Suistudio 01

These Ads for Women’s Suits Are Going Viral for Using Naked Men as Props

This post is also available in: Spanish Portuguese French Thai Chinese (Traditional)

The fall ad campaign of Suistudio, a company that makes suits for women, has gone viral for featuring faceless naked dudes as background imagery. The campaign’s tagline simply states: “Not Dressing Men.” It’s a gender-swapped take on men’s fashion photography that has long used naked women as dehumanized props for seemingly powerful men.

In the photos, the men are face down, blurry, cut partially out of the frame and almost seem like the women’s possessions, no different from the fur blankets and cushions surrounding them.

The men’s inclusion undeniably brings extra attention and sexual allure to the ad campaign, but the women remain boldly in the foreground. In most of the shots, they look directly at the camera as if to say, “Yeah, I own a naked dude. And I look good in this suit. So what?”

Their suits run about $600 to $800, making them sorta high end. But then again, any woman who can afford a naked man laying on the leather couch in her fancy apartment can probably afford an $800 suit.


Here are Suistudio’s ads featuring naked men:

Lounging in style

Suistudio 02


A bare-skin rug

Suistudio 03


Just a statue in the background

Suistudio 04


“Opulence. I own everything.”

Suistudio 05


Those earrings though

Suistudio 06


The presence of women of color in the ad campaign adds another dimension of challenging traditional power hierarchies. It’s not often that we see black women standing powerfully over white male bodies.

RELATED | 5 Contemporary Queers Who Are Revolutionizing Fashion

Although tailored suits are often regarded as professional menswear and are often widely available only in men’s sizes, there has been a gradual shift towards creating such apparel for women’s and non-male bodies.

A few years back, queer fashion designer Leon Wu came up with the concept of “andropometics,” a method of taking measurements “based on gender identity and queer style.” Wu uses andropometics to custom tailor suits regardless of body type or gender identity at their company, Sharpe.

The move toward unisex and androgynous style has even compelled some department stores have gotten rid of men’s and women’s sections altogether.

  • Lala Doom

    not gonna lie. this is pretty hot.

  • Very cool.

  • Jonathan Markoff

    I want to be naked and prostrated to a strong woman like this.

  • germaine

    Great ad!

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Using naked women is bad but using naked men is good! That’s equality, because men are bad and women are good. Yay feminism, which means equality! Men are bad.

  • Gaby Gagnon

    you are so missing the point

  • Gaby Gagnon


  • booley

    lets see if I can explain this
    IF we lived in an alternate universe that hadn’t had thousands of years of sexism and oppression of women then nude women in ads would probably be just fine

    But we dont’ live in that universe


  • Tulani Bridgewater-Kowalski


  • Tzipora Hannah

    No, the point is, did this make you uncomfortable enough to comment? Yes, it did. So imagine how we feel day in and day out with our bodies used as accessories. The point is that we can post one thing and men get all butt hurt when we have endured this for years.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Today’s men should be oppressed because yesterday’s women were oppressed. Got it.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    So they are oppressing men because oppressing women is bad. Yes. Got it.

  • Josh Killcrop

    Well to be fair, ‘butt hurt’ could refer to either gender being anally raped…

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    In theory it could, true. I’ve never heard it directed at a female, however; and it almost certainly would be labelled insensitive and ‘sexist’ to do so, agreed? Again, the hypocrisy is palpable.

  • Sheila Fuhrmann

    So because you have never heard it applied it means it doesn’t happen. How about the term Butthurt liberals… Or do you think all liberals are male. . As a 65 yr old woman I expected to see a post calling it hypocritical. Have you watched the 1970’s commercial for Noxzema shave cream. I heard the same when the comedy on TV went from having dumb female characters to dumb male characters. Its an ad. And I would bet most of the men complaining about this didn’t mind the Calvin Klein commercials either. Or all the other sexualized ads through the years. And there were many. No much fun when the shoe is on the other foot is it?

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Please don’t put words in my mouth, regarding the phrase ‘butt hurt.’ Leaving aside questions of gender, its use shows a hypocritical insensitivity to rape.

    As for the shoe being on the other foot, you seem to ignore what I actually said in favor of a strawman argument that fits your conclusion. Again, I repeat, ads like this with any gender in any role do not bother me. What is worth highlighting is the radical difference in the desirability and acceptability of certain genders in certain roles, by those supposedly espousing a position they call ‘equality.’

