Spacefem.com

Male Castration in Movies

Because women are people too

Moderators: deanimal, lillerina, Tookie

Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 17:37 2010

I've been noticing a strange trend in movies lately (although it's been around for awhile). Typically, when a penis is shown in a movie... it's either made out to be a joke or it's mutilated--or both (e.g., Piranha 3D). Has anyone else noticed this? But I can't remember the last time I saw a vagina in a movie, let alone one being mutilated for comedic effect. Do you think this kind of thing is misandrist? Or perhaps one of the after effects of feminism? I can't help but think this kind of thing may be damaging to young developing boys.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 17:59 2010

King Michael wrote:I remember watching Hard Candy with friends, at a moment the chick is faking a castration on a guy :nervous: , me and all the guys were freaking out, the women in the room were laughing, that was even more creepy. Women do not understand how important our balls and sausage are important to us, it's like our life !! Many men would suicide (including myself) if they ever lost their balls or dong.


You know there is something wrong with the culture when people are laughing at genital mutilation.

Also, I think a guy's junk is as important to him as a woman's junk is important to her, it's just women don't have to worry as much about getting hurt down there since it's less exposed. Breasts are a slightly different story though.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Eravial » Sun Dec 12, 18:18 2010

We'll just ignore the fact that as of 2005, approximately three million girls were genitally mutilated per year for cultural reasons intending to promote chastity and control female sexuality (when sexual intercourse is not pleasurable at best, agonizing at worst, it's pretty effective). Imagine the uproar if three million boys a year had their penises partially or fully amputated.
Stats: 2005 UNICEF "Female Genital Mutilation and Cutting: A Statistical Exploration" http://www.unicef.org/publications/file ... ctober.pdf
But you know, it's ok, cause clitorises aren't actually important like penises are. And gosh, if they weren't going to grow up so damn promiscuous those little girls wouldn't have gotten themselves into this predicament in the first place!

Also, I have not noticed this trend whatsoever, but that's probably just because I'm blinded by my own deep-rooted misandry that feminism has begotten in me. Ah well. Teach me in your ways of higher intellectualism and cultural awareness through providing more examples please? You cannot claim a trend with two data points.

P.S. Suicide is a noun. The proper term you're looking for, King Michael, is "commit suicide."
Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
Dizzy with possibility
User avatar
Eravial
1780 Spaceship
1780 Spaceship
 
Posts: 3814
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 13:09 2003
Location: Outdoors, or wishing I was

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 18:39 2010

Eravial wrote:We'll just ignore the fact that as of 2005, approximately three million girls were genitally mutilated per year for cultural reasons intending to promote chastity and control female sexuality (when sexual intercourse is not pleasurable at best, agonizing at worst, it's pretty effective).


Why would you ignore that? I don't.

Or is your argument that since there is female genital mutilation going on in the world, then this somehow justifies the misandry that is rampant in the media? Or perhaps you're arguing that all men should be castrated to get even? Please, explain your point to me.

Secondly, there is a type of male genital mutilation going on as even in first world countries called circumcision. What do you think of that? Or do you find that kind of genital mutilation OK?

Teach me in your ways of higher intellectualism and cultural awareness through providing more examples please? You cannot claim a trend with two data points.


Show me one modern movie in which a woman's vagina is mutilated for comedic effect, or a vagina is mutilated by a man out of revenge (and the man's actions are portrayed as justified and seen as such by the male audience).

And you wanted another movie besides Hard Candy and Piranha 3D? OK. Teeth. That's three examples to your zero.

P.S. Suicide is a noun. The proper term you're looking for, King Michael, is "commit suicide."


Good argument.

Finally, I recommend that you don't get too excited and stick to the arguments.

Also, I have not noticed this trend whatsoever, but that's probably just because I'm blinded by my own deep-rooted misandry that feminism has begotten in me.


That's what it sounds like. Maybe you don't watch many movies or watch TV?
Last edited by BeautifulFlower85 on Sun Dec 12, 19:09 2010, edited 3 times in total.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby deanimal » Sun Dec 12, 18:40 2010

I kept the posts that are actually potentially fostering discussion (not that your accusation was bs, butterfly north) here so we can potentially discuss them, but trimmed the troll fat to hell. cheers.
helium wrote:I went outside and suddenly there was no more gravity and my vagina could fly.
Sonic# wrote:Then the singularity happens. Then we meet God and fly into the sun. Then we save the whales.
User avatar
deanimal
Feed Me, Seymour!
Feed Me, Seymour!
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Sat Jan 4, 21:30 2003
Location: texASS

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Butterfly North » Sun Dec 12, 19:22 2010

Ok, I'm just going to talk comedy, as I haven't seen many thrillers.

BeautifulFlower85 wrote:I've been noticing a strange trend in movies lately (although it's been around for awhile). Typically, when a penis is shown in a movie... it's either made out to be a joke or it's mutilated--or both (e.g., Piranha 3D). Has anyone else noticed this?


Firstly, there are as many sexual jokes in films and media that refer to female genitalia and breasts as there are male parts, as far as I've noticed. Since your argument is based on what you've noticed, I'll consider that to be an adequate response to your point.

BeautifulFlower85 wrote:But I can't remember the last time I saw a vagina in a movie, let alone one being mutilated for comedic effect.


It would have to be a pretty graphic sex scene for you to see a woman's actual vagina. She would have to spread her legs whilst naked, for some reason, anyway. I would say there are more films featuring a fully naked woman than featuring a fully naked man, but most of these would have to have something fairly convoluted going on to warrant the kind of angled shot that would be required for us to see the vagina. The penis is apparent whenever you see a naked man stood up straight, facing you.

To take your piranha example, why would a piranha bite a part of your vagina? It would have to actively go looking for that. Same with all those 'man gets hit in crotch by football' gags, if that happened to a woman it's less painful, so less funny.
User avatar
Butterfly North
established
established
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 15:06 2008

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 19:41 2010

Butterfly North wrote:Firstly, there are as many sexual jokes in films and media that refer to female genitalia and breasts as there are male parts, as far as I've noticed. Since your argument is based on what you've noticed, I'll consider that to be an adequate response to your point.


