What do you think of when someone mentions "men's entertainment"? Probably strip clubs, Playboy, pornography, or other penis-centric activities. Behavior once characterized by a pubescent seventh-grader has been established as the gold standard of manhood.
This attitude pervades the sex-crazed Western world. When in Italy a few years ago, I noticed frequent nudity during TV commercials. Almost every time a topless woman was shown, the commercial was for a cell phone. I have yet to place the connection between naked women and text messaging. While commercials shown in the United States are not quite as exhibitionist, they still suffer from the same sexual pathology.
Almost every movie that attempts to cater to a male audience will include obviously gratuitous nudity. Commercials that market products to men will likely include some female model. As the saying goes, "sex sells." Technology conferences that include product expos include the gratuitous "booth babes" that attract men by their pants instead of their minds. The same is true for auto expos.
It is easy to blame marketers for using women as cheap props and catering to the worst in men. The fact is, however, marketers would cease using sexuality in an instant if it didn't work. Society has socialized men into being led around by their pants. The few men that speak out against such insipid nonsense are instantly labeled as dweebs.
Historically, this pattern of male over-sexualization has not been the norm. Men who openly lusted after women were derided and viewed as dishonorable. Those who engaged in premarital sex where shunned by their families and communities. Women, for their part, would simply not tolerate men who could not control their libidos. The rule didn't necessarily hold for the cultural elite. Their morals have always been more flexible in every time and civilization. However, they still maintained the public facade of fidelity.
The rise of feminism and the sexual revolution has altered this dynamic. Previously, women generally opposed male sexual wanderlust. Women used their position to enforce, to some extent, male sexual fidelity. The sexual revolution and the brands of feminism that drove it dealt with the problem differently.
The anecdote most commonly heard is how unfair that a man who sleeps around is a "stud" and a woman who does the same is a "slut." The implication that generally follows is that a woman should be allowed to be just as promiscuous as men seem to be. It was quietly assumed that the worst men among us were the model of manhood and then held up as a model for women to emulate.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Elvira Black
John:
"Middle School Girls Gone Wild" very interesting. In it, a parent bemoans the fact that young girls are encouraged, even applauded, for participating in school "shows" where they attempt to emulate the Brittany Spears "ideal." In contrast, the author notes that no boy at this age would ever be seen gyrating provocatively in public this way--rather, he would most likely be busy on the ballfield. I have to say that if I were a parent, this trend would be rather troubling to me.
Provocative piece. Here's my take:
Despite what may be perceived as the hyper-sexualization in our media, violence is still the most fetishized aspect of our culture. Folks get bent out of shape over Janet Jackson's nipple, but no one seems to object to extremely violent movies and TV shows. Not that I am a prude or a censor, but there does seem to be this cultural disconnect in the US.
I think that adolescents will certainly be--well--adolescents. Sex is a natural, powerful urge, and demonizing it in and of itself is not realistic nor necessarily desirable. Though I do not subscribe to your view of premarital sex per se, it does seem regrettable that its "abuse" can so often lead to heartbreak, emotional emptiness, and unwanted pregnancy.
However, I think it's a good thing that the double standard of old has been overturned to some extent. Women should have the freedom to pursue their sexuality in whatever way they choose.
In any case, you might find this piece from the NY Times on
2 - Elvira Black
Sorry: here's the link,hopefully.
3 - Richard Rothstein
Yikes. As a gay man I was fascinated by this piece. As a gay activist I've spent too much time doing battle over the gay community's emphasis on the gay version of the entertainment you describe. Contrary to the neo-conservative view that gay America pours vast sums of money and time into the "gay agenda", the reality is that as a minority gays do less for themselves than any other minority, spending most of their time and money on "men's entertainment." I suppose it's comforting to see this is a men's problem and not a gay problem.
4 - John Bambenek
Elvira-
Violence is another program... but that's also another column. :)
Richard-
I hadn't thought of that group actually when writing the article, mostly because I have little to no insight into it and didn't figure anything I read on the web would be helpful in getting one. Thanks for pointing that out.
5 - Michael J. West
There's a lot to agree with in this one, John. A HELL of a lot. But there's an assumption that I want to--not necessarily disagree with, per se, but challenge.
When in Italy a few years ago, I noticed frequent nudity during TV commercials. Almost every time a topless woman was shown, the commercial was for a cell phone. I have yet to place the connection between naked women and text messaging. While commercials shown in the United States are not quite as exhibitionist, they still suffer from the same sexual pathology.
What I want to challenge is the idea that the nudity on Italian television (or any European television, where nudity is much more prevalent) represents sexual pathology; I wonder if the opposite is true.
Put simply, the dynamic is much more complex and contradictory in American media. We, American males, are first socialized that nudity is taboo--especially female nudity--then are shown various stages of female nudity in an attempt to titillate us.