  • Mochi

    Aww, does it make you upset to see your entire gender reduced to an object and exploited to sell merchandise?

    Does it?



  • Julia Detwiler


  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    First of all, these ads do nothing of the sort. Secondly, as I’ve alluded to twice elsewhere, I support whatever subordinate or dominant role people of any gender want to assume. That’s what equality means to me. I think these ads are fine. I don’t respect hypocrites who think these ads are great but would oppose the same ads if the genders were reversed. Simple.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Me: Nuanced argument.
    You: Personal attacks without any explanation or reasoning.
    Who is the real troll?

  • Julia Detwiler

    I’d hardly call making sweeping generalizations about feminism and feminists a nuanced argument.

  • disqus_UF5mY9tbNE

    The proven with your argument is that it is really only valid of women were no longer portrayed this way in ads, but they are. So, men being portrayed in the same way as women are is equality, is it not? If women were no longer portrayed this way, than you would have a point, but equality works both ways, it applies to both the good and the bad.

  • Keeth Ar Ostrich-Watsun

    This is why equity is better than equality.

  • Lawchick03

    Love this, but I hope that the “trend towards unisex and androgyny” in clothing doesn’t mean that everything is just going to look just like men’s clothing. For example, “unisex” t-shirts are just men’s t’s. These suits are feminine, but they are tailored and not everyone can afford that.

  • Jacqueline Salamanca

    This ad is sexualizing men today the way women are being sexualized TODAY as well as how they have been sexualized in the past. Call it oppression towards men when women are no longer having their bodies objectified as a marketing strategy.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    I made no such generalization. I characterized the positions that men are bad and women are good, and that ‘objectifying’ men is good but doing so to women is bad, as feminist positions. When Mary Daly, the reknowned and venerated feminist, wrote that we would need a vast reduction in the number of males on the planet, a few feminists disagreed with her; but no one claimed she was not a feminist. If that
    extreme and hateful position is feminist, then my characterization of a relatively mild, inconsistent, and much more common position as feminist shouldn’t startle anyone.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    I disagree, because ‘equity’ can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. But at least dropping the pretense of equality is a consistent position for those who love one version of these ads and hate the version with the genders reversed.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    It may have started that way, but now it clearly means something else. Your own link shows a meme referring to “anal hurt” and “anal crusaded.” Read your own link before arguing nonsense.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Again, no. Equality dictates that either both kinds of ads are good, or both are bad. If you think ads that show power differentials in a sexual context are bad (I don’t), then that must be independent of the gender of those portrayed — if you are to claim to be for gender equality.

  • Amazing.

  • Baldrz1

    Way to miss the point!

  • Rune Søsted

    2 wrongs never made one right, nor do so this time!

  • ElleJoraco

    I definitely hear “butt hurt” directed towards women on a fairly regular basis.

  • ElleJoraco

    Perhaps you should go back and read your comments if you feel you haven’t made generalizations… you even made generalizations in the same paragraph in which you claim that you aren’t generalizing.

  • Joy Nemecek

    These ads are great BECAUSE they highlight the inequality that has been standard by flipping it around. It is a bold statement that makes you think about why the image bothers you as an individual and us as a culture.

    If the women seem powerful; is it because of the classic ads
    featuring men’s suits and nude women? Or is it because being clothed when others are naked creates an inequality that is hard to surmount?

    The ad is SUPPOSED to make you talk about hypocrisy. Because plenty of men are yelling “Why can you do this to us when you don’t want us to do it to you?”

    The answer is: we’re doing it BECAUSE we want you to stop doing it to us. Asking men to stop didn’t work, so now men get to see how it feels for a minute. Maybe then the objectification of all people will be curbed.

  • Stephane Tetreault

    That is the thing, I am pretty sure the majority of males do not mind and are like “See? we don’t find it so bad, why do you keep complaining?”. At the very least we are at least 2 in this convo.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    For the fourth time, the images don’t bother me. I’m done responding to strawman arguments.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Finally someone who actually reads what others are saying.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Read what I said again: “I made no SUCH generalization.” If you want to argue that I made sweeping generalizations about feminism and feminists, quote a specific example.