I'm not really talking about sexual jokes though. I'm talking about the growing trend in which script writers are creating movies that explicitly or implicitly depict the mutilation of male genitals either for comedic effect or under the guise of female empowerment--sometimes both. On the other hand, I don't know of any movies made in the last five years where a woman's breasts are cut off or a woman's ovaries are scooped out with an ice cream scooper for comedic effect or revenge (revenge that is portrayed by writers and directors as justified).

To give you a fourth example, the movie I Spit On Your Grave (2010 remake) shows a man being strung up with rope, having his teeth pulled out by a woman, his penis cut off, and then his penis stuck in his mouth and left to bleed to death. This is disturbing and misandrist, and yet, we're supposed to cheer for the woman being the guy raped her (which was disgusting as well).

It would have to be a pretty graphic sex scene for you to see a woman's actual vagina. She would have to spread her legs whilst naked, for some reason, anyway. I would say there are more films featuring a fully naked woman than featuring a fully naked man, but most of these would have to have something fairly convoluted going on to warrant the kind of angled shot that would be required for us to see the vagina. The penis is apparent whenever you see a naked man stood up straight, facing you.


I don't buy this because a writer and director could easily come up with a torture scene in which a woman would be chained up with her legs spread. That wouldn't be difficult at all.

But let's say that your reason for why you don't typically see women being mutilated in this way is correct. That doesn't mean that this kind of misandry isn't destructive to society, especially young boys who see these movies (and they do see these movies, despite their parent's wishes).

To take your piranha example, why would a piranha bite a part of your vagina?


Again, a director and writer could easily come up with a scene. For example--and forgive me for being graphic--a piranha chewing through a woman's vagina and eating the rest of her from the inside.

Same with all those 'man gets hit in crotch by football' gags, if that happened to a woman it's less painful, so less funny.


Well, I think there is something to be said about pain = funny, but I digress.

My point is that this kind of thing is going on and I find it misandrist.
Last edited by BeautifulFlower85 on Sun Dec 12, 19:45 2010, edited 2 times in total.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Eravial » Sun Dec 12, 19:42 2010

Since this is actually going in the way of intelligent discussion, please excuse my blatantly and intentionally snarky first response.

The fact that the prevalence of female genital mutilation goes widely unrecognized is just as bad as (allegedly) promoting tolerance of male castration through the media. Now, your allegation of "rampant misandry in the media" is only possibly true if you're taking it in conjunction with the rampant misogyny in the media, as reinforced gender roles are bad for both genders. That is, the media's reinforcement that men must be unwaveringly masculine, strong, powerful, breadwinners, tough, muscular, wealthy, having a large and fully functional penis, etc. very much disfavors any men who do not fit the hyper-masculine stereotype. The media also gives women prescripted feminine standards including beauty standards, being dependent, staying in the home, putting family, wifehood, and motherhood above self, not pursuing sex but actively dressing and acting so that they are pursued, glamorizing rape, blaming women for rape, not having leadership roles, having less intelligence than men, and the list goes on. If you believe that any of these things are either 1) innate to women or 2) indeed true of the "ideal woman," or if you believe that there IS an "ideal woman," this discussion of sexism in the media really isn't worth having.

Now, I have not seen any of the films you cited, but I know the premises of "Teeth" and "Hard Candy," and I always had the impression that whatever violence was done against men in the films was out of self-defense (Teeth) or punishment for other transgressions (Hard Candy). I also think that violence in general, especially intimate violence, including genital mutilation, is primarily for shock value. Intimate violence has more of a shock value, hence why it is portrayed; not as a message that there should be systematic (or ANY) tolerance for unwilling genital mutilation. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I do not find male retributive genital mutilation funny at all, and I honestly have no idea where I could find a woman or feminist who WOULD find it funny, coming from someone with dozens of radical feminist friends. If it is portrayed as necessary self-defense, I can tolerate it the same as any action that is necessary for survival, but it will not be "funny" or at all pleasurable or providing satisfaction to watch. Even "balls-jokes" showing men getting hit in the groin don't make sense to me, but again, I think these scenes are, pretty obviously, for shock value. I don't enjoy seeing men hurt, just as I don't enjoy seeing violence against women, and I think that's true of all reasonable people (I would really, really hope).

I can't name any "comedic-effect" vulvar mutiliation, but I seriously question your allegation that penile mutilation in the films you cited was for comedic effect. However, even if the alleged misandry of the handful of films you are looking at were true, I would compare that to the 99% of all movies, TV shows, video games, music videos, etc. that exhibit the media sexism I illustrated in my first paragraph. For what it's worth, some films that portray genital violence against women: Last King of Scotland, many Law and Order: SVU episodes (many contain mutilation beyond the common perception of sexual assault), CSI (same).

I am against circumcision (as are many feminists, in my experience) because it takes away a person's sexual autonomy and choice. They should be permitted to make the choice of whether or not they wish to be circumcised when they are capable of understanding the procedure; it should not be forced upon them.

BeautifulFlower85 wrote:On the other hand, I don't know of any movies made in the last five years where a woman's breasts are cut off or a woman's ovaries are scooped out with an ice cream scooper for comedic effect or revenge (revenge that is portrayed by writers and directors as justified).

Well, let's look at it this way. What circumstances would justify such mutilation against a woman? In my (and again, most reasonable people's) opinion, violence against others is only acceptable as necessary self-defense, but there are very few situations in mainstream media that would place a man in an inferior position (but still holding a knife or something to a similar effect, since he is about to do one of the actions you suggested) while in close combat with a woman. To contrast, in "Teeth" and "Hard Candy," the actions happen to prevent rape against the woman (in my understanding; if someone who has seen them has a different understanding, please explain), so it is 1) a commonly portrayed situation (rape) and 2) logistically possible self-defense.

To speak to the entire issue, there may be influence of the factor that society regards men's bodies as expendable and women's bodies as sacred and needing to be protected. For example, throughout most of history, only men would go to war, and stemming from that, there is a societal expectation for men to take care of and protect women, perpetuated today through the media's portrayal of women as weak, unintelligent, and dependent. The implication of this is that men do not need to be protected and injury to a man is not as deplorable as injury to a woman, and is a perfect example of how sexism hurts men. My thoughts on this aren't very well-developed, so if anyone else has anything to add or contradict (specifically, I'm trying to reconcile it with rape culture, and it may just be another dichotomy like the demure woman/sexy object one, but I'm not sure), please do.
Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
Dizzy with possibility
User avatar
Eravial
1780 Spaceship
1780 Spaceship
 
Posts: 3814
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 13:09 2003
Location: Outdoors, or wishing I was

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby helium » Sun Dec 12, 20:10 2010

^ I can't think of anything in the last five years, but there is a scene in Dead Alive when a zombie baby burrows into a woman and pops out of her abdomen holding her ovaries. It's played for humor and for horror. I'm pretty sure that despite the ultra-violence in that film there's no scene where a zombie rips off a man's testicles and waves them around.