Sex sells because of our hormonal responses, but also because it's considered scandalous on some level. At least, in the U.S. it is.
To contrast with your mention of Italy and TV commercials: when I was in Germany last year, I saw frequent public nudity. Women, of all ages and body types, would go out on sunny days and sit by the river, and remove their clothes. Men did this too, but being a straight man it was the women I mostly noticed.
There was no ruckus raised, nobody stopping to stare or point or scream, no parents running to cover their childrens' eyes. Why? Because that's part of their socialization in Germany. Nudity is a normal and perfectly morally acceptable thing.
I wonder, if we socialized our kids that nudity was not a taboo or a scandal, if it might make that nudity less titillating? It would certainly make it less of a spectacle, which could be a start.
What do you think?
6 - John Bambenek
Well I would counter that in Italy at least, there were "adult book stores" on every corner. (At least in the cities). I'm not sure desensitizing is the way to solve the problem.
It comes to whether sex ought to be treated as nonconsequential and free or ought to be reserved and treated as "sacred" (or whatever particular secular word you want to use).
The problem with the former is that it tends to lead to a lot more problems.
7 - Michael J. West
Fair enough. But so does the latter.
8 - Victor Plenty
Do older cultural norms all treat sex as sacred? Perhaps a few do, but many "traditional" value systems have treated all sexual expression as corrupt, dirty, and degrading. In such a worldview, even reproductive sex is acceptable only if done the minimum number of times to conceive a child, and with as little enjoyment as possible.
Of course the modern culture of sexual promiscuity horrifies anyone with cultural baggage left over from the doctrine of sex as a corrupting influence. I point this out not to deny the problems arising from excessive promiscuity, but to suggest the best solutions will be found somewhere other than returning to intolerance and repression.
When people have the freedom to trivialize their sexuality, they can also freely choose to make it something sacred in their lives. Like every other form of value and belief system, this choice is more meaningful when it is truly free than when it is coerced by social, economic, and legal mechanisms of force and violence.
9 - Col. Mustard
"Behavior once characterized by a pubescent seventh-grader"
Whenever has a strip club been the behavior of a seventh grader? Thanks for putting your ignorance right at the beginning. It saved me time from reading the rest.
10 - Baronius
Victor, I could buy into that worldview if it were reflected in daily life, but it's not. I've seen people go crazy from too much sex, too little sex, good sex, bad sex, pictures of sex, and rumors of sex. It's dangerous. There's no point in history when people were level-headed about sex.
You're right that we have to avoid repressing it. I don't see that as a problem these days, though. We'll always err, because sex is so powerful; right now we're erring on the side of excess.
11 - John Bambenek
When I here about sexual repression it is most often because the person believes they have a right to act like a child when it comes to sex...
I WANT IT AND I WANT IT NOW!!!!
Part of growing up is being responsible for oneself and ones actions and making decisions intelligently.
If humanity is not capable of that, then the ONLY sound intellectual position is that we should NEVER be free.
12 - Baronius
Yikes! John, I hope you mean that we should always act with restraint. I'm sure that's what you mean. Right?
13 - John Bambenek
yes
14 - Michael J. West
When I here about sexual repression it is most often because the person believes they have a right to act like a child when it comes to sex...
They DO have a right to act like a child when it comes to sex. Whether it's morally or socially acceptable for them to do so? That's another question entirely. But they certainly have the right.
I'll go on record and say this, as an example: the strum-und-drang that followed Janet Jackson's tit-flash at the Superbowl was a far more childish display than the tit-flash itself. As was the very idea that any party involved had to pay a fine of larger than $1000 -- it was a puritanical temper tantrum, nothing more or less.
That whole ruckus was more "acting like a child when it comes to sex" than anything else that's happened in America in the past decade or so. But nobody seems to question people's right behave as they did.
15 - Michael J. West
There's no point in history when people were level-headed about sex.
Amen.
16 - John Bambenek
I thought the display about Janet Jackson was rather silly. I find it odd that they can sing the lyrics "I'm going to get you naked by the end of this song" and then when it happens people get offended...
Not to mention that the response was exactly what Janet wanted and many stars have covered up for their non-talent by "accidently" flashing crowds to get some cheap publicity.
17 - STM
Snigger ... good luck here John, old boy. I don't believe they're right, but there'd be a lot of men - and women - in my country who'd cruelly suggest you should get your hand off it.
But, look, as an unreconstructed Australian male, I can give a few tips to all you guys out there who don't fall into the meterosexual, new-age man category (or, as my ex says, "show me a new-age man and I'll show you a bullshit artist who's just trying a different ruse to get into your knickers")
OK, guys, here's what I want you to do: stop thinking with your penis, stop watching (or playing) sport, stop drinking beer with your mates, stop having the odd bet on the horses, stop going on weekend surf trips up the coast, generally try to be more responsible with money, and last but not least, that hoary old chestnut - spend more time with your girlfriend than you do with with your car or your mates.
