My first comment on this Washington Post column is that skin never wears thin for men so long as the skin is of young, attractive and new women.<\/p>\n
As for the complaint about the lack of nude men in the show, the only audience that will pay substantial sums to see men naked are homosexual men.<\/p>\n
Anna Holmes writes in the Washington Post<\/a>:<\/p>\n Frequent and often outlandish, the show\u2019s eroticism often overshadows or distracts from the actual story. It\u2019s not just me: After the copious amounts of T&A during the show\u2019s first season reached a nadir of absurdity with a now-notorious scene involving two prostitutes pleasuring each other, Onion AV Club television critic Myles McNutt was moved to coin the term \u201csexposition\u201d to describe the way the show\u2019s producers often arbitrarily shoehorn sex into the narrative as a way to cover up potentially snooze-inducing exposition.<\/p>\n …Yet there is something wearying and numbing about the series\u2019 relentless oogling of the female form. It\u2019s a constant reminder and reinforcement of the fact that pop-culture creators make content mainly for heterosexual men and then, maybe, for everyone else. They get tiring, these continued nods to the male gaze. (The implication is either that women aren\u2019t watching or that the women who are watching have no interest in erotic eye candy of their own.) They\u2019re also alienating, particularly when the sex seems to serve no purpose other than to titillate. My cluck-clucks of disapproval are as much about the situating of women as sex objects as they are my own sudden and reluctant prudishness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" My first comment on this Washington Post column is that skin never wears thin for men so long as the skin is of young, attractive and new women. As for the complaint about the lack of nude men in the … Continue reading