In my personal opinion, there is a lot of violence against women in horror movies and action and westerns where women are depicted as the victim, in contrast to a lot of violence against men in comedies. I think this has more to do with traditional gender rolls than anything else-- when a woman is abused and raped, it's because she's weak and we should be horrified, because women should be protected-- it doesn't work as well in comedies because women are the victim and it's not as easy to make it funny. When a man is kicked in the nuts and doubles over in pain, we're supposed to think it's funny because he's supposed to be a tough, unfeeling man, and we should laugh at his pain, because haha, what a wimp. The director/whoever is just playing off of ingrained responses in our society. Just my :2cents:
I've had my share, I'll help you with the pain
You're not alone


:spork: :bomb: BMMhuhwha?
"No, I can't see, fuck-mook! I have no eyes!"
User avatar
helium
I solve my problems with violence
I solve my problems with violence
 
Posts: 6674
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 15:11 2003
Location: bottom of a bottle

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 20:58 2010

Eravial wrote:The fact that the prevalence of female genital mutilation goes widely unrecognized is just as bad as (allegedly) promoting tolerance of male castration through the media. Now, your allegation of "rampant misandry in the media" is only possibly true if you're taking it in conjunction with the rampant misogyny in the media, as reinforced gender roles are bad for both genders.

The misandry I speak of stands on its own and has nothing to do with gender roles. Actually, it may be that this misandry is a reaction by feminists to the alleged oppression of women. To give another example, most sitcoms portray husbands as moronic cowards, never standing up to their wives for fear that they may be thrown out (even if the husband bought the house...) or put in the dog house--and let's not forget that the man is always wrong, even when he's right. Conversely, wives (women) are depicted as wise and assertive. Just look at a show like The King Of Queens. The husband is fat, stupid, lazy, etc., while his wife is beautiful, intelligent, and productive. This kind of thing is everywhere in the media: the news, commercials, movies, etc. What's especially frustrating about it is if you say anything about it, then you're gay, crazy, or a wuss; you're told to lighten up and to be a man about it. Some even say that we deserve it, which I find particularly disturbing. I'm a 25-year old white man (which to some automatically makes me evil), but why does that mean that I need to shoulder the sins of the past? Why do I need to shoulder the sins of anyone but myself? Some say it's because white men are privileged, confusing top earners with the common man; the middle class; the man on the streets. Let me first respond by saying that this idea of white privilege is incredibly presumptuous (After all, there does exist unsuccessful, poor, and homeless white men.), and I would argue that it may be the complete opposite: that being a white man in this day and age is a disadvantage. Why? Think about it. If most people presume that the game is rigged in your favor, then they're going to start compensating by rigging the game in their favor, leading to more sexism and racism.
That is, the media's reinforcement that men must be unwaveringly masculine, strong, powerful, breadwinners, tough, muscular, wealthy, having a large and fully functional penis, etc. very much disfavors any men who do not fit the hyper-masculine stereotype.

I agree that this exists as well.
However, it's even more complicated than this. Men are expected to be all the above while remaining sensitive, well-groomed, etc. Men no longer know what their place is in society because they're being pulled in two diagonally opposed directions. I feel like society as a whole wants me to "be a man" when it's convenient to them and to be sensitive, well-behaved, etc., when I disagree with them.
The media also gives women prescripted feminine standards including beauty standards, being dependent, staying in the home, putting family, wifehood, and motherhood above self, not pursuing sex but actively dressing and acting so that they are pursued, not having leadership roles, having less intelligence than men, and the list goes on.

I see how the standard of beauty for women is higher than men and how women are taught that if they like sex then they're sluts, but I don't agree with the rest.
Now, I have not seen any of the films you cited, but I know the premises of "Teeth" and "Hard Candy," and I always had the impression that whatever violence was done against men in the films was out of self-defense (Teeth) or punishment for other transgressions (Hard Candy).

This is not entirely true though. In teeth the first victim of castration wasn't a rapist or anything. It was a guy who the female protagonist was making out with and who she eventually had sex with (leading to castration). The audience is lead to believe that the man (actually a teenager, I believe) was wrong for trying to get into her pants (even though she allowed it). How is castration justified in this situation?
Moreover, you have to remember that this is fiction. These stories are written in such a way that they lead to male castration. But why? Why the obsession with male castration? If I saw a movie that lead up to women being penetrated by chainsaws, then I'd call it misogynistic, even if the so-called punishment were portrayed as justfied.
I also think that violence in general, especially intimate violence, including genital mutilation, is primarily for shock value. Intimate violence has more of a shock value, hence why it is portrayed; not as a message that there should be systematic (or ANY) tolerance for unwilling genital mutilation.

It's most certainly shocking. However, I see it as a misguided and immoral tool for empowering women. "Screw with women you get your dick ripped off!" "Touch my butt and you get your balls crushed!" And I don't mean to imply that touching a girl's butt (who is unwilling) is appropriate. My point is the injustice of the matter, in which touching a woman's butt warrants getting kicked in the groin or being castrated.
I can't name any "comedic-effect" vulvar mutiliation, but I seriously question your allegation that penile mutilation in the films you cited was for comedic effect.

You've already stated that you don't find this kind of thing funny.
But there are many men and women who do. In fact, the movie Teeth that I mentioned earlier is categorized under comedy, thriller, and horror by IMDb.
There's another scene in Teeth where the female protagonist seduces her step brother into having sex just so she can castrate him. After she castrates him, she stands up and his severed penis falls to the ground. As the two watch, a dog runs up to it and eats it, leaving behind the piercing he had. Most of the women that I've talked to (and heard laughing) describe this as being funny. Shocking, but funny.

However, even if the alleged misandry of the handful of films you are looking at were true, I would compare that to the 99% of all movies, TV shows, video games, music videos, etc.

