When you search “Nick Jonas photoshoot” on Google, the results shed a positive light on the singer’s almost naked and well-publicized photos. Headlines like “Nick Jonas Blesses Us With A Mostly Nude Photoshoot” and “Flaunt It! from Nick Jonas’ hottest pics!” are among the first results the search will deliver. The only first page results that could be construed as negative are those about his father’s reaction to the photos – which is positive.

On the other hand, when you search “Hannah Davis cover” on Google, the results shed a different light on the model’s “scandalous” Sports Illustrated (SI) cover. There are two types of results here: those generally addressing her becoming the new SI swimsuit issue cover girl and those akin to “Hannah Davis Cover Shot For SI Swimsuit Issue Generates Buzz — And Controversy,” “Hannah Davis says Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover isn’t that naughty” and “Hannah Davis defends SI cover after ‘Today’ censors, critics call it ‘pornographic’.”

In fall 2014, Nick Jonas did a photoshoot with Flaunt magazine in which he is pictured with his underwear sitting dangerously low and in other photos, grabbing his crotch clad only in white Calvin Klein underwear.

The photoshoot pays homage to Mark Wahlberg’s 1992 Calvin Klein ad, but the photos are suggestive nonetheless. And more importantly, I would argue Jonas’ Calvins are sitting as low on his hips as Davis’ bikini bottoms are on hers. Yet Jonas’ photos are “hot” and a “blessing” while Davis’ are borderline “pornographic.”

This month, Hannah Davis’ SI swimsuit issue cover was released to the public and greeted with a storm of controversy surrounding the model’s low-riding bikini. In her photo, Davis appears to be pulling her bikini down. The photo is risqué and definitely sexy, but that is what the SI swimsuit issue is about. It is about scantily clad women in risqué swimsuits and positions without going as far as Playboy – it is a well-known fact, and that’s exactly what Davis’ cover is.

There seems to be a constant battle between those who continue to look at how far women have come and equate the distance to equality between the sexes, and those who see how much inequality still exists between the sexes and recognize how far women still have to go before equality is truly reached.

The controversy stirred up over whether Davis’ cover is “inappropriate” or “pornographic” is a perfect example of the inequalities between men and women and the endless double standards that still exist today.

Jonas, a former Disney child star and purity ring advocate, is now going out of his way to make his public image sexier and more adult as his career away from Disney and the Jonas Brothers is taking off. Despite his formerly conservative image and influence on the younger generation, his crotch-grabbing and nearly nude photos have not stirred up the amount of controversy as Davis’.

Davis, on the other hand, by profession is a model and has appeared in previous issues of the SI swimsuit issue. Kate Upton was the cover model for the 2012 SI swimsuit issue with a bikini covering the same amount of skin that Davis’ bikini – bikinis and showing lots of skin are requirements of the job. Yet, because of her gender and the stigma that girls who dress provocatively are “sluts,” Davis’ photo is more “scandalous” and “pornographic” than Jonas’ body-baring photos?

When looking at both of them, gender-based stigmas aside, Jonas’ photoshoot seems significantly more suggestive and provocative than Davis’ SI cover, especially when taking into account their public personas and jobs. However, neither is “inappropriate” or “pornographic.”

Both Davis’ cover and Jonas’ photoshoot are well executed and accomplish what they set out to do. Today’s media is full of half-naked men and women because sex sells. They are both equally exposed, consenting adults and therefore, should be treated with the same amount of respect