Reminds me of the Seinfeld "Good naked vs. Bad Naked" episode.

"Let's hope it makes people pause to consider why it's discomfiting to have male nudity displayed"

Uh, could it just be that the penis looks kind of silly? Particularly the big, flaccid sort of schlong sported by Doc M throughout the film? There's a reason why Gibbons drew him with some shrinkage in the comic.

Mike

Nipples are on par with penises?

Really?

Get back to me when the female superheroes are showing taco.

Well, at least all the subtext in 300 is finally bubbling to the directorial surface. Remember, when Moore said it was unfilmable, he meant "unfilmable by fratboys who overutilize slow motion."

Toplessness does not equal full frontal.

You may remember that society was a bit uncomfortable with showgirls for full frontal female nudity as well.

Get back to me when the female superheroes are showing taco.

Yeah, get back to me, too. No, seriously. Drop me an e-mail or PM me or something, 'cause I really don't want to miss that.

Taco? What an ugly euphemism. Here we are in the 21st Century and people are still using such childish terms for a female's genitalia? Tsk.

Besides, everyone knows the correct term is bacon strip

so it's just "blue throbber" instead of the traditional "blue veined throbber"

Taco?

Case closed.

Princess, because 'Penis' and 'Vagina' are the lame words that our parents used when they tried to explain sex to us. That, combined with the awkwardness people express when using those words, make those words very lame. Men have embraced the non-euphemistic terms to describe their genitals, women have shunned the ones for theres. So you get Taco. Vagina is simply a ridiculous word. Penis is a ridiculous word. Maybe if we had made cooler names for the most awesome parts of our bodies, we'd use the real ones more.

I do agree that it doesn't look much like a Taco, but it looks even less like a Bacon strip.

Nikkos, at least he didn't call it a 'funk-filled bratwurst'.

IF you've been in the blogosphere long enough to get the reference, you'll understand why it's appropriate.

soullite, perhaps a path to a solution and an integration of stupid terms and puerile terms starts with a reversal. Promoting usages like Vagina Bell (I suppose Vulva Bell would be more accurate) and Richard (Tricky Penis) Nixon might be a way to start.

I think that Ms. Connelly misses the point here. It's not nudity that is the taboo here, it is the depiction of genitalia. It is a lot easier to depict female nudity without showing genitalia than it is male nudity.

You'll have to get into some pretty special interest material before you'll a woman's vagina on the screen. I believe the word you're looking for is vulva. (Insert C.S. Lewis quote here.)

I favor nudity in films, penises and vulvas included. There should be much more of it.

It's funny when men get mad about penises showing. I like seeing naked men.

This seems to be mostly a discussion of terms for genitalia, but I did want to say that my 17-year-old son saw this last night (with someone else's dad) and he reported to me this morning that it had the cheesiest sex scene ever, and the most gratuitous violence he had ever seen in a movie, but nothing at all about the penis. So was he repressing? Or is it actually not that big a deal to a 17-year-old?

The nudity is part of the point of Dr. Manhattan - he has little interest in the machinations of people, and the hang-up we have (and the comedic response Europeans tend to have) over a penis is an uninteresting detail to an omnipotent being that can manipulate and contemplate matter.

I can contemplate matter, even though my penis isn't (currently) blue.

The list of mentions in reviews could include Slate.com's Dana Stevens: "dangling azure wang."

http://www.slate.com/id/2212973/

P.S. Slate's front page gives the review the headline "Unwatchablemen," even though Stevens' review was nowhere near that negative.

Yes, get back to me when female superheroes are showing their beefcups.

Well, as much as women might like seeing men "objectified" -- you know, for "payback," and the "sins of the patriarchy" and all that nonsense, most really have little (make that NO) interest in seeing penises on screen. And that, dear ladies, is why you rarely see it and why it will never catch on. Men, on the other hand, are aroused at the sight of female flesh. As terribly sexist as that strikes all you Women's Studies grads, you might be shocked to know that the human race would have come to a screeching halt before recorded history if this wasn't true.

There were movies before recorded history? Who knew?

I just saw the movie this afternoon, and I annoyed my neighbors by laughing hysterically through the "Hallelujah" bit. It was hilarious. I noticed they skipped the part about the man being tied to a chair "and from his lips she drew a broken Hallelujah." That would have wrecked the mood, I guess. Personally, I think Leonard Cohen would have enjoyed such an orgasmic version of his song.