There's no denying that there is sexism going against both sexes in video games, music, movies, etc., but is it as disgusting and vile as a man being fed his own penis while an audience laughs and cheers?
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 21:17 2010

helium wrote:In my personal opinion, there is a lot of violence against women in horror movies and action and westerns where women are depicted as the victim, in contrast to a lot of violence against men in comedies. I think this has more to do with traditional gender rolls than anything else-- when a woman is abused and raped, it's because she's weak and we should be horrified, because women should be protected-- it doesn't work as well in comedies because women are the victim and it's not as easy to make it funny. When a man is kicked in the nuts and doubles over in pain, we're supposed to think it's funny because he's supposed to be a tough, unfeeling man, and we should laugh at his pain, because haha, what a wimp. The director/whoever is just playing off of ingrained responses in our society. Just my :2cents:


You make good points, but I can't help but think that you're not addressing the elephant in the room. That violence against men is usually depicted as funny or justfied, and violence against women is usually seen as flat-out wrong (as it should be). This kind of mindset also holds the implication that women are more valuable than men. This all falls under the category of sexism against men or misandry.

And this kind of mentality can be seen everywhere. Take for example female teachers who molest their young male students. These female teachers are given much lighter sentences compared to their male counterparts who do the same. They're also not called pedophiles, monsters, etc. In fact, our society is so screwed up that people actually get off on female teachers molesting male students.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Sonic# » Sun Dec 12, 21:42 2010

I'm trying to understand the argument here. BeautifulFlower85 thinks that the media writers tend to be misandrist because they depict castration for humorous and women-empowering effects, when the equivalent treatment doesn't happen to women. Most of the others believe variously that the issue of castration isn't that great, or that it is great, but only a reflection of how sexism hurts all sexes.

I'm still thinking about this, but I have a few tentative points.

1. I don't like castration jokes in any form. Eravial articulated it pretty well.

2. You're asking the right question but not in every possible way, BF85.

And by that I mean that you ask why there is a lot of male castration in movies. We could equally well ask, "Why is there not female genital mutilation?" You do that on a few occasions. Eravial gave one fair reply - we tend to view women's bodies as more frail, and violence against them more grave, because they were not expected to fight in wars. Men were comparatively seen as disposable. Violence against them could still be quite disturbing, but it wasn't taboo. That was an example of a sexist regime that hurt both men and women. Women were seen as being vulnerable, while men were seen as being disposable when they were vulnerable.

And so I hear BF85 saying, "There's some form of misandry going on here." And I see everyone else pointing out how it's also misogynist. I think both are right.

Another way to ask the question would be to say, "Why is the depiction of genital mutilation in fiction primarily against men, while in real life it is primarily against women?" Which leads me to 3.

3. Circumcision, or, a whole other egg.

I was circumcised shortly after birth. I don't mind it at all. In fact, I like it. As far as I can tell, I've lost no sensation. I've lost no capabilities, and I don't have to be careful about washing. (Beyond the normal washing, that is.) Should boys wait until they're old enough to choose? Sure. But I resent the claims that such circumcision is automatically a very bad thing. I prefer it in myself.

That being said, it's a side issue to this thread, but one that is an analogy for the arguments here as a whole. One person brings up female genital mutilation to demonstrate a point - it happens a lot, and its occurrences in real life are more important than those in fiction. Another person makes the counterpoint that male circumcision is a problem too. Then a third person makes the concession: yes, it happens in both cases, and is indicative of a single problem.

And so this thread, where we have the arguments that, "The depiction of women in movies and the like are quite unflattering," "The depiction of men in movies and the like are also quite unflattering," and "The depictions of gendered acts in movies are often unfair towards both genders at the same time, symptomatic of larger structures of sexism."

I'm on that last point's side. The lack of female genital mutilation in fiction (presumably due to forms of governmental, social, and self-censorship) is as sexist a stance as the presence of male genital mutilation. One would not be true without the other, and there are sexist reasons for both being true. Of course I would rather live in a world where genital mutilation didn't exist at all in act or in fiction. Given that it does, I think I can agree with BF85 that these instances aren't my cup of tea and are misandrist, while adding that they are also misogynist, and noting that I in no way think they should be censored.
User avatar
Sonic#
established
established
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Sun Dec 12, 22:34 2010

Sonic# wrote:And by that I mean that you ask why there is a lot of male castration in movies. We could equally well ask, "Why is there not female genital mutilation?" You do that on a few occasions. Eravial gave one fair reply - we tend to view women's bodies as more frail, and violence against them more grave, because they were not expected to fight in wars.

Principally, human female bodies are weaker and more fragile than human male bodies, which is why they're seen as physically weaker. What is being seen is reality. Testosterone toughens your skin, increases bone mass, and increases muscle mass--and men being men have more of it. What logically follows? What logically follows is that men are usually bigger and stronger than women. That's biology; that's reality.
Regardless, I see this as a way to spin sexism against men into sexism against women. It's yet another example of how deep-rooted misandry is in our culture. It's impossible for people to see men as victims. Your view is not that people see women (and children) as more valuable than men (women and children first!), it's that women are seen as weak. Imagine what would happen if every time somebody mentioned an example of sexism against women, a person would chime in and spin it to look like it's really men who are being wronged and what's happening is a byproduct of that. Of course, that never happens... that kind of thing only happens to men, case in point this thread. And one last thing: the explanatory power of the reason "women are seen as weak which is why violence against them is seen as wrong" is deficient in that it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. It doesn't follow from this reason that women are more valuable than men. In fact, you'd think women would be seen as less valuable than men if they were just thought of as physically weaker and that was that. However, that's not the case... People seem to value a woman's life over a man's (women and children first). Men are seen as disposable, as you put it. Apparently, there is some deep-rooted belief that women are better than men--not at moving heavy things and fighting wars--but that they're intrinsically more valuable, like how most people believe a human being is intrinsically more valuable than a cow.
Sonic# wrote:3. Circumcision, or, a whole other egg. I was circumcised shortly after birth. I don't mind it at all. In fact, I like it. As far as I can tell, I've lost no sensation. I've lost no capabilities, and I don't have to be careful about washing. (Beyond the normal washing, that is.) Should boys wait until they're old enough to choose? Sure. But I resent the claims that such circumcision is automatically a very bad thing. I prefer it in myself.