And I can tell you how to do it:
Get married, get a mortgage and have kids.
Never fails.
18 - Clavos
MJW #14,
Wasn't most of the sturm und drang about the JJ booby baring created by the media?
Sure, there were some preachers who professed to be shocked, and the FCC had their say, but my impression was that, by and large, everybody else's reaction amounted to a collective yawn, from sea to shining sea.
19 - STM
We all thought it was a hoot that much of the so-called moral majority of America could be offended by Janet's mini tit flash (I mean, you couldn't even see the nipple) - while these same people swear they'll defend your right to buy an automatic weapon. I know which one is the more obscene.
Get your priorities right, America, or continue look damned foolish around this stuff to the rest of the world. Also, it's time over there to agitate for more topless and naked TV - not less.
20 - John Bambenek
I always get a hoot that much of the left's "defenders of the first amendment" would happily shred the second amendment.
Get your priorities straight... are we for the constitution or against it?
21 - STM
"Get your priorities straight... are we for the constitution or against it?"
I'm all for you having your constitution. It's a mighty fine piece of paper. But since it was written by the people, it can also be changed by them. That is what democracy is all about
... I just don't understand how a piece of legislation designed to arm civilian militias (with single-shot weapons) in the late 1700s relates to a country that in 2007 has the developed world's highest rate of gun homicide, per capita and or otherwise.
Let's get our priorities right ... you are either civilised, or you aren't.
All it does today is give every second street punk and redneck the right to own a weapon. It also ensure that America has a proliferation of guns, many of which find their way as a result into the wrong hands (including children and teenagers).
In the US: get fined $500 for smoking a cigarette in some public places (outdoors, too) but legally go and buy a gatt that can kill multiple people. Totally off the wall.
This insistence on the concrete infallibillity of the constitution, particularly where it relates to the second amendment, is the one bizarre thing about American culture I have never been able to understand.
The clue is in the first few words: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The English Bill of Rights of 1689, from which the basis of many elements of the early amendments to the constituion came, had a similar line, but they punted it long ago in the interest of law and order when it was thought, reasonably, to be outdated and archaic and no longer neccessary.
I would have thought the National Guard would now constitute the well-regulated militia, which was the real issue the second amedment sought to address.
The rest of it's now just an excuse to own a gun in a society that has steadily become more and more lawless.
22 - Clavos
STM,
We tried outlawing booze...
We've been trying for years to stop drugs...
What makes you think guns will be any different?
23 - STM
Clav: Sometimes it's hard to be objective when you live somewhere, and others are criticisng your country. But in this, I am speaking from our own experience. We outlawed (most) guns here a decade ago, after the world's worst multiple homicide by a single, gun-armed killer to date (Martin Bryant, Port Arthur, Tasmania) - but only the last in a long line.
No one gives a stuff that they're gone. We're glad. But up until then I'd reckon virtually every Australian male of a certain age and plenty of women had fired a gun. There was a huge gun shop down the street from my office.
If you really want, you can still shoot legally outside of a club if you go out to the country, where some rural-area exemptions apply.
The number of gun homicides dropped immediately to almost negligible levels after the new laws were enacted, and the cops now find it much easier to track down illegal firearms because there is no longer a proliferation of guns.
We still drink beer (lots of it, too. Fu.kin' gallons, actually), and in most states you can smoke as much pot as you like without getting in the shit provided what you have is reasonably deemed to be for your own personal use.
Controversially, in Sydney, you can even legally inject heroin if you go to a special injecting room provided by health department that has a doctor in attendence.
I'm not sure how good the last bit of that is, but if it's designed to remove some of the criminality around heroin, I'm for it in theory.
But guns? No fu.kin' way. I'm glad they got tossed. You might have needed one here in the lawless 1800s, and our right to have them was protected at common law, but not in this day and age.
Leave them to the cops and the Army. We've got enough problems without that shit as well.
24 - Clavos
I understand what you're saying, Stan, but you're telling me how banning guns worked in Oz, while I'm telling you that we've never been successful at banning anything in this country.
There are MILLIONS of guns in private hands here; MANY of them unregistered. I don't think they'll be turned in voluntarily if they are ever outlawed.
After all, the people who own guns, by definition, aren't against them, so why would they give them up?
That said, I'm not against gun ownership, so I wouldn't vote for banning them for that reason alone.
But, if ever they ARE banned here (doubtful, IMO) I do believe it won't be any more successful than banning alcohol or drugs.
25 - Rufus Brown
Exactly, and if we ban guns anyway, there will be no way for the impoverished brothers in crime infested ghettos to defend themselves from race driven police brutality. My parents owned a gun for as long as I could remember when I was a child in Camden.