Robert Irwin Bonds Campaign

The Robert Irwin Bonds Campaign and the False Flag of “Double Standards”

There’s been no shortage of discourse about Robert Irwin’s recent Bonds campaign and specifically, the online reaction from women. Some are calling it “gross,” accusing middle-aged women of objectifying him, and (of course) crying double standards with the usual refrain: “If the roles were reversed…”

Let’s unpack this with some clarity and nuance.

Yes, gendered objectification exists. Yes, people of all genders can cross boundaries. And no, nobody should feel uncomfortable, regardless of who is in front of the camera. But this is not a mirror-image situation.

What’s missing from this conversation is context. Male objectification does not hold the same historical, systemic, and cultural weight as female objectification. The two are not equal - and never have been. To suggest they are is intellectually dishonest.

Women have been hypersexualised without their consent from as early as childhood, across media, fashion, and advertising. Often, they are positioned as passive objects for the male gaze. Worse still, this happens even when they are not performing or presenting sexually. Teenage girls in school uniforms, Women in boardrooms, Mothers, Sports players and . And often, the objectification comes with harassment, violence, and social penalty.

Now let’s look at Robert.

He is a consenting adult, aware of his public image, willingly participating in a clearly orchestrated thirst-trap campaign (complete with behind-the-scenes footage of him pumping weights to accentuate his physique). He is not a passive subject being unknowingly exploited - he is a collaborator in this work, using his image intentionally. That’s agency. That’s a very different power dynamic.

And let’s also acknowledge this: the vast majority of comments from women I’ve seen are self-aware, emotionally intelligent, and express discomfort alongside attraction. Many said, “Wow, he looks amazing - I feel weird even thinking that, I remember him as a child.” That nuance matters. Self-reflection matters. Emotional maturity matters.

So when men (or anyone, really) jump in to weaponise “equality,” not from a place of care or progress, but to deflect from their own histories of unchecked behaviour, it’s not about fairness. It’s about fragility.

And to those now shouting concern about beauty standards and body image pressure hitting boys and men… look, these are valid issues, absolutely. Though while two wrongs certainly don’t make a right, let’s be honest: nothing sparks sudden outrage over centuries-long systems of harm like the moment a man might experience a sniff of it himself. So hey, if that’s what it takes to open a conversation, great. But if your concern is real, then direct your energy where it belongs: at the media machine that consistently profits off unattainable ideals. Not at the women experiencing a fleeting reaction to a deliberately curated image of an adult man, marketed specifically to evoke those reactions.

And even then Bonds, as a brand, has actually been relatively progressive in terms of representation, especially compared to many others in the space. So, as always, before you spiral into outrage, ask yourself this: Are you actually mad at the right people? Or just more comfortable punching sideways than looking up?

The real equality we should be striving for isn’t the ability to objectify equally, but the ability to dismantle objectification altogether. To teach consent, agency, and context. To acknowledge power dynamics. To foster emotional intelligence.

This is not a mirrored experience.

You can’t compare a pothole in the pavement to a cliff face and pretend they’re the same fall or the same danger.