  • matman4190

    Cibouwat I believe you have stumbled into one of the great rifts of our time. This is actually called the Great feminist sex War. It’s a divided between feminist on whether the goal is to reduce objectification Buy limiting all sexualisation of women or to embrace female sexuality and own it as a means of removing men’s control over it.

    This applies to this case because you can be a feminist by saying we should get rid of the ads that use naked women for marketing or you can say there’s nothing wrong with sex and those women are choosing to be naked because they’re happy and confident with their bodies but that equality dictates men also be used to Market because now they are sexually empowered female consumers who are allowed to admit that they would like to see an attractive male body. That latter faction is winning these days. Instead of saying sex is bad because there’s a power differential they embrace the power differential and state that equality is allowing it to go both ways equally. As long as both genders get the same treatment it’s the quality. Either we ban both because objectification is wrong in both directions OR we realized that adults can choose to be naked in whatever context they want and consumers can enjoy it. It’s part of the social contract.

    In short you have your feminists who are against the exotic dancing career and those that think it’s totally fine as long as treatment of the women is appropriate and fair. In the end the whole point is women should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies because it’s theirs and men should not dictate it. Having men naked in this ad and used as objects is moving towards equality and also helps women because it acknowledges that they have the right to think sexually and make purchasing decisions based on attractive naked men.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    I agree with everything you say, except when you write that the egalitarian, empowering side is winning. I would hope that it’s winning, but if this article and the comments are any indication, most are still stuck in the quagmire of identity politics, men-as-enemy and the resulting double-standard, and ‘patriarchy’ dogma as a shortcut away from having to think, or empathize with said enemy. Equality is really incredibly simple, but hard to grasp for those locked in a ‘war on the other’ mentality.

  • matman4190

    I would agree that the sheer fact that there is such publicity for this campaign shows that it’s a little bit of a “haha look what we could do” mentality. However, it also is objectively newsworthy because it’s such a novel concept. I think it makes sense for there to be articles now but maybe one day it will be so common and obvious that they won’t be. I think we both agree that there’s nothing wrong with this campaign it’s just the framework through which you look at it. If the same people who are clapping for this are those people who rally against ads showing women in the same position that I think it’s silly because you don’t win by stooping to your enemy’s level. Nonetheless I still maintain that even those people have a right to feel upset and said I understand the headspace from which ads like this and the response we’re seeing can arise.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Oddly this ads seem more novel to me because of the repeated and consistent depiction of a member of one race having sexualized power over another than for the gender difference. Maybe it’s because in my head, women are already routinely depicted as having power over men in both sexual and non-sexualized contexts, for example on TV shows and in movies of the last 30 years. Contrary to you I think there’s very little buzz about these ads. It’s no big deal, and nothing new.

  • Anon7

    ” Read the comments, people love this. ”

    You’re conflating original intention with inadvertent results. Unless you have a direct line to the marketing team that designed this, there is no feasible way you could possibly understand for certain their intention.

  • Anon7

    The idea that feminists hate men is a strawman argument upheld by those who are against feminists. Like everything in life, it’s the loonies who tend to be the most vocal. Anyone who is rational understands that not all republicans are gun-toting bible-thumping idiots who adhere to whatever x talk radio host is going on about. Most republicans are reasonable people who have a prudent perspective on economics, and are driven by specific principles. Likewise, most feminists just want equality for both men and women, and hope for better lives for their daughters. Matman4190 nailed the controversial nature of this ad: some feminists will agree with it (because they believe in objectification across the board), and some will not, because two wrongs don’t make a right.

    It helps to not over-simplify the other side’s perspective.

  • Susanna Finn

    Read all your comments and yep you’re trolling.. you e attempted to create straw men and derail the entire point of this. The advertisers aren’t responsible for commenters so if they like it that is on them.. the agenda was to highlight how women have been and are still objectified – mission accomplished.. as for your ‘butt hurt’ Argument you are wrong about it not being used against woman as has been pinned out to you over and over and you’re also wrong about its meaning.

  • Cibouwat Horsifomidom

    Your vote is noted; I just wish it had been accompanied by specifics, argument, or reason.

  • Susanna Finn

    That would mean something if I actually gave a shit what you thought.. happily I don’t.

  • John Adler

    Sounds good to me I think I got a decent-looking body I would love to have a dominant girlfriend