Visit my second blog:
I don’t wanna see your man junk.
I now pause my regularly scheduled Pope Benedict coverage to talk about man junk.
If you don’t know what “man junk” is, you’re either not a man, an unmarried and/or virginal woman, or you’re too young to be reading my blog that is currently rated PG-19. If this is the case, please grab a parent or guardian, or click away from this page at this time. Thank you.
Now back to my post…
The LA Times wrote what I thought to be quite a poignant article about the newest trend in Hollywood filmmaking…male nudity. This nudity not only includes bare chests and tight boxer briefs, but full frontal shots of man junk.
Here’s the naked truth: Male genitalia is getting unprecedented screen time at the multiplex these days — in mainstream popcorn fare and broad comedies — thanks in large part to comic mogul Judd Apatow (and his band of merry collaborators), who has pledged to shake Americans from their squeamishness about male anatomy in movies.
While I love men and I am sure that one day in the future after a sacramental ceremony, a white dress, and a bottle of porto wine I will come to love man junk, this “screen time” is just unnecessary. The last time I saw man junk, it was traumatizing to say the least.
I was out on Skid Row with some friends of mine doing my Christian duty, giving out food, talking to people, and otherwise being a saint-in-training. Now if you don’t know anything about Skid Row, it’s an area of Los Angeles home to the highest number of homeless people in the country. It’s pretty nitty gritty, so much so that I’ve had a few potentially dangerous run-ins with people, and as a rule I never go down there without at least a couple of guy friends with me.
I was out there giving out food and water, and granted it was the middle of the night and we probably shouldn’t have been out there so late, but it was the only time everyone in the group could make it down there. So I’m handing a guy a bottle of water when I look to my right and see another homeless man walk briskly out of his tent butt naked. And I was like….whoa….and promptly followed that reaction with an errrrrr? and a Scooby Doo face.
After we got back in the car I joked with my roommate that now we’re going to have to tell our future husbands that their junk isn’t the first man junk we’ve ever seen live, hanging, and in color. (Forgive the crude joke, but I couldn’t resist.)
I’ve blogged about my staunch opposition to sex scenes before, and I see this issue as no different. The only reason sex scenes exist 9 times out of ten is to corrupt entice young men into coming to the theatre. This industry is driven by the 18-35 year old male bracket and unfortunately cheap fake breasts and long weaves are what Hollywood sells them.
As the full article notes, this new surge of male nudity is solely for shock value. While I commend the “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” team for their ingenious marketing plan, (I must admit the PR was utterly brilliant) is nothing sacred anymore? It’s bad enough we have reckless and pointless sex scenes. Let’s leave the man junk alone.
Pax Christi, Rebecca.
I hate man junk too! Heehee. There is a joke with my wife and some of our friends not to let Josh (me) pick out a movie, because every movie he picks out has a scene with naked men in it! In my defense, this is not on purpose. It is more of a coincidence — a bad one at that. That’s what I get for liking artsy/independent films I guess. So now the mainstream Hollywood films are apparently trying to push the limit. I’m afraid to ask what next!
April 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I think you’re right about why sex scenes in movies exist (target – 18 to 35 y/o males). But many women who are tired of being humiliated with way too much female nudity have argued for more male nudity as a way of making guys feel degraded in hopes that would put an end to uncomfortable sex scenes. I think their plan backfired. Instead of less nudity, we see more and more “man junk”. Women, such as yourself, who don’t want to see man junk must thank their own sisters for the trend we now see emerging. Believe me, it wasn’t us guys arguing for it.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pmActually, I would disagree Mick. (But I’m curious about any specific female producers, writers, or directors you know of who are doing this.)
It’s specifically male producers like Judd Apatow who are advocating more male nudity in mainstream Hollywood films. Plus, it was John Segal who wrote the script and that specific scene in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.”
May 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
One article I read quoted HBO producer Cynthia Mort as saying “in the interest of equality in every way, I would never show a woman and not a man”. Regardless, the argument to show more man junk is much older than Judd Apatow’s producing career, plus, you’ll always find producers, male or female, willing to take that road. I do think some do it to get the attention that comes with it. (You and I gave it press time).
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I agree with Rebecca’s post. There is a difference between a woman’s breast and a man’s genitals. Why can no one seem to see the difference? Hollywood never showed female genitals; only pubic hair. A person’s genitals are the most sacred and private part of anyones body.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm