In 1973, British film theorist Laura Mulvey described the “active/passive hetero sexual division of labor,” declaring that men “cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification.” You heard it: They simply cannot bear it. Pleasure of display is warranted in art; in film, it’s a requirement. Unlike men, women are naturalized purveyors of the sexually bombastic stares that are attributed purely to our bodies. And like art, it seems, we must enjoy the suggestive indolence of Jesse watching Céline as together they cart their way through Vienna in Before Sunrise; or fawn over the crisp intensity of Count Laszlo de Almásy as he, soaking in rapacity, watches Katharine Clifton in The English Patient. Or perhaps sometimes it’s even the sleight of the camera, a stand-in for the tangible male gaze, as we watch the sway of hips from behind float sinuously in a floral qipao worn by Maggie Cheung in Wong Kar-wai’s masterpiece In The Mood For Love. Women are bequeathed the gaze, and we are all too familiar. Historically, men cannot bear such ostensible prying and so women, in their stead, are forced to.
And now there’s Magic Mike Deux, aptly titled “XXL,” the second act of Mike Lane’s (Channing Tatum) journey through the life of a stripper-turned-carpenter-turned-part-time-stripper. As we reconnect with him through the high and lows of singledom (his girlfriend in the first film left him! What? He proposed on the beach! He bought ice cream! So cruel!), we watch as he builds furniture with solitary verve. Masked in normalcy, he seems idle, ill-content—maybe he should start stripping again? Ten minutes into the film, as he cuts through a blade-like piece of metal, the sparks flying strategically like isomorphic cum, Pony by Ginuwine comes on, the bass and the beat strikes the proverbial chord. We watch in protracted adulation as he sits for a while, contemplating his commitment to dancing, and yet—we don’t care. Start dancing, Channing! Shake what your momma gave you, baby! And eventually he does. His movements are precise, fluid and exact. His composition is punchy and cacophonous, and each push moves through you, the audience, as you watch, exalted. Delicious, like burning champagne; you want more.
Channing Tatum is a physical dream. He’s charming yet aloof; attractive yet mildly self-conscious. His jokes are off-center, not as rehearsed or well-timed as his comedic performances in 21 and 22 Jump Street. Last year at the Toronto International Film Festival, I watched him linger at the press conference of Foxcatcher. Squeezed next to Steve Carell, Mark Ruffalo, and Bennett Miller, he looked past the audience, fidgety and not at all agile; in fact, he looked stiff. Uncomfortable, he took the opportunity to explain that he wasn’t that smart. It seemed like a statement. A few months later, in a roundtable for The Hollywood Reporter for the Oscar Special, he repeated this sentiment with composed brevity. When asked what motivated his film choices, in stark contrast to the very British intellectualized snobbery of Benedict Cumberbatch and the pomposity-stricken-but-happy-to-be-here Eddie Redmayne, he sat dumbfounded. His answer seemed sincere but short. He just got lucky, he intimated.
This lack of affectation is Channing Tatum’s most compelling quality. It’s reminiscent of Matthew McConaughey before his recent “McConaissance,” like Matt Damon’s parody of him on The Letterman Show—the carefree alright alright alright, an innocence hinged on good American values. Like pre-McConaissance McConaughey, Tatum seems comfortable by being watched—though not necessarily by performing, at least not always. He knows he’s an entertainer, and he expresses as much, but he has no interest, it seems, in being a personality. That’s why he expects that gaze—maybe he even welcomes it—but only until he stops performing. Afterwards, he’s no longer a character of his own cherished cultivation, and therefore not for your consumption. Tatum is a man who seems to want a wife and a job; those are appurtenances of human life that he requires, and his interest in film seems to be purely accidental. He seems to lack the acuity of film language, but there’s an eagerness and a Protestant-like work ethic that shines. In fact, as he sits by the sheets of paper of his furniture designs, or by his DIY costumes for his stripper-convention in XXL, there’s a continuity of hardworking blue-collar appeal. Let’s not forget that Magic Mike is loosely based on his life as a stripper. This, his severity of work ethic, is what proves to be worthy of our fascination and seduction. His sexuality is based on how hard he’d work for you. As I walked out of the screening of the film, I couldn’t help but say, “Channing Tatum is such a ride or die!”
In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Chris Pratt—a man who went from being class clown as Andy Dwyer on Parks and Recreation to a white-man heartthrob du jour—said, “There are a lot of women who got careers out of [their bodies], and I’m using it to my advantage.” He added, “I think it’s appalling that for a long time only women were objectified, but I think if we really want to advocate for equality, it’s important to even things out. Not objectify women less, but objectify men just as often as we objectify women.” Which I guess is his kind of feminism: equality is just keeping it real for both genders, right? Hmm.
