NO VAGINAS HERE. JUST HANDS AND PUBES. SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!
An edited response to a web posting.
Interesting how the notion of male nudity requires exposure of the genitals whereas the female would not be required to expose her vagina opting for an artily lit scene. Yet the two are sat side by side as a comparison. The over use of the male nude by Tom Ford to sell clothes is a joke. It only proves that gay men think only about their own self gratification and an inane desire to sexualise everything and take ownership of the male nude as their right to view in all circumstances. Ford has the immature audacity to correlate the penis and breasts.
The use of naked male imagery in UK media is out of hand. The BBC cannot make a programme without some actor required to be butt naked either in front of clothed woman acting smug and superiour, in front of his peers who are laughing at his misfortune or in some kind of subservient demeanour as though he himself were there chosen to appease the lies and myths associated with the 'exploitation' of women in mainstream TV of yesteryear. Rednose day 2009 saw not one but two male strip teases. Where's the balance there? Having said that, it would look out of place if a female strip was over seen by a male presenter acting smug and superior when addressing the female strippers.
Only today, watching Ross Kemp in Afghanistan, do we see a poor Afghanistani man injured having his clothes cut off to expose not only an horrific wound but his genitals. Meanwhile, a female victim is shielded by large sheets in respect of the Islamic faith. Yet the man is carried in front of her in front of the cameras his genitals exposed to the west. This is not just about a clear double standard in terms of privacy. This provided those of us opposed to the demasculisation of boys who are raped of the right to choose not to be circumcised with an opportunity to see its effects first hand.
The most private parts of a human being are his genitals. Yet there seems to be a clear double standard with this regard. We have perverted female producers thrusting naked young lads on the stage because they tire of female nudity therefore seeking to gratify their notion of revenge on some poor young man whilst denying any sexual arousal (Salonika WY Playhouse). We have gays demanding that the male nude is so mainstream that he can be used to adverstise breakfast cereal such is the desire. Yet we really have an incoherent ability to differentiate between the male nude, with his genitals exposed and the antonymous pubis whose presence is noticeable by its absence. Indeed, there seems to be a thrust of sexual activity on TV whereby naked male actors are required to simulate sex with clothed or partially clothed females. Even when naked, the genitals are not exposed.
Daytime TV is just a complete melting pot of 'womens' TV (driven by gays) where the women at home watching are required to feel it is their right to demonise men in its US/UK chat shows and drape themeselves with the notion of victimhood. Where the male form is required to be leered at by the notion of equality and empowerment at the drop of a hat. Where lesbian Ellen on Diva TV is required to act hetro to engage with her audience and lust after George Clooney in a swooney girly way. Where Diva TV announcers are questioning the lack of 'sisterhood' following on from a soap opera. Where naked men run to get married having being violated by his so called mates in order to sell a credit card. Where the female slimmers on Richard and Judy are applauded for their efforts whereas the males are coerced into a naked full monty at 17:55 on national TV. following their achievements. Where Dr Pepper seeks to humiliate a boy by having his butt exposed on national TV as part of its 'What's the Worst That Can Happen' campaign completely overlooking the fact that men seemingly expose their butts at the drop of a hat and 'appear' not to be bothered by it. But to use a female in this scenario would be unquestionably true to life. To the UK sleezy soaps and general drama on TV with their persistent desire to have some actor either caught naked, running around the house naked only to be caught by yes a group of old ladies, running through the streets of London naked and the myriad of other occasions that frequent the drivel of English TV.
Seemingly, an actor needs to get himself naked to have any credibility or to remove the shackles of a previous role eg Danielle Radcliffe of the Harry Potter series. But its those who feel this is a passage of rites that male actors have to fulfill in order to achieve credence that have the issue, that have the perversion. They act in shameful disbelief when people discuss the size of his manhood. What else would people do? Particularly when a little modesty would not alter the drama. The very thing that seemingly is the defining pinnacle of a man should not be public fodder. Poor Danielle Radcliffe is all over the internet with interpretations of his nakedness and actually secretly filmed images of himself. By gays of course.
The credibility of a writer is hinged upon the quality of the writing. The absurd scenarios whereby actors get naked are thinly disguised sensationalism in order to achieve notoriety and push boundaries as far as they can. Yet would be incapable of carrying out their own demands themselves.
Porn actor Kieran O'Brien went from mainstream TV to porn and back again. In the film 9 Songs he displayed his erect penis fully penetrated his co star and ejaculated. That is dictionary definition porn. Yet get a main stream director to brainwash his cast into this shameful film by the allure of a false notion of art and challenging boundaries over notoriety and standards, and you can not just get O'Brien to do the part but to also claim his family were looking forward to watching the film. (source Guardian) A perversion that not even the boys in gay porn would probably desire even the ones with the unusual relationships with their mothers. Yet, in contrast, the sex scene in 'Rocknrolla' was a delight of writing excellence and a relief for the actors involved. Yet we clearly got the grasp of their actions without any of Winterbottoms perversions veiled as challenging boundaries and blah blah blah. But that just proves it was an aside to the film and not an opportunity to gain more notoriety as is so often the case. '9 Songs' Winterbottom isn't even gay so it dispels my beliefs somewhat. There again his film is straight porn so no surprises there.
Is it apathy that renders men incapable of challenging not just the inequality of this, not the sensitivities of the young actor who would be deemed anything other than a good sport unless he gets naked. Not the pathetic whimpering of the gays demanding mens genitals on the front of the beano with a centre spread in the dandy. Not the inomprehensibly schizo attitude of inconceivable 'comparisons' to justify the demand. Not the lack of acceptance of the difference between the notion of female and male nudity It's the fact that to oppose any of this renders you a misogynist. Gay desire is the debate. No straight men out there are initiating the debate over the lack of exposed vaginas on TV and in the media in general. Nobody is picking up on the fact that Barbie does not have a vagina but point at Kens lack of a penis. Yet will compare actual exposure with reference as an equality as per the vagina monologues which, I am assured, is not a show for the lovers of pussy. Whilst a seemingly comparable stablemate would be the puppetry of the penis purely because the respective genders genitals are named therein. More sickening is the brainwashed dismissive manner that actors treat this whereas the female counterparts demonstrate their lack of comfort filming such scenes as recently as on the Jonathan Ross Show whereas men like to demonstrate they are taking it in their stride. There is the crux of the problem. Men are designed to retain the emotion with such regard. They would never break the unwritten rule to declare their discomfort in certain situations. They will always declare they are not bothered. Peter Duncan(formerly of Blue Peter BBC TV) even said this as an aside in a production he was in at the Leeds Grand Theatre in the late 80's when he strolled on stage stark bollock naked. 'I'm not bothered' was his response to the gasp from the audience declaring the disbelief and the dismay that the other lead, one Linda Lusardi, got no further down than a basque. Yes, the audience had been duped into attending because they wanted to see her tits and the promo advert declared her name and the use of nudity side by side. There is no correlation between tits and penis. Period.
Yet let me be the first, as a human being to point out, men too are equally capable of feeling discomfort in these situations but their hormones and society tells them to behave in a submissive manner and accept the smug superiority as displayed by women and gays in this situation. Watch how men are portrayed when a woman walks into the showers / changing room on TV and in film (and in life). Jubilant cheers. Watch how women are portrayed iin a similar scenario. Screams.
Lets hear it for the wonder of men. I for one think they are brilliant and society should stop objectifying them to settle a none existent score. A score that rests purely in Narnia, kicking snow with its mates oh and presumably Tom.
©masculistuk
