–41. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/43263711. Accessed 21 July 2022.
Dotson, Edisol Wayne. Behold the Man: The Hype and Selling
of Male Beauty in Media and Culture. 1999. Routledge, 2021.
Gilbert, Reid. “‘That’s Why I Go to the Gym’: Sexual Identity
and the Body of the Male Performer.” Theatre Journal, vol. 46, no.
4, 1994, pp. 477–488. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3209071.
Accessed 25 May 2022.
Jobling, Paul. “Underexposed: Spectatorship and Pleasure in
Men’s Underwear Advertising in the Twentieth Century.” Paragraph,
vol. 26, no. 1/2, 2003, pp. 147–162. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263720.
Accessed 21 Jul. 2022.
Kaldenbach, Kees. “Massage & Sexuality. Ideal and Practice, from Sport Massage to
Sexually-Tinted Tantric Massage: An Exploration of Taboos in the Border Areas
of Massage.” https://kalden.home.xs4all.nl/auth/Kaldenbach-massage-sexuality.pdf.
Accessed 19 Sep. 2025.
Kervin, Denise.
“Advertising Masculinity: The Representation of Males in Esquire Advertisements.” Journal
of Communication Inquiry, vol. 14, no. 1, 1990, pp. 51–70.
Rodgers, Barry. “The Men’s Underwear Segment in India is
Packing More than Just Sex Appeal.” The Established, 5 May 2023,
www.theestablished.com/style/fashion/the-mens-underwear-segment-in-india-is-packing-more-than-just-sex-appeal.
Accessed 25 Dec. 2024.
Still, Judith. “(Re)Presenting Masculinities: Introduction to
‘Men’s Bodies.’” Paragraph, vol. 26, no. 1/2, 2003, pp. 1–14. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/43263710. Accessed 21 July 2022.
Tabiolo, Andro T. “The Unknown World of Male Masseurs.” International
Review of Social Sciences Research, vol. 3, issue 3, 2023, pp. 44–70,
https://doi.org/10.53378/353013. Accessed 19 Sep. 2025.