The Double Standard of Naked Shirtless Hollywood
I promise to put up ghost stories tomorrow. But I've been busy! There's no time for fun. Boo. I have to pick up the Kid early today and go get our H1N1 vaccinations and then the grocery store and then my dissertation and then ...
Yeah, it's busy but also boring. Anyway, this post is about something else.
This week, I was with some friends and acquaintances of friends in this mom group. I've met with a bunch of them several times to do kid-related activities, etc. One of the first times I met with them, several of them were lamenting the evilness of Disney kids and what terrible role models that they were and how ubiquitous it all is. Especially they vilified Miley Cyrus (and this week also stood back in horror over Noah Cyrus's Halloween costume, to which I could only agree--for crying out loud, did no parent see this outfit beforehand?) Anyway, the general consensus is that Miley is a big ole' slut, etc.
When I pointed out we'd never met the girl and really what business is it of ours anyway, I got a lot of cold shoulder and shocked looks. Had I not seen THIS PICTURE?!? (Referring to the Vanity Fair shots of Miley's bare back when she was 15.) Miley, I was told, was a dumb, hillbilly slut, a terrible role model, etc. etc. I changed the subject.
Then, this week, a bunch of them were talking about the Twilight saga, the next installment "New Moon" which is airing soon as major motion picture.
I don't know if y'all have read these books. They are fairly silly, although I did read the first one and enjoy it. After that, they got too sexist for me, and I quit reading them. Anyway, never mind my opinion. They are popular among teenage girls and the MOTHERS of teenage girls. It's the romance.
That's fine, really. I like a smarmy romance novel with the best of them. I saw the first movie on Pay Per View and thought, "Meh." And that was the end of my consideration of the matter until the day before yesterday.
The day before yesterday, the women started talking about seeing the movie with their tweens and how they were looking forward to it, too because of Taylor Lautner.
Here is a photo of Taylor Lautner:
Thanks to reelmovienew.com.
Here is a very stylized graphic photo of the movie promo of Taylor Lautner:
Thanks to coolchaser.com
Taylor is 17.
Now, I must make this clear. I do NOT CARE that Miley showed her back. Who cares? We all have backs. Yes, the photo could be seen as suggestive. I can understand some protest. She was 15. I do not care that Taylor is showing his front. Damn. From the look of the promos, he spends the majority of the movie without a shirt on in the Pacific Northwest. I'm just glad he didn't catch a cold!
Then, we have what happened the day before yesterday. The same women who pooh-poohed Miley for showing her back were openly lusting over Taylor. Have I mentioned Taylor is 17?
I made a face, said he was 17 and got a "So what, baby! He's hot!" from these women.
WHAT?!? my inner mind asked.
Anyway, I'm not the only one to notice this stuff.
Yahoo came out with an article about it. You can read it HERE.
They ask about the double standard. Miley must apologize for showing a portion of her naked back when she is 15. And she's a big slut.
Taylor, 17, shows a very large portion of his upper torso and everyone thinks it's a-okay.
Now, I get it that women don't go around topless in our society, but ...
I have a question. What do you all think?
Is it a double standard? I say yes. But you may all feel differently.
Feel free to comment. Don't be fighting. What do you think?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
lovinfeelin
bnc
J D Smith
OEsheepdog
Mrs. Michaels
jane smithie redux
Salon.com
Comments
When did "Noah" become a girl's name and not a boy's?
I don't like her Halloween costume, but I don't get the kerfuffle over her and her friend's matching bathing suits. They were high-necked, low-legged pink one-piece suits with ruffled skirts. I think I wore the same suit when I was six. I don't know why there was a red carpet for this pool party, or which 19-year-old's birthday party they were attending, but we don't know that it was some sort of coke-fueled drunken debauchery that no sane parent would let their 9-year-old attend. Anyone consider it may have been the birthday party of a family friend and a completely innocent event to which people of many ages were invited?
I think much of the double-standard comes from a fact you mention in your post - Miley is wrapped in a bed sheet which is pretty suggestive. Taylor for the most part is standing around looking bulked-up. If they had him posing in a bedroom scene (imagine romance novel cover) I think there would have been more of an outburst about it.
From an artistic viewpoint, the human body is a beautful thing, male or female - which is why we all admire it, and why all of the great masters painted nudes!
I think a big part of why no one is up in arms about Taylor’s picture is that men don’t care, and as long as it’s not a young woman being exploited, women don’t really care either. Boys’ sexuality isn’t prized like girls’ sexuality is. Our precious virginity is the only thing keeping us women from horrible, dirty sluts. And even that isn’t always a lock. A man might make a joke about beating off to a picture of a hot, young girl, but he might think twice about commenting on a sexy picture of a young man, even if he thinks it’s exploitive, because he might be thought *gasp!* gay.
That’s just my theory.
Twilight had its moments. Though some parts made me laugh till I cried. Like when Bella's on Edward's back and his feet are cartoon peddling through the forest, classic comedy right there. Jacob/Taylor is a cute kid. I’d take him to prom. I’ll take him over smelly-looking Edward any day. I may be a dirty old lady, but a cougar I am not! There’s a difference.