"...most really have little (make that NO) interest in seeing penises on screen."

Wait, what? I'm all for more penises on screen! Well, the glistening, muscular, nude male body in general, but yay for penis!

I only realized today that I've never even thought to ask for it because I've always just understood that it would NEVER happen. Some days I love being wrong.

How did this thread get this far without a 'play dough and bacon' reference?

Frankly, the whole of this argument can be summed up in two words:

"Grow up."

Aside from that, I'd also like to add that 1) Gibbons did not draw Manhattan with "shrinkage", he simply drew his penis with little to no detail; 2) don't presume to speak for women in saying that they have "little interest" in seeing male nudity when in fact the opposite is usually true, and don't presume that they're the only audience who has any vested interest in the subject; and 3) if female nipples showing were not equivalent to other forms of nudity, explain why Janet Jackson was public enemy #1 of the FCC a couple of years ago.

It's simple: some people, most notably in the U.S., are not mature enough to handle seeing what everyone has, even though everyone with good hygiene is nude at least once a day and people above the age of 10 should know about anatomy and physiology. There is an alarming double-standard with the American moviegoer, and it's best stated by paraphrasing another famous man who's bared it all: it's all right to show a hundred people getting gunned down to an American audience, but show a penis and you're the devil. Despite the fact that most people do not live a life where they regularly see extreme violence in that way, and they do see the naked human body on a daily basis, this is somehow unacceptable.

Fundamentally it goes back to sexism and immaturity. The vast majority of the people complaining about the penis are puerile men who feel threatened by it. Why else would there be so many comments about how "huge" and "gigantic" it is, when in fact it really isn't unnaturally large. It is larger than average, but by no means will Dr. Manhattan put Ron Jeremy out of a job anytime soon. Most of the rest of the people whining about it were probably the kind of easily-led who will go along with what friends say just so they don't cause any problems. "Yeah...sure, it had way much penis. Want to go get some dinner now?"

Honestly anyone who was a fan of the series before seeing the film, or who saw the film because of reading the comic, shouldn't have been surprised or "offended" by it in the first place, they should've been expecting it. And if you aren't in fact a fan and you're going around trolling to try and complain about the penis, why did you go and see it in the first place? Clearly you don't even know what you're talking about. I don't even like Watchmen, but I would have thought that anyone with the most rudimentary grasp of the comic would have gone in expecting for there to be penis since, if you look, there's a lot of it in the comic too.

One last note: the reason why there isn't a lot of explicit female frontal nudity in films is because females have internal genitalia. What is visible from the outside is mostly the vulva, not the vagina itself. But if you look at film history, there's exponentially more female nudity of all kinds than there is male. It's not Women's Studies calling sexism and immaturity here, it's called common sense.

I may not even be a fan of the comic, and I'm not impressed by the film apart from the choice to retain the frontals that were showcased throughout the comic, but at the very least I can tolerate seeing something I myself have and see several times every day. It always makes me wonder about the little boys who whine about seeing another penis -- is it because they're afraid of finding it attractive, afraid that it's larger than they are and thus damaging to their egos, or do they really never look at their own penis?

In the case of the latter, I hope I never have the misfortune to sit next to such a person...well, anywhere. I'd imagine the stench hits like a brick wall.

Men have this idea that women have no interest in seeing the penis. But they never seem to make the connection that... well... women having an interest in penis sort of makes evolutionary sense, ya know?

I have to agree with jh. Never thought it would happen. Was hugely surprised when it did, a little nervous at first, but now I'm all for seeing this very new application of 'jiggle-physics' in more movies!

Yay for the penis!

I believe women find penises attractive, but many of them are too afraid to admit it. If confronted by one in a social setting (like a movie theater for instance) most of them laugh would laugh or make light of it in some other way because of their own insecurities. (I do not mean this in a negative way.)

One last thing. Someone else mentioned this already, but I think it is worth iterating. Penis exposure is not equivalent to breast exposure.

To Clara:

Please extend my congrats to your son. You should be proud, he sounds much more mature than most.

Hushicho is completely correct. Thanks for that, it needed to be said in response to so many stupid comments about this. I do believe many men are indeed afraid subconsciously of finding the penis attractive (or admitting that they like their own) because somehow in our culture of sexual categories, it would mean they may be one step closer to being "gay." Insecure men who feel they must occasionally reaffirm their heterosexuality, joke about or critique the showing of penises in films like this (especially when it's such a perfect penis.) Just let go and don't be afraid to appreciate male beauty as you do female beauty. We as a culture shouldn't find the penis a "violent" offensive image. It's really sad.

One word to all the men who claim they felt any sort of unease at seeing an endowed - albeit blue and flaccid - penis: homophobia??

I agree. In our society, male nudity is a threat or challenge, and female nudity an invitation. That difference alone goes a long way to explaining the some of the more oppressive attitudes and gender-influenced crimes prevalent in our society.

What we need is a movie where a naked female isn't a victim, but a stone-cold killer. I say cast Megan Fox for the Schwarzenegger role in the Predator remake. We've got to start somewhere.

What we need is a movie where a naked female isn't a victim, but a stone-cold killer.

I think this was called Terminator 3.

"3) if female nipples showing were not equivalent to other forms of nudity, explain why Janet Jackson was public enemy #1 of the FCC a couple of years ago."

No. If Justin Timberlake had revealed his penis in the middle of the superbowl, if only for the same brief moment that her breast was revealed for, he personally would have been prosecuted for indecent exposure and been labeled a sex criminal. If this had happened on any program other than the Super Bowl I doubt anyone would have raised a fuss. If they had, it would have been the obcession of a few minority nutjobs who just like to make everyone ashamed of their bodies. Take mardi gras for another example. When women reveal their breasts they get beads and get photographed, when men reveal their genitalia, they get arrested.

I don't know if I can speak to why this state of affairs exists, but I think we can all agree that it is detrimental. Think of it from a boy's perspective. The only way to see a nude man in a realistic sexual setting (read: erect) is to watch porn, whereas women are portrayed naturally in sexual situations in PG-13 and R Rated films. I know this must have some psychological impact. Perhaps it teaches boys not to talk about their sexuality because no one wants to see it or hear about it. Anyway, that kind of double standard has to be harmful.

√What we need is a movie where a naked female isn't a victim, but a stone-cold killer.

Joss? Is that you . . .?

A debate about a penis in a movie? Wow... Violence is OK but sex is bad. We live in Bill O'Reilly's world.

It's not unfair that you can often see more when a man is naked in a standing position than you can when a woman is standing in the same position. That's just the way our bodies are built. I wouldn't have a problem with a scene in a movie where an actress exposed her labia minora if it made sense for the film, but I doubt there are many well known actresses who would go there. Everything that women have is on the inside and everything that men have is on the outside. It's not surprising that female genitalia might feel like more of a private thing than male genitalia.

I think it's the size of thriller that's pumped this argument to inflated proportions. What's next? A Tarzan who has nuttage that hang out of his loincloth?

Hmm, well even my female friends have told me that in terms of beauty, a naked woman is more attractive than a naked man so I can only conclude the female body shape is aesthetically pleasing to human eyes.

Penises, by themselves are ugly.

Just because women are curious and will look at a picture of a penis doesn't mean we get the same sexual pleasure from it that men do from looking at pictures of naked women. Men are programmed to feel sexual towards anything that resembles a female sexual partner, 2-D or not.

However, in terms of men's penises and women: attach a PERSON, that is, a man with a handsome face or a manly line of the shoulders to waist, or nice hands, or a great sense of humor....give us a GUY we are attracted to and suddenly his penis is a totally gorgeous thing.

@Hushicho (and some others)

While it's fair to say that many of the reactions to the nudity in the Watchmen extend from cultural sexual repression, sexism, and homophobia, that doesn't mean there are no legitimate criticisms about it either (and referring to people who reacted differently than you as "little boys" kind of defeats your own point doesn't it???)

I've seen the movie twice now, and I was one of those movie goers who felt that there "was too much penis" in the film. I also loved the comic and never gave a second thought to the nudity when I was reading it. I've been trying to think why it bothered me in the one instance and not in the other.

I'm more than familiar with the concept of trying to normalize nudity and make people more accepting of their bodies through art; I worked this past summer on a play called "The Naked Party" in the DC Fringe Festival that was done entirely in the nude. However, it's different to me when a work is openly exploring the concept of nudity and when it simply thrusts the concept upon the audience.

The problem with the nudity in this movie is actually the same problem with the movie as a whole. Snyder doesn't seem to have any real intention or understanding behind keeping Manhattan naked other than he knows it looks that way in the comic.

