Jerome Cornelius observes that we can’t even talk about the male tool without nervousness and laughter. And he wonders why.
—-
“It’s incredible that they just cover their nipple and it’s not considered nudity”
The scene: my friends and I attended our first burlesque show, with headliner Louis de Ville.
The question of what would happen with a male burlesque dancer was what got me thinking. This is, of course, an oxymoron as male burlesque is not something real (or common, as far as I know) and YES, women are the marginalised sex and need empowerment spaces and redress. I am not knocking that at all, but rather wondering why there is still such a taboo around the male tool. Even saying it elicits a fit of laughter and nervousness.
In the burlesque show, Louise de Ville starts out as Louis. A male impersonator, the biologically born female, dressed as a male, strips down to reveal a strap-on dildo. He gyrates, as a male dancer would, spits on it, simulates masturbation and then, in a moment Madonna and Lady Gaga would applaud, lights it up with sparks shooting from the tip.
This is a move that is meant to take power away from the penis, detached from the male physique, and set fire to the symbol. The problem with this act was that it only empowered those in the room. It spoke to the empowered females.
♦◊♦
In October I watched Louise’s documentary, and in a double-bill feature, watched another documentary, In Their Room: London. Men (who are gay) were on screen (nude) talking about their lives and expectations in love. We were literally behind the curtain which is only open to certain audiences. The amount of penises were undeniable, mostly because they were literally in your face the entire film through. This was fantastic as it got the audience talking, and a few laughing.
In mainstream cinema, however, the penis still appears as something which is a) super controversial b) a gag to get audiences laughing c)an object of art. Like Jason Segel in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, or Michael Fassbender in Shame.
Why it cannot be any of the above is not my point; why it cannot just be, is. By hiding the penis, when everything else is on full display, including the entire female form, is hypocritical and merely reinforces the myth that it is something to be feared or revered.
It seems that whenever an actor flashes his junk, it becomes a sensational experience, rather than normal, or nothing. We don’t seem to have a measure of beauty for the penis, as uncomfortable as that may be to read. When it comes to female genitalia, they are usually compared and now, thankfully, diversity is celebrated. In television and films, the male genitalia is scandalous, usually ugly, even shameful. It is hardly ever beautiful.
♦◊♦
Earlier this year I read a poem I wrote at an event. Even with my preceding explanation (that it was a feminist statement, meant to take power away from the patriarchal symbol and was not literal), the audience still giggled at the mention of that word. The poem was my take on my anger about the world today. It was titled “I hate my penis.” For the record, I do not really hate it.
This plea for the penis could, of course, go the other way in which men become sexual objects and reduced to the physical, as women are. This is not that big a concern as our world is still a patriarchal one, but getting to know each other better could start with knowing what we’re working with.
This reminded me of how I was recently bombarded by two (female) friends who told me more than I thought. The topic somehow veered towards how lucky I am that I don’t have a vagina.
A few excerpts from this conversation included
– “slimy”
– “clotting”
– “and that’s why we have to trim”
– “discharge”
I’d heard enough. It appears that I too have a long way to go in dispelling my romantic views of the female form. I didn’t like what I had heard, but it was necessary.
In South Africa we even had our own penis controversy when our president objected to an artwork in which he was painted having one. Shocking really. The artwork was fittingly titled, The Spear. When we consider that he was indicted on rape charges, the protests over this artwork suddenly seem less valid. We as good men unfortunately come with a stigma already attached, and it happens to be dangling between our legs. Due to patriarchy, we come with a certain degree of power, and considering that most heads of state are male, the world is literally run by the penis. If we are to break down that stigma, we need to start reinforcing positive of what we do not see, or want to talk about, whether we like it or not.