I've always thought this has more to do with our views toward female sexuality than anything else. Boys will be boys but girls will be virgins. Yes, I think there's a double standard.
As for Miley's pictures--I thought they were beautiful and done very tastefully. Showing a girl's back is different from showing a woman with huge breasts and a toned abdomen in a tiny string bikini. And I happen to think Miley is a talented, nice girl from what I've read and seen.
Your playgroup moms are acting like desperate housewives (with bad taste)!
As for books, read The Hunger Games. You'll forget all about that insipid Mormon porn book Twilight.
I play doubles.
I bet double or nothing.
I lust after the doublemint twins.
Therefore, WTF is wrong with a double standard.
I would like to see the female naked torso of starlets, but don't particularly want to admit it.
The double standard is good.
Double good.
The post and some comments confirm that both men and women like to look at a good body. Since Miley is obviously past puberty, I'm fine with checking her out. More appealing to me than looking at the current Madonna who is now over 50.
No one is forced to look at these pictures. Those who enjoy will enjoy.
I am, however, going to ask my husband if he wouldn't mind doing a few crunches later.
Cyrus is a commodity--she's pimped out--no point underscoring the banality of it (to borrow a page from Stellaa), but that Leibowitz (sp) photo is remarkable because it captures the sex of the Cyrus brand without aggressive/overt smuttiness--it subverts the exploitation associated with Cyrus (and her ilk) by elevating sensuality and omitting flash. Cyrus-the-smut is a dime a dozen--I can go to the local middle school and round-up thirty look alikes--but I cannot reproduce that Leibowitz-Cyrus without myself possessing a Leibowitz aesthetics--and that makes her pic a rare commodity, and, as such, threatening (I can't buy it at Walmart)--nobody likes to be reminded that they are disposable--as are all those poor mislead middle school wannabes. The Lautner, on the other hand, is forgettable--I am pretty sure he too is found in the local gym.
Those are the sluts of the Spanish persuasion, right?
Is there a double standard for men and women involving sex/nudity? Yes. Should a 15 y/o get jumped on for a sexy pic when a 17 y/o is praised? Maybe not jumped on, but it's not quite the same thing (if that pic were found on a sex offender's computer, at it weren't in a magazine since she's 15 he'd probably be convicted of having kiddie porn and in violation).
To the last comment, actually Miley is now indeed seventeen, but the commentary has not in the least stopped. In fact, it has grown. Miley's shorts "are too short." You can "see her breasts too much." She "is a slut." sigh.
Taylor is still considered "hot." And not at all slutty, despite his state of undress. And he was considered hot when he was in "Twilight" at 16, too.
Also, why is it that Miley is, very correctly, only allowed to play the innocent of her childhood and apparently must do that FOREVER and not be the young person who is coming into her sexuality. That's the issue, really. The boy is allowed. The girl is not.
My desire would be that neither of these young people be called that stupid ass word 'slut', that both be allowed to simply be what they are--young people.
I understand the extra Disney problem that exists for Miley. Disney holds out the Lolita thing with one hand and denies it with the other. They do. One has only to watch the channel, as I do when the Kid wants to see Handy Manny and know there's a lot of hot school girl stuff happening there, especially in their music videos of their female stars. Of course, this makes Disney very much like middle America. Middle America loves to be titillated, but also loves to stress over sexuality as something evil. It's so peculiar. It's a very Britney Spears' state of being. Good to be the hot young school chick who is a "virgin." Bad to actually become the woman, which is , you know, inevitable if one continues to be alive, and be sexual in any way.
Monsieur Chariot, I believe, speaks for me about how those kids' photos are both really rather beautiful. I don't think it's pornographic either. And Leibowitz's photo is superlative as a work of art as ghost writer has mentioned. And as such, it puts OUR discomfort on display. It is uncomfortable to think of a young girl of 15 having anything to do with sensuality, and yet ... that's why she's in that Lolita position. So, the audience gets uncomfortable, because it forces them to see the truth of that situation and maybe look at their own stuff up close and personal.
I'll be honest here, too, and say I don't quite get it in full, because while I can appreciate the beauty, I see them both as children. So ... you know ... I can't get excited about Lautner shirtless. Because he's a child to me.
Anyway, I've pontificated enough. Keep commenting, please. I want to hear your thoughts. :)
And 15 is more vulnerable than 17, in any event. Plus, men are allowed to bare their chests. But, then, women may, also, in Austin.
These phrases cross my mind as I read this post: exploitation of youth, emphasis on youth, kiddie porn, inappropriate, age-appropriate, lust, forbidden fruit, women peak sexually at a different age than men, advertising wonks go for the gusto, it's all about selling a movie.
Okay, time for coffee.
Yes double standard, but I'll take that.
I just like me some equality, that's all.
Some babes, regardless of their age, are willing to show what they have, while others aren't. I thought freedom of choice is still a big part of what makes America great.