Connelly writes in her article that she feels it is a good thing that the nudity is simply inserted into many scenes and never directly acknowledged or addressed, because that helps normalize it. I think that if there had been one line or moment in the film that acknowledged Manhattan's nudity (after all, why are the characters of this universe somehow more acclimated to nudity than us?) in the same way that jokes and comments are made by characters about SIlk Specter's over-the-top costume, that people would have gotten over it a lot faster, and it would have been a more effective artistic choice. Instead, it's incredibly noticeable not only because we are less socially acclimated to nudity but because Dr. Manhattan is naked in about 1/3 scenes and yet is is NEVER acknowledged.

It seems to me that Snyder designed the nudity in the film (and yes, he added a lot more than is in the comic) not to make audiences become more ok with nudity, but in order to make them uncomfortable by Dr. Manhattan's presence. I think Snyder does the opposite of helping to normalize nudity by failing to really examine it at all in the film. It’s also worth noting that Snyder, having directed 300 as well, seems to love highliting chiseled bodies (male and female) in a way that comes off less about normalization than exploitation.

It strikes me as fairly smug to criticize people for reacting to something in a film that was clearly designed to get a reaction from the audience. While the reactions mostly range from immature to homophobic to sexist to Puritan, if Watchmen was really intended to provoke real thought on nudity in society it should have had some thoughts on it itself.

Years ago I saw a beautiful film called Kiriku and the Sorceress. It was a French-African children's cartoon in which there was a great deal of male and female nudity. The audience was clearly uncomfortable at first, particularly since it was labeled as a "children's film" but the nudity was incorporated so elegantly and seamlessly, and characters talked about each others bodies so freely, that the audience became quickly at ease. The hype and attention the Watchmen penis has gotten certainly is indicative of many societal ills, but it is also one of the more blatant aspects of the film that represents the filmmakers' lack of understand of how they were communicating with their audience in this movie.

Oops, posted the above comment as anonymous. It was me =)

You can really only speak for yourself, ella.

It seems likely that the way male frontal nudity is often presented in American films (as a scene of embarrassment or to shock the audience) has an affect on our perception of whether penises are attractive or not. We're all conditioned to think a certain way by the way the world is already set up when we arrive.

The penis was more or less a non-event for me. Now entering this discussion I would explain that it served to represent Dr. Manhattan's detached state-of-mind and focus on alternate realities. I do remember saying to myself "oh, there it is" but that was more like the Dr.'s contemplation of a snow crystal in the sun or whatever he claimed to be into in his final conversation with Ozymandias. Sure, it happened, and we can talk about it all night, but other things happened too. In the world of the movie, it was just a detail of his state of mind- after all, he appeared in various states of clothing depending on his course of action. It was kind of like the average man's legendary desire to watch t.v. in his underwear- extend that to watching nuclear reactions and perhaps the underwear would come off, and not due to any boners, just cuz it's easier and doper.
Anonymous/awkward silence, are you serious about being concerned? Well, that's your reaction and valid as such and shows that much penis discussion is needed I suppose. I'm off to look for blogging on Veidt's compromise and the murder of Rorsach and the examination of Hiroshima as 911 in this "alternate universe".

Pierce Harlan, you seem to think the human race's continued existence depends solely on men finding women attractive. You don't suppose there is some biological incentive for women to find men attractive, eh?

Speaking as a woman, I find men extremely attractive, and I'm not afraid to say it, though our society does have a peculiar squeamishness where all things sexual are concerned; I've noted that and gotten over it.

Culture plays a huge part in this kerfluffle. Basic evolutionary biology suggests that I, a woman, should like the looks of a cock. If I'm one of the few who'll confess I do, there's something else going on here. My two cents.

Joshua, I agree with your point about socialization. For some reason, I don't find the sight of women in tiny shorts to be silly, but seeing men in little biking shorts has been known to make me giggle. Is either sight truly more absurd than the other?

I like a guy's butt and legs, so it's all about expectations, if you ask me. Much as I don't expect men to wear tiny shorts, most moviegoers don't expect to see a blue wang. Clearly they haven't read the comic book!

There's an entire PhD thesis for some enterprising gender studies grad student in this comment thread.

Also, Pierce Harlan is the sort of evo-psych person that gives Amanda reasons to make fun of them over at Pandagon.

the guy was HUNG, they did a great job showing it off :)

Makes you wonder if they watched the movie or waited for penis to appear :D

Teda, reknu vam, ze vy amici jste uplne prdli. Pohorsuje vas penis a zaroven jste nejvetsi producenti porna na svete. Prestante byt tak natvrdli a zacnete uvazovat tak, jat se na 21. stoleti slusi.

I'm in the porn industry. We have moved well on from Ron Jeremy but, even today, I wish all my actors were built and hung like Manhattan.
To say he was not hung makes me think you either have the vagina of a whale or haven't been around enough naked males. He's anything but average.
As you can imagine, I have no problem with nudity. I hear it all the time that women are made to think they have to look a certain way. However, this is a prime example of men being treated exactly the same way. Manhattan's figure is drawn to an amazing standard as is his genitalia. It is COMPLETELY understandable that there are many males a bit put off by this. I've been hearing women for years complaining that the "real" female is not well represented in porn - if ever. We strive always to show perfect arses, breasts, faces, etc... I saw Watchmen the other week and straight away noticed ( I had not read the novel)
I simply thought, "well, if they're going to draw a perfectly sculptured body with huge thighs, chest ect, ...then why not give him a swinging penis?". - it was well animated for those that did not noticed.
To sum up, if men feel uncomfortable it is most likely for the same reason many females do. They may not measure up to the unrealistic and often unattainable image Hollywood pushes toward us. I can guarantee, you would struggle to find a male model that would come close to Manhattan's perfectly toned body and gifted genitalia. ... professionally, I'm always on the hunt! : )

Can't wait until they start to show the vulva Phobe. It is long overdo. This constant double standard of just showing male genitals for any reason is redundant and disgusting. It is time for females to have their genital area exposed as often and as long as they show the males.

Like you have no reason,As to not doing the needful and not reading the writing on the wall, that will have catastrophic consequences. Already the press is full of stories about changes
in weather patterns. I do not know which part of the world you live in but here in India and all over the world there is a perceptible change in the weather patterns and the change is for the worse and not the better.

I think Gays and they maker 'Feminism' successfully bring a man sexual exploitation era... Don't give me wrong I have this simple concept: "MAN IS BASTARD" and "WOMAN IS BITCH" BECAUSE "Man Have Balls", "Woman Have a Breast"!!!
So keep it that way its a healthy gender concept of creation!
Cause if you all following this "Feminism Culture"(you know, a desperation movement ,of understanding that womanhood is something weak and ugly, and manhood is something strong and good "so you girls must be like a man!, do what they do! mimic their habit!, have a big and active sexuality like them, admired their asses (this final words considerably showing the stupidity of what they do.. cause the only reason man has a gaze on woman asses is because of there is a 'woman hips effect', cause hips is a womanhood, there is an 'estrogen oasis', 'womb', 'eggs' which naturally act as a lure and one of a core of the attractiveness in a womanhood that would drive 'testoteron' in naturally - so why woman mimic man in which area is attractive, when they have a different 'hot spot'?... and yes there are a lot more).,so on, and so on.."
And finally make them boys taste this ugly womanhood weakness! - a sexual exploitation and more other..such become gay??).

Then freaky eventually "GIRLS would GROW A BALLS, and loosing their breast (by cancers??)" and "BOYS would GROW a BREAST and loosing their balls (by culture??)"! Mark that words! and try to look around if you don't trust me.. And it's very logic isn't?
That is why I NEED TO said to you all "STOP SCREWING WITH NATURE!!!" Gay and Feminist should be wiped out from this dying blue earth, cause, logically it would damage the BOTH SIDE OF GENDER! make them become a MUTANT FREAKS! "Woman would be a breastless bastards" and "Man would be a Bitch in Minds"?.. Yes, there are still bastards and bitch, adding no good at all to this dying civilization.

And finally stop screwing the cinema by injecting a nude and sexual culture, cause it would make much more bitchy and slutty (not "a bastard"- cause that is a manhood value..) potential for the next generation,..
born with fucked up genetically code inheritance...! 'written by our generation.!!
You know, poorly it would be hell on earth for them.... born in a fucked up condition already.
And WHOSE SIN IS THAT HMMM?!
No one? cause there isn't such a things called 'heaven' and 'hell' anyway!? so who fucking care abaout the future of us or the next generation? we all die and become a dust?
Well we'll see about that than,
and you all will wait and we all will wait also.