Marcelle Sauvageot wrote her memoir Commentary in 1934. It was a declarative, surreal exploration of her life after the absence of her lover and his marriage to another woman. French/German writer Clara Malraux affirmed, “Commentary should have been a milestone in women’s literature. The first book written by a woman that is not about submission.” Women submit all the time; we are a culture that hinges itself on female submission. In the introduction of the book, American poet and editor Jennifer Moxley wrote, “[the woman] must find happiness through him and for him. She must bear his gaze and be his mirror.” This is how it stands now: Socially speaking, like a ruby-red branding, raw and fleshy, women tease, strut and strip for the male audience. We do so because we have to. Women are always brought back to our bodies, whereas men have the choice to weave in and out of being sexualized. Yet even when they are, there’s no punctuation after “sexy!” there’s also “and funny,” “cool” and countless other enumerations to remind us that men are much more than just their physicality. Last year at the Emmys, Colombian actress Sofia Vergara was literally put on a turning podium like a circus trick. Look at her curves, Hollywood marveled!
For all its pleasure of the objectification of men, XXL is a stand-alone piece. In fact, even in moments of objectification, the men are, astutely, in positions of power. In its closing dance scene, Mike dances in a “mirror routine” with Malik (So You Think You Can Dance Season 4 contestant Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who never says one word) as they dance together for their pledged voyeurs. Two women are chosen to get a “lap dance” (squared to a hundred—as if you got a lap dance in all of the parallel universes in which you exist and you felt it in one sitting) and Mike’s offhand love interest Zoe (Amber Heard) is one of the “lucky ladies” chosen. Her whole experience of the “show”—as in being tossed around and getting her face smashed in with gyrating dicks, her pelvic area groped with the miming act of cunnilingus, her constant movement of being thrown up in the air and sexualized like a spinning plate—is odd, especially given that Zoe seemed pretty hesitant to go on stage in the first place. One assumes she enjoyed the experience overall, especially given her flirty romance with Mike–but we do see moments in which she seemed very obviously uncomfortable. If that was me on stage, with butts and heavy weird breathing of dancing performers, no matter how much I wanted to hit that, I’d be laugh-crying—mainly crying. So the question stands: Can men really be objectified in the same way as women?
I once attended a Q&A where a filmmaker (who had no generosity of his own camera lens as he documented his heroine frail, fail and flail her way through New York) didn’t want to be filmed by the audience as he talked. He apologetically half-explained that he didn’t like the way he looked on camera. A self-conscious move, I assume, but I sat thwarted by his audacity. Why is it that men are so content and brutish about art when it is created at the sacrifice of someone else’s image or body—especially when that is of a woman’s—but not their own? The insincerity and hubris! I still don’t have an answer. In the same vein, wouldn’t true male objectification be a dick shot? Wouldn’t it be fair to see Channing Tatum’s penis crawl into a shot as unexpectedly as we see women with their shirts off, tits bouncing to the sound of Kanye? Wouldn’t that be true equality, Chris Pratt?
Would this, then, be an appropriate time to say that I want to see more actors show their dicks? I don’t even mean metaphorically—I mean actual, fleshy and prostrating dicks. If we’re going to have a semblance of conceptualized equality of the sexes, there are surely some people out there who would love to see some dick on the big screen. (And I mean real dick, Mark Wahlberg, you insufferable human being.)
To say women like being watched would be an overstatement. And yet, we flatter ourselves, societally, with that conclusion. Perhaps it’s the only way we can overlook our derision, our own double standards, that have become acceptable and have too often been destructive to all the women that have to navigate the world where they are constantly watched. Regardless, Magic Mike XXL offered something different. It was exhilarating at times, and towards the end it left me in a frenzied state as I watched the pleasured moves, a mimicry of Michael Jackson, reminding me that sometimes the purest entertainment usurps all logic and is just intensely spectacular.
8 thoughts on “On Hypermasculinity: The Objectification of Men in “Magic Mike XXL””
And us men want to see more pussies – true vulvas with labia and clitoris – not pubic hair mounds. That would truly level the playing field. But I’m certain most women would be so uncomfortable with that it will never happen. Yet you constantly insist on dicks.
David, sounds like you want to have either a close up porn shot or be a gyno doctor for impromptu medical exams. One you can easily search online. The other costs a bit of funding and schooling. Plus a medical book.
You didn’t understand the point of the article. You are still focused on objectification of women which is the cultural norm of the U.S. The title said what she was focused on. When’s the last time you seen an actual dick besides your own intentionally? Besides drawn on bathroom walls or in a porno? Little to none. Yet you can see female nudity anywhere. And have seen more.
How would seeing more pussy in greater detail level any field? You do know underneath the natural hair mounds the labia and clitoris still exist right? How would you know what women be comfortable with since we are both guys and media is mostly shot from the male view. Are you comfortable watching two girls making out but would change the channel if you saw two guys?
