I was never going to enjoy Magic Mike. I’ve no history of being turned on by men I’ve never met. My heart doesn’t race for an oiled up six-pack and my genitals certainly don’t moisten for gyrating g-strings.
I like a wordsmith who’ll laugh at my jokes and who won’t steal my razor to shave his armpits. I’ll leave the Duffman-style thrusting and fireman/GI Joe/Tarzan costumes to those keen on tucking cash into anal cleavage.
Nonetheless, I saw Magic Mike and it was every bit as loathsome as I’d anticipated, made much worse by mumbled dialogue, too many sex industry cliches and way too much Matthew McConaughey.
Loathsome, but fortunately not totally void of talking points. For this piece, I’m curious about the cock. Or lack thereof.
How can a movie about male strippers exist with only the briefest glimpse of a penis (sheathed, might I add, by the plastic of a vacuum pump)? How can a movie about male strippers have more boob shots than balls?
Don’t get me wrong, Magic Mike is very penis-centric. They’re worshipped and stroked, nuzzled by randy bachelorettes and at various junctions – complete with sound effects – even thrusted as machine guns at the audience (in one of director Steven Soderbergh’s many nods to feminism).
And yet each penis is covered by lycra or the American flag or by the predictable faux animal print.
A small number of mainstream films have dared to show full frontal male nudity – think the brilliant, if disturbing, Shame for example, or Forgetting Sarah Marshall. But the penis is not a common feature of non x-rated films.
Why? What’s the big deal? Why are breasts routinely bared but penises remain duly covered, contained and condemned? Why is an uncloaked penis considered so scandalous, so salacious, so boundary-crossing?
While I understand that many men don’t feel comfortable about seeing penises – cue some vaguely laughable concerns about accidental arousal and envy – there were two men in the near-full cinema I saw the film in. Magic Mike wasn’t made for men, it was a cash cow for the 50 Shades audience; cock-confrontation fears are moot.
So why no wang for the ladies?
Lots of explanations circulate, perhaps the standard is grounded in aesthetics: apparently ladies simply don’t swoon for the penis. Such an argument routinely explains why the Playgirl and Australian Women’s Forum audiences were only ever gay men; why the male strip industry remains much less lucrative than the female eqivalent.
Apparently a penis is just not considered as pleasing to the eye as a pair of bouncy breasts.
I find this argument preposterous and so depressingly childish. Only one set of genitals I’ve ever had contact with were aesthetically challenged and that was purely because they’d been waxed. I’m a loud and proud champion of the pubes and hairlessness confuses me.
My own preferences aside however, the central problem with the nonsense aesthetics argument is that it immaturely treats the penis as somehow hideous and confronting and as naturally aggressive. Incredibly unhelpful.
No, I’m not particularly interested in seeing anonymous dicks. And neither am I interested in ogling breasts. But if a film like Magic Mike is going to market itself as somehow offering equal opportunity perving – as the promotion tour seems eager too – at least provide us something to adequately objectify.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Magic Mike only got 3 stars, but it is good to know at least some women will pay money to see male strippers.
What else would they spend their money on?
As for this article, I am a little disappointed. It lacks the normal whinge that is so customary, and instead falls away to a minimalist whine.
Bring back the whinge I say.
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
There's a great bit in Emma Forrest's book "Your Voice in My Head" (2011) where she notes how there are people who - seemingly compulsively - write to her just to make the point "I hate everything you've ever written".
Dale Bloom
Analyst
That's good.
Russell Hamilton
Librarian
Maybe it's to do with the film classification guidelines, and not restricting the potential market?
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
Yep, I do think that's part of it too. Mind you, as I mentioned in the article, there is actually a brief glimpse of a penis offered, so I doubt there exists any classification guidelines that permit full frontal male nudity but only *if* the penis is duly shielded by some kind of pumping device.
I'd also suggest that a stricter classification likely wouldn't have impacted on the box office - which is the usual justification for edits or omissions - given the target demographic.
Kelly Schofield
Intern
I recall at the time of the "Ken Park" film, the reason for the film being RC (refused classification / banned) was the presence of an erect penis. Not the frequent, unsimulated and explicit sex.
Discussion at the time indicated a penis raised to no more than 45 degrees was acceptable by the OFLC so long as said penis had only a brief screen appearance.
It would be very very interesting to see if the version of Magic Mike played in the USA is the same version here. Often films are customised to suit local censors. One of the Bridget Jone's diary films has a scene where the UK and Australian versions have an character say "You old cow!" to Bridget's mum. In the USA version he says "You old c*nt!"
So it's possible the American version had a whole lot more cock than the Australian version.
If you really want to see a penis in film, watch Sascha Baron Cohen in "The Dictator" (or Bruno). He manages to have his wang feature in each.
Russell Hamilton
Librarian
Lauren, perhaps you can tell us, given your intrepid and relentless research in these areas, if male strippers do in fact take everything off ... maybe the film is just being documentary?