It's a bad thing because it's the (painful) removal of a normal part of a human being's anatomy without their permission while they're a defenseless baby. And you do lose sensitivity over time since your glands are no longer protected by the foreskin, which is one reason why it's encouraged by religious fanatics--not because it's an expression of a covenant between man and God (Jesus taught that there is no longer any reason to get circumcised), but because it will decrease your urge to touch yourself and have sex.

And I don't see how you'd know whether or not you lost any sensitivity since you were circumcized as a baby. You have no way of comparing. You also don't remember the pain you went through because it happened long ago, but you did go through pain. Just like if somebody cut your ear off as a baby... as an adult, you may not remember, but that doesn't mean you didn't feel any pain. That pain may even cause underlying psychological issues later in life. Why not?

One person brings up female genital mutilation to demonstrate a point - it happens a lot, and its occurrences in real life are more important than those in fiction.


I don't see how that's a point unless my argument was "male castration in movies is more important than female genital mutilation in real life."

My argument was really more of a statement of reality. That male castration in movies is misandrist, pretty common, and there is no female equivalent in movies.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Enigma » Mon Dec 13, 7:59 2010

I don't tend to watch movies where this sort of thing could happen. I'm not really the violent movie type, generally I don't like anyone being hurt on any part of their body. I have seen Hard Candy though and in my opinion the reason it was so well done in it's disturbing violence was that EVERYWHERE you look on the news, in popular opinion, women and girls are in danger because men might attack them. Hard Candy was powerful because it twisted the power dynamic. In the beginning you fear for her safety, by the end you're fearing for his.

Maybe you don't see women's genitals being attacked in entertainment but you do hear about it every day in reality. It could happen (women are fragile and must be protected!! etc) so it's not so funny/satisfying. Find me one recent news story where a man has been sexually abused and murdered. And he can't have been gay.


Antichrist did come to mind though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_%28film%29 I haven't seen it but according to wiki the graphic violence against her genitals was actually self inflicted. When it came out it caused a big up roar over the misogyny apparently inherent to it though.
"Human beings are amazing... we might be horrible, horrible, but we're wonderful too. Otherwise, why go on?"

SatansSpawn666 wrote:COME SISTER!! WE SHALL BURN AWAY HIS MERRY LITTLE ARSE WITH OUR FLAMING BOOTS OF UN-MERCIFUL GAIN!
User avatar
Enigma
Times are hard for dreamers.
Times are hard for dreamers.
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 10:22 2004
Location: Canada

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Sonic# » Mon Dec 13, 8:06 2010

Principally, human female bodies are weaker and more fragile than human male bodies, which is why they're seen as physically weaker. What is being seen is reality.


I disagree here, and find the claim of "reality" makes the rest of your argument spurious. The average woman is actually less strong because they are not encouraged as much to participate in physical activities that, on average, men see as usual. But many women are stronger than many men. In addition, a lack of physical strength is not the same as fragility. There is no significant difference in the sturdiness of men versus the sturdiness of women.

So your "reality" is an incorrect extrapolation based on a generalization that you then take as fact instead of statistical average. You additionally mistake the difference between strength and stamina. It's also what many sexists assume, both misandrists and misogynists.

Imagine what would happen if every time somebody mentioned an example of sexism against women, a person would chime in and spin it to look like it's really men who are being wronged and what's happening is a byproduct of that. Of course, that never happens... that kind of thing only happens to men, case in point this thread.


Of course, that happens all the time. Many of the arguments that we have in these threads occur because men want to argue that sexism against women is less important than sexism against men. Additionally, you misjudge the arc of my argument - I think the two are equally important, and that your observations demonstrate the unfairness of sexism in general, not just against men or women.

Again, the "case in point" is spurious.

People seem to value a woman's life over a man's (women and children first). Men are seen as disposable, as you put it. Apparently, there is some deep-rooted belief that women are better than men--not at moving heavy things and fighting wars--but that they're intrinsically more valuable, like how most people believe a human being is intrinsically more valuable than a cow.


Yes, I agree. Valuing a woman's life over a man's is unfortunate. But you must see that this is situational. In other matters, women are seen as more controllable because of their weaknesses. Perhaps they need to be controlled. Perhaps it's something more subtle in a culture. I am arguing against all the kinds of sexism that arise in this case. You want the focus to be on men. But if I've found anything in my readings, you can hardly take unfairness against one sex without regarding the sexism that results against another. Gender in our culture is such an ingenious construction that masculinity cannot be easily defined without femininity, and vice versa. We're interested as much in these connections as the initial instance of sexism.

I don't think the intrinsic value difference is that high, even when it values women more. When we start slaughtering men or women for meat, you'll be right.

And I don't see how you'd know whether or not you lost any sensitivity since you were circumcized as a baby. You have no way of comparing. You also don't remember the pain you went through because it happened long ago, but you did go through pain. Just like if somebody cut your ear off as a baby... as an adult, you may not remember, but that doesn't mean you didn't feel any pain. That pain may even cause underlying psychological issues later in life. Why not?


I compare myself to what I know men typically feel. I have very intense and occasionally multiple orgasms, which as I understand it is difficult for most men. So I think I'm doing fine there, until a licensed psychiatrist is able to tell me otherwise.

And I would add that the circumcision was medical. And that your distinctions are not so clear-cut. Male circumcision is not as harmful as female circumcision, which reduces or even eliminates sexual pleasure, and is done primarily to control a woman's body, rather than for other reasons. So your comparison was not apt, a flaw I've found in other arguments in this thread.

My argument was really more of a statement of reality. That male castration in movies is misandrist, pretty common, and there is no female equivalent in movies.


And all we seek to add to that is an explanation of why it's both misandrist and misogynist.
User avatar
Sonic#
established
established
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Mon Dec 13, 16:24 2010

Sonic# wrote:I disagree here, and find the claim of "reality" makes the rest of your argument spurious. The average woman is actually less strong because they are not encouraged as much to participate in physical activities that, on average, men see as usual.


Wow... you really are brainwashed. That's sad, actually. Do you know anything about how testosterone affects the body? Do you know that men produce testosterone in the testes and that is the reason why they have more testosterone?

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20 ... rowLK.html

"In fact, skeletal muscle is the most adaptable tissue in the human body and muscle hypertrophy (increase in size) is a vastly researched topic, yet still considered a fertile area of research. This column will provide a brief update on some of the intriguing cellular changes that occur leading to muscle growth, referred to as the satellite cell theory of hypertrophy."

