Friday, June 15, 2007

Take Me Out

I was looking at an ad for a play showing in Dayton tonight and saw this warning message attached to the ad in the local City Guide:

"WARNING: Contains strong lanauage and male nudity - not recommended for audiences under 17."

I don't think I've ever seen a rating system that specificed the sex that was baring all. I'm assuming that the assumption here is that audiences will find a flacid male member far more intimidating than a pair of breasts (the play is also about race and homosexuality - maybe the whole "male nudity" thing is code for that in case insecure het men decide to go and see a "play about baseball" and get freaked out that it's *also* about baseball...).

There's no reason why a naked woman couldn't be seen as powerful and sexually threatening and a naked man viewed as a docile object to be dominated. There are certainly *instances* of this, and much of the control of women and their bodies - what they show, to who, and when - is of course done because women *are* secretly seen as powerful. But it *is* a secret super power - the rest of the world doesn't want to code it that way.

It does make me wonder if the whole bluster about male nudity is just a big sham to cover up the fact that the naked man is just as vulnerable - if not more so - than the naked female.

Ever so fascinating.

2 comments so far. What are your thoughts?

La Gringa said...

There's always the fact the the flaccid male member looks kind of, um, silly. And may cause one to burst into peals of laughter. ;-)

Really, all genitals were badly designed.

Kameron Hurley said...

But I like my parts ever so much!!