Sunday, December 21, 2008
Not very Christmassy but still...
Could not resist discussing this. I recently had a conversation with a male friend of mine (best he remain anonymous) who made a very interesting point about female and male nudity in film and television. He argues women are rarely naked on the screen because you never actually see their vagina. All that is exposed (aside from breasts and butt) is well, bush. He contends that the pubic hair is not their vagina. For men however, should their lower body be exposed there would be no mistaking the penis in full view. Their parts are not "hidden" and so are less often "nude" in film. This separation of pubic hair and body parts is interesting. I never considered it. Could it be? In consideration, there is no sensation in the lower abdomen area. Seeing pubic hair has no real enticement ( to those without a fetish) At the edge of the area begins the vagina but that is quickly swept between the legs where it can be protected in a sense hidden. It is even hidden from some women in many cases, imagine your most sexual, pleasurable body part hidden even from yourself! So the questions are: are men shown less in the buff because you can see their body part without trimmers? Are pubic hair part in parcel of the vagina? Do you have the same reactions if someone saw your bush as you would if they saw between your legs? I haven't concluded..practically it makes sense. The goods are a bit further down but ...are we drawing lines in the sand here? A naked woman is still naked even if you can't see her who-ha. If that is so then are men really stimulated by a naked woman or just the edited version of her without full frontal exposure? Are we back to the ideal again? The woman without her womanhood? Ignoring the power beneath the foliage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm not a pro on the subject, but I have had similar conversations and have an opinion on the topic. Surprise, surprise. I seem to have an opinion on every topic. First, naked is naked, whether or not any genitalia is shown. Showing genitalia is still pretty taboo, though for some reason showing breasts is okay. The interesting thing is, men really don't have body parts that other people would want to see. A man with his shirt off is okay, but for most people, seeing a man without a shirt isn't going to cause a physical reaction. I think men aren't shown as often nude on TV or movies is that frankly, they just aren't pretty enough. I laugh whenever I see a penis in a movie, but unlike men who stare at breasts or bush and have a physical reaction, I pretty much think it's no big deal. Because of this, woman actually have all the power. Women have a goldmine between their legs and most of the time they don't even have to spread their legs to reap the benefits. Women don't line up to see men naked the way men line up to see women. And even then, men are easily pleased and would be more than happy to see a woman without a shirt or bra on, whereas a woman may go to a male strip club for drinks and may not pay any attention to the show. So I think there are more naked woman in TV and movies because men demand, whereas women don't give a shit. Possibly because we have other things on our mind than naked women.
To post a counter-comment to Yankee Girl's blatant conjecture, we of the male specificity can often be found thinking of things other than naked women.
One example of many would be ninjas. The fact that they are fighting naked women with deadly water balloons is completely irrelevant. Seriously, don't pay attention to that part.
Yeah Al, I agree with you, the naked female form is definitely more aesthetically pleasing than the male form. We're pretty goofy looking.
Post a Comment