Mark Simpson, coiner of the term "metrosexual." Photo from marksimpson.com.
Masculinity writer and approving coiner of the term "metrosexual" Mark Simpson takes a solid swipe at bogus Rule of Desire #2: It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.
Today’s Guardian carries a piece by an Olly Richards pegged to the new stripper movie Magic Mike, ostensibly about male nudity in the movies.
At the top of the piece he announces:
‘We all know the nude male form is essentially ridiculous, built only for floppy comedy.’
Speak for yourself, Mary.
This assertion of the writer’s contempt for the male body — and de facto dismissal of anyone who thinks differently — is the only thing the article has to say. An article on male nudity in the movies has nothing to say about male nudity in movies – because if it did then the author would have to be interested in the male body.
Source: marksimpson.com
Simpson points out that Richards reserves his snorting only for male grooming. (Richards evidently has no comment on... and likely no problem with... women plucking, using "hair product," tanning, dieting, wearing makeup, etc.)
The gap in Richards' logic, as with all gaps caused by the bogus Two Rules of Desire, is that contrary to the dominant paradigm straight men are not the sole determiners of what's hot and what's not. Nor are we straight men the entire target demographic for all things sexy.
The funny thing is that of course it's perfectly fine for straight men to be indifferent to or unimpressed by the grooming efforts of other men. If you're a straight man other men aren't for you! Sort of by-definition if you're straight you're attracted to women.
Trick for straight men is it's not all about us.
Not anymore.
Even worse better? It never has been.
And that's a good thing, Sampson. Know why?
Because it means the only person who thinks there's no chance a woman would ever fall for a lunk, jock, dork, nerd, "beta," "loser," non-George-Clooney like you is probably...
...you!
For every Jack there's a Jill, Jackson. You or any other guy may not be your own cup of tea. But then if you're straight? You're not supposed to be!
But just because you're not your cup of tea doesn't mean you're not someone else's tall drink o' water.
Tags:
Eh, there's a difference
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Sun, 2012-07-15 14:07.Eh, there's a difference between not being attracted to men and thinking the male form is inherently ridiculous. I think the latter is verging on some kind of self-hatred. It does seem to me that one ought to be able to feel aesthetic appreciation of a whole range of bodies, from babies to grizzled granddads, regardless of sexual attraction. Of course, I'm speaking as a woman here, and heterosexual women do get socialized to notice women's bodies, so maybe I'm just surprised that men in our culture don't do that more. (Or maybe they do -- a lot of movies that are supposed to appeal to heterosexual men have hardly any women in them, after all.) And while I wouldn't think much of anyone, no matter how attractive, who spent their time looking in the mirror and saying "Marvelous Me!" like Gilderoy Lockhart, it seems to me to be just as bad to be constantly running oneself down.