Films/DVD Asylum

Re: My wife sent me this interesting article on Male Full Frontal

12.223.195.100

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

dennzio

(A)

In Reply to: My wife sent me this interesting article on Male Full Frontal posted by Victor Khomenko on February 12, 2004 at 08:27:12:

Pop-culture observers maintain that�s because a de facto sexism still exists in Hollywood, where women can parade around in the altogether but men can�t.
Women = fun to look at...men = hairy ugly, who would want a glimpse anyway? Besides, men are visually stimulated and women say they aren't, so who does that leave to view the FM besides gays.

Follow Ups:

Sez you. - Harmonia 22:14:54 02/12/04 (0)
I say, Ewan McGregor (Pillow Book) in the altogether? damn straight! Rufus Sewell (Dark City) nude bathing scene? Hell yeah!
Definitely not ugly. Hairy, but...excellent.
True. Plus, why do these comparisons of male vs female full frontal nudity always overlook this fine distinction.... - Dalton 20:55:59 02/12/04 (3)
A full frontal nude male is exposing his genitals. A woman, unless she is spread eagle and the camera is at a certain perspective, is still withholding her vulva from view even when shown completely naked. While you can probably point to dozens of "R" and "NC-17" rated movies that clearly show male genitalia, the vulva is seen in "XXX" porno movies only.
Plus, the article misrepresents the "male gaze" of a nude female and doesn't even chose to contrast it with the "female gaze" of the nude male form. In general, a man is attracted to the beauty of the female form. It's not a matter of power as many feminists see it; the man just feels sexual attraction. Yoko Ono (who's "contribution" to the world of Art is roughly equivalent to Hermann Goering's in many people's estimation) gives a quote in the article that gives insight to the "female gaze". A woman is often frightened or repulsed by the sight of even an attractive anonymous nude male; any pleasure she derives usually comes from picturing herself as "having it over" or being in control while viewing the male as "vulnerable" and "humiliated". Although men can certainly be crass about the nude female, when is the last time you ever heard of a group of guys wanting to go to a strip club to get pleasure out of women humiliating themselves in front of a group of powerful, controlling men? That simply isn't the "male gaze" - even though feminists, informed by their "female gaze", insist on portraying it that way.
Ever seen those ads on TV for the "Girls Gone Wild" video? The same producers briefly produced a video called "Boys Gone Wild" and advertised it along with the GGW tape. They probably did this to placate potential protests, so they could point to it and say, "See, we're exploiting everyone's stupidity, regarless of gender". How often have you seen that video advertised? Once, like I did? Never? I'm sure that feminists would like you to believe that this is because the producers are sacrificing millions of dollars to preserve the "dignity" of college boys. I choose to believe the obvious instead. It didn't sell. Because women, with rare exceptions, do not like male nudity even remotely as much as men like female nudity. So why must there be gender equality in the depiction of nudity in films? It's ridiculous.
- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Harmonia 22:10:33 02/12/04 (2)
  Here be dragons!
  Good grief, I gotta wonder about your relationships with women...
  As for male nudity...
  A man secure enough to be *emotionally* open (i.e. "vulnerable") can be very sexy. And yes...we like to look. Of course we do! A nice male body, all the male body, can be very sexy and pleasing to look at, on screen or otherwise. You think any pleasure women derive from looking at a nude male form comes from picturing "having it over" a man or "humiliating" him?????? That's sick. Worse, it's no *fun*.
  Do you really think women don't notice those lovely, round, manly asses in business suits, footbal unis and tight jeans??? The boxes on male dancers? You think we're only looking at Johnny Depp's or Viggo Mortensen's *eyes*????? You don't think we want to see the whole monty? Ever?
  I grant you, any old male dude just letting the family jewels hang out isn't necessarily erotic or appealing. (I've had quite enough Of Mr. Keitel, thank you.) Context is everything. I won't disagree that men and women react differently to visual sexual stimuli. But you are quite mistaken in saying women only rarely like make nudity in film.
  Equality? Done right, hell yeah we like it. But not only do we almost never get it, it's usually not well done.
  Bah, humbug.
  - Just to clarify my post.... - Dalton 00:48:23 02/13/04 (1)
    - Full frontal nudity is not the same for males and females. A female can depicted as fully nude from the front without displaying her genitalia. The same can't be said for males. Males characters in films or TV are depicted as being fully nude just as often (maybe even more frequently, and certainly more often in humiliating or comic situations) as females.
    - As far as I know, there is no general clamoring among the female movie-going population (with certain exceptions, apparently) to view Viggo Mortensen's scrotum in a major feature film. I admit, I might be wrong about this.
    - As far as I can tell from reading the article, it's primarily feminists (talking about "male domination", etc.) who are disconcerted by the relative lack of depictions of male full frontal nudity compared to female full frontal nudity. See my first point for why I believe this is a false concern. I have trouble believing that these people really desire to view Viggo Mortensen's scrotum either. Rather, they see it as a matter of sexual politics.
    Again, look at the Yoko Ono quote that was used: "I wonder why men get serious at all. They have this delicate, long thing hanging outside their bodies which goes up and down by its own will. If I were a man I would always be laughing at myself." It's not a matter to those who are complaining that they don't get to see and "admire" attractive men's genitalia in movies. They believe that women are being "demeaned" by being shown fully nude (in some cases this is true, in others not) and want more male full frontal nudity to "balance the score" by "demeaning" men in the same way.
    So, I think this "lack" of male full frontal nudity (and to clarify, we're talking about graphic depictions of genitalia, not bare buns) in movies is not a valid concern. It's not a matter of a "male-dominated" film industry exploiting women while not giving women what they want. It's not a matter of homophobic men refusing to tolerate it. If women truly wanted more male genitalia on display, it would be available. But, at least in non-pornographic movies, women don't seem to want it. They are content with allusions to full nudity, just as men don't want (and don't get) gynecological views of female genitalia in these movies. In fact, although there have been many instances of full male nudity, the closest we ever got to the gyno-view in a wide-release non-pornographic movie is the infamous Sharon Stone leg-crossing scene in "Basic Instinct". This caused such a stir that it is still parodied frequently today.
    - You've got it, man! - Victor Khomenko 06:20:45 02/13/04 (0)
      As I mentioned elsewhere, look at My Wife is an Artist for the great amount of full male frontal - maybe 20 good detailed shots.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

McShane Design

You can not post to an archived thread.