—-
Photo: lukasz-dunikowski / flickr
Just came across this article. I appreciate the discussion. I’m left unsatisfied by the back-and-forth about which body parts are sexual and which aren’t. The fact is, women are seen in full frontal far and away more frequently than men are. It takes a great deal of effort to hide a penis in male full frontal, yet it almost always is hidden. It would take a great deal of effort to show a full female genitalia (the Georgia O’Keeffe view), so it isn’t surprising that we don’t see that in full frontal. The whole human form combined, male or female,… Read more »
@John Gottman Anderson Please explain to me how the argument that a man’s nude chest exposes his parts? What functionally does the man’s chest do that could ever lead one to that conclusion? You cannot compare it to a woman’s breasts as they can and are used for breastfeeding in the cycle of reproduction between humans. What, pray tell, purpose does the male chest and nipples serve for it to be viewed on the same plane of ‘exposal’? Regarding the vagina, I’ve already expressed my peace on that subject. Actually it is laughable that you want me to consider a… Read more »
@ Awoman “Please explain to me how the argument that a man’s nude chest exposes his parts? What functionally does the man’s chest do that could ever lead one to that conclusion? You cannot compare it to a woman’s breasts as they can and are used for breastfeeding in the cycle of reproduction between humans. What, pray tell, purpose does the male chest and nipples serve for it to be viewed on the same plane of ‘exposal’? The clitoris does not in fact aid in reproduction at all so it should be allowed to be exposed and be considered non-sexual.… Read more »
@Awoman, THANK YOU for the comments you have expressed here, I could not AGREE MORE with EVERYTHING you have written. “The clitoris does not in fact aid in reproduction at all so it should be allowed to be exposed and be considered non-sexual. Are you really suggesting that? I’m not even sure the labia majora have a reproductive function.” <— According to this comment, only female body parts that are used for the express purpose of reproduction, should be considered female "nudity." Wow, how convenient, especially when the male penis is universally considered a sexual organ, which, according to John… Read more »
Thank you Kimberlee! Honestly I found his comment so ridiculous I didn’t even bother responding. I was hoping another male with his viewpoint who could actually argue the point intelligently and not so blatantly dishonestly would post so I could continue the debate. But after none posted I completely forgot about this topic until I saw your response haha
@ Awoman “When you have a movie scene and have a man and woman both considered nude in the scene, and only the woman’s parts are viewable” Because you make the assumption that a man’s nude chest doesn’t expose his “parts”. When your first assumption is that men can’t be objectified, you’ll always end up concluding that only women are objectified. Now if you’re talking about genitalia only, outside of porn, I can’t remember seeing labia or vulva in a movie scene. Seeing pubic hair is not the same thing. I remember a medical modesty blog where an instructor cautioned… Read more »
To me, this discussion and the approach that is being taken to it is confusing, although admittedly its still intriguing, especially to get the male perspective. To me this is more about the penis being purposefully hidden so that it is not objectified and sexualized in the way women’s bodies are. When you have a movie scene and have a man and woman both considered nude in the scene, and only the woman’s parts are viewable, that is a clear indication of a sexual, gender hierarchy. Not showing the penis is a sign of respect. A sign of respect to… Read more »
Not showing the penis is a sign of respect. A sign of respect to the male actors that they do not have to make the decision to reveal their uncovered form….
Maybe its because I am a guy but I don’t see much respect in not having your genitals shown because they have been deemed ugly by default.
I wouldn’t say the penis is considered ugly by default. No more so than the breasts. I think what you’re ignoring is that women actually have to augment themselves to even give the ‘desirable’ appearance during those on screen nude scenes. Women, especially celebrities, tend to have augmentations just to avoid having saggier breasts or misplaced/misshapen nipples or whatever else have you. That means, the way the breasts fall naturally and ‘by default’ are not always viewed favorably either. If anything you could say directors are afraid to show penises in any other light other than comical, thus the nude… Read more »
When did I say it was fun to be objectified?
And if anything you’re the one trying to make this into a battle. You didn’t appear to be giving an accurate picture of the way male nudity is handled so I disagreed. You’re the one looking for victim status.
I find it interesting that there’s a strong and persistent perception among guys that their bits are ugly. A woman’s entire labia, vulva, clitoris etc aren’t pretty either, and neither are they regularly shown in the media. One’s vagina is tucked right up inside so that is definitely never shown! You rarely if ever see a woman’s actual genitals on TV as what we’re usually shown is the mons pubis and some hair. Unfortunately we still live in a highly moralising society that’s uncomfortable with anyone’s actual genitals showing, and a penis is much for out-n-proud than female parts. For… Read more »
I personally think that the vulva – including mine – is quite alarming and strange in appearance. Sex organs are functional, not aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Female genitalia are naturally hairy, wrinkly, and have strange hanging bits (which even many men don’t like to see, hence the surgically altered state of porn actresses). The vulva is never shown in films other than porn.
