Femininity as Obscenity In Western Culture

[Tim Finnegan]

So, this is kind of interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_862424.html

Dossier's Andrej Pejic Cover Censored By Barnes & Noble, Borders

Barnes & Noble and Borders have censored the latest cover of Dossier Journal featuring androgynous model Andrej Pejic taking off his button-down while his long blond locks are rolled in curlers, Elle.com reports.
We spoke with Dossier Co-Founder and Creative Director Skye Parrott who explained that the bookstores asked for all copies of the magazine to be placed in "opaque poly bags because even though they knew Andrej was a man, he looked too much like a woman, basically," a move that she suspects will limit sales, but that's not really the issue here.
"It's a naked man on the cover of a magazine, which is done all of the time without being covered up, so I definitely don't think it merits this, but I understand what it is," Parrott told HuffPost Style. "It's not a coincidence that it's only the giant U.S. chain stores that are asking us to do this....It's only the American copies that are being censored. It seems that it probably made people uncomfortable. But that's part of what's interesting about the cover, I think, is that it's playing with those ideas of gender roles. He's topless, you can see that he's a man, but if you look at his face, he looks like a woman and he's so beautiful, he's both in that picture, in a way. I think that's what's interesting about it.



Update: A spokeswoman for Barnes & Noble contacted us to say the chain never asked for the issues to be poly-bagged, writing, "We have no plans to poly bag the magazine nor did we ever have plans to do so." We again contacted the folks at Dossier who forwarded us the emailed request from their distributor, reading, in part, "We have a problem with the new issue in the US chain stores. The chains require that this issue be in an opaque poly bag," however, the names of the chains aren't specified.

The cover in question:



And some insightful comments by Lisa Wade of the Sociological Images blog:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages...-body-obscene/

What Makes a Body Obscene?

The model is a man named Andrej Pejic, with hair and make-up usually seen only on women, sliding his shirt off his back. Some might say that he is gender-ambiguous and the image deliberately blurs gender; are we seeing a chest or small breasts? It is not immediately apparent.
Both Barnes & Noble and Borders “bagged” the magazine, like they do pornographic ones, such that one can see the title of the magazine but the rest of the cover is hidden. Barnes and Noble said that the magazine came that way, representatives for Dossiersay that the bookstore “chains” required them to do it (source). Non-ambiguously-male chests pepper most magazine racks, but this man’s chest hints at boobs. And so he goes under.
What’s going on?
Explaining why it is legal for men to be shirtless in public but illegal for women to do the same, most Americans would probably refer to the fact that women have breasts and men have chests. Breasts, after all, are… these things.They incite us, disgust us, send us into grabby fits. They’re just so there. They force us to contend with them; they’re bouncy or flat or pointy or pendulous and sometimes they’re plain missing! They demand their individuality! Why won’t they obey some sort of law and order!
Much better to contain those babies.
Chests… well they do have those haunting nipples… but they’re just less unruly, right? Not a threat to public order at all.
So, there you have it. Men have chests and women have breasts and that’s why topless women are indecent.
Of course it’s not that straightforward.
It’s not true that women have breasts and men have chests. Many men have chests that look a bit or even a lot like breasts (there is a thriving cosmetic surgery industry around this fact). Meanwhile, many women are essentially “flat chested,” while the bustiness of others is an illusion created by silicone or salt water. Is it really breasts that must be covered? Clearly not. All women’s bodies are targeted by the law, and men’s bodies are given a pass, breasty or chesty as they may be.
Unless.
Unless that man’s gender is ambiguous; unless he does just enough femininity to make his body suspect. Indeed, the treatment of the Dossier cover reveals that the social and legislative ban on public breasts rests on a jiggly foundation. It’s not simply that breasts are considered pornographic. It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.

Thoughts?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I actually feel more sexually provoked by a man's chest than I do a woman's chest. But then again I'm easier turned on by audio and the touch of certain textures than I am by visual. It's not femininity itself that was the "threat" so to speak, more so the challenge to the gender binary. IMO