"Lastly, testosterone also affects muscle hypertrophy. This hormone can stimulate growth hormone responses in the pituitary, which enhances cellular amino acid uptake and protein synthesis in skeletal muscle. In addition, testosterone can increase the presence of neurotransmitters at the fiber site, which can help to activate tissue growth. As a steroid hormone, testosterone can interact with nuclear receptors on the DNA, resulting in protein synthesis. Testosterone may also have some type of regulatory effect on satellite cells."

But many women are stronger than many men.


True, but more men are stronger than women for the reason up above.

In addition, a lack of physical strength is not the same as fragility.


Testosterone also increases bone mass and skin thickness.

Of course, that happens all the time. Many of the arguments that we have in these threads occur because men want to argue that sexism against women is less
important than sexism against men.


I was simply saying men have to deal with sexism--and that sometimes people try to spin it to look like sexism against men is really sexism against women, which is ridiculous.

Yes, I agree. Valuing a woman's life over a man's is unfortunate. But you must see that this is situational.


Unfortunate? Situational?

Ridiculous.

It's called sexism.

you want the focus to be on men.


Please... we're on a feminist website. Where's your focus again?

I'm against all sexism and for true equality.

I compare myself to what I know men typically feel.


Which is... absolutely ridiculous, since you don't know with any kind of certainty what it feels like for other men who haven't been circumcised. You're just making things up in your head.

I have very intense and occasionally multiple orgasms, which as I understand it is difficult for most men. So I think I'm doing fine there, until a licensed psychiatrist is able to tell me otherwise.


My argument was that your glands would be more sensitive if they were still protected by your foreskin. Your glands have become desensitized because they're always exposed.

And I would add that the circumcision was medical. And that your distinctions are not so clear-cut. Male circumcision is not as harmful as female circumcision, which reduces or even eliminates sexual pleasure


First, my argument wasn't that one is more harmful than the other. My argument was that neither should be taking place and that male circumcision also leads to decreased sexual pleasure.

And I've noticed you completely ignored the fact that these painful operations are typically done on defenseless babies who have no say in the matter.

and is done primarily to control a woman's body, rather than for other reasons.


That's simply not true. If you researched the history of male circumcision, one reason why it was done was so that men would be less sensitive and thus less likely to masturbate and have sex.

And all we seek to add to that is an explanation of why it's both misandrist and misogynist.


Which leads me back to what I wrote before: that every time you say men are also victims of sexism, there is always somebody who chimes in trying to spin it to mean that it's really sexism against women .Secondly, this perpetuates the idea that men can never be victims.

Enigma wrote:I Find me one recent news story where a man has been sexually abused and murdered. And he can't have been gay.


Why? Because violence against men doesn't matter if it's done by another man?

Lmao.

"In February 1996, a Chinese woman in southern China, Cheng Meiping, was executed for cutting off her husband's penis and murdering him."
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby monk » Mon Dec 13, 16:47 2010

BeautifulFlower85 wrote:Lmao.

"In February 1996, a Chinese woman in southern China, Cheng Meiping, was executed for cutting off her husband's penis and murdering him."
I didn't read most of the post, sorry, but let's equate having a penis cut off (debilitating injury to a sexual organ) to rape. how many dickless men there would be running around if the numbers of acts were equal between men and women?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
User avatar
monk
try to ignore it if I offend you.
try to ignore it if I offend you.
 
Posts: 7444
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 23:46 2003

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby BeautifulFlower85 » Mon Dec 13, 17:30 2010

monk wrote:
BeautifulFlower85 wrote:I didn't read most of the post, sorry, but let's equate having a penis cut off (debilitating injury to a sexual organ) to rape. how many dickless men there would be running around if the numbers of acts were equal between men and women?


If women were as physically strong as men and had penises, then I think just as many men would be raped as women.
BeautifulFlower85
Beneficial Pineapple
Beneficial Pineapple
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 17:11 2010

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Sonic# » Mon Dec 13, 17:45 2010

You're just making things up in your head.


Your glands have become desensitized because they're always exposed.


Yet another contradiction. You don't know how I feel. So you cannot claim that I am desensitized.

I'm against all sexism and for true equality.


Your comments in other threads attest otherwise.

Wow... you really are brainwashed. That's sad, actually. Do you know anything about how testosterone affects the body? Do you know that men produce testosterone in the testes and that is the reason why they have more testosterone?


Your ad hominem attacks continue to be amusing.

Duh. But your claims were more particular, focused on an absolute difference in both strength and vigor.

It seems you poorly understand what precisely goes into making men stronger. There are a lot of hormones besides testosterone that produce strength, for instance. Here's some research, since it amused me to find it, and will prove useful in arguments that are not against trolls.

1. Salvador, Emanuel Péricles, et. al. "Effect of eight weeks of strength training on fatigue resistance in men and women." Isokinetics & Exercise Science 17.2 (2009): 101-106.

Abstract wrote:The purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of eight weeks of strength training on fatigue resistance in men and women. Thirty-three men and twenty-three women performed eight weeks of strength training in three weekly sessions. Subjects performed four sets using 80% of 1-RM tests on bench press, squat and arm curl. Fatigue index (FI) was used for analysis of decline in motor performance along the sets. The sum of the number of repetitions accomplished in the four sets in each exercise was used to indicate the fatigue resistance. Anova or Ancova two-way (time x gender) was employed for statistical analysis (P < 0.05). Eight weeks of strength training increased significantly 1-RM strength, fatigue resistance and total number of repetitions in both genders. FI decreased significantly in both genders after training (men = 50% vs. women = Time x gender interaction was observed in the total number of repetitions in squat (P = 0.04) and arm curl exercises, regarding gains to women (P = 0.01). In conclusion, eight weeks of ST improved strength, FR, FI and total number of repetitions performed. However, women obtained greater adaptations than men.


2. Esbjörnsson, M., et. al. "Greater growth hormone and insulin response in women than in men during repeated bouts of sprint exercise." Acta Physiologica 197.2 (2009), 107-115.

