The one with the blue Schmuck
May. 2nd, 2009 10:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaI saw this graph* this morning.
Just a few days ago I was talking to some friends about Watchmen and one of the things everyone agreed about was how hilarious it was to see Dr. Manhattan's, well, schmuck.
Nobody cares about tits any more.
Mainly because tits are there for the looking. Women's fashion is designed to accentuate the curve of ones breast, bras are there to support as well as to enhance, cleavage is the monetary unit of the tits.
They everywhere.
And thus they are no where.
The penis in our culture, as XKCD put it succinctly is obsessed upon.
It's put on a pedestal, without it sex isn't real, in fact without it there is no sex.
That is what is called phallocentrism, that is to say, the cultural narrative focuses around the image which the penis evokes.
Penis origionally meant "tail", a "shcmuck" is a snake, in Hebrew the slang word for penis is "zaiyn" - זין - which, among other things, means weapon.
In Watchmen we see Dr. Manhattan's penis sway as he walks. But Dr. Manhattan himself is the phallus.
I was shocked to see it.
I knew there would be nudity in the film, after all, the comic book isn't shy about the Doc's nudity.
But comic books are not that easily translated onto the big screen. That dick may be blue, but it is looks real.
For many, this is probably the first non-pornographic penis have ever seen on screen and in the cinema.
Tits, very likely, the average viewer has seen aplenty on screen, on teevee etc.
Seeing a dick on screen is rare and special.
The cock, despite being a sex organ, is not defied as a sex object.
It is the thing through which sex is made.
Sex is of course power.
Seeing the source of power on screen, in all it's banal "glory" is not the way we - boys, girls and others - are used to thinking about it.
Which is why every body is talking about it.
We are seeing the source of cultural power.
The female body is invisible to cultural power, because it is by default powerless by virtue of being a sex object.
As I've said, we usually do not see the penis itself, we see the phallus - that would be a gun, a suit, a cigarette, etc.
Personally, I think the more male full frontal nudity the better.
Not because I want to see more naked men - but because it can be a way of levelling the image playing field.
If nudity is something that equal on screen, then maybe phallocentrism won't be such a huge burden on us.
*
Just a few days ago I was talking to some friends about Watchmen and one of the things everyone agreed about was how hilarious it was to see Dr. Manhattan's, well, schmuck.
Nobody cares about tits any more.
Mainly because tits are there for the looking. Women's fashion is designed to accentuate the curve of ones breast, bras are there to support as well as to enhance, cleavage is the monetary unit of the tits.
They everywhere.
And thus they are no where.
The penis in our culture, as XKCD put it succinctly is obsessed upon.
It's put on a pedestal, without it sex isn't real, in fact without it there is no sex.
That is what is called phallocentrism, that is to say, the cultural narrative focuses around the image which the penis evokes.
Penis origionally meant "tail", a "shcmuck" is a snake, in Hebrew the slang word for penis is "zaiyn" - זין - which, among other things, means weapon.
In Watchmen we see Dr. Manhattan's penis sway as he walks. But Dr. Manhattan himself is the phallus.
I was shocked to see it.
I knew there would be nudity in the film, after all, the comic book isn't shy about the Doc's nudity.
But comic books are not that easily translated onto the big screen. That dick may be blue, but it is looks real.
For many, this is probably the first non-pornographic penis have ever seen on screen and in the cinema.
Tits, very likely, the average viewer has seen aplenty on screen, on teevee etc.
Seeing a dick on screen is rare and special.
The cock, despite being a sex organ, is not defied as a sex object.
It is the thing through which sex is made.
Sex is of course power.
Seeing the source of power on screen, in all it's banal "glory" is not the way we - boys, girls and others - are used to thinking about it.
Which is why every body is talking about it.
We are seeing the source of cultural power.
The female body is invisible to cultural power, because it is by default powerless by virtue of being a sex object.
As I've said, we usually do not see the penis itself, we see the phallus - that would be a gun, a suit, a cigarette, etc.
Personally, I think the more male full frontal nudity the better.
Not because I want to see more naked men - but because it can be a way of levelling the image playing field.
If nudity is something that equal on screen, then maybe phallocentrism won't be such a huge burden on us.
*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-02 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-02 09:28 pm (UTC)I do love the praise.
Do you think this post rates as R or NC-17?
no subject
Date: 2009-05-03 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-02 10:30 pm (UTC)The female body is invisible to cultural power, because it is by default powerless by virtue of being a sex object.
funny you should say this. I've always considered the creation and manipulation of desire an aspect of the divine...thinking of grendel's mother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel%27s_mother#Arguments_against_Klaeber) (as a symbol of the matriarchal religion displaced by the worship of the aesir...and a woman described with exactly the same word as Beowulf, though sexist translators use "hero" for him and "monster" for her...same adjective) and cleopatra (as a genius fluent in 9 languages and one of the most intelligent and important monarchs in history) and goddesses of various descriptions...I worship Oshun, laughing goddess of desire and beauty in her peacock form, terrifying patroness of vengeance in her vulture form...powerful and worthy of fear and awe in both of them.
"I have compared you, my love,
To my filly among Pharaoh’s chariots"
that is, to neat ranks of stallions sent into frenzied chaos, the most powerful war machines the poet knew, shattered by the desire one free-running mare sent through the ranks, like a tidal wave. actual ancient war tactic.
I've always looked on that aspect of female identity, in its unrestrained and self-deterministic form, as something awe-inspiring. my pagan is showing...of course as a gay man my perspective on the power dynamic of desire is somewhat different.
I just asked a friend of mine how to describe this without sounding like I was trying to justify objectification and sexism...she said it had something to do with turning objectification on its head.
I don't know, I'm rambling.
Monica Richards said it better. (http://feralnostalgia.tumblr.com/post/102738681/faith-and-the-muse-boudiccea)
no subject
Date: 2009-05-03 05:45 am (UTC)Everyone's talking about the watchmen ... I should really see it and maybe I'll know what all the fuss is about!
Not that this has anything to do with the actual content of your post
Date: 2009-05-03 04:20 pm (UTC)