The terms I use are the anatomical descriptions for sake of argument. And actually I happen to be a medical doctor if that matters. This blurb is a reaction to her last few paragraphs where she shamelessly demands more “dicks” in movies.The point of this is, I think it is crass and obnoxious to ask to see more genitals in mainstream media, male or female. It may be what each sex wishes to see, but it also may extend beyond the realm of acceptance in a mainstream sense. Female nudity is restricted to breast and buttocks. Their individualized true genitals are never shown. This is typically only seen in more graphic non-mainstream pornography. The desire of females to see male genitalia is no different than the desire of men to see female “true” genitalia. A hairy mound is non-descript and I believe if you asked most men, they truly believe the female genitalia are attractive and arousing, and certainly would not object to seeing it in a movie. The swirl resulting from a miniscule, half-second, barely recognizable vulva in Basic Instinct serves as a perfect example. And my sense of what I think women are comfortable with is easily derived from reactions of my wife and other women to references to their genitalia. I used the word pussy purposefully to correlate that with the very commonly used “dick” reference to male genitalia that seems to be used without reservation. Thus this trend for supposed “empowerment” of women through objectification of men is now beginning to look like the same behavior of men with addiction to pornography – each successive encounter requires more graphic stimulation for the same effect. This has been studied extensively. I’ll bet most women don’t think their men are being “empowered”, or “discovering their sexuality” by watching porn. Just my 2 cents.
The medical degree has no relevance since its not an article focused on learning more about female genitalia. Congrats on being a medical doctor and I’m sure I or anyone else would go to for medical related issues. The issue here is on the objectification of men (or lack there of) since they are rarely scrutinized in the male gaze or from the camera.
We don’t see any dicks in movies at all. We see more female breasts and buttocks. The most we see of male nudity is back nudity. A butt and its usually comedic. Sometimes sexual because people do like staring at butts. Genders do like staring at the anatomy of other humans.
Female nudity is more readily seen and accepted. As long as its hairless and perfect proportion to be appealing to the audience. We will see more percentage of female nudity than male nudity in past/present/future. And your solution is to see more hairy mounds. That doesn’t bring any equality.
David if you are a guy, or just chose David because you like the name, you can’t speak for what women think. I can’t speak for them either. I can only look at this objectively. I don’t know what women think as a whole and neither do you. Even if you do know all the bones and functions of the human system.
Fariha, the female writer, even said in this “To say women like being watched would be an overstatement. And yet, we flatter ourselves, societally, with that conclusion. Perhaps it’s the only way we can overlook our derision, our own double standards, that have become acceptable and have too often been destructive to all the women that have to navigate the world where they are constantly watched.” She can speak with better ethos/logos/pathos because women are more socially affected by it.
Women can’t even fully own their bodies in America must less the media. Its why a dick pic gets laughed off while a nude pic of a girl causes the world to freak out and destroys her reputation. Men are never seen being objectified to the point it damages their careers.
How would men be empowered by watching porn? I’m sure they can be empowered if men were allowed to be feminine in society and not seen as less of a man or “a pussy” because we are not 100% macho all the time.
your 2 cents are just wanting to see more female anatomy to achieve some type of equality.
Peter, first of all I don’t give a crap either that I am a doctor, because you are absolutely right – it doesn’t matter at all – you made the statement about it and I responded. Secondly, I believe you are missing the whole point of my response. I am not disputing the prevalence of female objectification in the media. I am attempting to point out that the audacity of a female writer and some women in general (I have seen this in numerous blogs) to demand more “dicks” in movies is inappropriate, vulgar, and does not do anything to decrease the amount of ill-effect that the objectification of women might produce. The only thing it will do is create more freedom to eventually show more female genitalia as well, and those that are asking for it need to be comfortable with their own gender’s genitalia being exploited as well. You yourself refer to the negative effects that oversexualization in our media and society has caused women. Yet you seem to applaud the notion that showing more penises will create some sort of twisted balance in objectification – so everybody can suffer together.
That is exactly the issue I have with this refurbished trend to equal the playing field by acting like sex-deprived, narcisstic drooling lemmings that place so much damn importance on self-indulgence. I was using the female genitalia comparison as a marker of how blatantly vulgar these demands are, in a way that women can reflect this concept back onto their own level of comfort.
“David if you are a guy, or just chose David because you like the name, you can’t speak for what women think. I can’t speak for them either.”
I am not privy to knowing what all women think – but I am privy to this author’s demand and this is what I am speaking to.
