|
RainydayNE -> RE: The art of sexual arousal ? (1/27/2009 10:33:50 AM)
|
see yeah, i kinda agree with that. if you have a problem with the inequality in showing frontal male nudity vs. showing frontal female nudity, then why play into it and show yourself full frontal?
just don't do the scene/keep on your clothes/get your insanely high paid lawyers involved
celebrities often take stances but rarely do anything about anything =p
religion has to do with it only in the sense that religion is often the primary tool of male control. "hey, god says you're subservient to me! what are you going to say to that?!"
but i think at its core it is an issue of male control.
you can wander into a museum and see TONS of "nudes" which are just naked ladies. nobody has an issue with those. the naked female form is an art object or it's unseen altogether, as in the sense of "muses," like in Giorgione's "Pastoral Concert."
the women are naked but they're not even real. =p
meanwhile, male nudity and erections were elevated to a hilarious level of sacredness. there were tribes where women who witnessed male "rites" would be gangbanged (seriously) and killed by all the males of the tribe.
i think the aversion to male nudity MIGHT come from something like this that's still lingering in people. i don't know.
i don't want to go out and see it. but female nudes are just as sexualised in a particularly gendered way, but people let that slide every day. it's more subliminal maybe, but nobody besides those chicks in gorilla masks seem to care.
if people are going to complain, atleast be consistent.
|
|
|
|