Abstract wrote:Aim: In a previous study, sprint training has been shown to increase muscle cross-sectional area in women but not in men [Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 74 (1996) 375]. We hypothesized that sprint exercise induces a different hormonal response in women than in men. Such a difference may contribute to explaining the observed gender difference in training response. Method: Metabolic and hormonal response to three 30-s sprints with 20-min rest between the sprints was studied in 18 physically active men and women. Results: Accumulation of blood lactate [interaction term gender ( g) × time ( t): P = 0.022], and plasma ammonia ( g × t: P < 0.001) after sprint exercise was greater in men. Serum insulin increased after sprint exercise more so in women than in men ( g × t: P = 0.020), while plasma glucose increased in men, but not in women ( g × t: P < 0.001). Serum growth hormone (GH) increased in both women and men reaching similar peak levels, but with different time courses. In women the peak serum GH level was observed after sprint 1, whereas in men the peak was observed after sprint 3 ( g × t; P < 0.001). Serum testosterone tended to decrease in men and increase in women ( g × t: P = 0.065). Serum cortisol increased approx. 10–15% after sprint exercise, independent of gender (time: P = 0.005). Conclusion: Women elicited a greater response of serum GH and insulin to sprint exercise. This may contribute to explaining the earlier observed muscle hypertrophy in women in response to sprint training.


3. Sveinsson, Thorarinn, et. al. "Association between aerobic fitness, body composition, and physical activity in 9- and 15-year-olds." European Journal of Sport Science 9.3 (2009): 141-150.

Abstract wrote:The aim of this study was to examine the interrelationship between aerobic fitness, body composition, and physical activity in 9- and 15-year-olds. The 270 participants were randomly selected from 18 primary and secondary schools in Iceland. Aerobic fitness was assessed by a graded exercise test on a bicycle ergometer. Body composition was estimated via: logarithm of sum of four skinfolds (loge skinfolds), waist adjusted for height, and body mass index (BMI). Physical activity was measured with Actigraph activity monitors using total activity each day as the physical activity variable. Aerobic fitness was chosen as the primary outcome variable, body composition as the secondary variable, and physical activity as the tertiary variable. All the full models explained a similar proportion of fitness variance for both age groups (45-65%). Among the 15-year-olds, loge skinfolds explained a significantly larger proportion of the fitness variance (54%) than waist adjusted for height (29%) and BMI (15%), but all the body composition variables explained a similar proportion of the fitness variance (35-42%) among the 9-year-olds. Physical activity explained a smaller proportion (0%) of the unadjusted variance in fitness for the 9-year-olds than for the 15-year-olds (19%). This group difference became non-significant (0% vs. 4%) when adjusting for loge skinfolds but remained significant when controlling for waist adjusted for height (0% vs. 15%) and BMI (0% vs. 18%). Gender differences in aerobic fitness after puberty can largely be explained by gender differences in loge skinfolds and physical activity. In conclusion, the interrelationship between fitness, body composition, physical activity, and gender is not the same among 9- and 15-year-olds.


Note that loge skinfolds are a method of measuring fitness by pinching the skin and measuring the thickness of the fat layer beneath. So the differences in aerobic fitness after puberty are due to two things - the greater tendency for women to store fat under their skin, and the levels of physical activity they engage in. So this study's result is that both biological predisposition and culture result in the gender differences thus cited.

4. Tauler, Pedro, et. al. "Antioxidant response and oxidative damage induced by a swimming session: Influence of gender." Journal of Sports Sciences 26.12 (2008): 1303-1311.

Abstract wrote:In this study, we examined oxidative stress after a swimming session, the responses of the antioxidant defences, and the influence of gender on these responses. Fifteen boys and eight girls participated voluntarily in the study. Plasma concentrations of 17-ß-estradiol, vitamin E, retinol, carotenes, ascorbate, malondialdehyde, and the carbonyl index were determined. Creatine kinase, gamma glutamyl transpeptidase, and lactate dehydrogenase activities, as well as glucose, urea, urate, cholesterol, and triglycerides, were determined in serum. Plasma concentrations of 17-ß-estradiol were higher in girls than in boys. Exercise increased plasma ascorbate both in boys and in girls. Malondialdehyde increased in boys but was maintained in girls after exercise. Creatine kinase values corrected for lean body mass were similar in boys and girls at baseline, but the post-exercise values in boys were higher than in girls. A positive correlation was observed in boys, but not in girls, between plasma malondialdehyde and creatine kinase corrected concentrations. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the increase in circulating neutrophils and in creatine kinase activity in girls but not in boys. In conclusion, a swimming session induced higher muscular and oxidative damage in boys than in girls.


5. Allan Goldfarb, Michael McKenzie, Richard Bloomer. "Gender comparisons of exercise-induced oxidative stress: influence of antioxidant supplementation." Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, 32.6 (2007): 1124-1131.
Abstract wrote:The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of gender and antioxidant supplementation on exercise-induced oxidative stress. Twenty-five men and 23 women ran for 30?min at 80% VO2?max, once before and once after 2?weeks of supplementation, and again after a 1-week wash-out period. Subjects were randomly assigned to either placebo (P), antioxidant (A: 400 IU vitamin E?+ 1?g vitamin C), or a fruit and vegetable powder (FV) treatment. Blood was obtained at rest and immediately after exercise. Before supplementation, women had higher resting reduced glutathione, total glutathione, and plasma vitamin E compared with men. With both A and FV supplementations, plasma vitamin E gender differences disappeared. Protein carbonyls, oxidized glutathione, and malondialdehyde all increased similarly for both genders in response to exercise. Both A and FV attenuated the reduced glutathione decrease and the oxidized glutathione and protein carbonyls increase compared with P, with no gender differences. 8-Hydroxydeoxyguanosine was lower with treatment A compared with FV and P only for men. Plasma vitamin C increased 39% (A) and 21% (FV) compared with P. These data indicate that women have higher resting antioxidant levels than men. Markers of oxidative stress increased similarly in both genders in response to exercise of similar intensity and duration. Two weeks of antioxidant supplementation can attenuate exercise-induced oxidative stress equally in both genders.


6. Slater, Amy. "“Uncool to do sport”: A focus group study of adolescent girls’ reasons for withdrawing from physical activity." Psychology of Sport and Exercise
11.6 (2010), 619-626.

Here's one on declining physical activity based on gender. (Tons of studies also provide reasons based in ethnicity or class, if you're interested.)

Results, from Abstract wrote:The girls generated a number of different reasons for ceasing to play sport, including losing interest, lack of competence and insufficient time. Girls also reported feeling like they were crossing traditional gender boundaries when playing sport, particularly for sports traditionally classified as ‘masculine’. Additional concerns related to team-mates and teasing as well as concerns about appearance and image while playing sport.