“How would men be empowered by watching porn? I’m sure they can be empowered if men were allowed to be feminine in society and not seen as less of a man or “a pussy” because we are not 100% macho all the time.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this. My statement simply attempts to place the same line of reasoning that women are currently using – that Magic Mike XXL is “empowering” and “sex-positive” and whatever new buzzwords you want to pick(what the hell is sex-positive anyway in the context of pornography??) – to the similar venue where men objectify women – nobody would say that when young men are watching pornography for the first time “they are being empowered” or “it innocently allows them to explore their repressed sexuality”. And they certainly would not give long-time viewers of pornography this sugar-coated label either.Therefore why should women be given a hall pass to “explore their sexuality” in this self-indulging manner and avoid the same scrutiny. Male strippers, bachelorette parties, hen nights, male strip clubs and internet porn have been around for decades,
Women have had ample time to explore whatever the hell blows their dress up in the sexual self-indulgence arena. But now it has been given a green light in mainstream, strippers are “asking women what they want”, and women can’t control themselves.
There is a blatant lack of behavioral filtering that permeates this whole phenomenon. Most forms of self-indulgence dictate a need for a filter(integrity and respect) so that the individual is not swept away by the addictive characteristics of the pleasure – sex, objectification, gambling, eating, drugs, power – no filter with these pleasures equals demise of personal character, personal relationships and personal well being. Objectification typically is most damaging to the integrity of relationships, not necessarily the people being objectified or the person doing the objectification. Studies show an extremely high incidence of pornography-related marital demise from this damage, yet here we are glamourizing and normalizing pornography geared toward the “empowerment of women” – the very same feminists and non-feminist women who, IN GENERAL, have decried the vulgarity and disrespect of men’s objectification of women. Integrity means you believe something is right or wrong in an altruistic sense – not dictated by the change in wind direction or time of day or who’s agenda is being stroked or who’s sexual pleasure is being attended to.
This is not progress, it totally normalizes objectification, it will allow MORE objectification of women in more vulgar ways, and absolutely sends the wrong message to our young daughters and sons – that all-out objectification should be celebrated, no questions asked. We are a hedonistic, narcissistic society that places more emphasis on self-indulgence rights than integrity and respect. This is my added 10 cents.
we don’t see any dicks to begin with in movies. yet we drown in female nudity but its not considered inappropriate or vulgar. its just common place right now. you say “more ‘dicks'” as if we see them in every so movie. can you name any movies (excluding porn) where you have seen dicks? because my mind is goin blank. Most dick I have seen is mine.
I don’t see any dicks to begin with. No matter my sexuality as a guy I will be rarely objectified for my gender. my race, yes, but hardly as a guy.
I don’t count it as suffering together. I would count it as liberating and the discussion for men to be comfortable in their bodies no matter the form they are. something that women never get because they need to be the perfect shape and weight or they are considered undesirable in the male view or god forbid won’t get a spouse.
Men can be any size they want and still get the trophy wife. the most men have to deal with just talking to women is not being chosen because they aren’t tall. Literally that’s the biggest thing. Their height and maybe baldness.
“sex-deprived, narcisstic drooling lemmings that place so much damn importance on self-indulgence” is how you refer to women as a whole? do you have description of men that have such colorful words?
can you even give me a reason why there is a need for so much female nudity and little to none of male nudity in movies? If you watch Game of Thrones, you will see more breasts. I have seen no male dicks. yet no outrage from it. but when someone says they want to see dicks suddenly they are vulgar.
you say you aren’t privy for what women think but yet you say you know what they want.
sex positive would be sexual freedom for women. there shouldn’t be a stigma or controlling aspect for womens control of her sexuality whether they choose to have sex or abstain. Girls/women battle between the spectrum of being called slut if they have sex or a prude if they don’t. it shouldn’t be seen as dirty or taboo as long as its healthy and consensual.
men can be empowered and explore their sexuality with porn. long as they don’t think that’s what sex is. its very sensationalized for viewers.
I agree with ” Objectification typically is most damaging to the integrity of relationships” but then it does apply to the person being objectified.
We have at most 2 movies with male strippers. the only other one I can think of is “Studio 54” where it was very open with male bodies. its hardly been normalized.
And again men aren’t under such high objectification as women. Its normalized to objectify women to sell something. but the self indulgence is done mainly for the male viewpoint.
I have got like a quarter in my pocket
“Isomorphic cum”. What a brilliant visual phrase. Besides understanding the disdain of Cumberbatch, the coined phrases of McConaughey, I couldn’t connect with the references to movies with my limited library.
Though I get seeing more dicks as a way to normalize male nudity like I think The actor that played Jon Snow in game of thrones wanted. Even there would prolly be backlash from the male watchers from the show bc it would be some type of culture shock.
Did Mark Walhberg flash a fake dick or something?
Pingback: OUR SUNDAY LINKS | GUTS Canadian Feminist Magazine