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
There are scenes in the film where it is implied that the show's audience gets see it all but that the cinema audience is shielded. But I don’t actually know the answer to the question.
I'd make a joke about perhaps sourcing ARC funding to do a more thorough investigation, alas, the thought of actually having to sit through a performance of "It's Raining Men" - or, in fact, a performance of any ensemble dance routine - makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a fork.
Mat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
In Britain, the guideline for films and Cleo-type magazines used to be known as the "Mull of Kintyre Test". Wikipedia actually has a page on this. I have sometimes heard it referred to as the "Scandinavia Test". A map will be beneficial in visualising these parameters.
Margo Saunders
Public Health Policy Researcher
According to the final scene in "The Fully Monty', male strippers do indeed take it all off. (And lead actor Robert Carlyle is quoted in an interview as saying that, yes, he actually did the scene naked.)
John Harland
bicycle technician
Which perv gets to use the protractor, and how do you measure the angle of a curved object?
Paul Savage
Theme Leader, Biotechnology at CSIRO
Lauren, I found it curious how throughout this article you describe and decry how movies routinely display breasts but not penises in a way that implies equivalency between those depictions. I have no comment on your thesis of the possible double standards in film; just that it is interesting to see you subconsciously sexualise breasts to the level of genitals for, as you put it, "equal opportunity perving".
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
Good point, Paul. Mind you, I think this stems from the fact that when breasts are bared in film, it's invariably done for sexual reasons; they are seldom exposed for lactation, for example, rather to connote sexiness or imminent sexual activity. In "Magic Mike", the film opens with some bared breasts to convey that intercourse had recently occurred; later, they were bared to instigate it.
Mister Anderson
Student
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that penises aren't shown in case they put off a male audience. Most young guys I know don't flinch in the slightest at the sight of a cock in say the latest HBO series, guys have genitals and we're pretty aware of their shape, size and drab nature.
I think this is more likely a film makers decision to titillate the boring, under-stimulated, middle class American females that it was very clearly made for (not saying that I agree with this demographic stereotype). I don't think you'll find that many middle age women who want to stare at male genitals for 90 minutes as much as they want the fun and dare of 'almost' seeing them. If people want porn, they'll watch porn.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
"I think this is more likely a film makers decision to titillate the boring, under-stimulated, middle class American females that it was very clearly made for (not saying that I agree with this demographic stereotype)"
I agree Mister Anderson, this was made for the USA perspective and they are far more prudish than most other Western nations.
Have to wonder what an Aussie version would be like. Oh, no I immediately got a vision of jiggling beer belles obscuring the dangly bits... think I'll withdraw from the rest of my post and keep it to myself.
Jack da Silva
Senior Lecturer in Genetics at University of Adelaide
It seems to me that you're comparing bananas and melons when you should be comparing bananas and peaches. There are plenty of bare male chests in film - probably more than bare female chests. But, there are equally few sightings of penises and vulvas. The reason is simple enough. Some body parts serve as social sexual signals, others don't.
Lauren Rosewarne
Senior Lecturer at University of Melbourne
Except that there is no stigma for a man to walk down the street/appear on a billboard/go to a non-nudist beach without a shirt on. A woman can't do the same without causing a stir.
You're right; vulvas seldom make an appearance in mainstream cinema. But I don't think boobs/bare male chests are a fair comparison either.
Karl Schaffarczyk
Law Student at University of Canberra
It all comes down to economic game theory: If many women wandered about bare-chested, it wouldn't cause a stir. The stigma lives on because very few women do wander about sans-shirt.
A little bit like the one piece swimsuit - it caused shock and scandal until larger numbers of women began using them, and for the most part one-piece swimsuits are now considered the "modest" option!
Jack da Silva
Senior Lecturer in Genetics at University of Adelaide
I agree - breasts are special. It's pretty obvious that breasts have evolved in part as sexual signals. We are the only primates in which females' breasts are permanently engorged. In other species females' breasts become swollen only during lactation. It has been hypothesised that in humans breasts convey information on age, health, genetic quality and fertility. Consistent with this is that not all breasts are considered equally attractive - most attention is paid to breasts of females around the age of peak fertility. We need to consider the biological context of these issues. After all, if we weren't mammals we wouldn't even be talking about breasts.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Jack da Silva
Then please explain the numerous human societies where women go bare breasted always?
Pre internet, where did Western nation teenage boys go to see a glimpse of breast? National Geographic being just one answer. It is a cultural thing - not hardwired into the human brain at all.
Jack da Silva
Senior Lecturer in Genetics at University of Adelaide
From a study of the Hadza hunter-gatherers:
"When I asked men (n = 32) if they found female breasts attractive, 94% said yes while 6% said they didn't care about them. Most men who cared about breasts liked them big and round and firm - "like those of young women," they would often say;"
Frank W. Marlowe. 2004. Human Nature, 15: 365-376.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
I see, what what applies to 32 Hadza tribes-men applies to all men.