There are a lot more. That was fun!

If women were as physically strong as men and had penises, then I think just as many men would be raped as women.


Wow... you really are brainwashed. That's sad, actually.
User avatar
Sonic#
established
established
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Enigma » Tue Dec 14, 7:51 2010

BeautifulFlower85 wrote:
Enigma wrote:I Find me one recent news story where a man has been sexually abused and murdered. And he can't have been gay.


Why? Because violence against men doesn't matter if it's done by another man?

Lmao.

"In February 1996, a Chinese woman in southern China, Cheng Meiping, was executed for cutting off her husband's penis and murdering him."

I said recent. That is 14 years ago. Women disappear regularly and often turn up naked and violated in fields. This is one highway in Canada. http://www.missingnativewomen.ca/native3.html

And we aren't talking about man on man violence are we? You were complaining about violence against men's genitals by women. You're reframing the question. And the reason I said he can't have been gay is because that would be a hate crime of another sort. A man already excluded from the privilege you're pretending you don't have. If you can find me a straight man sexually attacked and murdered by another man that would also fit my criteria.
"Human beings are amazing... we might be horrible, horrible, but we're wonderful too. Otherwise, why go on?"

SatansSpawn666 wrote:COME SISTER!! WE SHALL BURN AWAY HIS MERRY LITTLE ARSE WITH OUR FLAMING BOOTS OF UN-MERCIFUL GAIN!
User avatar
Enigma
Times are hard for dreamers.
Times are hard for dreamers.
 
Posts: 3249
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 10:22 2004
Location: Canada

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby ArtificialAmore » Tue Dec 14, 9:47 2010

BeautifulFlower85 wrote:This is not entirely true though. In teeth the first victim of castration wasn't a rapist or anything. It was a guy who the female protagonist was making out with and who she eventually had sex with (leading to castration). The audience is lead to believe that the man (actually a teenager, I believe) was wrong for trying to get into her pants (even though she allowed it). How is castration justified in this situation?


I've seen the movie 'Teeth' and in the first scene where her teeth cut off a penis she is making out with her boyfriend who then forces himself on her, she screams no, he holds her down inside the cave and proceeds to rape her, her body uses her (somewhat unnatural) defense of vagina dentata and chops off his penis.

It was by no means allowed by the female lead, and was definitely a defensive action.
This is what it must feel like to walk in full sunlight, my darkness revealed, my shadow self embraced. - Dexter
User avatar
ArtificialAmore
endangeredly delicious!
endangeredly delicious!
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 11:08 2003
Location: at the edge of the world

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby monkeypoop » Tue Dec 14, 18:51 2010

^I'm glad somebody finally pointed that out. In Teeth, the first guy to be castrated definitely rapes her first.

I have a few recent movie examples that depict mutilation of females as well as males:
During the bathroom sex scene of Snakes on a Plane (2006), snakes bite both the man's penis and the woman's breast. Antichrist (2009) contains genital mutilation of both the male and female characters, and in Grotesque (2009) both the male and female characters are mutilated as well. In Snakes on a Plane it's definitely for comedic effect, but in Antichrist and Grotesque I think it's probably more for the shock value. Personally I think it's all pretty fucked up, but when it's portrayed as funny, it does take the edge off.
For a slightly older but equally fucked up movie, in Cannibal Holocaust (1980) I believe there are instances of three different women being gang-raped and/or genitally mutilated, and one male castration.

To get away from the whole mutilation thing, the only movies I can think of that show actual penises are Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) and 28 Days Later (2002). In Forgetting Sarah Marshall it's for comedic effect. Honestly, I think one of the things that makes it more funny is that penises aren't generally shown in movies, and then all of a sudden there's a penis right in front of you flopping around. It's funny because you don't expect it, and there's this awkward tension throughout the whole scene. In 28 Days later, it's tasteful nudity, not comedic at all.
One other movie I can think of with a penis in it is Life of Brian (1979). It's less recent, and also a comedy, but I don't think the penis itself is really what's funny, it's more just there. You also get full-frontal nudity of both the male and female characters, so it's fairly even.

(sorry I keep editing this post, I just keep thinking of more movies)
Last edited by monkeypoop on Tue Dec 14, 19:39 2010, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
monkeypoop
I have a nose.
I have a nose.
 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 17:28 2004
Location: Your closet!

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby deanimal » Tue Dec 14, 19:07 2010

The girl in the exorcist violently rams a crucifix into her vag?
helium wrote:I went outside and suddenly there was no more gravity and my vagina could fly.
Sonic# wrote:Then the singularity happens. Then we meet God and fly into the sun. Then we save the whales.
User avatar
deanimal
Feed Me, Seymour!
Feed Me, Seymour!
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Sat Jan 4, 21:30 2003
Location: texASS

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby Dragonrider » Tue Dec 14, 20:47 2010

BeautifulFlower85, I'd like to discuss your original post for a moment.

I don't believe these movies are misandrist. The reason is because (according to IMDb) every single one of those movies you listed are written and directed by men. I think it's hardly reasonable to blame women for movies that are entirely under the creative control of men.

As far as it being potentially damaging to young developing boys, it may be true, but guess what? All those movies are also rated R, which means young developing boys shouldn't be watching them. It's your choice (if you are a father) to show them to your own young developing boys but I won't judge you on that.
Dragonrider
:pirateflag: Captain of the SNSDW
Signature Info
Elanna wrote:I read that about ten times, I though you were calling me a cowgirl. You know, do it, cowgirl.

spacefem wrote:storage has armpit fleas.
User avatar
Dragonrider
Peewarce Von Goonmonkey
Peewarce Von Goonmonkey
 
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 10:37 2004
Location: Under a pile of work

Re: Male Castration in Movies

Postby monk » Thu Dec 16, 11:11 2010

Dragonrider wrote:I don't believe these movies are misandrist. The reason is because (according to IMDb) every single one of those movies you listed are written and directed by men. I think it's hardly reasonable to blame women for movies that are entirely under the creative control of men.


Wait a second. Are you saying that a movie can't be misogynist if it's entirely under the creative control of women then?

I would say the result needs to be judged on it's own merits regardless of who created it behind the scenes.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
User avatar
monk
try to ignore it if I offend you.
try to ignore it if I offend you.
 
Posts: 7444
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 23:46 2003

Next

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest