[For Your Eyes Only] is a collection of works revolving around portraits that are seemingly taken in private.

In my culture, when a woman is officially betrothed to a man, they are given diamond necklace. The necklace symbolize the woman's bond with the man she has chosen (or has chosen her). On one hand it is a sign of adoration, on another, it is a leash. All in all, it is a sign that she belong to someone else. 'To be owned' is feminine. To be meek, to be submissive, are all to be feminine.

But what if I take away the most important part of that notion and replace it with its counterpart? What if the object of that adoration is not a woman, but, a man?

Would that still be a sign of adoration?