I think the point she was trying to make is that it is no fun knowing one is objectified based on one’s body parts even if people are valuing them because of it, and that if we collectively “enjoyed” the visuals of men’s bodies to the point where we objectified them also, it might not feel nice for guys either, even if in the process the penis becomes something we look at and go “ah, isn’t it pretty”. I don’t doubt that it would not feel nice for guys to be objectified. However the mere that fact that men are… Read more »
It’s vulva, not vagina here.
Thank you for starting this conversation. I was recently in conversation with some women about one of the key differences in the way men and women regard their genitals. Outside of the cultural influences, women do not actually physically handle their genitals the way or to the extent that men do. In fact, there is apparently a movement among women massage therapists (I am a licensed therapist as well) to encourage women to do self pelvic massage that gets them working with their ovaries and uterus to get to “know” them. Men constantly touch themselves or are aware of their… Read more »
I just read your post, Adam, and I really enjoyed it. You make some good points. Ultimately, whether it’s good or bad, I’m glad the conversation is ongoing. And in your case, I’m glad it’s a well-written and though out piece.
2 years ago in my city there was an art exhibition titles “nude men”. http://www.leopoldmuseum.org/en/exhibitions/46/nude-men The posters advertising it were all over the city. They caused a quick scandal and after a couple of days black bars were glued over the penises on all the posters. The exhibition itself was bad for a different reason: Most modern artists (or at least those that get financial support and don’t have to worry about selling stuff) pride themselves on only showing the uglyness of life and try to shock the audience as well as they can. Suffice to say, showing the profound… Read more »
Well then that exhibition and your comment are at least keeping the conversation alive. In a perfect world, the male body would be nothing more than just a body. The image in that link seems pretty tame, and not at all vulgar (not sure if that was the actual display from the exhibition). Seems we;ve come a long way since that David statue, which was revered for its beauty.
Yes, that is the actual picture which was censored by a big black bar covering all genitals from right to left. But it’s not the museums fault, they are very progressive. I especially loved how at one point they had a “men’s day” where at that day men could visit the museum for free and get special guided tours, after they had offered the same thing to women the previous year. Equality. It made me happy. Then one idiot in my tour tried hitting on the female tour guide and my new-found confidence in the state of the human race… Read more »
“In mainstream cinema, however, the penis still appears as something which is a) super controversial b) a gag to get audiences laughing c)an object of art. Like Jason Segel in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, or Michael Fassbender in Shame.” One of the problems with looking at something with a political bent is that in order to maintain the same political stance, reality must remain static for the individual. It becomes easier to believe that nothing has changed then to change the ideas that have been accepted as fact. When friends tell me I need to look at life through a “feminist… Read more »
I’ll definitely make a point of watching Spartacus. I’m a huge fan of the GoT series and noticed that the females are objectified, but there was a fair amount of male nudity.
I was quite surprised about the boys being made to swim naked in the pool. That seems like worlds away. We’re definitely living in a different age when the body, both male and female, has been bastardised in different ways. Let’s hope that nudity will become nothing more than a word.
I disagree, if anything the vagina is held as sacred. You state that the entire female form is on display, but that’s only if you consider the existence of porn. In major cinema, you never see labia. When actresses are shaved, they are forced or maybe choose or demand to to wear merkins to hide their vaginas. Whenever I’m see pictures if nudists they are overwhelmingly men. I’ve watched BBC programming, the first and a few episodes of the second season of Misfits, a lot of male butts, one topless woman, no women nude below the waist and one close… Read more »
In USA, female frontal nudity is encouraged & celebrated while (discriminating against a gender,) male frontal nudity is vilified & a hostile atmosphere largely promulgated by men themselves exists. I think the problems are that we’re told how “unclean” males or boys are. This is discriminatory as well. It imposed a mindset that continued, and also vilifies and demonizes small built males and males with prepuces (very increasing numbers,) even while our Constitution has us school kids pledging EACH & EVERY morning to a flag that’s supposed to be tolerant to diversity in gender, sizes of people, and race! It… Read more »
Actually, male burlesque or “boylesque” is definitely a thing, at least in Canada:
http://boylesqueto.com/shows/
http://boxersarebrief.ca/
Ah, glad to see the old tradition of adding “man” (or “boy”, or “bro”, as it might be) to a word to change its perceived gender is still alive. As in “mansplaining”, “man boobs”, “man crush”, “bromance” etc. etc. etc. Oh how we laughed!